Risking World War III

 

     By Reginald Johnson

     Commentary

  A United States senator has said something that should send chills down everyone’s spine.

    Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware, said America may have to send troops to Ukraine, a step that would almost certainly start World War III.

  Speaking on the “Face the Nation” show, Coons said  “If Vladimir Putin, who has shown us how brutal he can be, is allowed to just continue to massacre civilians, to commit war crimes throughout Ukraine without NATO, without the West coming more forcefully to his aid, I great- I deeply worry that what's going to happen next is that we will see Ukraine turn into Syria.”

  He then said, “The American people cannot turn away from this tragedy in Ukraine. I think the history of the 21st century turns on how fiercely we defend freedom in Ukraine and that Putin will only stop when we stop him. “

 Coons’ remarks followed comments he made days earlier at the University of Michigan where he stressed the need for Congress and the administration to come to a “common position” where they agree “about when we are willing to go the next step and to send not just arms but troops to aid in the defense of Ukraine.”

  In an astounding lapse, the host of “Face the Nation” Margaret Brennan failed to follow up and ask Coons just what are the implications of introducing troops to Ukraine.

  The implications are mind-boggling. If troops are sent to Ukraine, this will certainly be seen by Russia as a declaration of war by the US and NATO. Then all bets are off.

  There are some deluded people out there who think we could fight a ground war with Russia and keep it limited to conventional weapons. This is fantasy. A major war in Europe between US/NATO and Russia --- both sides armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons --- would inevitably escalate to nuclear war. After that, it’s a serious question as to whether the world and humanity would survive.

  During an exchange of nuclear missiles, tens of millions of people would be killed instantly or within a few hours. Whole cities would be wiped out. For those who survived the initial blasts or lived far away from the explosions, they would not be lucky. Due to the massive amount of radiation fallout from the blasts, they would slowly but surely die from radiation sickness.

Nuclear bomb explosion. A nuclear exchange between the US and Russia would kill tens of millions of people. (Wikimedia Commons)

  This is obviously in an apocalyptic scenario, but it is not out of the realm of possibility.

   It is true that Biden administration officials distanced themselves from Coons’ remarks and reiterated that President Biden has no plans to send troops to Ukraine. Officials said the US will keep sending lethal aid to help Ukraine.  But you wonder if Biden's position might change, if the Ukraine War --- already ugly --- gets uglier.

   With each new report of an alleged Russian massacre or war crime, the calls will grow to “do something!” and “stop the slaughter!” More and more members of Congress and the media will likely say we have to bite the bullet and send troops, and that in turn could pressure Biden to support direct intervention.

  Already in Congress there is some support for acting a lot more aggressively toward Russia. Representative Adam Kinzinger, a Republican from Illinois also said that he would back sending troops to Ukraine. Two Republican senators, Roger Wicker of Mississippi and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, are on record as favoring sending troops and ---- incredibly --- saying the US should not rule out a first strike nuclear attack on Russia.

  It should be noted that while people in the political world generally said they didn’t agree with Coons’s comments about sending troops, you didn’t hear any harsh public denunciation of his suggestion, despite the grave implications of directly intervening in Ukraine.

  You have to wonder whether Coons wasn't floating the idea of sending troops on behalf of the administration, just to test public reaction. Coons is good friends with Biden.

  Public opinion will be key in terms of how far the administration is willing to go in helping Ukraine. A national poll in February found that a majority of Americans were not in favor of sending troops to Ukraine. But again, public attitudes could change as the media keeps uncritically reporting allegations of Russian atrocities, such as mass killings and indiscriminate bombing attacks.

 ( It should be noted that there has been no conclusive evidence offered to back up the sweeping claims of Russian atrocities such as the Bucha massacre, the missile strike on the Kramatorsk train station and the alleged Russian bombing of the maternity hospital in Mariupol. The US and Western media have failed to adequately check out these charges and instead have shamelessly accepted the claims of Russian responsibility as flat fact.)

   One public figure who has called out Senator Coons is former member of  Congress Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii. Gabbard, a member of the Army Reserve and an Iraq War veteran, said on the Laura Ingraham show on FOX that Coons’ comments were irresponsible and served to “undermine national security.”

   She added, “I think of my brothers and sisters in uniform who would be the ones whose lives that are put on the line in what would essentially kick off World War III and be a direct challenge to nuclear-armed Russia.

  “Risking nuclear war --- that’s exactly what he’s proposing and everyone should be very clear eyed as they hear this kind of rhetoric coming from Washington.”

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.”

 

 

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.