By George D. O’Neill, Jr., The American Conservative, 12/19/22

George D. O’Neill, Jr., is a member of the board of directors of the American Ideas Institute, which publishes The American Conservative, and an artist who lives in rural Florida.

Recently, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen carelessly revealed the devastating cost of the Ukraine war.

“It is estimated that more than 20,000 civilians and 100,000 Ukrainian military personnel have died to date,” she said. The comment drew sharp backlash and the E.C. later deleted the comments from video recordings of the address. The censorship was left unexplained and demonstrated the confusion of the purveyors of the approved narrative.

If Von der Leyen’s estimate is true, that is nearly ten times the number of dead Ukrainian soldiers reported by the Ukrainian government. The E.C. president’s remark shows that even the strongest backers of this bloody and unnecessary war can no longer hide the truth: Ukraine is at risk of losing. 

The mainstream media and the Biden administration insist ad nauseam that Ukraine is winning against Russia. But the facts on the ground do not fit the narrative and the administration and media know it. The war hawks know their cynical Ukraine policy has not succeeded in driving Russia out of Ukraine. Tragically, the Ukrainians are the ones who suffer the immense cost of this foreign policy failure. Their nation is ruined for the sake and at the instigation of the globalist American empire.

As Ukraine loses its grip on heavily defended and important crossroads around the city of Bakhmut, the Western press has commenced a campaign to downplay the importance of the loss. Defense Express reports: “UK Defense Intelligence States [t]hat Bakhmut’s capture becomes primarily a symbolic, political objective for Russia.” Last week, the Financial Times published an article entitled: “Hell Just Hell: Ukraine and Russia’s war of attrition over Bakhmut.” As the subtitle of the piece reads, “Soldiers say fighting in and around eastern Donetsk city is reminiscent of first world war-style trench conflict.”

The following information is an indication of the nature of the Ukrainian “victory” over the previous six months.

Ukraine has lost an estimated 20 percent of its territory. At least 22 percent of Ukrainian farmland is under Russian control. These areas are a large part of the territory identified in the Minsk II agreement that were to be governed as autonomous districts. Due to the failure of the Minsk II agreement, Russia declared its Special Military Operations to free these areas from the grip of the Ukrainian government. As of today, it appears Russia has come close to achieving some of its initial goals.

In May 2022, the United Nations Refugee Agency reported that nearly eight million Ukrainians have been internally displaced, with another six million registered as refugees. That number is likely to rise even higher this winter. As a result of the recent Russian missile attacks on the Ukrainian power grid, even more people are fleeing Ukraine. Europe expects hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian refugees this winter due to the nation’s ruined cities. Kiev Mayor Vitali Klitschko may urge an evacuation of his city due to its failures to provide basic services to its population.

CNN reported a month ago that at least 30 percent of Ukrainian power stations are destroyed. BBC reports that six million Ukrainians are without power. EuroNews recently reported that two-thirds of Kiev is without power. An estimated 80 percent of Kiev is without water. News reports declare that Kiev is getting ready to survive without power, water and heating. Ukraine has evacuated cities that have become uninhabitable without heating or power. The World Health Organization warns millions of lives are “under threat” this winter.

Forbes Magazine reports that nearly half of Ukraine is without power. Newsweek reports that Ukraine’s energy giant is running out of equipment to fix power outages. How long is the Ukrainian capital going to function without power?

The Ukrainian Central Bank estimates the nation’s 2022 GDP will decline by 32 percent, inflation will hit 30 percent, and unemployment will reach 30 percent. The New York Times reported Ukraine’s agriculture industry has lost an estimated $23 billion from the war. The International Monetary Fund reports the Ukraine war has led to the worst food shortage since 2008. CNN reports that Ukraine’s communications are entirely dependent on Elon Musk’s Starlink system. If there are troubles with the system, the country goes dark.

Brookings reports: “The war has destroyed at least $127 billion of the nation’s buildings and other infrastructure, according to the Kyiv School of Economics.” The Washington Post reports the Ukrainians are asking for $700 billion in addition to the over $100 billion we have sent.

On the ground, Ukraine has had difficulty taking any territory actively defended by Russia. The recent “victory” of Ukraine capturing Kherson has evaporated. Ukraine is evacuating Kherson due to Russian shelling. The Ukrainian military machine is unable to maintain control of a city their opponent had evacuated. All the September and October Ukrainian offensives have stalled, and the Russians appear to be solidifying their lines of defense and dramatically increasing their forces in the field while Ukraine is drafting sixty-year-old men.

Ukraine is also losing its access to the resources it needs to continue the war. The U.S. and Europe are running out of weapons to send Ukraine. In addition, CNN reports weapons supplies for Ukraine are running low. Ukraine’s military equipment, especially its artillery, is crumbling and the West can’t replace much of what is breaking down.

Foreign Policy reports that NATO officials are very worried by the shortages. Even neocon Frederick Kagan admits NATO isn’t prepared for a conflict like Ukraine. “NATO doesn’t really plan to fight wars like this, and by that I mean wars with a super intensive use of artillery systems and lots of tank and gun rounds,” Kagan told Foreign Policy. “We were never stocked for this kind of war to begin with.” According to the CEO of Raytheon, Ukraine has used thirteen years of Javelin production in ten months.

It didn’t have to be this way. Ukraine and Russia could have made a lasting peace deal if it weren’t for the meddling of the Globalist American Empire. In March of 2022, the two sides appeared to be close to agreeing on terms to settle the conflict. It appeared that the agreement would assure Ukraine would never join NATO. The NATO issue is the biggest in this whole affair. The United States and United Kingdom thwarted this deal and the war has continued since, killing tens of thousands of Ukrainians, Russians, and others. Their blood is on the hands of U.S. and U.K. leaders.

U.S. defense contractors, politicians, and think tanks are profiting at the expense of Ukraine and its unfortunate citizens. The rest of Europe is suffering from the “maximum sanctions” aimed at Russia while Ukrainians continue to flee their own country. None of this suffering appears to concern the people in charge of American foreign policy. They don’t care about Ukraine’s ruin–they only care about sticking it to Russia. This is the inevitable product of a D.C. worldview that sees humans as cattle.

No doubt, the cost of the war to Russia has been high as well. They have miscalculated and made errors throughout this whole tragedy. But the narrative purveyed to the American people has not been honest or accurate. What does Ukraine gain by losing tens of thousands of lives and significant portions of its infrastructure? Many Ukrainians have lost their loved ones and face a brutal winter all for the sake of people like Ursula von der Leyen, Joe Biden, and their neocon handlers. It’s time for Western leaders face the truth, and pursue negotiations to save the Ukrainians from this human tragedy.

By Ted Snider, Responsible Statecraft, 12/13/22

At the end of November, reports that Russia and China had secretly signed a defense agreement started to appear. 

A November article on the website of Russia Matters of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center reported that, when Putin went to Beijing on February 4, prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, he and Chinese President Xi Jinping secretly signed an agreement “that their countries would come to each other’s aid militarily, but only in the case of a foreign invasion.” The article cites “long-time Russia watcher Owen Matthews.”

Matthews subsequently reported in a November 26 article that,  in a “confidential annex” to their February 4 agreement, was “a mutual security guarantee that Russia had sought from China for decades but hitherto been unable to obtain. . . . Like Nato’s Article 5 — that an attack on one member is an attack on all — Beijing and Moscow pledged to come to each other’s aid militarily in the case of a foreign invasion of their territory and if special conditions were satisfied concerning the cause of such an invasion.” Matthews cited “a source with longstanding close ties to the top levels of China’s political and military leadership.”

The Washington Post amplified that story a bit by including it parenthetically in a December 2 opinion piece by Robert Wright. The article said that “every day there is some risk of a fluke turning this into a wider war, featuring direct NATO involvement. Even if such a war didn’t go nuclear, the devastation could be vast. ‘World War III’ might be an overstatement — but it might not (especially in light of a recent report that China and Russia have a secret mutual defense agreement).” The Post op-ed linked to the same story by Matthews.

The existence of such a confidential agreement would be an unexpected development in the relationship between the two countries, which have long eschewed Cold War-style alliances and blocs. 

And it may not be true. Alexander Lukin, a leading expert on Russia-China relations, told RS that “There is no proof. It’s probably mere gossip, and, as any gossip, it may be true or false.” He said that some Chinese authors have argued for such an alliance. But he added that they do not claim it is “an official posting” of the Chinese government. Lukin has, in the past, been critical of western analysts who do not sufficiently differentiate “between the official and dominant views that both reflect and determine [China’s] foreign policies, and the unofficial and even marginal opinions that have little influence on official policy.”

Lukin says the idea may have come from a May interview given by Yan Xuetong, a well-known Chinese foreign policy expert who has supported forming an alliance with Russia, but who, Lukin adds, “does not represent an official position.” Yan told the South China Morning Post that “China should consider providing security guarantees for neighbouring countries. This is not to help them invade others, but to provide security guarantees when others invade them.”

In a portion of the interview that was not included in the English translation, Yan went on to explain that “there is a misinterpretation of the concept of alliance in society. Many people think that alliance is when your allies go to war, you automatically participate in the war. This is wrong. ‘Alliance’ means that when your ally is invaded by others and he conducts an anti-aggression war, you are automatically involved in the war. The alliance treaty is “I help you protect you”, not “I help you invade others.”

But he did not say that there was such a treaty.

The distinction made by Matthews and Yan between an obligation that is triggered by being invaded but not by invading is consistent in tone with other Chinese partnerships. Even before China cemented its close partnership with Russia, it had an exceptionally close relationship with Pakistan. But while Pakistan has more than once been at war with India, China has not once intervened with troops.

The reason is because China drew the very distinction Yan emphasizes. According to Andrew Small in “The China-Pakistan Axis,” China would never rescue Pakistan from conflicts it brought on itself. But, according to Small, Chairman Mao Zedong (ruled from 1949-76)  said China could intervene. Sources interviewed by Small said that China could intervene if India attacked Pakistan. In other words, China might  come to the aid of its partner if its own existence was threatened by a foreign invasion; China would not come to the aid of its partner if it was the cause of the crisis.

In the case of the Ukraine crisis, China has not blamed Russia for causing it but rather has consistently pointed the finger  at the U.S. and NATO.  Xi told Biden personally that “the crux of the Ukraine crisis” included “the security concerns of both Russia and Ukraine.” He told Biden that, U.S. provocation had caused the problem. On June 23, XI again stressed the need to “reject the Cold War mentality and bloc confrontation” as well as “hegemonism.” 

The Kremlin spokesperson said on December 13 that Xi and Putin are “in constant communication.” The two leaders are reportedly scheduled to hold talks in late December to “discuss the events of 2022.”

Nevertheless, both Russia and China have disavowed Cold War-style alliances. Though their extraordinarily close strategic partnership approaches a quasi-alliance relationship, it falls importantly short of a military alliance. 

Only weeks before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Xi said that the relationship between Russia and China “even exceeds an alliance in its closeness and effectiveness.” A February 4 joint statement issued by Putin and Xi asserted, perhaps for the first time officially, that “Friendship between the two States has no limits, there are no ‘forbidden’ areas of cooperation.” The statement adds that it is “a new kind of relationship” that is “superior to political and military alliances of the Cold War.”

This “ironclad” friendship has included Russia and China carrying out military exercises that have employed a joint command and control system that gave each other levels of access that are unprecedented for either country, indicating a very high level of strategic and military coordination.

As recently as October 27, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that “China will firmly support the Russian side, with the leadership of President Putin, to unify Russian people to overcome difficulties and interruptions, to realize the strategic goal of development, and to further reinforce the status of Russia as a major power.” He promised that “China and Russia will deepen exchanges at all levels.”

But, as far as is known, there is still no mutual defense obligations.

The question of the existence of a confidential mutual security guarantee may not, in practice, change much. An attack on Russian territory that existentially threatened Russia could trigger China’s own security interests: China has no desire to face a U.S. and NATO challenge stripped of Russia. China could be motivated to come to Russia’s aid in the event of an invasion, not by an agreement with Russia, but out of concern for its own security interests.

And, importantly, there is the little-discussed Article 9 of the Sino-Russian Treaty of 2001 known as the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation. It states that “When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is being threatened and undermined or its security interests are involved or when it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats.”

Whether or not there is a confidential mutual security guarantee between Russia and China, there is a close and still evolving quasi-alliance relationship that has “no limits” and that already has a treaty to aid each other in eliminating threats to each other’s security interests.

Link here.

Link here.

“RT examines the notorious Neo-Nazi ‘Aidar’ Battalion which was initially founded by nationalist activists supporting the Euro-Maidan anti-govt protests and coup 8 years ago, as it’s accused of seeking to oppress pro-Russian individuals in Donbass.”

Link here.