Posts
There is no doubt the American Empire is collapsing but it is also sure that between them Kiev and its bosses in Washington DC will undermine and destroy whatever deal comes out of Minsk, no matter how that betrays the aspirations of the people of Novorossia.
No grounds for anything other than pessimism in my mind.
The Key Thing about Minsk Talks Is That the US Is Not Involved
Washington's
belligerence is leading it down the path of isolation and
irrelevance
Instead Obama is reduced to ringing Putin
This
article originally
appeared at Ron
Paul Institute
11
February,2015
It
must have been like one of those annoying telemarketing calls,
ringing up over and over saying the same thing.
Today
President Obama called Russian president Vladimir Putin to once again
harangue him about the Russian "invasion" of Ukraine.
One
can even picture Putin, working out with weights or maybe wrestling a
bear somewhere, being handed his cell phone and told, "it's
Obama."
"Aw
man, tell him I'm not here..."
"You
gotta take this call..."
According
to the White House "read out" of the call, Obama called
Putin to, "reiterate... America’s support for the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of Ukraine," and to "underscore...
the rising human toll of the fighting and underscore... the
importance of President Putin seizing the opportunity presented by
the ongoing discussions between Russia, France, Germany, and Ukraine
to reach a peaceful resolution," according to the White House
release.
Sounds
a lot like langue de bois.
What
is interesting about the above is the obvious: the United States --
the one indispensable nation according to Obama -- is not at all
involved in the potentially breakthrough talks of the European
quartet.
Could
it be that the Europeans have an idea how to solve a European problem
without the US demanding obedience or threatening a world war?
It
was a new study released last week by a US defense industry-funded
consortium of "think tanks" urging direct US military
involvement in the Ukraine crisis that spooked Hollande and Merkel
into action.
While
Washington had a collective swoon-fest over the report's conclusion
that $3 billion worth of US weapons should be sent to US client
regime in Kiev, the Europeans suddenly remembered their last 100
years of history and realized that the scorched earth left by the war
that would likely follow US direct involvement would not leave
Washington or L.A. charred, but Brussels. And Munich, Paris, and so
on.
So
Merkel and Hollande decided to leave Obama home alone and travel to
Kiev and Moscow themselves.
The
separate but related "Minsk 2" talks today also proceeded
without US involvement and seemingly produced another possibility for
a pullback of heavy artillery on both sides.
In
other words, while Obama was reading from the same tired old script,
the countries most affected by the unrest were trying to find a
solution to the horrific conflict. In other, other words, US
involvement is an impediment, not a catalyst for a positive outcome.
All
Obama could do is ring up Putin again and again threaten war.
According to the White House read out, Obama threatened Putin:
"...if
Russia continues its aggressive actions in Ukraine, including by
sending troops, weapons, and financing to support the separatists,
the costs for Russia will rise."
Again
Washington's interventionists have led the United States down the
path of isolation and irrelevance. The total war they demand over
bankrupt, destitute, bleeding Ukraine, is being roundly rejected by
US allies.
The
US empire, producing nothing but chaos, is perhaps finally recognized
as being without clothes.
US military to train Kiev troops fighting in E. Ukraine – US Army commander
The
US military will train Kiev troops fighting against militias in
southeast Ukraine, Ben Hodges, US Army Europe commander, said hours
before the start of “Normandy Four” talks dubbed a “last
chance” for the peaceful resolution of the conflict.
RT,
11
February,2015
The
training, which is scheduled to kick off in March, will see a
battalion of American troops training three battalions of Ukrainians,
he said.
“We’ll
train them in security tasks, medical [tasks], how to operate in an
environment where the Russians are jamming [communications] and how
to protect [themselves] from Russian and rebel artillery,"
Hodges was cited as saying by Reuters.
Hodges’
recent statement echoes a similar announcement he made in Kiev in
January. At the time, he did not provide information on the numbers
of US troops participating.
Previously,
the Pentagon said that the US military training would be provided to
600 members of the Ukrainian National Guard, The Washington Post
reported.
The
officers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team in northeast
Italy will be deployed to Ukraine as part of the plan, said Pentagon
spokeswoman Lt. Col. Vanessa Hillman.
According
to Hillman, the military aid requested by the Kiev authorities was to
help the formation and strengthening of the National Guard, which
Kiev launched shortly after the coup in February 2014.
The
March training will be held at the 40,000-square km Yavoriv Training
site close to the Polish-Ukrainian border. This is the largest
military firing range in Europe, near the western Ukrainian city of
Lvov.
U.S. Army Europe commander Ben Hodges
(Reuters/Agencja Gazeta)
A
delegation of US Army instructors has already arrived in Kiev to
discuss the details of the program with the Ukrainian military
officials and examine the training sights, LifeNews reports.
The
Donbass volunteer battalion will be one of the first to get US
military training, Semyon Semenchenko, the unit’s commander, wrote
on social networks.
The
National Guard troops will be exercising according to “the
traditional training systems of the US Navy Seals and Delta
Force,” Semenchenko
said.
Since
the fighting began in southeast Ukraine, the National Guard has been
repeatedly accused of war crimes, including deliberate artillery fire
at residential areas in the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions, and of
blocking humanitarian aid for the regions.
Last
September, an Amnesty International report confirmed that abductions,
executions and extortion had been committed by the Aidar volunteer
battalion.
Earlier
this week, Obama said that the US was also examining the possibility
of supplying “lethal defensive weapons” to the Kiev authorities.
The
plan is opposed by both Russia and the EU, who agree that there can
be no military solution to the Ukrainian crisis.
The
leaders of the “Normandy Four” (Russia, Germany, France and
Ukraine) are holding a meeting in Minsk, Belarus on Wednesday in an
effort to restart the peace process to end the conflict in southeast
Ukraine.
According
to sources, the talks will center around the creation of a
demilitarized zone, the withdrawal of heavy weaponry, and the
initiation of dialogue between Kiev and the rebels.
The
Ukraine conflict began last April, when Kiev sent regular forces and
volunteer battalions to the southeastern Donetsk and Lugansk Regions,
after rebels there refused to recognize the country’s new,
coup-imposed authorities. The civil war has so far claimed the lives
of at least 5,300 people, according to UN estimates.
US
army to start training Ukrainian troops, commander says
11
February, 2015
WARSAW,
Poland (AP) — The U.S. military plans in March to start training
Ukrainian soldiers who are battling Russian-backed separatists in
eastern Ukraine, a top U.S. military commander in Europe said
Wednesday.
U.S.
Army Europe Commander Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges said a battalion of U.S.
soldiers would train three battalions of Ukrainians from the Interior
Ministry at the Yavariv training center in the western Ukrainian city
of Lviv.
Hodges'
remarks came amid an intensification of fighting in eastern Ukraine,
and as French, German, Ukrainian and Russian leaders met Wednesday in
Minsk, Belarus, for peace talks whose success is far from certain.
The
plans for the training were made many months ago, however.
Hodges
said Americans will teach the Ukrainians how to better defend
themselves against "Russian and rebel artillery and rockets."
Training will also include securing roads, bridges and other
infrastructure, treating and evacuating casualties, and operating in
an environment where Russians are jamming communications.
Hodges
accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of arming and fomenting the
pro-Russia separatists.
"I
think it's very important to recognize these are not separatists,
these are proxies for President Putin," Hodges said. "It is
very obvious from the amount of ammunition, the type of equipment,
that there is direct Russian military intervention in the area around
Debaltseve."
The
rebels are waging an offensive to take Debaltseve, a government-held
railway junction that lies between the rebel-held cities of Luhansk
and Donetsk.
"I
do worry that if they are successful in Debaltseve that then they
will shift their attention to Mariupol," Hodges said, referring
to the strategic port city. "I don't know that, but I am
concerned that that is something that they might do. They certainly
have a large number of Russian forces, 10 battalions, on the border
of eastern Ukraine."
He
spoke during a visit to NATO's Multinational Corps Northeast
Headquarters in the Polish city of Szczecin.
Arming Kiev Sets It up for a War It Cannot Win
- Kiev will interpret the supply of weapons as a signal of US support for continuing the war
- Direct support of Ukraine army will commit US to pursue Kiev victory to avoid prestige loss
- Yet victory can not be had
Alexander
Mercouris
11
February, 2014
Media
reports from the United States speak of an intense discussion of a
plan to supply arms to the Ukrainian government.
This
plan if implemented would mark a very dangerous escalation, which can
only end badly.
The
Ukrainian government has resisted all attempts to negotiate with its
opponents and will never do so unless it is put under pressure to do
so. Other than through war, the only way that can happen is if the
Western states, primarily the US, put sustained pressure on the
Ukrainian government to compromise with its opponents by negotiating
with them.
Supplying
arms to Ukraine does the opposite. Arming a government that refuses
to negotiate but seeks instead total victory is not a formula for
peace. It is a formula for war. The Ukrainian government will
undoubtedly construe the supply of weapons as a token of US support
for its determination to continue the war.
The
Ukrainian government would be right to do so. It is impossible to
construe the language of US hardliners like Senators John McCain and
Lyndsay Graham as expressing anything other than support for
Ukrainian victory. US weapons supplies to Ukraine will signal to the
Ukrainian government that it is these hardliners who are in charge in
Washington and that Ukraine therefore has the US’s support to
continue the war.
Beyond
this, the weapons themselves create their own dynamic. The mere
presence of US weapons will mean the US is making public its military
support for Ukraine. At that point US prestige is engaged with the US
risking its prestige if Ukraine is defeated. If defeat looms the US
will therefore be under pressure to escalate its support for Ukraine
even more.
If
small numbers of weapons prove insufficient to turn the tide, demands
will be made for more weapons to be sent to turn the tide. The
weapons require trainers to train Ukrainians in their use and the
more weapons are sent the more trainers there will be. As the war
escalates the greater the risk that the lives of some of these
trainers will be endangered.
Though
any suggestion of deploying US troops is being ruled out, it is very
easy to see how in such a situation pressure down the line to do this
to protect the trainers could grow. Once troops are present on the
ground the pressure to use them in combat if things continue to go
wrong will be there too.
In
the 1960s US critics of the war in Vietnam called this dynamic
“mission creep”. In Vietnam it ended in disaster, as it did later
in Afghanistan and Iraq and as it will do if it ever happens in
Ukraine.
The
Ukrainian army is being defeated not because it lacks weapons. The
Ukrainian army had an overwhelming advantage in weapons at the start
of the war in spring 2014 when it had tanks, armoured vehicles,
artillery, aircraft and helicopters in abundance whilst its opponents
had none of these things.
The
Ukrainian army could not win then and now that its opponents are far
better armed it cannot win now. It cannot win because the overriding
political factor that caused the conflict — the hostility to Maidan
of the people of the Donbas — makes such a victory impossible.
US
weapons cannot change this overriding political factor. They cannot
therefore deliver Ukraine victory. US weapons can only prolong and
intensify the war, causing many more people to die whilst putting
international security at risk.
This
is a bad and reckless idea and it is therefore unsurprising that all
major European governments oppose it.
Russia Warns US, Supplying Arms To Ukraine "Will Have Dramatic Consequences"
11 February, 2015
As Putin arrives at the Minsk Summit, his Deputy Foreign Minister makes the Russian position clear to Washington:
- *U.S. ARMS SUPPLIES TO UKRAINE WILL HAVE DRAMATIC OUTCOME: IFX
- *RUSSIA WILL NOT IGNORE U.S. ARMS SUPPLIES TO UKRAINE: IFX
Hardly what Merkel or Hollande wants to hear?
As Interfax reports,
- U.S. LETHAL WEAPONS SUPPLIES TO EAST UKRAINE WILL HAVE DRAMATIC CONSEQUENCES, RUSSIA WON'T BE ABLE TO STAY ASIDE - RYABKOV
- CHIZHOV: U.S. IS ARTIFICIALLY SUPPORTING DEBATE IN EUROPE ON SUPPLY OF WEAPONS TO UKRAINE
- CHIZHOV: EUROPE UNDERSTANDS THAT SUPPLY OF WEAPONS TO UKRAINE WILL INCREASE RISK OF DIRECT INVOLVEMENT OF RUSSIA
And finally Poroshenko adds,
- POROSHENKO: SITUATION WILL GET OUT OF CONTROL IF AGREEMENT ON DE-ESCALATION OF SITUATION IN DONBAS IS NOT REACHED IN MINSK
* * *
Putin has arrived In Minsk...
Polish armor waiting on the border with Ukraine
Obama says he "twists arms" of countries that don't play by the rules
RT,
11
February, 2015
President
Barack Obama has said the reality of “American leadership” at
times entails “twisting the arms” of states which “don’t do
what we need them to do,” and that the US relied on its military
strength and other leverage to achieve its goals.
In
a broad-ranging interview with
Vox,
which Obama himself described as a venue "for
the brainiac-nerd types," the
US president both denied the efficacy of a purely “realist”
foreign policy but also arguing that at times the US, which has a
defense budget that exceeds the next 10 countries combined, needed
to rely on its military muscle and other levers of power.
Lauding
the rule-based system to emerge in the post-World War II era, Obama
admitted it wasn’t perfect, but argued “the
UN, the IMF, and a whole host of treaties and rules and norms that
were established really helped to stabilize the world in ways that
it wouldn't otherwise be.”
He
argued, however, that the efficacy of this idealistic, Wilsonian,
rule-based system was severely tested by the fact that “there
are bad people out there who are trying to do us harm.”
In
the president’s view, the reality of those threats has compelled
the US to have “the
strongest military in the world.” Obama
further says that “we
occasionally have to twist the arms of countries that wouldn't do
what we need them to do if it weren't for the various economic or
diplomatic or, in some cases, military leverage that we had — if
we didn't have that dose of realism, we wouldn't get anything done,
either.”
'We occasionally have to twist the arms of countries that wouldn't do what we need them to do'
Obama
argues that the US doesn’t have “military
solutions” to
all the challenges in the modern world, though he goes on to add
that “we
don’t have a peer”
in terms of states that could attack or provoke the United States.
“The
closest we have, obviously, is Russia, with its nuclear arsenal,
but generally speaking they can't project the way we can around the
world. China can't, either. We spend more on our military than the
next 10 countries combined,”
he said.
Within
this context, Obama said that “disorder” stemming
from “failed
states” and “asymmetric
threats from terrorist organizations” were
the biggest challenges facing the international community today.
Obama
also argued that tackling these and other problems
entailed “leveraging
other countries” and“other
resources” whenever
possible, while also recognizing that Washington is “the
lead partner because we have capabilities that other folks don't
have.”
'We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined'
This
approach, he said, also led to “some
burden-sharing and there's some ownership for outcomes.”
When
asked about the limits of American power, Obama conceded that there
were things that his administration simply cannot do in terms of
power projection, but remained upbeat.
“Well,
American leadership, in part, comes out of our can-do spirit. We're
the largest, most powerful country on Earth. As I said previously
in speeches: when problems happen, they don't call Beijing. They
don't call Moscow. They call us. And we embrace that
responsibility. The question, I think, is how that leadership is
exercised. My administration is very aggressive and
internationalist in wading in and taking on and trying to solve
problems.”
U.S. President Barack Obama speaks
at the United Nations meeting in New York September 25, 2014.
(Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)
'American leadership, in part, comes out of our can-do spirit'
Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took issue with the notion past
September, following Obama’s speech before the UN in which the US
president named “Russian
aggression in Europe” along
with the Ebola epidemic and ISIS as threats to international peace
and security.
Lavrov
said that Obama’s address to the UN was the “speech
of a peacemaker – the way it was conceived,” but
added that he had “failed
to deliver, if one compares it to real facts.”
The
Russian foreign minister added that Obama had presented a worldview
based on the exceptionality of the United States.
“That's
the worldview of a country that has spelt out its right to use
force arbitrarily regardless of the UN Security Council's
resolutions or other international legal acts in its national
defense doctrine,” Lavrov
said.
In
a September 2013 Op-Ed article in the New York Times, Russian
President Vladimir Putin said that the concept of American
exceptionalism was a precarious one in the global arena.
"It
is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as
exceptional, whatever the motivation," Putin
wrote. "There
are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with
long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to
democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but
when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God
created us equal."
Washington Seeking Change of Power in Russia - Russian Official
Russia's
Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev said that Americans are
trying to draw Russia into an international military conflict and use
the situation in Ukraine to force the change of power in Russia with
the ultimate goal of splitting the country
11
February, 2015
MOSCOW,
(Sputnik) — The United States is actively using the Ukrainian
conflict to force a change of power in Moscow and split Russian
society, Russia's Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev said.
"Americans
are trying to draw Russia into an international military conflict and
use the situation in Ukraine to force the change of power [in Russia]
with the ultimate goal of splitting the country," Patrushev said
in an interview with the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper published on
Tuesday.
He
added that Washington is not concerned about Ukraine. Rather, it is
using the crisis in Ukraine as a lever to influence Russia.
So
far, the United States has been calling on its allies to stand united
against Russia, in a bid to isolate Moscow over its alleged
interference in the Ukrainian conflict. Russia has denied being
involved in the crisis militarily.
Most
recently, Washington announced that it was considering arming
Ukrainian troops, claiming Russia was doing the same for anti-Kiev
militias.
Russia
and the European Union have both voiced concern that proposed US arms
deliveries to Ukraine could lead to a surge of violence in crisis-hit
Ukraine, where almost 5,500 have died since clashes began last April.
Germany, Britain and France have already ruled out lethal aid to Kiev
in present circumstances.
US Ambassador Pyatt caught spreading falsehoods
11
February, 2015
By
Varjag_2007
Translated
from Russian by J.Hawk
The
US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt published on his Twitter feed
fabricated “proof” of Russia’s involvement in the Ukraine
conflict. Pyatt retweeted an article with a photograph with an
announcement by the Deputy and “talking helmet” Dmitriy Tymchuk
from February 11.
In
that article, the odious Ukrainian propagandist talks about the
arrival of another batch of the “aggressor’s” equipment to
Debaltsevo. The fact that the diplomat was spreading outright
falsehood was discovered by the Donetsk political scientist
Vladimir Kornilov, known for his perceptive nature and great
memory.
“Ambassador
Pyatt is spreading outright falsehoods. Today he retweeted an
article and a photo from Tymchuk’s site concerning the alleged
arrival of Russian weapons at Debaltsevo. However, that very same
photo was spread by many Ukrainian sites already in November, also
claiming that LPR received Russian equipment from beyond the Arctic
Circle.
Well,
it’s only appropriate that Tymchuk and the Ukrainian media do
things like that. But it’s shameful for an ambassador to spread
such falsehoods! So who is now spreading outright propaganda and
lies?”—Kornilov ends with a rhetorical question.
J.Hawk's
Comment: Evidently
the Russian military has by now mastered time travel, because it
can be in the same space both in November 2014 and February 2015!
Aside from that, this is par for the course for the US State
Department, which is now simply in the business of spreading
Ukrainian propaganda without asking any questions. The apparent
rift between Berlin and Washington may well be due to the German
government realizing they have been lied to by their US allies
concerning the situation in Ukraine, leading to Germany (jointly
with France) deciding to chart its own way out of the crisis.
As
a side note, will any US media outlet notice the
propaganda-mongering? By the way, that's a rhetorical question too
-----
CrossTalk: Ukraine's Tipping Point
There is wide recognition Ukraine's civil war is at a tipping point. While NATO allies are divided, finding some kind of peaceful settlement still may be possible. The problem is whether there is enough political will on all sides. CrossTalking with Edward Lozansky, Dmitry Linnik, and Ben Aris.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.