By Walt Zlotow
Russia invaded Ukraine under President Biden’s presidency, beginning its destruction as a viable state. Biden directly provoked the invasion in several ways.
He refused to promote implementing the Minsk II Accords which would have given the Russian cultured Ukrainians in Donbas independence and security from Kyiv nationalists killing them since 2014. He kept pushing for Ukraine to join NATO, a red line guaranteeing eventual Russian intervention. Seasoned US diplomates were apoplectic about that to no avail. He kept arming the Kyiv neofascists to complete victory over the Donbas separatists and further isolate Russia from Western Europe.
Worst of all Biden essentially told Russia to ‘piss off’ when they begged him to consider Russia’s valid security concerns over NATO expansion and sabotaging Minsk II. For Biden, Russia’s security concerns were simply “not subject for discussion.”
Trump campaigned for re-election charging the Russian invasion was solely Biden’s fault.
Big lie.
Trump spent his entire term keeping alive eventual Ukraine NATO membership. Worse, Trump set the stage for Biden’s duplicity by revering predecessor Obama’s prohibition on arming the Kyiv regime to both destroy the Donbas separatist movement and prepare for possible war with Russia. Trump didn’t interfere with Germany, France and UK using the promise of Minsk II independence to stall for time allowing Ukraine to build up its military capability mainly provided by Trump.
Trump now finds himself bollixed up from his stupid promise to end the war in one day. On day 127 he’s completely outmaneuvered by Russia which holds all the cards for completing their takeover of the eastern fifth of Ukraine, administering a crushing defeat to US plans to weaken/destroy the Russian regime while bringing Ukraine into NATO.
Historians will assign Biden’s unhinged Ukraine policy promoting Ukraine NATO membership, arming Ukraine to finish off Donbas separatists and dismissal of Russia’s security concerns as the primary causes of America’s failed proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.
But they should include Trump’s reckless, duplicitous Ukraine policy preceding Biden’s igniting the invasion in their history of this totally senseless, unnecessary war.
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Michael, thanks for publishing this.
“America’s failed proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.”
A proxy war, as stated by UK PM Badenoch, and reported by The Independent, The Spectator etc.
This article left out certain important details.
Ukraine prohibited the use of the Russian language invthe Russian oblasts and also suppressed the Orthodox church.
This is both confusing and misleading record of history and gaslighting by a faux anti-imperialist American*, masquerading as left, but supporting corrupt RW Russian dictator and his fossil fuel oligarchs vs Ukraine, EU and the west? (Like Abbott’s friends in Hungary, Tanton & Atlas Koch Networks).
*US faux anti-imperialist tankies of left (or right?) like many locally are arrogant and narcissistic in telling rest of the world don’t follow the US, but they are Americans themselves?
Locally too, why do Australians prefer and defer to US & Anglo non expert grifters, but avoid longstanding geopolitical experts, of the centre?
Andrew, we like to give everyone a chance for a say, even if we don’t entirely agree with them.
An hour or so ago I was thinking that an eerie silence was hanging over this thread, then I realised that Mr Smith had not clocked on yet.
And he did not disappoint.
The same sweeping criticism as usual, and as usual not engaging with the article at all.
Mr Smith employs the use of the word ‘grifter’ to smear the author of this article, and elsewhere indulges his usual magical thinking with the phrase “faux anti-imperialist American.”
The Concise OED defines grifter as to ‘engage in petty swindling’ (V), ‘a petty swindle’ (N). Wordweb furnishes ‘swindler; a person who swindles you by means of deception or fraud.’
Does Mr Smith have special insight into the life of Walt Zlotow, that would allow him to make such a claim against this person, or does he just make shit up, brain-farting, as it were?
One assumes that his contributions to these pages are a form of obtuse absurdity, comprehensible only to his arcane perspectives alone.
The continuation of Russia’s brutal aggression in Ukraine is proof that-
° Trump’s narcissistic character, his overwhelming desire to self aggrandisement, makes him easily manipulated
° Putin doesn’t want peace
And… if this is a proxy war, it seems to be an admission that Putin is so stupid, he was manipulated into a war he didn’t want. Really? I don’t think so.
In breaking news, 99% of people polled on X would prefer me as POTUS instead of Trump. This is huge.
It goes back to Biden, NATO and the attempt to move nukes within striking distance of Moscow.
They rattled Putin’s cage, so he hit back harshly.
I was looking through some 50+ year old English comics and found that the Donald could almost be the twin brother of Leo Baxendale’s character of Sweeny Toddler.
https://treasuryofbritishcomics.com/news/who-is-sweeny-toddler/
Gl, I think, Cartman from Southpark
Michael, my pet silverfish got at least some votes.
Andrew Smith never tires of complaining about Ukraine commentary from ignorant Westerners, as he does here, but he never concedes the value of points of view from Europeans with their feet on the ground in Ukraine.
Dr. Tarik Cyril Amar received a Ph.D. in history from Princeton University; a Masters in history from the London School of Economics and Political Science; and a B.A. in history from Oxford University. During his fellowship at the Museum, he was a former Shklar Research Fellow at the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute and had accepted the position of Academic Director of the Lviv Center for Urban History of East Central Europe. For his Charles H. Revson Foundation Fellowship for Archival Research, Dr. Amar researched and wrote about “The Holocaust and the Making of Soviet Lviv.”
Dr. Amar was a Petro Jacyk Visiting Scholar and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Harriman Institute and the History Department of Columbia University. He has worked on a collaborative research project titled “Middle Town Ukraine: Fifteen Years of Change in Local Perspective,” for which he conducted sociological interviews across Ukraine. He has published several articles and papers about his work including most recently “Yom Kippur in Lviv: The Lviv Synagogue and the Soviet Party-State, 1944-1962,” East European Jewish Affairs, 35:1 (2005). Dr. Amar has also presented his work at several international conferences. He works in several languages including English, German, French, Ukrainian, Russian and Polish.
During his fellowship, Dr. Amar researched and wrote about the effect of the Holocaust on the wartime and postwar history of the city of Lviv in Western Ukraine (formerly also Lvov in the Soviet Union, Lwów in Poland, Lemberg in the Habsburg Empire). As part of this study Dr. Amar examined the behavior of bystanders as well as local perpetrators. He focused his examination not only on the German occupation period of the city but also beyond. Dr. Amar also researched non-German gentile responses to the Holocaust in Lviv and addressed the issue of collaboration by the Ukrainian Police during the Holocaust.
Those are the credentials of one whose views should be carefully considered.
In regard to the current Ukraine conflict he writes — The catastrophe of the Ukraine War will leave a long trail of painful questions. Because this hubristic proxy confict has become such a pie-in-the-face fiasco for the West, there will be plenty of resistance to honest answers for a very long time.
But facts undermining self-serving Western narratives have started emerging already during the war. Most recently, revelations about the activities of USAID have delivered another hard blow to Western – and official Ukrainian – deception and self-deception.
But before we get to USAID, let’s note that those are not the first embarrassing disclosures with regard to the West’s harebrained and bloody attempt to use Ukraine to demolish Russia. Those with eyes to see have long known, for instance, that large-scale war would have been avoided if the West and Kiev had not deliberately sabotaged the 2015 Minsk-2 agreement, a short but viable blueprint to end a still comparatively small conflict, which was endorsed by the UN General Assembly. Or if the West had not brushed Moscow off when it sent what was, in effect, a clear last warning in late 2021.
Then there was a very early opportunity to stop the war, namely the almost-peace of the Belarus and Istanbul talks in spring 2022. Kiev, shocked by the reality of escalation, was ready to take this exit ramp. The conditions offered by Russia and the concessions it made during the negotiations – above all ending its advance on Kiev – amounted to a good deal for Ukraine, as one of Ukraine’s key negotiators has since admitted. And yet the West chose more war, and an obedient Vladimir Zelensky followed its lead. That failure, too, has long been denied but has to be acknowledged now under the weight of the evidence.
Last but not least, the ongoing, absurd Western lying about the Nord Stream pipeline attacks – the largest ecoterrorist assault in European history and an act of barely-covert war among NATO allies – is not even amusing anymore. All that’s left of that big lie is a reverse IQ test, sorting the indoctrinated dim from the normally intelligent.
He does not hold back. A rare academic who calls a spade a spade.
Full article, “USAID, Ukraine, and Proxy War Lies”, can be found at his substack. Well worth reading.
As US liberal economist Noah Smith complains, opininion and commentary is not analysis. My issue is non expert types in far away places, ‘bowling outside their lane’ who make populist or even false claims without or with unclear support (nor the CRAAP* source test), bypassing whole bodies of credible research and journalism vs media sources and/or agitprop.
(*The term “CRAAP” is an acronym that stands for Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose….. the test was primarily designed to aid users, especially students and researchers, in the critical evaluation of online information sources. EBSCO).
Those who follow then shoot messengers a la FoxNews, go back to the 19-20thC, but avoid inconvenient facts and substance, need to try the Socratic method: Ethos (authority/expertise), Logos (facts, analysis & science) and Pathos (emotions/presentation); but nowadays simply the latter, follow your instincts and sentiments then preach/shout at people?
This phenomenon crosses over to science denialism which through US fossil fuel influence a la Koch Network** outlets (inc IPA) with ‘fair & balanced’ media, deny climate science, induce confusion around Covid science inc vaccinations/masking to attack, denigrate the centre and liberal enlightenment values (which bypassed the Orthodox world inc Russia).
No surprise how many analysts (inc US) would suggest that Charles Koch, Putin, Murdoch, Orbán et al and faux anti-imperialist tankies share similar views inc and especially opposition to the EU (see Brexit), why?
Transition** from fossil fuels to renewables, environmental regulation, digital services, minimum labour/consumer standards and financial transparency (vs tax avoidance etc.); Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has actually helped the EU move away from fossil fuels, faster….
Locally pining for a social-Darwinist past world led by NewsCorp…..to avoid the enlightenment and progress, for conspiracies, Christianity and beliefs to prevail….
Andrew Smith claims here that he has an issue with “non expert types in far away places, ‘bowling outside their lane’ who make populist or even false claims…”
Mr Smith is distorting reality.
Or perhaps torturing is a better word.
His actual issue, is with those who reject his opinions on Ukraine. Opinions that he took in from dubious sources including US liberal propagandists. Applebaum and Snyder being two examples. Well, they were examples at one time. He no longer quotes them since someone exposed their grubby superficial analysis.
He has castigated John Mearsheimer whenever Mearsheimer has popped up here in discussions of Ukraine.
Yes, Mearsheimer is, unforgivably, from a “far away place” but he is recognised as an authority in his field of political science.
I mention Mearsheimer because he made a prediction about NATO machinations that turned out to be correct. We’ve all heard the old joke about the danger of making predictions especially about the future, but it turns out Mearsheimer was right. He predicted that further expansion of NATO would result in a military response from Russia. And that’s exactly what happened.
That correct prediction does not make Mearsheimer infallible, (I disagree with some of his points) but it does give him a certain amount of credibility. His thoughts should not be dismissed out of hand as Mr Smith likes to do.
But this question of credibility begs the question — where does Mr Smith get his information from?
Primarily, it seems, from a “non-expert who makes populist or even false claims”. Vatnik Soup.
Yep. You can’t make this stuff up.
But questions remain.
Why is Mr Smith so opposed to figures such as Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs, who have a realistic take on the Ukraine situation?
Is the answer to that question found here, from wikipedia?
“The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities” is a 2018 book by the American political scientist John Mearsheimer. The book is about international relations and contrasts realism with the idealism that is part of the United States’ ruling ideology, arguing that the latter is unsustainable and deteriorates the liberalism its defenders promote.
Given that Mr Smith has defended “liberal enlightenment values” here, the wiki quote is possibly pointing in the right direction.
But which liberal enlightenment values does he admire?
Is it possibly the liberal development of a global financial system that deliberately entrenches poverty and misery?
Mr Smith likes to expound at length about his pet hates, so perhaps he could reverse that with a detailed defence of something he admires — liberal values.