Image from YouTube: Video uploaded by WION in January 2022, but over three years later there’s still no end in sight.
The war in Ukraine has reached a new, and very dangerous phase. Not that it wasn’t dangerous before. But the toll of militarism was being paid by the deaths and the sufferings only of soldiers and their communities of Ukraine and Russia.
That’s OK by the shareholders in the U.S. and other weapons companies, and by warhawks and the virtuous Russian-haters of Western culture. But it’s another thing when the deaths and sufferings might now extend to European people, to the British – and heck – to World War 3 and all of us.
The change is that on the 28th of May German Chancellor Friedrich Merz pledged to help Ukraine develop its own long-range missile systems that would be free of any Western-imposed limitations on their use and targets. So Ukraine could hit Moscow. Now Merz did back off on this, a bit, but later suggested that Taurus missiles might be delivered to Uraine. Germany would put up the money.
This would be a revolutionary change in the Western policy on the war in Ukraine. War-monger though he was, President Joe Biden saw the danger in escalating the war in this way, and for over 2 years refused Ukraine’s demand for long-range missiles. He changed his mind on this only at the last minute in December 2024. Then Trump, on taking office, paused weapons shipments to Ukraine. Now, characteristically, Trump has a confusing attitude on this – probably means; “It’s OK as long as Ukraine pays up for them.”
Now, there are lots of impediments to Ukraine actually getting long-range missiles that could strike deep inside Russia. One big impediment is that the USA would have to be involved in missiles from Germany being used – this would necessitate U.S. software and technical support.
Germany’s Taurus Missiles: Approval for Ukraine’s Long-Range Strikes:
I think, yes. It’s a wake-up call. If we all think that it’s now OK for long-range missiles to hit deep inside Russia, well, I guess we don’t mind if Russia sends the same into Ukraine and beyond ?
Is anyone in the West paying attention to the facts on the actual progress of this war? Global Conflict Tracker now says:
“Russia still occupies roughly 20 percent of the country after gaining over four thousand square kilometers of territory in 2024. Russia continues to bombard Ukrainian cities…. Since January 2022, Ukraine has received about $407 billion in aid, including over $118 billion from the United States. Fighting and air strikes have inflicted over 40,000 civilian casualties, while 3.7 million people are internally displaced, and 6.9 million have fled Ukraine. 12.7 million people need humanitarian assistance.”
But never mind. The corporate media is still telling us that Ukraine can, and must, beat Russia. And they’re also telling us that Russia doesn’t want a negotiated settlement.
Well, that’s because the new “Coalition of the Willing”, led by Britain and France, supports Volodymyr Zelensky’s underlying demands for ending the war:
And these are all unacceptable – especially NATO membership – always a “red line” for Russia.
There have been previous negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. In the Istanbul talks of March-April 2022, the two parties were on the verge of an agreement, in which Russia made concessions, and Zelensky did not insist on NATO membership. The US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul talks by refusing to provide Ukraine with security guarantees and encouraging Zelensky to keep fighting instead.
Now Russia is in a militarily winning position, and has no inclination to submit to those underlying demands, nor to agree to a temporary ceasefire which would allow Ukraine to develop weaponry and troops.
But there is no suggestion from our bold, confident, Western leaders – Sir Keir Starmer, Friedrich Merz, Emmanuel Macron – that it might be best to pay more attention to the actual military situation, and less to the theatrical posturing of Volodymyr Zelensky. An unlikely source of common sense is America’s President Donald Trump, who actually does want peace, with his focus on making himself and his cronies richer, rather than on fighting Russia.
And the general public? Weary of it all, stunned into a sort of mental paralysis as we observe the barbarities going on in Gaza, the West en masse seems to be just sleep-walking into the military and economic disaster of a continuing war in Ukraine.
As with all wars, the media plays a huge role – glorifying that consummate media performer Zelensky, and regaling us with the civilian horrors suffered by Ukrainian civilians. (And they ARE really suffering). Of course, not a word about suffering Russians. Russian atrocities are publicised – both real ones, and fabricated. But if you see any news item about atrocities done by Ukrainians – you assume automatically that it must be a lie.
In fact, I’ve noticed that there is a powerful argument for the untruth of anything that shows any positive activity by Russians. If you mention it to any Westerner, it will be refuted because; “After all, this news is just Russian propaganda.” You see, it doesn’t matter if the news is factual – it must be false, coming from Russia. In reality, of course the Russians are using factual news as propaganda. As well, they do have a sophisticated programme of misinformation. And so do we in the West, in all likelihood, when we consider America’s Central Intelligence Agency and its its long history of disinformation.
So, it is a media mess. It’s tragic that Zelensky, elected on a pledge to honour agreements ensuring the autonomy of the largely Russian-speaking Donbass provinces, quickly went along with Europe and USA’s historic fear and hatred of Russia.
Never mind that Russia was on “our side” in the last big war, and largely won that war in Europe, at the price of some 27 million Russian lives. The Soviet Union did defeat the Nazis in Ukraine. But all that is forgotten, as Western leaders look solemn and statesman-like, pronouncing on Coalition-of-the-Willing plans for a big war in the air, with ever more powerful missiles, ending of course, in a glorious victory over Russia (and sorta bad luck that Ukraine is completely demolished along the way).
I don’t know what it might take for the public to wake up to the suicidal path on which these macho “statesmen” are leading the West, and “helping” Ukraine. A previous Coalition of the Willing” “helped Iraq”, and that hasn’t turned out so well.
It would be a good start if some in the corporate media could get away with telling the facts on the dismal situation of Ukraine in this war. Expanding the war sounds so noble and easy to decide on. Much more difficult would be a measured progress in negotiation, recognising the legitimate needs of each side.
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
On June 1, Ukraine launched a significant drone attack targeting Russian military airbases, marking one…
By David Spry Continued from Part 1 The supposed status of the warrior male in…
Defence Minister Richard Marles’ support for US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s call for increased Asia-Pacific…
By James Moore “War does not determine who is right, only who is left.” (Bertrand…
Change can be gradual, or it can be sudden. Either way, we humans are usually…
While browsing my podcast library yesterday, I noticed a list of recommendations. One caught my…
View Comments
How is that it’s ok for Putin to say he doesn’t want Ukraine to join NATO and that’s sufficient justification for an invasion of Ukraine?
The simple fact is Russia invaded.
Why should Ukraine not be allowed to fire missiles ‘far into’ Russia when Russia has been subjecting Ukraine to saturation bombardment anywhere and everywhere. As for Ropaganda, you won’t get any sort of truth out of Russia.
.
RC, recall that well-known observation that the first casualty of war is truth. It applies, of course, to all participants.
No credible western analyst claims Ukraine expects to 'win', but demands for Putin's Russia to stop bombing civilains and go back to where they came from.....preferably pre 2014 invasion borders of a sovereign nation, Ukraine.
More gaslighting of Europe, NATO, 'the west' and any support for Ukraine by victim blaming along with the 'west', but the invader Russia, nada?
Then claim anyone who supports Ukraine, EU and the west is anti-Russian (to claim victimhood), plus using inflated US financial aid (most spent in US)?
Similar to others in Anglsophere and locally including Kampmark, Kostakidis et al, and the article cites US 'journalist' Aaron Maté*; they follow another American grifter masquerading as a geopolitic 'analysis', Mearsheimer (Kissinger II?).
The latter promotes the 'realism' school ie. big nations can claim spheres of influence, bully smaller nations and then suggestive Orwellian claim that Russia is the victim a la Trump; geopolitical eugenics or 'survival of the fittest'.
Mearsheimer, followed by the Anglosphere 'faux anti-imperialist tankie sh*theads of the left' (Draitser in Counter Punch 2022), is surrounded by fossil fueled right wing oligarchs linked to both Charles Koch and Putin's Valdai Club, who despise EU, renewables, liberal democracy, regulation/taxes, education and empowered citizens....
*He worked with another (son of a more famous) 'journalist' Blumenthal at The Grazyone that supported Assad's regime, and from Kallioniemi of Finland's Tampere University' Russian Disinfo Research Unit
https://x.com/P_Kallioniemi/status/1704058527864569958
To be fair, Maté has “never claimed expertise on Russia, Ukraine, or Syria” & it shows. For example, he’s falsely claimed that Russia was not a signatory to the two Minsk agreements. His dishonest takes on Ukraine have been dissected thoroughly here:
22/24
https://x.com/neil_abrams/status/1593604628603715587
Whole thread of related issues here https://vatniksoup.com/en/soups/284/
While I respect Noel’s argument - and it is a good one and well backed up - I just can’t shake the idea that there’s just one person to point the finger at, and that person is Putin.
He’s a blood-thirsty tyrant.
Once again Mr Smith distorts the truth, this time by excluding relevant details.
He states that Aaron Mate “falsely claimed that Russia was not a signatory to the two Minsk agreements.”
The actual situation is described in some detail by Jacques Baud, who was on the ground in Ukraine monitoring arms movements for NATO.
Some portions from Baud -- After its defeat in Ilovaisk in August 2014, the Ukrainian government had to invent the excuse of Russian intervention to justify Western propaganda and mask the undemocratic character of the regime change. This defeat forced the Ukrainians to accept the first Minsk I Agreements (September 2014).
Agreements that Kiev immediately broke after signing them, in order to launch a large-scale offensive called “Anti-Terrorist Operation” (ATO) against rebel forces. The ATO will totally derail the Minsk I Agreements. Supported and advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainian army then suffered another crushing defeat in Debaltsevo in February 2015. This is what will push Ukraine to engage in the Minsk II Agreements (February 2015). Minsk II follows on from the Geneva declaration of April 2014 and endorses the internal nature of the Donbass conflict. (In other words, no Russian involvement as claimed by the West.)
In Europe, where support for the Ukrainian ultra-nationalists and far-right is very strong, the idea that the Minsk Accords were made between Russia and Ukraine predominates. This is a lie, regularly repeated by certain "expert firefighters-arsonists".
In reality, the agreement concerns the Ukrainian government and the rebel forces of Donbass. We thus had on one side, France and Germany who were the guarantors of the agreement on the Ukrainian side, while, on the other, Russia was that of the Russian-speaking separatists. Russia only played the role of facilitator, because the Ukrainian government then refused to speak to the representatives of the autonomist entities.
The problem is that, with the Ukrainian party refusing to negotiate with the representatives of the autonomists, the Russian ambassador had to affix his signature as guarantor of the commitments made by the representatives of the two self-proclaimed republics.
The next problem, which will lead to the Russian offensive in 2022, is that the two Western guarantors have not kept their word. Instead of pushing Kyiv to implement the agreements, they preferred to side with it to try to replace the Minsk Accords with a bilateral negotiation between Moscow and Kyiv.
Even today, official French and European rhetoric sees in the civil war a direct involvement of Russia that pushed France and Germany to want to negotiate the Minsk Accords with Vladimir Putin. Even François Hollande participated in the genesis of these agreements, being convinced that the Russian troops were in the Donbass. Obviously, he did not understand the nature of these agreements, because neither Minsk I (September 5 and 19, 2014) nor Minsk II (February 12, 2015) involve Russia.
Minsk I is an agreement in principle – accepted by “the representatives of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions” – and Minsk II takes over the elements of Minsk I and adds certain implementing rules, which are laid down in a resolution of the United Nations (17 February 2015).
As the National Review puts it -- “although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky came forward to find a solution to the conflict with Russia, he could not get Ukraine to implement Minsk II. He ran into fierce objections from far-right Ukrainian nationalist militias, on the one hand, and from international foreign policy circles and the press, on the other. It turned out that no one was ready to help Ukraine end the conflict. Or to help its president overcome the resistance of ultra-nationalists to achieve this .”
In other words, the Western guarantors of Ukraine (France and Germany) as well as our Western media obsessed with Russia, have done the work of the Ukrainian far-right.
Well, well. “No one was ready to help Ukraine end the conflict. Or to help its president overcome the resistance of ultra-nationalists to achieve this.”
Consider that statement for a while.
This is possibly the most significant statement ever made about the Ukraine war anywhere, by any commentator.
But Mr Smith’s raising of the Minsk Accords in this manner gives us an insight into his priorities in this tragedy.
While over a thousand Ukrainian soldiers are being killed every day, his interest is in an argument over the opinion of a journalist. An opinion that is of no consequence.
We see also his obsession with John Mearsheimer, where yet again he engages in a deliberate and sustained effort to damage the reputation and credibility of a respected political analyst, without giving a shred of evidence to support his attack.
Mr Smith looks for authoritative sources in the strangest of places.
He has looked here to Eric Draitser for support.
The same Eric Draitser who in 2014 expressed an opinion on the Ukraine crisis that was elegant, articulate, and insightful.
From “Ukraine, Intervention and America’s Doublethink” Draitser wrote in regard to cries of “invasion” from the West when Russia occupied Crimea,
“First and foremost is the fact that the Russia-Ukraine Friendship Treaty establishes that Crimea, and Sevastopol specifically, represents a strategic national interest for Russia. Moreover, it codifies the fact that the protection of the rights of the people of Crimea is the responsibility of the Ukrainian government. However, what happens when a so called government in Kiev is openly hostile to the region? Who then is responsible for the Russians living there? With Kiev’s putsch government having the backing of the US, NATO and Europe, it seems that no one other than Russia could possibly guarantee the security of Crimea”
And “Considering the openly hostile attitude expressed by the new Security and National Defense Committee leadership in Kiev, it seems clear that Russia’s national security interests would be under threat. There is ample precedent in international law justifying Russia moving to protect its forces in Crimea. Moreover, with Ukraine falling into the hands of Nazi elements, a sound argument could be made that, beyond the Crimea, Ukraine poses a danger to the security of Russia proper”
And “Yanukovich, whatever negative things could be said about him and his government (and there are many), was never defeated in a democratic election. Rather, he was chased out of the country by a violent mob that has now been consecrated by the much touted “international community” (read US-EU-NATO) as the recognized government. This is a blatant violation of Ukraine’s Constitution, not to mention international law and the accepted principles of modern democracy. With Yanukovich having taken refuge in Russia, and still being the legal President of Ukraine, isn’t it fair to say that Russia is acting as the guarantor of international law, rather than its enemy?
And “With international institutions such as the United Nations and International Criminal Court firmly under the “influence” (read control) of the United States, what other institution could possibly enforce international law in Ukraine? Surely not NATO, the alliance that has been angling to bring Ukraine into the fold since the fall of the Soviet Union. And so, it would seem that Ukraine’s fate, and that of Crimea specifically, rests on the shoulders of Russia and Putin. Naturally, all of these nuances are left completely out of the narrative of Western corporate media.”
Wow. That sounds very much as though Draitser, in 2014, supported the use of force. But the important point was “Naturally, all of these nuances are left completely out of the narrative of Western corporate media.”
In a web environment such as The AIMN, where the owners/editors have a permissive attitude towards the free inclusion of comments by the readers of the published matter, there's an unspoken acknowledgement that direct response by person B to a comment written by person A sets up a paradigm whereby A has been chanced the opportunity to respond to B.
Not all correspondents behave according to this natural paradigm.
Mr Andrew Smith is one such example.
His voluminous tracts, which to some may seem to qualify as rants, regularly attract the attention of Mr Steve Davis (in particular), and accordingly are comprehensively criticised. But, does Mr Smith ever respond to the critical dissection of his essays? Never, it would seem.
This scribe has noted the pattern of language that repeatedly appears in Mr Smith's offerings. Loaded language, employing the repetitive use of words such as grifter, eugenicist, tankie, faux anti-imperialist, shithead, masquerader, gaslighter.
It seems very few are spared the bitter invective Mr Smith so freely uses, and just as strangely, it's also noted that Mr Smith never, ever, bothers to respond to the challenges as to the credibility or accuracy of his 'faux-intellectual' observations.
I'm reminded of those people who've made a career out of getting up at public meetings and speaking gobbledegook to the audience; gobbledegook of such a nature & pattern that it appears as though they are saying something profound, when in fact it's just rubbish.
Does that sound close to home, Mr Smith? Just rubbish? Perhaps a reveal of your bonafides would assuage the suspicion that in fact it's you who are the grifter, the tankie, the faux intellectual anti-imperialist gaslighter.
Canga, well noted.
I have no problem with the expression of opinions that differ from mine, in fact, it makes my day.
And that's what a blog is all about -- the stimulation of discussion.
My problem is with opinions that are expressed with no evidence in support. In fact, supported only by an assumed air of superiority.
Smith indulges in a sweeping style of criticism which targets analysts such as Assange and Mearsheimer and Sachs, who display a level of courage that is beyond the appreciation of a sniper such as Smith.
People such as these actually put their lives on the line to keep us informed.
To then be brushed aside with contempt is unforgivable.
While the muSScovite empire has been free to target civilians, hospitals, schools etc with their artillery, bombs, cruise and ballistic missiles, the victim of unprovoked aggression was only allowed to hit military targets within their own temporarily occupied territories until very recently. If the world decides that such aggression should be rewarded, by all means let the belligerent malevolent brutal barbaric backward corrupt empire defeat a sovereign state that gave up its weapons and wanted only peace.
"wanted only peace."
Except they didn't want peace.
From above "As the National Review puts it — “although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky came forward to find a solution to the conflict with Russia, he could not get Ukraine to implement Minsk II. He ran into fierce objections from far-right Ukrainian nationalist militias, on the one hand, and from international foreign policy circles and the press, on the other. It turned out that no one was ready to help Ukraine end the conflict. Or to help its president overcome the resistance of ultra-nationalists to achieve this .”*
In fairness to Zelensky, he tried again a few days after the war began.
He made an agreement with Russia that only needed to be signed.
But the same forces that stopped him in 2019 stepped in again in 2022.
Because it's a proxy war that one side wants to continue forever.
And they don't care how many Ukrainians die.