All posts by natyliesb

John Varoli: Interviewing Mr Zelensky: How Reuters Protects Him

By John Varoli, Substack, 11/10/23

John Varoli is a former foreign correspondent for New York Times, Bloomberg and Reuters TV. Trained as a U.S. foreign policy expert with a focus on Russia and Ukraine.

On Wednesday, I attended a Reuters conference in New York that gathered top CEOs and government officials to discuss global economic and technology issues. I attended as an energy expert. Alas, Reuters had a surprise guest — Vladimir Zelensky. Indeed, media support for Ukraine is a lucrative business.

His interview was conducted live by Reuters via video link. For about 20 minutes, Zelensky skillfully deceived his audience with a performance worthy of an Oscar. The mesmerized audience lapped up every word. They simply don’t know any better. But the journalists in the room knew better. And that’s a huge problem.

Reuters’ Editor-in-Chief asked the questions, all of them polite and easily answered. No one else was allowed to ask a question. I could dismiss this interview as access journalism and Reuters’ wish not to upset Zelensky. But hundreds of thousands of people have died and millions more forced from their homes in a conflict incited by NATO expansion and which was easily avoidable. Therefore, I need to speak out.

Not for a moment was Zelensky put in an uncomfortable position. One question gently touched on Ukraine’s “counteroffensive” without mentioning the massive losses of Ukrainian soldiers and NATO equipment; another question delicately brought up the issue of NATO support in light of the conflict in Gaza; and a third question inquired about what a Trump victory would mean for Ukraine (without mentioning the politically-motivated prosecution that Trump faces).

Even when the question concerned a potentially difficult topic — corruption in Ukraine — it was phrased to make Zelensky look like an anti-corruption crusader, even though 77% of Ukrainians blame him for rampant corruption. (Reuters really hadn’t seen this recent poll of Ukrainians?)

The interview ended with an insult to the Ukrainian people. “Can you tell us one thing that has made you laugh amid the tears of the past two years?” With a big smile on his face, Zelensky answered that his children and his dogs are his greatest joys.

“Sometimes I think that the best way would be if this planet would be the planet of dogs. Sometimes I don’t understand people. Crazy. Crazy people,” concluded Zelensky, as the audience joined him in a burst of laughter.

All the death and destruction is indeed a joke for Zelensky, who grows wealthy on this war as an international celebrity and NATO satrap. Far from the laughter, however, Zelensky’s nationalist regime has turned Ukraine into a dead zone where the funeral and cemetery business is booming; where anyone perceived as a threat to Zelensky’s rule is labeled a “Russian agent” and jailed or killed. Ukraine is a country of horrors where mothers and wives scream in anguish as hundreds of thousands of soldiers have returned home in boxes, if their bodies can even be found.

Ukraine faces a far superior enemy that dominates the skies, the sea and the ground. Several generations of Ukrainian men are being wiped out. A merciless, tyrannical Zelensky gleefully sends his men into a meat grinder. Of course, there is also the tremendous misery that Zelensky’s regime has brought on the people of the rebel Donbass region and Crimea, both of which want to be with Russia.

This conflict could have been avoided if only Zelensky and his Western masters had agreed to keep Ukraine neutral as was stated in the country’s constitution until December 2014; as well as respect the right to self-determination of the ethnic Russians in the Donbass and Crimea regions.

Ukraine’s population is now half of what it was before 2014, with millions scattered across the globe; its economy and industrial base wrecked, and lawlessness and corruption rampant. The country has no future. None whatsoever. This is Zelensky’s legacy. But Reuters, the most powerful news agency on the planet, is apparently not aware of these facts. Why? Because it doesn’t ask the right questions.

Well, since Reuters has trouble conducting a rigorous interview with Zelensky, I’m offering my assistance. Here are 16 questions that a professional and neutral journalist would have asked Zelensky:

  1. Political freedom. Mr Zelensky, You’ve shut down opposition parties and jailed those who speak out against your rule. Dissidents have fled abroad to escape your brutal secret police, the SBU, heir to the KGB. You justify this repression by accusing the opposition of being “Russian agents”. How can you call Ukraine a “democracy” with such human rights abuses?
  2. Press freedom. Opposition and dissenting media have been shut down and journalists intimidated. What are you afraid of? Will you ever allow freedom of the press to return to Ukraine?
  3. Religious freedom. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which used to represent half of the country’s population, faces brutal persecution; priests are jailed and churches closed. You justify this heinous policy with accusations that the Church is under Kremlin control. In fact, the UOC’s only “sin” is calling for peace and Slavic unity. Do you plan to entirely dismantle the Church? And do you realize that this is a gross violation of EU and international law?
  4. Presidential elections. Do you plan to hold presidential elections? Please explain Why or Why not? And what do you think about your declining popularity and the rising popularity of General Zaluzhny?
  5. Palace intrigue. There’s evidence of infighting among the Ukrainian elite, especially in light of the recent murder of Zaluzhny’s assistant. Are you afraid that you might be removed from power in a violent coup by your own military?Cheering on a 98-year old Nazi murderer in Canada’s parliament
  6. Peace. You came to power in May 2019 on a platform of peace with Russia. About 80% of Ukrainians supported you on this. They wanted peace with Russia, with whom they are related by language, blood, culture, and religion. Today, hundreds of thousands of your men are dead; 22% of your land taken away. It didn’t have to be like this. You could have made a deal with Russia. How do you justify the carnage of the past 20 months?
  7. Nationalist extremism. Ukrainian nationalists, such as Azov Battalion, are very influential in Ukraine and glorify World War 2-era Nazi collaborators that slaughtered thousands of Jews and Poles. Why do you tolerate Nazi supporters? And why did you cheer for the 98-year old Nazi murderer Yaroslav Hunka when you visited Canada’s Parliament in September?
  8. Donbass and Crimea. You very well know that Donbass and Crimea are populated by ethnic Russians who want to join the Russian Federation. Why won’t you allow them freedom and the right to self-determination?
  9. Murder of civilians in Donbass. So, you claim that the people in rebel Donbass are still “Ukrainians”, but yet your forces constantly bomb their cities, such as Donetsk and Gorlovka, with banned cluster bombs. So, why do you kill people who you consider to be “Ukrainian citizens”?
  10. Brutal conscription. We’ve seen many videos of Ukrainians snatched off the streets by your press gangs and forcibly sent to the front. Why do you think many Ukrainians don’t want to fight for you and are resisting the draft?Zelensky truly deserves an Oscar for his acting
  11. Attacks on nuclear power plants. Many reports indicate that Ukraine is targeting nuclear reactors, such as the one in Zaporozhye and the one in the Kursk region. This is extremely reckless and dangerous. How do you justify such attacks?
  12. Battle of Avdeevka. This key fortress is clearly falling to the Russians. When it falls, what does this mean for Ukrainian forces? Will this lead to a total collapse of the Donbass front, as many experts predict?
  13. Worse case scenario. What is your plan if your eastern defenses collapse and the Russians push all the way to the Dnieper River — what will you do then? Will you flee the country and retreat to your villa in Miami? By the way, how much property do you and your family own outside of Ukraine?
  14. Bankrupt, devastated country. Most of your population has fled; economy destroyed; national bankruptcy on the horizon. How do you plan to rebuild Ukraine? Are you ready for years of hostility with Russia? Don’t you realize that neither Ukraine nor the West can afford years of conflict with Moscow, which has nearly unlimited resources?
  15. NATO expansion. Don’t you realize that NATO expansion into Ukraine is a death sentence for Ukraine? Moscow will never allow it. Also, is it true that in spring 2020 you were ready to make peace with Moscow, but then the British intervened and pushed you to end those talks?
  16. Detractors. The number of your detractors in the West is growing and they ridicule you as an ungrateful, annoying beggar. How do you feel about that?

Meduza: Would Russians support Putin if he decided to end the war? 70 percent of Russian respondents in a new survey by the Levada Center said they would

flower covered peace sign
Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

Meduza, 11/1/23

Russians are ready to support the war’s end (if that’s what Putin decides). They are in favor of negotiations with Ukraine.

The majority of Russians would support an immediate cessation of hostilities in Ukraine, according to a new poll conducted by the Levada Center. However, a majority of respondents said that they don’t agree with giving Russian-occupied territories back to Ukraine.

As part of the survey, which the Levada Center conducts on a monthly basis, respondents were randomly divided into two groups. The first group was asked: “If President Vladimir Putin decided to end the military conflict in Ukraine this week, would you, or would you not, support this decision?”

Responses

37% — Definitely support

33% — Mostly support

12% — Definitely oppose

9% — Mostly oppose

9% — Difficult to answer

The second group of respondents was asked: “If President Vladimir Putin decided to end the military conflict in Ukraine this week and return the annexed territories to Ukraine, would you, or would you not, support this decision?”

Responses

16% — Definitely support

18% — Mostly support

19% — Definitely oppose

38% — Mostly oppose

10% — Difficult to answer

More than half of respondents said they would support peace talks over continuing the war.

Russians support the army

Three quarters of respondents said that they support “the actions of the Russian Armed Forces in Ukraine.” 62 percent of respondents aged 18-24 and 82 percent of those over the age of 55 gave this response.

Nearly half of Russians would like to ‘reverse’ the decision to start the war.

Respondents were asked: “If you had the opportunity to go back in time and either reverse or support the start of the military operation in Ukraine, you would…”

Responses

23% — Definitely have reversed it

18% — Mostly likely have reversed it

22% — Definitely have supported it

21% — Mostly likely have supported it

15% — Difficult to answer

Russians believe that the war will go on for a long time, though they believe the war has been successful

Nearly half of respondents (46 percent) believe that Russia’s war against Ukraine will continue for at least another year. In May 2022, three months after the start of the full-scale invasion, 21 percent of people said they thought it would continue for at least another year.

62 percent of respondents said they were confident that Russia’s “special operation” in Ukraine is going “very successfully” or “rather successfully.”

Why did Russia start the war?

When asked why Russia started the war, 23 percent of respondents said they don’t know why, or found it difficult to answer why. 25 percent said they believe Russia is “protecting and liberating” the residents of the Donbas. Every 10th person believes that “it’s necessary to reclaim our historic lands.” 14 percent said that it’s necessary to “eradicate fascism,” while 13 percent believe that “we were forced and abused.”

Ted Snider: The Mounting Evidence That the US Blocked Peace in Ukraine

By Ted Snider, Antiwar.com, 10/24/23

On June 13, 2023, taking questions from war correspondents at the Kremlin, Putin confirmed what had already been reported: that Russia and Ukraine had “reached an agreement in Istanbul.” Peace was possible. The tentative agreement would see Russia withdraw to its prewar position in exchange for a Ukrainian promise to give up its NATO aspirations.

But at the June press conference, Putin revealed for the first time just how close Russia and Ukraine had come to peace in the early days of the war. The tentative agreement had been initialed by both sides. “I don’t remember his name and may be mistaken, but I think Mr Arakhamia headed Ukraine’s negotiating team in Istanbul. He even initialed this document.” Russia, too, signed the document: “during the talks in Istanbul, we initialed this document. We argued for a long time, butted heads there and so on, but the document was very thick and it was initialed by Medinsky on our side and by the head of their negotiating team.”

Days late, on June 17, in a meeting with a delegation of leaders of African countries, Putin went further, dramatically holding up the document and revealing it to the world for the first time. “We did not discuss with the Ukrainian side that this treaty would be classified, but we have never presented it, nor commented on it. This draft agreement was initialed by the head of the Kiev negotiation team. He put his signature there. Here it is.”

But the initialled agreement went no further. “We actually did this,” Putin told war correspondents at the Kremlin, “but they simply threw it away later and that’s it.” Talking to the African delegation, Putin said, “After we pulled our troops away from Kiev – as we had promised to do – the Kiev authorities … tossed [their commitments] into the dustbin of history. They abandoned everything.” But Putin did not primarily blame Ukraine. He implicitly blamed the US, saying that when Ukraine’s interests “are not in sync” with U.S. interests, “ultimately it is about the United States’s interests. We know that they hold the key to solving issues.”

Putin’s claim that a tentative agreement could have stopped the war on terms that satisfied both Ukraine and Russia in the days before the massive Ukrainian loss of limb, life and land if not for US obstruction has now been verified by four independent sources.

The first is Russian. On September 23, 2023, at a press conference following the UN General Assembly High-Level week, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov confirmed Putin’s account of both the birth and the death of the tentative agreement.

On the first point, Lavrov said, “we did hold talks in March and April 2022. We agreed on certain things; everything was already initialled.”

On the second point, Lavrov said that two days after the agreement was initialled, the talks abruptly ended “because, I think, someone in London or Washington did not want this war to end.” Days later, during a September 28  interview, Lavrov was less speculative. He said that “in April 2022 . . . Ukraine proposed ceasing hostilities and settling the crisis based on providing reciprocal, reliable security guarantees.” He then clearly said, “But this proposal was recalled at the insistence of Washington and London.”

Importantly, the second source is Turkish, the host of the Istanbul talks. Two well placed Turkish officials back the Russian account of the end of the agreement. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu says that, because of the talks, “Turkey did not think that the Russia-Ukraine war would continue much longer.” But, he said, “There are countries within NATO who want the war to continue.” “Following the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting,” he explained, “it was the impression that…there are those within the NATO member states that want the war to continue, let the war continue and Russia get weaker.”

Cavusoglu is not alone. Numan Kurtulmus, the deputy chairman of Erdogan’s ruling party, told CNN TURK that “We know that our President is talking to the leaders of both countries. In certain matters, progress was made, reaching the final point, then suddenly we see that the war is accelerating… Someone is trying not to end the war. The United States sees the prolongation of the war as its interest… There are those who want this war to continue… Putin-Zelensky was going to sign, but someone didn’t want to.”

The third source is then Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. Bennett was involved in an earlier set of talks, but reports the same conclusion. “There was,” Bennett says, “a good chance of reaching a ceasefire.” But the West, Bennett says, “blocked it.”

The fourth source is new. In a recent interview with Germany’s Berliner Zeitung, former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder confirms both parts of Putin’s account. For the first time, Schröder has given a detailed account of his role in the Istanbul talks, though, as Nicolai Petro has pointed out to me, he has hinted at it in the past. Schröder says that, at the request of Ukraine, he played a central mediating role in the talks. Along with Rustem Umyerov, Schröder would “convey a message to Putin.”

Umyerov is the current defense minister of Ukraine. At the time in March 2022, he was playing a key negotiating role. Schröder says he “had two conversations with Umyerov, then a one-on-one conversation with Putin and then with Putin’s envoy.”

According to Schröder, Ukraine “does not want NATO membership,” would accept “compromise” security guarantees, said that they would “reintroduce Russian in Donbass,” and “were ready to talk about Crimea.”

“But in the end nothing happened,” Schröder said. “My impression: Nothing could happen because everything else was decided in Washington.” Like the Russian and the Turkish sources, Schröder reports that “the Ukrainians did not agree to peace because they were not allowed to. They first had to ask the Americans about everything they discussed.”

Schröder adds one more significant detail. It is often reported that the massacre in Bucha played a pivotal souring role in the negotiations, contributing to their termination. Schröder challenges that account: “Nothing was known about Butscha during the talks with Umjerov on March 7th and 13th. I think the Americans didn’t want the compromise between Ukraine and Russia. The Americans believe they can keep the Russians down.”

Schröder’s newly published account of the Istanbul talks add to the evidence provided by Putin, Lavrov, Bennett and the Turkish officials that Ukraine and Russia might have arrived at a peace that satisfied both of their goals and avoided the horrid loss of life that has followed since had the US not intervened and put an end to the talks and the tentative agreement.

Ted Snider is a regular columnist on US foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets.

Russia Matters: West Sanctions Russian Aviation, But Moscow Decides to Keep Planes Flying Despite Risks

I find it strange that I have to say this but based on some comments I’ve gotten I apparently do….not everything I post on this blog is necessarily something I totally agree with or am promoting. I post articles that I think have at least some useful information for people who follow Russia and US-Russia relations. Some articles have mostly good information, some have some good information and some questionable information or logic. Sometimes it may be useful to know what some people, governments and institutions are thinking even if they ‘re totally wrong-headed. Readers are expected to be adults who use discernment when they read this blog or anything else. – Natylie

By Steven E. Harris, Russia Matters, 10/26/23

Steven E. Harris is professor of modern Russian and European history at the University of Mary Washington. He is presently writing a book on the history of Aeroflot and authoritarianism in the Russian Jet Age from Stalin to Putin.

When the U.S. and its allies slapped sanctions on Russia for its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, severing aviation links was at the top of the list. Direct flights vanished and Russian airlines lost access to spare parts for their foreign airplanes. In retaliation, Vladimir Putin’s regime impounded foreign aircraft and shut off the world’s largest air space to countries imposing sanctions. Not since the early 1980s—when the U.S. suspended routes to the USSR over the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, repression in Poland and downing of a Korean Air Lines plane—have aviation ties between the two countries dipped so low. Aviation sanctions today are having an impact but come with a major risk. If the fatal crash of a jetliner killing hundreds is linked to the lack of spare parts, Putin will blame sanctions and the West. The stakes are high as Russia seeks to use any issue from cluster bombs to soccer to widen cracks in Western unity over Ukraine. To get ahead of this, U.S. policymakers and their allies need to better explain the effects of sanctions, why they’re worth the risk and why the Russian state, not the West, is ultimately responsible for any fatal crash.

U.S. government assessments place Russian aviation among sectors negatively impacted by sanctions. A closer look shows widening success in degrading this increasingly weak link in Russia’s political economy. By late 2021, foreign aircraft comprised 70% of Russia’s fleet of 801 passenger airplanes, which included 298 Airbuses, 236 Boeings, and 23 other foreign aircraft such as Embraers. In addition, 95% of Russian airline flights were on foreign-made aircraft. Consequently, sanctions aimed at depriving spare parts for foreign airplanes have caused many disruptions such as fare increases to cover higher costs of repairs. Some of Russia’s 53 airlines have periodically suspended or stopped flying some of their foreign planes. Reports of Russian airlines’ cannibalization of foreign aircraft similarly underscore a dire situation.

Less well known is how sanctions hurt Russian manufacturing since Western technology is critical to aircraft such as the Sukhoi Superjet 100, which uses a French-Russian engine (though Russians are working on a substitution). Production of the Yakovlev design bureau’s MC-21 passenger airplane faces significant delays due to sanctions that force substitution of its Western-made parts. Sanctions even helped push Russia out of a joint venture with China to produce the CR929 widebody aircraft. While China is happy to help Russia thwart sanctions, this plane needs Western systems that sanctions complicate.

In response, Russia has adapted to and thwarted some aviation sanctions, which I predicted would happen because Putin’s regime is reproducing a state-centered aviation sector rooted in the Soviet past. The war has accelerated the state’s growing control over this vital economic sector, which began before Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine. Examples include the state’s 51% ownership of Aeroflot since 1994, the merger of two smaller, state-run airlines in 2003 and the consolidation of aircraft manufacturing in the state-owned United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), which was created in 2006. More recently, the Russian state has helped the country’s airlines weather sanctions by facilitating the illegal confiscation of foreign aircraft. Russian airlines have also proven resourceful by purchasing spare parts through brokers in the United Arab Emirates and Turkey. Better known for supplying Russia with drones, Iran also agreed to provide Russian airlines with spare parts and has been fixing an Aeroflot Airbus for months. Many foreign airlines continue to fly to Russia, and Putin’s regime rewards friendly countries with overflight rights.

But the longer sanctions remain, the harder it’s getting for Russia. To regain profitable foreign routes, its airlines are receiving government assistance to legitimately purchase the Western aircraft they illegally seized, although recent holdups in allocating such funds are causing doubts. In a throwback to the Soviet era, Putin’s regime boasts that Russia doesn’t need the West’s airplanes anyway since its one manufacturer, the UAC, will pick up the slack. Such import substitution is unlikely to succeed, as multiple delays suggest. More likely, Russia’s aviation sector will grow more reliant on the state, if not actually part of it like the UAC. This will make Russian aviation less efficient, less innovative and more expensive. Iranian airlines, which have long suffered under foreign sanctions despite some success circumventing them, present their Russian counterparts with a grim vision of the future such as being shut out of lucrative air travel markets and falling behind in emerging aviation technology.

How does this shape safety in Russia’s skies? The short answer is that it’s not as bad as headlines suggest and the impact of sanctions is ambiguous at best. Click bait stories paint a dire picture but often conflate commercial, military and general aviation into alarming numbers that do not accurately capture what ordinary passengers face. Some accounts, such as one claiming 120 accidents occurred in 2023, provide few details or sources. Annual safety reports from Russia’s Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) allow for comparison over time but often obscure Russia’s situation by combining data from each post-Soviet state it monitors. Its 2019 report is mysteriously missing and its decision not to investigate the fatal crash of Yevgeny Prigozhin’s Embraer Legacy 600 plane suggests meddling from above.

That said, the IAC source base is the most systematic we have. Keeping in mind the potential for the politicization of its conclusions, what does a critical reading of its data alongside other sources suggest? First, fatal crashes in commercial and general aviation actually decreased in Russia from 18 in 2021 to 13 in 2022, and related deaths decreased from 70 to 24. Data for the first half of 2023 points in the same direction, with six fatal crashes and nine deaths. This trend was likely helped by the 14% decline in traffic after February 2022. While so many fatal crashes sound substantial, all but three in 2021 and all but one in 2022 involved small aircraft under 5,700 kilograms, not the jetliners we associate with most commercial flying.

Absolute figures on crashes and deaths capture headlines but they don’t say much about safety without considering their relation to passengers flown or departures. According to the IAC, the rate of aviation accidents and the rate of fatal crashes per one million departures both increased from 2020 to 2021 but then decreased in 2022. The IAC does not single out Russia from other post-Soviet states for this metric. But since Russia has the largest aviation sector among those countries, these data suggest that its aviation safety has not dramatically worsened since early 2022. Indeed, even critics who argue that Russian airlines are less safe partly because of sanctions conclude that “2022 and 2023 were also good years for airline safety [in Russia] compared to 2021.”

Comparisons with the U.S. similarly suggest that passenger aviation is not as disastrous as some headlines suggest. The IAC data indicates that Russia and other post-Soviet states are usually but not always behind the U.S. in passenger aviation safety. In 2018, for example, IAC countries reported a 0.8 rate of fatal crashes per 1 million departures of passenger aircraft above 5,700 kilograms. Comparable statistics from the National Transportation Safety Board showed a 0.11 rate for that year for scheduled U.S. carrier flights. In 2019, the rates were 2.3 (IAC) and 0.10 (U.S.), but in 2020, both IAC countries and the U.S. enjoyed a 0.0 rate of fatal crashes. The following year, however, IAC countries reported a 1.9 rate of fatal crashes, whereas the NTSB reported a 0.0 rate.1

Against this background of Russian airline safety, let’s now turn to the impact of sanctions. While some commentators emphasize that no fatal crashes have been tied to sanctions, others claim they make Russian airlines unsafe and that it’s only a matter of time before such a fatal crash happens. Some even argue that life-threatening dangers prove aviation sanctions are effective and could help turn Russians against Putin.

To reassure the public, Russian aviation officials insist the country’s airlines are safe despite sanctions, as do Russian business media and aviation journalists. This plays to Putin’s claims to legitimacy based in part on withstanding anything the West throws at him. In sharp contrast, Ukrainian media tells Russians their airlines are a disaster waiting to happen precisely because of sanctions. Independent Russian journalists banished by Putin concur, raising alarms about efforts to cover up the impact of sanctions and about the many ways Russian airlines cut corners on safety. In short, an information war exists around the morbid question of whether a Russian jetliner will crash and the role sanctions could play.

Fears of a fatal crash were validated by the emergency landing of a Ural Airlines A320 in September, apparently caused by malfunctioning hydraulics tied to sanctions. But a closer examination by a Russian aviation journalist suggests the pilots played a more important role by pressing on to an airport for which there wasn’t enough fuel. Recent Russian state assessments of aviation safety similarly point to pilot error and poor training as the chief causes of aviation incidents. More generally, airplane disasters are usually caused by a convergence of factors—bad weather, a manageable mechanical failure and pilot error—not just one problem. In public discussions, however, pinpointing sanctions’ role tracks more with the politics of the war than technical expertise.

At the end of the day, Russian airlines and aviation authorities are solely responsible for putting planes in the sky and Russians’ lives at risk. They continue to claim that everything is fine. But if a fatal crash of a Boeing or Airbus flown by a Russian airline kills hundreds, I predict this narrative will quickly change. Putin will blame the West as he does for everything else affecting his legitimacy, from Russia’s economic problems and his diplomatic failures to protests against his regime and even the war he started in Ukraine.

Such a scenario will be a serious test for policymakers who argue that punishing Russia with sanctions is still worth it. To prepare for this, they need to take a page from the Biden administration’s release of intelligence on Russia’s military buildup before the full-scale invasion: publicize as much intelligence as possible on sanctions and their impact, as well as Russia’s aviation sector and what it does or doesn’t do to ensure safety. As Putin’s regime falls back on Soviet-era secrecy about airline safety, sharing such intelligence will be a powerful tool. This will also contribute to broader Western efforts at combatting Russia’s better known disinformation campaigns such as those denying its human rights abuses in Ukraine.

Global Times Editorial: A strategic nightmare sneaks into Washington’s political agenda

king chess piece
Photo by Gladson Xavier on Pexels.com

The Global Times is considered to represent the views of the Chinese government. Natylie

By Global Times, 10/14/23

A simultaneous war with China and Russia is a strategic nightmare that sober American strategists such as Henry Kissinger have been warning the US to avoid at all costs, and it is also a topic that some US media outlets have become more and more fond of talking about in recent years. At least from the publicly available information, Washington has never previously addressed it as a formal political agenda, supposedly aware of its seriousness and the terrible risks it carries. But the publication of a report by a congressionally appointed bipartisan panel titled America’s Strategic Posture crossed this “red line” on October 12.

The central point of the 145-page report is that the US must expand its military power, particularly its “nuclear weapons modernization program,” in order to prepare for possible simultaneous wars with China and Russia. Notably, the report diverges completely from the current US national security strategy of winning one conflict while deterring another, and from the Biden administration’s current nuclear policy. It is not a fantasy among the American public, but a serious strategic assessment and recommendation in the service of policymaking.

The 12-member panel that wrote the report was hand-picked by the US Congress from major think tanks and retired defense, security officials and former lawmakers. This report makes us feel that a “strategic nightmare” is sneaking into the US political agenda, but has not drawn due concern and vigilance in Washington, and to a large extent, the American elite group represented by the panel is actively working to make this nightmare come true.

A look at the specific recommendations of this report will send shivers down the spine of those who retain any basic rationality. The report recommends that the US deploy more warheads, and produce more bombers, cruise missiles, ballistic missile submarines, non-strategic nuclear weapons and so on. It also calls on the US to deploy warheads on land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and to consider adding road-mobile ICBMs to its arsenal, establishing a third shipyard that can build nuclear-powered ships, etc.

What depths of insanity is the US sinking to? The US’ military spending accounts for nearly 40 percent of the world’s total defense expenditures, and it has been growing dramatically for several years, with military spending in 2023 reaching $813.3 billion, more than the GDP of most countries, but even that is not enough for these politicians. Such a report full of geopolitical fanaticism and war imagery, whether or not it actually ends up as a “guide” for Washington’s decision-making, is dangerous and needs to be resisted and opposed by all peace-loving countries.

According to some American media, the report ignores the consequences of a nuclear arms race. In fact, the report doesn’t seem to consider this at all and doesn’t suggest any measures other than nuclear expansion to address this issue. In other words, it is a reckless approach. Both China and Russia are nuclear powers, and everyone knows that provoking a confrontation between nuclear powers is a crazy idea. Even promoting a nuclear arms race under the banner of “deterrence” is a disastrous step backward in history. Washington’s political elites, who lived through the Cold War, cannot be unaware of this. However, the fact that such an absurd and off-key report is being presented in all seriousness by the US Congress is both surreal and unsurprising. It is in line with the distorted political atmosphere in Washington today.

The motives behind this exaggeration of threats and creating a warlike atmosphere are highly suspicious. The recent outbreak of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict caused a sharp increase in US defense industry stocks, while American defense industry companies have also been the biggest beneficiaries of the long-standing Russia-Ukraine conflict. The military-industrial complex, like a geopolitical monstrosity, parasitically clings to American society, manipulating its every move, pushing Washington step by step to introduce and even prepare for ideas that were once considered “impossible.” The prosperity of the American military-industrial complex is built upon blood and corpses, and carries a primal guilt. Serving the interests of the American military-industrial complex is unethical.

The reality is that such rhetoric is becoming increasingly politically acceptable in today’s Washington. The idea of “preparing for possible simultaneous wars with Russia and China,” once a fringe fantasy, has gradually made its way into Washington’s agenda, which is deeply unsettling. If Washington were to adopt even a small portion of the recommendations in this report, the harm and threats it could pose to world peace would be immeasurable and would ultimately backfire on the US itself. There is an old Chinese saying: “Those who play with fire will perish by it.” This is something that is worth Washington’s careful consideration.