US and NATO risk nuclear war in Ukraine

 

   By Reginald Johnson 

   While the world's attention has been focused in recent months on the utter horror of the Israel-Gaza war, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has taken a turn for the worse.

 The United States under Joe Biden has changed course and given Ukraine permission to use American-made weapons to strike inside Russia.  Also, NATO is creating "land corridors" to rush US troops to the frontlines in the event of war and NATO member France said it will put boots on the ground to "train" Ukrainian soldiers.

 These are reckless steps which escalate the crisis over Ukraine and increase the danger of this conflict becoming a world war, with nuclear weapons being used. Madness.

 Joe Lauria, editor of Consortium News, has just written an excellent piece on the danger of the Ukraine war and how the US has been using fascists from that country to undermine Russia for nearly eight decades. (See "Using Ukraine Since 1948" at https://consortiumnews.com/.../10/using-ukraine-since-1948/

 Here are the opening graphs:

 "The United States has for nearly 80 years seen Ukraine as the staging ground for its covert and increasingly overt war with Russia.

 "After years of warnings, and talk since 2008 of Ukraine joining NATO, Russia fought back two years ago. With neither side backing down, Ukraine is increasingly becoming a flashpoint that could lead to nuclear war."

 Please read the piece.

 

Senator Blumenthal wrong on Ukraine

 

                        

 By Reginald Johnson

       (The Connecticut Post published the following op-ed on Sept 25 which countered a number of false claims made by Senator Richard Blumenthal in an article he wrote justifying continued aid for the war in Ukraine,) 

 

   I have to take issue with a number of comments made by US Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn in his recent op-ed in the Connecticut Post entitled “Zelenskyy doesn’t want or need our troops. But he deeply and desperately needs the tools to win.”

  Blumenthal justifies the United States continuing to send billions of dollars to help Ukraine in its war with Russia by making the sweeping claim that if Russia is allowed to defeat Ukraine, Russian leader Vladimir Putin will be emboldened to invade other countries and then take over Europe.

  “If Putin wins in Ukraine, he’ll roll forward against other nations --- NATO allies that we have a treaty obligation to defend with troops on the ground. Ukraine is at the tip of the spear fighting our fight for independence and freedom,” Blumenthal wrote.

  But the view that Russia is on a march of aggression is based on the idea that Russia invaded Ukraine without any provocation and if given a chance, Putin will do the same thing against other countries.

 The fact is that the United States together with its NATO allies did provoke Russia into this invasion. There were two key provocations.

 First, the United States instigated a coup in 2014 against the constitutionally-elected and pro-Russian government in Ukraine led by Viktor Yanukovych. The new regime adopted a belligerent anti-Russian attitude and demanded that all people in Ukraine, including people in the heavily ethnic Russian area in the East, speak the Ukrainian language. A rebellion erupted in the East and the government, using United States military aid, waged a bloody campaign against residents of the area known as Donbas, which is on the Russian border.

 Second, the United States reneged on its promise made to Russian leaders back in the early 1990s that NATO would not be enlarged by granting membership to Eastern European countries which had been part of the old Soviet bloc. The Russians warned that they saw expansion of NATO as a security threat, with their nation becoming encircled.

 Despite Russian objections, the West went ahead and added all the Soviet bloc nations into NATO, except for Ukraine. Russian officials and others urged that at least Ukraine should stay neutral, in order to avoid war. Nonetheless, US and Ukrainian leaders pushed the idea of adding Ukraine to NATO, further heightening tensions with Russia.

  Putin said at the time of the invasion that the expansion of NATO was the reason for Russia’s decision to invade.

Sen. Blumenthal also makes the strange comment in his article that America was helping Ukraine protect “freedom.” But the present Ukrainian government has shut down opposition newspapers, closed Russian orthodox churches and locked up political dissenters. These actions do not comport with a free society.

 Finally, Sen. Blumenthal makes the outrageous statement that Americans “should be satisfied that we’re getting our money’s worth on our Ukraine investment” because we’ve spent “less than 3 percent” of our military budget in helping Ukraine to “degrade” Russia’s military.

  Actually, the roughly 3 percent figure comes to a very substantial amount. The US has given upwards of $140 billion in aid to Ukraine, much of it being military hardware.  That money could have been better spent on funding human needs here at home --- like building affordable housing, improving health care and revitalizing underfunded local public school systems, such as the one in Bridgeport.

 Instead of continuing to support a highly destructive and deadly war in Ukraine (hundreds of thousands of people have died) Senator Blumenthal should get behind peace efforts to bring this terrible conflict to a close.

 

(Reginald Johnson is a free-lance writer in Bridgeport)

 

 

 

 

Peace group calls for cease-fire in Ukraine

   By Reginald Johnson 

  The Connecticut Peace and Solidarity Coalition, a group which opposes wars of intervention and advocates for cuts in military spending, has taken out a full-page ad in the New Haven Register, demanding an end to the war in Ukraine.

  “The war in Ukraine is costing thousands of lives, generating millions of refugees and causing the destruction of billions in infrastructure.  We demand it quickly end,” the ad began. “The only way it can end is through honest negotiations, not actions that lead to the escalation of violence.”

“We call on Ukraine, Russia the United States and its NATO allies to immediately agree on a prompt cease-fire, stop pouring weapons, trainers and troops into Ukraine and quickly negotiate steps towards peace and common security for all parties.”

  The statement also said that “The longer the war lasts the greater chance that nuclear weapons will be used, creating global catastrophe.”

 The Peace and Solidarity Coalition, composed of activists from around the state, has been fighting a lonely battle to try to stop the Ukraine war since it began five months ago after the Russian invasion. Ukraine’s request for military aid has won almost blanket support in Congress and in the media. Support for the war among the public has been more evenly divided.

 Just this year the US has sent over $50 billion in support to Ukraine. Even so-called progressive Democrats have joined in backing the military assistance.

Negotiations to end the conflict are at a standstill and the Biden administration has said almost nothing about the need to settle the war, despite calls for peace talks by several European leaders such as France’s Emanuel Macron.

The Ukrainian army has been given billions of dollars in military hardware by the United States.

Few questions are asked in Congress or in the media about the US and NATO’s role in provoking the conflict, by pouring billions of dollars in weaponry into Ukraine over the years as well as to other eastern European countries that are close to Russia; allowing for the eastward expansion of NATO toward Russia; allowing Ukraine to attack the Russian-speaking, separatist Donbas region and violating the Minsk Agreement in the process.

 The coalition ad blasted the press for its role in supporting the war.

 “We reject mainstream media’s ongoing cheerleading for the war, similar to what we saw when the US prepared to invade Iraq.”

  The coalition statement urged people to call Congress at 202-224-3121 and the White House at 202-456-1111 and ask that United States push for a cease-fire and negotiations to end the war.

  To contact the Connecticut Peace and Solidarity Coalition email the group at CTPeaceAndSolidarity@gmail.com.

  To take more action on this issue, go to: https://tinyurl.com/NegotiatePeace

 

 

US should push for a cease-fire --- now.

 

By Reginald Johnson

     Commentary

    There’s some hope for a cease-fire agreement to end the brutal war in Ukraine.

    Ukrainian and Russian negotiators said this week they made progress towards reaching a truce, coming up with a plan that would center in part on a promise of Ukraine being a neutral country, not joining NATO and a withdrawal of Russian forces.

   But still there are some differences and more time is needed to work them out.

   So far, the United States has sat on the sidelines with any negotiations. That needs to stop. The US must get actively involved to create a cease-fire and end the carnage.

 Since the Russian invasion began on Feb. 24, nearly 700 civilians have been killed, according to UN figures. Thousands of soldiers have lost their lives and 3 million Ukrainians have become refugees.

  People who want peace in Ukraine should call the White House at 202-456-1111 and demand that the administration work actively for a cease-fire. Call your members of Congress at 202-224-3121 and tell them the same thing.

 You can also go to the website for the anti-war organization CODEPINK (CODEPINK.org) and sign the letter being sent to the White house and Congress outlining a plan for peace.

  In a plea to the public, CODEPINK organizers wrote: “A ceasefire deal must be reached immediately! Tell Biden and Congress that rather than supplying more weapons which risks nuclear war, the U.S. must participate in vigorous ceasefire negotiations by outlining the agreements and compromises the U.S. is ready and willing to support.”

  The organization said that provisions for a cease-fire should include the following: Russia must withdraw its troops and commit to respecting the sovereignty of Ukraine; the US rejects a no-fly zone over Ukraine; no NATO expansion; recognition of Ukraine as a neutral country; and off-ramp for sanctions on Russia to be lifted.

 

  

 

 

 

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.

 

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Protesters: No war with Russia!

 

   By Reginald Johnson

   Opposition is growing to a potential war with Russia over Ukraine.

 In the last two weeks, there’s been a flurry of protests around the country with people demanding that the United States and NATO stop their aggressive military actions in Eastern Europe, stop sending military aid to Ukraine and seek a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis through the United Nations.

  Demonstrations began happening last week after a call was put out by a coalition of 12 antiwar organizations to mobilize against a war with Russia. The call was subsequently endorsed by another 200 peace groups.   

  Protests took place in 70 cities around the country on Saturday, followed by a national online rally, where peace activists spoke of the urgency of stopping the slide towards war. A webinar hosted by the United National AntiWar Coalition, with both national and international peace activists, took place on Sunday.

  More actions are taking place this week, such as one in Hartford, CT, where peace activists demonstrated outside the offices of US Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, who is supporting the Biden administration’s Ukraine policy.

  “This is a really important time because of the escalation of aggression by the US government towards Russia and the amount of misinformation in the corporate media,” said Margaret Flowers director of Popular Resistance, one of the groups which organized the online rally.

  “We’re being lied into another war. The whole, you know, ‘Russia has troops on its border’ is equivalent to the ‘Saddam has WMDs’ that lied us into a disastrous war with Iraq,” she said.

  Flowers added that nearly 1,000 people signed a petition to President Biden and to UN Secretary-General Anthony Guiterrez, calling on them to resolve the Ukraine conflict in compliance with international law using the United Nations Security Council, “rather than what the United States is doing, using NATO to perform its war, which is how the US engages in all these illegal wars, bypassing international law.”

 

A protest against a possible war with Russia outside the offices of U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn, in Hartford. Blumenthal has been supporting hawkish US policies in Ukraine. (Photo by Henry Lowendorf)

      

     The protests are taking place as the U.S., NATO and Russia are engaging in a tense military stand-off in eastern Ukraine. The US and its allies are charging that Russia is “massing troops on the Ukraine border” in preparation for a possible invasion of Ukraine. Russia has been supporting pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine ever since a US backed coup installed a pro-western and far-right regime in Kiev in 2014.

   Biden administration officials, backed by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress, say that Ukraine’s “sovereignty” must be protected and that “Russian aggression” must be stopped.

 The US has been sending a steady stream of lethal aid to the Ukrainian regime over the past 8 years --- some $2.5 billion in arms and ammunition.

  US military advisors are on the ground in eastern Ukraine as are American mercenaries.  

Biden has threatened “severe consequences” for Russia --- including harsh economic sanctions --- if an invasion takes place.

 Russian officials maintain that they have no plans to invade, but say they are concerned about provocative US, NATO and Ukrainian military activity near their border and the US sending naval ships into the Black Sea, where Russia has a large naval port.

  The Russians are also concerned about the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO, the western military alliance formed more than 70 years ago to deter aggression by the Soviet Union, a country that no longer exists. Most European countries, including former Soviet bloc nations, are now in NATO. The alliance has bases throughout the continent, including missile launchers in Poland and Romania.

 President Vladimir Putin has made clear that any plan for ending the crisis in Ukraine must include a guarantee that Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO.

 But the US has already rejected a Russian peace plan which includes that guarantee.

Joe Lombardo, co-coordinator of the United National AntiWar Coalition (UNAC), said at the webinar that Americans are getting a false picture from their leaders and the media about who is responsible for the crisis in eastern Europe.

 “Now there are 300,000 US troops throughout Europe. There are 150,000 Ukrainian troops with US advisors and modern US weapons, including predator drones which have been used in some of the areas in Donbass (eastern Ukraine).  So there are 150,000 troops with US advisors in and around Donbass, that is on the Russian border, but that is not said in the media,” he said.

   Lombardo added that NATO is conducting “what they call wargames, right on the border with Russia. But when Russia puts its troops on the other side of the border, on its side of these wargames, the US says that’s aggressive, not the wargames.”

  He continued, “So it’s a very dangerous situation and the actual aggression is on the side of the United States, which in the last couple of decades has been in one war after another, one invasion and one occupation after another, many of them based on false flag situations.”

  Another speaker at the UNAC webinar was Vladimir Kozin, correspondent member of the Russian Academy of Military Science.

  Kozin talked of the repeated violations of the Minsk II peace accords and arms control treaties by both the United States and Ukraine. Kozin said that all 13 provisions of the Minsk Accords have been violated, including the prohibition on sending foreign fighters into the conflict zone.

   Kozin said that Russia had no plans to attack Ukraine now, but if Ukrainian forces should launch a full attack on Donbass, “surely Russia will come to support the population of Donbass.”

   At the protest in Hartford on Tuesday, 18 people stood outside the offices of Senator Blumenthal, who has strongly supported America's militaristic Ukraine policy.

  “We were protesting Senator Blumenthal’s promoting war and war hysteria,  and defending the illegal and violent coup the US engineered in 2014 to kick out the constitutional government of Ukraine, said Henry Lowendorf, of the Greater New Haven Peace Council.

  The group attempted to deliver a letter to Blumenthal’s office demanding that “all belligerent threats” towards Russia stop, that there be a resumption of honest diplomacy to settle any differences between the US and Russia, and that NATO not be allowed to expand eastward. But a security guard would not grant the group access to the office.  Lowendorf said he then left messages with both the Hartford and Washington offices.

   Lowendorf said a Washington staff member called back on Wednesday and left a message, but did not include a return number.

  “I couldn’t call the individual back … Senator Blumenthal runs a very unwelcoming office. He places roadblocks before the public even to meeting his staff. The way he runs his office contradicts the image he tries to project as a people friendly official,” Lowendorf said.

  Nonetheless, Lowendorf and the other activists, members of the Connecticut Peace and Solidarity Coalition, passed out fliers urging people to call their legislators in Washington at 202-224-3132 and the White House at 202-456-1111, demanding no war with Russia.

  At the UNAC webinar, Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in space said that there is a unique danger that could unfold from a war in Ukraine. He said there are 15 nuclear power plants in the country.

 “Imagine what could happen, from an accident or otherwise, with those nuclear power plants. That’s frightening,” Gagnon said, pointing out that radiation contamination would spread globally.

  “It’s absolutely insane what the US and NATO are doing today,” he said.

Ajamu Baraka, national organizer for the Black Alliance for Peace, stressed that people have to understand the central role that imperialism plays in the wars that keep erupting around the globe.

  “For the Black Alliance for Peace, let me be clear, we say the common enemy is the US-EU-NATO axis of domination. We argue that we must center our analysis within the context of the global class struggle,” he said.

 “It is imperialism, led by the United States, that is the culprit.”

 

 

 

 

     

 

   

Tulsi Gabbard calls out the warmongers

 

       By Reginald Johnson

   Tulsi Gabbard says it’s time for the American people to stand up to the military- industrial complex and reject the idea of war in Ukraine.

   “We will not be sheep, allowing these warmongers in Washington to lead us down this very, very dangerous and quite costly path,” she told Tucker Carlson on Fox News Channel a few days ago.

  Asked to comment by Carlson on the growing crisis in Ukraine, which could develop into a major war between Russia and the United States, the former congresswoman said that the problem in Washington is that Democrats, Republicans and others are “in the pocket of the military-industrial complex.”

  Rather than looking out for what’s in the best interest the American people, our national security or country, she said, “they see dollar signs when they look at Ukraine, they see how they can line their pockets, see how they can look tough and see how they can posture themselves in a position where they personally, politically or financially benefit.”

  Carlson, one of the only mainstream news commentators raising questions about US policy in Ukraine, has had several shows recently exploring the dangers of war with Russia. (The interview with Gabbard can be found at video.foxnews.com)

  President Joseph Biden, supported by members of both parties in Congress, has been threatening Russia with harsh economic sanctions should Russia invade Ukraine on behalf of pro-Russian separatists in the eastern part of the country. The insurgents have been fighting the pro-western, far right-wing government in Kiev for eight years, following a violent coup which ousted the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yankanovych. The putsch was engineered by the US, using the CIA and the National Endowment for Democracy.

 Biden administration officials have said it is critical to “protect the sovereignty of Ukraine” and “hold Russia accountable for any acts of aggression.”

 The US has poured $2.5 billion of military aid into Ukraine since 2014, and both US and NATO forces have been engaged in military exercises near Russia in recent months.

  The Russians have complained about this and statements by US officials that Ukraine might join NATO, an anti-Russian military alliance formed in 1949.

  US and Russian officials have been negotiating in recent weeks to try to de-escalate tensions and head off any possible military clash.

 Russian President Vladimir Putin said that any peace agreement must include a guarantee from the US that Ukraine will not be given NATO membership. Since 1990, NATO has moved eastward towards Russia, picking up all of the old Soviet-bloc countries.

  Carlson asked Gabbard if there was a chance that the people in charge of US policy “may talk themselves into getting us into war inadvertently.”

  “I’m deeply worried about that because that’s very much the direction we’re headed in,” replied Gabbard.

   “You know, Tucker, I look back to early 2017 when then President Trump said ‘Hey, it would be good if we got along with Russia.’ You remember the reaction to that --- everyone from Democratic leaders, Republican leaders, people in the mainstream media, they said ‘Absolutely no way!’ There were people in Trump’s own administration, warmongers like John Bolton, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, outright rejected it and went on their own agenda and now we’re seeing the results of this, seeing the results of how we have continued to have these war mongers escalating tensions, putting us in this disastrous position today, leaving us, the American people with frankly the responsibility to stand up and say we will not accept this.”

 

 

Peace groups urged to take action on Ukraine

 

 

 By Reginald Johnson

 

      As the crisis in Ukraine escalates, a national peace organization is calling on all peace and anti-war groups to pressure the Biden administration to change its “dangerous belligerent policy against Russia” to head off disaster.

  “If the armed standoff between the Ukrainian military and the Russian-supported separatist forces in eastern Ukraine becomes --- by miscalculation or design --- a conventional war between Russia and NATO, it could escalate into nuclear war,” said a statement issued by the U.S. Peace Council this week.  “We must act urgently to push for immediate de-escalation of this NATO-created crisis before it is too late.”

  The U.S. Peace Council, one of the oldest peace and disarmament organizations and affiliated with the World Peace Council, said the peace movement must demand that a negotiated settlement be achieved to defuse the crisis, using the Minsk II agreement as a framework; that the “US and its allies cease unnecessary provocations including increased arms sales to Ukraine and suggested NATO membership;”  and that  “potential threats to international peace be taken up by the United Nations and subjected to the provisions of the UN charter and other elements of international law instead of arbitrary and illegal actions by any state or regional formation.”

  Other groups in the peace movement, the council urged, should “reject demonization of Russian leaders,” such as Russian President Vladimir Putin.  The villification of Putin and Russia in the media “is an integral part of (a) policy of inventing imaginary enemies as has been done to a long list of foreign leaders and nations” who have attempted to pursue an independent foreign policy, the statement said.

   The peace council took their position as the situation in Ukraine grows worse by the day. NATO warplanes in recent months have been conducting exercises near the Russian border and the US has led military exercises involving 30,000 NATO troops in the region stretching from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Last month the US staged simulation bombing raids within 12 miles of Russian airspace and US warships have entered both the Baltic and Black seas, which border the Russian Federation.

   In response, Russia has stationed thousands of troops near the Ukrainian border.

The United States has given $2.5 billion in military aid to the Ukrainian regime to help in its fight against Russian-backed separatists. The US has warned Russia not to invade Ukraine, triggering a diplomatic crisis. (Istock photo)

   There’s been considerable talk in the American press that Russia is getting set to invade Ukraine since it is “massing troops” along its border with Ukraine. No mention is made in the reports about US and NATO activity in the area.

    Meanwhile, President Joseph Biden --- citing the need to protect Ukraine’s “sovereignty” ---- has threatened Russia with harsh economic sanctions, if an invasion takes place.

    Media pundits and members of Congress --- from both parties --- have been denouncing Russia and prodding Biden to act “tough” towards Putin to stop “Russian aggression.” The rhetoric from some lawmakers is getting reckless, with one senator suggesting the US consider launching a first strike nuclear attack if Russia invades Ukraine.

   Since 2014, when the US engineered a coup in Ukraine to establish an anti-Russian government, America has given Ukraine $2.5 billion worth of military aid. In 2021 alone, the US has given $275 million in aid.

  The Russians clearly see these developments --- the continued flow of lethal aid to a neighboring country, the NATO military activity and talk of Ukraine joining NATO, as constituting a security threat.

  Russian officials have made clear that the idea of Ukraine joining NATO is a nonstarter for any diplomatic solution to Ukraine crisis. The Russians are bitter that the United States reneged on its pledge made by Secretary of State James Baker in 1991 to Soviet leader Mikhael Gorbachev that NATO would not expand its membership by taking in any of the old Soviet bloc countries in Eastern Europe. In fact, by the late ‘90s almost all of the old so-called Iron Curtain countries --- East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and the Baltic states were all allowed to join NATO.

   At a December 23 press conference, Putin stressed that “Further movement of NATO eastward is unacceptable. They are on the threshold of our house. Is it an excessive demand – no more attack weapon systems near our home? Is there something unusual about this?”

   Henry Lowendorf, a member of the US Peace Council, commented that “One need not be an unqualified admirer of the politics of Vladimir Putin to acknowledge that the Russian leader has legitimate security concerns.”

  The council statement said that recently-announced security proposals by Russia, together with the steps outlined in the Minsk agreement, could form the basis of a diplomatic solution to Ukraine crisis.

  The Russian proposals given to the US include a promise for each side to refrain from carrying out activities affecting each other’s security, preventing NATO’s expansion further eastward to include Ukraine, and abandoning any NATO military activities in all of Eastern Europe, Transcaucasia and Central Asia.

   The Minsk II Accords signed in 2015 by France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine and endorsed unanimously by the UN Security Council, including the United States, provide for the demilitarization of eastern Ukraine, restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty over the eastern regions and full autonomy for the Donbass region.

  U.S. Peace Council officials said it is a welcome development that the United States will participate in talks in Geneva on Monday, January 10 on the new Russian proposals and it is also a good sign that on December 30 President Biden had another phone conversation with President Putin.

  But the council statement noted that, “ Despite these diplomatic efforts, powerful institutional and economic forces in the US – the military-industrial complex, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon Technologies, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and others – are eager for a new Cold War with Russia which would provide them with boundless opportunities for profitable contracts.” 

 

   

 

      

      

 

   

 

The UK Poisoning Case: Truth or Fiction?

     By Reginald Johnson

                                  

      Do I hear an echo?

      The administration of President Donald Trump announced that it would be expelling 60 Russian diplomats from the United States due to the charges made by its long-time ally the United Kingdom that Russia was responsible for the poisoning of a former Russian spy turned British double agent and his daughter, in Salisbury, England recently.

   “It looks like” Russia was behind the poisoning, Trump told reporters.  The alleged attack, Trump said, “is something that should never, ever happen.”

  Britain and countries in the European Union, Canada and Ukraine also expelled dozens more  Russian diplomats based on the charge of Russian complicity in the incident, in which a nerve agent was allegedly used to contaminate Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia.

  Russia has now retaliated by expelling 60 American diplomats and closing the U.S. Consulate in St. Petersburg.

  The diplomatic expulsions have worsened relations between the United States  and Russia, relations which were already strained due to sanctions previously slapped on Russia in connection with Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election and so-called wrongdoing by Russia in Ukraine.

    But there’s a big problem with the poisoning story:  there is no solid proof that the Russian government was actually behind the chemical attack.  There is only a claim by UK government officials that the Russians were behind the crime, simply because,  in their words,  the chemical agent found in the victims  “was of a type developed by Russia.”  That’s it. There’s been no further details or supporting evidence given.

  The British “analysis” was done by officials at Porton Down, the biochemical warfare facility dedicated to developing weapons of mass destruction, which is located only 10 miles from  Salisbury.

   The Russian government has vigorously denied the UK claims.  The Russians repeatedly requested that samples of the nerve agent be given to them so they could examine the substance and respond to the charges.  But the samples have not been provided.

A scene from Moscow, Russia. The West is blaming the Russian government for poisoning a former Russian spy turned British agent in Salisbury, England.

    In refusing to provide the material to the Russians, the UK government of Prime Minister Theresa May is violating the terms of the Chemical Weapons Treaty. It is also denying due process to Russia. It is standard legal practice in the United States the UK and other Western countries, not to mention most countries around the world, that if some person, some institution or some country is accused of committing a crime,  they or their counsel have a right to examine the evidence that forms the basis of the charges that have been leveled against them.  They can then raise questions if necessary, and contest the charges.

  But this right has not been given to Russia.  Apparently,  the principles of due process and presumption of innocence mean nothing when it comes to charges against Russia.

   Any accusation, any wild accusation, suddenly becomes verified fact if Russia is the named culprit. If there’s some vague link that Russia is behind a terrible event, forget about a careful gathering of evidence, just assume Russia did it.

   This is a mockery of justice.

 And it also recalls a time not too long ago ------ to be exact, just over 15 years ago ---- when the United States and the UK were claiming repeatedly that Saddam Hussein, the leader of a Iraq, had weapons of mass destruction in his arsenal and therefore represented a grave threat to the rest of the world.  Officials of the administration of the President George W. Bush, led by the CIA,  insisted that they knew for sure that Hussein had stockpiles of chemical weapons and possibly nuclear weapons, and that he was hiding them. They refused to provide the evidence of this charge but said in effect ‘Trust us, he’s got them.’

    CIA director George Tenet said famously at the time, that it was a  “slam dunk” certainty that Hussein had the weapons.

    International weapons inspectors were not so sure and said they had found no evidence of WMD in Iraq.

    But Bush and his administration stuck to their position that Iraq was a major threat. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said it was important to move quickly against Saddam because he had terrible weapons of war that could threaten this country.

    Bush said at one point “we can’t wait for final proof --- the smoking gun --- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

   So on March 19, 2003, American forces launched an invasion of Iraq, an attack which was not authorized by the UN and was illegal under international law.  American forces quickly overran the country, killed Saddam and set up a new government.

   But just a few months later, the whole case made by the Bush administration for making war in Iraq fell apart. An American team sent in to find WMD ---- after months of searching --- came up empty. There were no  weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

   By that point, thousands of Iraqis had already been killed, many Americans had been killed and there was massive damage to the infrastructure of Iraq, which up to that point had been one of the most advanced countries in the Middle East.

    The war did not stop there. The U.S. military and its allies had to spend the next eight years fighting in Iraq, maintaining large troop contingents in an effort to stabilize the country and suppress rebellions against the U.S. imposed government.

    By the time President Barack Obama decided to pull the bulk of U.S. troops out of Iraq in 2011,  the U.S. had lost some 4500 soldiers and military personnel and more than 30,000 were wounded.  The Iraqi death toll was estimated at close to 1 million.

  Now, according to researchers Nicolas J.S. Davies and Medea Benjamin, a study of mortality figures in Iraq show that the Iraqi death toll for the past 15 years is likely to be an incredible 2.4 million.

  If that figure is correct, a case could be made that the U.S., Britain and allied forces committed genocide in Iraq.

   The financial cost to the United States already for waging war in Iraq has been a staggering  $1.7 trillion. Estimates are that future costs stemming from the war will be trillions more, once the cost of ongoing veterans care is factored in.

   By any rational standards, the Iraq war has been a total disaster for the United States, and catastrophic for Iraq and its people.

   Did the U.S. really wage war on Iraq because of the possible presence of weapons of mass destruction? No. There was no imminent threat posed by Iraq and U.S. and British officials knew it, despite their public statements.

  The real reason for the invasion was that the United States wanted to lay claim to Iraq’s considerable oil reserves and make them available to Western companies. U.S. policymakers also wanted to remove Saddam,  because he was a sometimes independent actor in the Middle East who was seen as an impediment for the U.S. maintaining total control over the region.

   The Iraq experience shows that people both in the United States the UK as well as other Western countries always have to be skeptical about statements made by their leaders when they blame other countries for committing crimes or invoke the supposed danger those countries pose. There is often a hidden agenda behind accusations of wrongdoing made against different countries whether it’s Russia, Iraq, Syria or Iran.

   Just as there was an agenda behind the propaganda about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, so too there’s an agenda today behind the statements and charges being made about Russia. The agenda with Russia is the same as it was with Iraq: the U.S. wants to get rid of the existing government and replace it with a leadership that is more obedient to the United States.

    For a number of years now,  U.S. leaders have been blaming Vladimir Putin and Russia for acting inappropriately, they say, in a number of arenas, whether it’s the war in Syria, relations with Iran or in Ukraine. The Russians have also been blamed --- and with some degree of merit, for interfering in the 2016 US election ---- although it is rarely noted that Americans did the exactly same thing to Russia in 1996 in order to help Boris Yeltsin retain power and also aided in the 2014 coup in Ukraine which unseated a democratically-elected government.

   Now comes the poisoning incident in Britain allegedly carried out by Russia and ordered by Vladimir Putin.

   Prof. James Petras, writing recently in Global Research, said the  “UK poison plot was concocted to heighten economic tensions and prepare the Western public for heightened military confrontations” with Russia.

   “The Western regimes recognize that Russia is a threat to their global dominance…. They believe they can topple Russia via economic warfare including sanctions,” said Petras, who has written widely on foreign-policy issues.

   The U.S. and its NATO allies in recent years have also been stepping up their military activities in Eastern Europe which has alarmed Russian leaders.

 The increased NATO activity, together with the drumbeat of criticism directed at Russia, all serve to undermine any chance for a new detente between the U.S., its allies and Russia.

Commenting on the UK poisoning incident, veteran journalist John Pilger said  “….this is so dangerous, with Russia being effectively pushed into a corner with these accusations, it’s part of a propaganda campaign. I can tell you that, I’m a journalist who has spent almost all my career working in the mainstream (media) in Britain.”

 “This is a propaganda campaign promoted specifically in the media and in the government,” Pilger said in an interview with RT, which was reprinted in the UK’s Press-Gazette.

    It is crucial that the media and the public in the United States and in Western countries show skepticism about claims being made by their governments particularly with respect to foreign policy and the actions of other countries. Frequently leaders lie and make up facts,  covering up the truth so they can justify  some plan like an intervention or a war, which will be costly in lives and treasure.

   There were lies told in the lead-up to the war with Iraq and the result was disastrous. The media failed to ask the tough questions. Reporters too easily accepted the government narrative.

  The media today and people in general have to demand that the British and U.S governments provide more information about just how the UK poisoning incident took place. Government leaders cannot be allowed to just keep spinning a storyline  without providing real facts, and in the process worsen relations with a nuclear-armed country and heighten the chance for a catastrophic war.