Why is the US spurning Ukraine peace deals?

 

    By Reginald Johnson

      Commentary 

 

      The question is arising now:  is the United States really interested in ending the war in Ukraine?

   Top US officials such as Secretary of State Anthony Blinken have always said that the US is interested in talks with Russia and arriving at some fair agreement that would end the terrible war.

  But you have to wonder.

 Tuesday night, in an interview with ABC news, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky said in terms of creating a peace deal, he was open to the idea of Ukraine not being part of NATO and that he was also open to talking with Russian President Vladimir Putin about determining the future status of the breakaway republics in the Donbass part of Ukraine.

  The comments represented a possible breakthrough for resolving the dispute between Russia and Ukraine, as the US and Ukraine have always insisted that Ukraine should be part of NATO, which is something that the Russians had vehemently opposed. His comments about the Donbass area also presented a new basis for negotiation.

  However, the Biden administration has said nothing about Zelensky’s proposal.

  Biden officials were also quiet when Putin two weeks ago said that a peace plan could come about if Ukraine agreed to a status of neutrality and not accepting NATO arms.

  The American silence on Zelensky’s comments is disturbing given the horror that is taking place in Ukraine, as Russia continues its invasion. Hundreds if not thousands of civilians have been killed, infrastructure has been destroyed, and more than 1 million refugees have been sent out of the country to escape violence.

  Russia launched its invasion after years of talks with the US and Ukraine concerning the secessionist republics went nowhere and the US kept insisting that Ukraine be allowed to enter NATO, an anti-Russian military alliance that has bases throughout Europe and missile installations in countries close to Russia, such as Poland and Romania.

  Russia made clear that Ukraine being part of NATO was a red line for them, and that they would not tolerate having an enemy military alliance with armies and bases sitting on their long border with Ukraine.

 Continued bloodshed in Eastern Ukraine, where 14,000 thousand ethnic Russians were killed in attacks by Ukrainian forces in violation of the Minsk Accords covering the region, also angered Russia.

The Ukrainian military has received billions of dollars in support from the United States in the past eight years. (Photo from Wikimedia Commons)
 

Russians then launched their attack on Feb 24, claiming that they had to stabilize the region and also prevent an ongoing security threat from NATO.

However, the Russians have been harshly criticized --- and justifiably --- first for launching an invasion which had no legitimate basis under international law.

Russia has also been justifiably criticized for their brutal military tactics, hitting civilian targets, including the shelling of residential areas.

Meanwhile, the US has responded with sweeping economic sanctions against Russia and an embargo against Russian oil.             

Billions more in lethal aid is also being sent to Ukraine.    

There’s no question this invasion has to end, and the fighting must stop. Lives are being lost on a massive scale and all of Europe is being destabilized.

An agreement must be reached between the principal parties --- the US and its ally Ukraine, and Russia.

There has to be compromise on both sides. Russia must withdraw its forces. But in return there must be firm guarantees in writing that Ukraine will not be part of NATO and Ukraine can’t be an arsenal filled with US weapons. There should also be some degree of autonomy granted to Donetsk and Luhansk.

 These are a achievable goals. The Russians I think, would end their operation if they got those key guarantees. Now, the head of Ukraine says he’s willing to talk about those guarantees.

But is the US willing to talk about the guarantees and bring about an agreement?  Do they want the fighting to end?

 You have to be skeptical.

One leading political figure who’s saying the US wants the war to continue is former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard.

 Speaking on the Laura Ingraham show on FOX TV Tuesday night, she praised Zelensky for offering a “window of opportunity” to build a peace deal.

 “Really, he’s sending an olive branch,” she said.

Then she asked, “Why isn’t the Biden-Harris administration charging forward to take advantage of and support President Zelensky in this opening he has created in trying to bring about an end to this conflict and bring about an end to the suffering that we are seeing every single day?

 She added, “Nothing that the Biden administration has done has helped to make this situation better, to help de-escalate the situation. Which is why the only conclusion I can draw about why they have been completely silent and not engaging at all on this window of opportunity President Zelensky opened last night is that what is happening before our eyes right now is exactly what they wanted to see continued.

 “Why is that? Because it’s good for the military industrial complex, it makes politicians look tough, and really, it allows them to have this proxy war with Russia, something that Hillary Clinton laid out just recently, what the aims are, this war machine, this power elite in Washington, they want to turn Ukraine into another Afghanistan …… bleed out and kill as many Russians as possible for who knows for how long,” Gabbard said.

  I agree with Gabbard and add that a continuance of the Ukraine war appears to be part of a long range regime change operation directed against Russia. Bleed ‘em dry and take ‘em down.

 Afterwards, a new Boris Yeltsin can be brought in, and western capitalists can have a field day.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian people are caught in the middle, suffering and dying.

Lending credence to the theory that the US is using the Ukraine conflict to trigger regime change in Russia is that the RAND Corporation --- a think-tank which has a long history of influencing American foreign policy --- produced a report for the Pentagon in 2019 called "Overextending and Unbalancing Russia." The study basically assessed ways of bringing Russia down.

  Specifically, the report said Russia could be weakened by having to respond to a greater NATO and US military presence directed at Russia and that "providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia's greatest point of external vulnerability."

  It’s up to peace-loving people everywhere to rise up and say they won’t be party to these deadly schemes. Demand that the US respond favorably to President Zelensky’s offer, forge a real peace agreement and end this disastrous war.

 

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

US playing with fire in Ukraine

 

      By Reginald Johnson

      Commentary

   With Congress and the media egging him on,  President Joe Biden continues to pursue a reckless policy in Ukraine, increasing the chances of a catastrophic war with Russia.

       Following a virtual summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin last week, Biden administration officials indicated that the US will continue to provide lethal and nonlethal aid to Ukraine which is fighting a civil war against Russian separatists in the eastern part of the country.

    The US has given over $400 million in aid to Ukraine this year. Overall, $2.5 billion in aid has been given to Ukraine since 2014 to aid the Ukrainian government in the fighting, which has left 9,000 people dead.

  The American policy of militarily aiding Ukraine, together with statements by the United States and other Western countries that Ukraine should become part of the NATO military alliance, as well as the military activity by the US and NATO near  Russia’s border,  has alarmed Russian officials who believe their nation’s security is being threatened.

  In recent weeks, there have been reports of Russian troops gathering near the border with Ukraine, and there’s been speculation Russia might invade.

  At the summit,  Biden warned Putin not to attack Ukraine as the Russians would pay a “terrible price” --- most likely harsh economic sanctions.  But National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said later that military aid would also continue as the US wanted to ensure Ukraine’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

  Clearly the Russians are on edge over Ukraine and this was made clear by Putin following the summit.

  “The threat to our Western border really grows. We have talked about it repeatedly,” said Putin.  “Just look at how close to Russian borders come NATO’s military infrastructure. We take it more than seriously.”

   The Russian leader added, “Speaking to the United States and its allies, we would insist on reaching certain agreements that prevent any expanding of the NATO to the east and deploying weapon systems threatening us close to Russia.”

The US is giving millions of dollars in arms to the Ukrainian military in their fight against pro-Russian separatists. More than 9,000 people have been killed in the conflict. (Istock photo)

  Unfortunately, except for a few notable exceptions, members of Congress in both parties have been expressing support for the Biden’s aggressive policy, denouncing so-called threatening moves by the Russians and demanding that the US stand tough against Putin.

   Two Republican senators, Roger Wicker of Mississippi and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, suggested that Biden consider not only sending US troops to Ukraine but also making clear to the Russians that a first-use nuclear strike by America is not out of the question.

   Many media outlets as well are demanding an aggressive American policy, with pundits condemning Russia for “aggression” and saying that the US must “hold Russia accountable” and protect Ukraine from a Russian takeover.

  Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen said Biden was trying to “appease” Putin and was “channeling Neville Chamberlain,” the British leader who gave in to Adolf Hitler when Germany began invading a number of countries in the 1930s.

  The whole debate over Ukraine has taken on a thoroughly irrational tone and people both in the media and in Congress are talking in a very irresponsible way.

  One person who is sounding the alarm about the danger of the Ukraine situation is former congresswoman and presidential candidate, Tulsi Gabbard.

   Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii and a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Reserve, told Tucker Carlson of Fox News after the summit that the neo-con interventionists who dragged the US into wars in the recent past are now driving Biden’s Ukraine policy.

   “The same neocons in Washington that dragged our country into regime change wars in places like Iraq, Libya and Syria, they are the same ones pushing us very quickly into this war with Russia and never stating what is their objective, what are we trying to accomplish here and how does this serve this country’s national security interest?  Not a single one of them is pointing this out,” she said.

    Gabbard also condemned the wild comments by Wicker and Inhofe.

  She said of Wicker, “Anyone who would propose or consider what he is saying as an option must be insane, a sociopath or a sadist. Because what he’s saying here is, let’s go and launch a nuclear attack and start a war that would destroy the American people, the country, the world and also the Ukrainians so that we can save Ukraine’s democracy? It is literally insane.”

  But Gabbard noted that “Sen. Wicker is not an outlier. He is the number two Republican on the Armed Services Committee and you’re hearing the same kind of rhetoric coming from Democrats and Republicans in Congress and in the administration.”

   Katrina vanden Heuvel, editorial director and publisher of The Nation magazine, said in an interview on “Democracy Now” that the “one-sided narrative” about Ukraine presented by the media is preventing the American people from knowing the full story.

   “We have a one-sided narrative in this country which is a problem because we haven’t followed the growing mass of NATO troops on Ukraine’s Russia border. This escalation is neither in the United States national interest nor security interest at a time when politics, a political solution and diplomatic solution is the only way forward.”

  Vanden Heuvel said it was important to remember the history of the region and acknowledge that Russia may have reason for being suspicious about Western intentions in Ukraine. She pointed out that a previous pledge made over 30 years ago by former Secretary of State James Baker to Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev after the reunification of Germany that NATO would not bring in countries from the old Soviet bloc, was violated.

   “James Baker promised NATO would not expand ‘1 inch eastward.’ That promise, which is documented in the National Security Archives and in Condi Rice’s book and other materials was violated. I think that is the original sin of what we witnessed today,” she said.

   After Baker’s pledge, NATO absorbed several of the old Iron Curtain countries as members including Poland, Romania and the Baltic nations. Now there is talk about Ukraine entering the alliance..

   “It is hard for Americans to understand that NATO expansion and what it means to Russia having a mass of NATO troops on the border,” she said.

   While there has been a constant flow of stories in the mainstream press reporting “Russian troops massing along the border” with Ukraine in preparation for a possible invasion, there has been almost no coverage of activity by NATO troops near the border nor of US warships entering the Black Sea, which borders Russia. The Russian Navy is based at Sevastopol on the Black Sea. Reports of US and NATO  activity were found only in the military press.

   Obviously, the NATO and US military activity is highly provocative. As Democracy Now co-host Juan Gonzalez noted, the US navy going into the Black Sea  “is tantamount to a Chinese or Russian military ship buildup in the Gulf of Mexico.”

    Vanden Heuvel commented that the “undereporting of US involvement is a missed service and a disservice to the American people because they are getting everyday --- I picked up the papers this morning --- it’s Russian aggression, Russian aggression. There is Russian aggression, but there is US complicity with drones and non-letal weapons.”

  Another key element to the Ukraine story that has not been covered --- in fact it’s been covered up --- is how did Ukraine wind up with a government hostile to Russia and pro-US?  The previous, democratically-elected government, headed by Victor Yanukovych and pro-Russia, was overthrown in a violent coup in 2014. The putsch was aided and abetted by the CIA and the US National Endowment for Democracy.

  The incoming regime, whose members included a number of neo-fascists, subsequently began taking military aid from the US to assist in its fight to quell the rebellion by ethnic Russians in Donbas.

 

   

     

Protestors to Trump: Hands Off Venezuela!

      

 By Reginald Johnson

    

   NEW HAVEN ---- As tensions mount between the United States and Venezuela and a military conflict grows more likely, people rallied around the country last Saturday to  protest President Trump’s threats against the Latin American country.

    One of those rallies took place in New Haven, where about 25 people gathered in chilly temperatures at the corner of Church and Elm streets downtown to protest US policy and demand that their elected representatives stand and be counted.

  Pres. Trump said in response to a question about  possible US military intervention that “all options are on the table” for the United States to achieve its goal of replacing the government of President Nicholas Maduro and install the pro-American Juan Guaido.            .

   Several speakers said that the US needs to keep its hands off Venezuela and respect its sovereignty. They charged that the main reason that the US wants Maduro to step down is because the US wants a more pliable government in Caracas so US corporations can gain control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.

   “What is the problem with Venezuela?  It’s just that they decided to be independent from the United States and that is the only thing they are guilty of,” said John Lugo, of Unidad Latina en Accion in Connecticut.

 Lugo also said that “The money that is being spent on Venezuela by the US is money that could be used in this country --- we have a homeless crisis, we have a food crisis in the United States and yet we keep invading and destabilizing countries like Venezuela.”

   Jim Pandaru, a Vietnam veteran, said his experience taught him how wrong war is. “Venezuela.  What’s it going to be tomorrow? Iran? …. We have to stop this madness.”

  Henry Lowendorf, co-chair of the Greater New Haven Peace Council, which sponsored the rally, asked people to sign a petition demanding that US Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3,  speak out against Trump’s harrassment of Venezuela  and support and co-sponsor legislation which would block the US from using its military in that country.

  “We are asking her to speak out because she has been silent as most representatives in Congress have been about Trump’s threats to invade  Venezuela; she has been silent about the deadly sanctions against Venezuela; and she has been silent about the coup,” he said.

  Lowendorf also suggested that people who live in other districts in Connecticut get their congress members to support the legislation, which has been introduced  by U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, a Democrat from Rhode Island.

   At the end of the speeches, the group marched over to DeLauro’s office at 59 Elm Street, chanting  “Stop the War on Venezuela!” Stop the War on Venezuela!”

   DeLauro’s office was closed, but the group said they will be back and present the petitions on Monday.

    Lowendorf said he worries that the United States will create some incident to serve as a justification for intervening in Venezuela.

   “They’re trying to provoke something they can use,” he said.