By Dmitriy Kovalevich, New Cold War, 5/27/22

In this month’s update, New Cold War’s regular contributor and analyst Dmitriy Kovalevich describes what has been happening on the ground in Ukraine throughout May. In his comprehensive account, based on reports including those from the Ukrainian media, Kovalevich clearly demonstrates how the western establishment’s narrative differs strikingly from the reality and why Zelensky is now saying that, despite bellicose statements from countries like Great Britain and Canada, the conflict can only end through diplomacy.

By the end of May, Ukraine had already experienced three months of hostilities, and had lost a total of 21% of its territory[i] since the beginning of the Russian operation. In the Russian-controlled territories of the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, the Russian authorities appointed a temporary local administration, introduced a dual-currency zone (Ukrainian and Russian currencies), and began to pay pensions and salaries.[ii] At the end of May, the Russian authorities also decided to issue Russian passports to the residents of these regions, in addition to the people of Donbass.[iii] According to their estimates, about 70% of the inhabitants of the regions want to adopt Russian citizenship.[iv]

A landmark moment was the surrender of the Ukrainian military at the Azovstal plant in Mariupol, which is already completely controlled by the military of the DPR and the Russian Federation. According to preliminary estimates, about 200,000 inhabitants, or half of the population, remained in the city. During April and May, neo-Nazis from the Azov regiment recorded tearful appeals to the Pope, Elon Musk, Western leaders, Xi Jinping and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, demanding an “extraction” procedure, evacuation with weapons and banners instead of surrender, but this did not help them.

Calling the surrender an “evacuation”

Until the end, the authorities of Ukraine refused to call the surrender of the Azovstal garrison “a surrender.” President Zelensky, followed by the Western media, called it an “evacuation” to a safe place, allegedly supervised by Ukrainian intelligence.[v] Even so, the “evacuation” was in fact a normal surrender when the Ukrainian military, including hundreds of neo-Nazis from the Azov Battalion, laid down their weapons on camera and went through a search procedure, after which they were taken as prisoners of war to Donetsk. The DPR authorities promise a tribunal[vi] over the Ukrainian military for many years of crimes against the republic, recognized only in February by the Russian Federation. Russian media showed prisoners with tattoos of swastikas, portraits of Hitler and Nazi slogans in German.[vii] A red flag[viii] was symbolically raised over Azovstal, taken there by the DPR forces, and the Donetsk militia posed for photographs with a red flag bearing the inscription “In defense of Marxism-Leninism.”[ix]

According to the Ukrainian media, the prisoners, totaling 2,439 people from Azovstal and another 1,630 from the plant named after Ilyich in the same city, are being kept in normal conditions, and no violence has been used against them. This is reported by the relatives of the prisoners, who were given the opportunity to communicate with the captives.[x] Donetsk militias call on their comrades to be extremely tolerant, humane and respectful towards POWs, including neo-Nazis, as this will encourage other Ukrainian servicemen to surrender, thereby saving more lives on both sides.

The news about the surrender was a serious blow to the hubris and belligerent rhetoric of the Ukrainian authorities. Only after it became clear that captivity and the subsequent tribunal was not an evacuation, did the Ukrainian authorities and Azov commanders begin to make adamant demands that commenting on the event should stop, while at the same time trying to divert the public’s attention.[xi]

The fall of Svetlodarsk

The next informational setback was the fall of the city of Svetlodarsk in the Luhansk region and the tactical encirclement of the Ukrainian military group in the Severodonetsk, to which, after the separation of Luhansk, the Lugansk regional administration was transferred, which had at the beginning of May controlled only 25% of the region. It is also forbidden to call the retreat by Ukrainian troops “a retreat.” Officially, this is being called a “defensive maneuver,”[xii] after which Russian troops appear in Ukrainian cities.

The Ukrainian authorities are still trying to reassure the population with weekly forecasts of an “imminent counteroffensive” and the collapse of Russia “as early as this year.” In this regard, they refer to the data of the British media and intelligence, which are trying to keep the Ukrainian authorities’ morale in good shape with such promises.

However, the Ukrainian military, who are directly involved in the hostilities, are much less optimistic. In May, a wave of protests began in Ukraine among the military, who are refusing to obey orders, as well as among their relatives, who are protesting against sending their husbands and sons to the frontline. Mostly, they complain that armed only with machine guns and without training they are immediately being dispatched to trenches on the front line, where many of them do not survive for even a day. Particular dissatisfaction is being shown by the so-called territorial defense, paramilitaries, originally formed to defend their settlements. These are mostly non-professional military; however, due to the losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, it is these paramilitaries who are plugging the holes in the defense and being forced into going to the front line.

“We do not want to be cannon fodder”

Members of the battalion of the Cherkasy territorial defense refused to fight and recorded a video message to that effect. They say that on May 22 they were sent to the front line to carry out a combat mission but they were not provided with heavy weapons.[xiii] For this reason, they refused to carry out the assigned task, after which the authorities took away their light weapons and protective equipment, threatening them with arrest and prosecution. They complain that many of them died or were wounded in the first battle, for which they are not receiving medical care. They consider their presence on the front line illegal. “We do not want to be cannon fodder,” sums up the mutinying members of the territorial defense.

Earlier in May, the military of the 115th brigade of Ukraine’s armed forces, who refused to follow orders in Severodonetsk, also recorded a video about poor service conditions. They were sent to a pre-trial detention center as deserters. They said they were refusing to carry out combat missions due to lack of reinforcements. The combatants also blamed the incompetence of their command.[xiv]

In early May, in the Transcarpathian region’s city of Khust, local women stormed the military registration and enlistment office, protesting against sending their husbands from the territorial defense to the front. When the head of the military office did not go out to meet the women, they began to smash the windows and broke into the building.[xv]

Russian forces change tactics amid uncertainty over number of Ukraine combatants

In May, the Russian army altered its tactics. Now, instead of raids comprising tank columns going deep into Ukraine, it uses the tactics of slowly grinding down the Ukrainian armed forces with long-range artillery, “dismantling” the fortified areas into ruins and dust. With countless shell craters, the fields of southeastern Ukraine now resemble those of Belgium during the First World War.[xvi]

Volodymyr Zelensky claims that 700,000 Ukrainian servicemen are now taking part in the fighting.[xvii] In May, he extended martial law and new waves of conscription for the next three months. According to Ukrainian media reports, young people who are being seized from the streets of Kharkov and Odessa are being conscripted into the army.[xviii] Unwilling to fight, Ukrainian men launched a petition in May, demanding that they be allowed to leave or be evacuated overseas (which has been banned since February). In the first three days, the petition gained the necessary 25,000 signatures, after which, by law, the president must consider it. However, Vladimir Zelensky has refused to do so, instead drawing attention to the military personnel who are in the trenches.[xix] Zelensky’s adviser Alexei Arestovich promises to put under arms not 700,000, but a million people.[xx]

This declared number of Ukrainian military deployed against the Russians’ offensive is at odds with that of Western intelligence data, while Ukraine’s Defense minister says that the number of Russians involved in Ukraine is about 167,000.[xxi] Whatever the case, even with a threefold superiority in manpower and the weapons supplied by NATO countries, the Ukrainian army is losing territories and cities every week.

Russian blogger German Kulikovsky, the author of the telegram channel ‘Older Edda,’ based in the Kharkiv region, describes the tactics of the Russian army in May as follows:

“Russian troops are advancing slowly but surely. They take care of the personnel and try to destroy the enemy with artillery, missiles and aircraft. In general, our offensive in this direction is similar to the movement of a road roller, which, although not fast, reliably rolls the roadway […]. The Russian army is grinding [down] the enemy, the losses of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are growing exponentially, and Ukraine is trying to close the holes on the front line with fresh reinforcements, throwing them into battle right after their arrival, which certainly increases the number of killed and wounded in the ranks of the Ukrainian army even more.”[xxii]

“A war to the last Ukrainian”

Against this background, in May Zelensky’s party deputies attempted to propose a bill that gave the right to shoot Ukrainian servicemen on the spot if they refuse to fight, tried to desert or surrender,[xxiii] although the bill was withdrawn after a public outcry. In the same month, the same fate befell a bill that proposed to deprive Ukrainian men of their citizenship if they illegally left the country. And the number of this latter group is growing every week, as are the prices being charged by smugglers for their services, due to the many young males who have been seized on the street and immediately sent to the front.

The war “to the last Ukrainian” thus becomes a reality. Judging by the rhetoric of Western politicians, even against the wishes of many Ukrainians, the authorities of Great Britain and Canada are inciting that the war continues, in contrast to the statements calling for compromise that are being heard in Paris, Berlin and Vienna.

Sources

[i] https://forbes.ua/ru/inside/ploshcha-okupovanoi-ukraini-vtrati-rosiyskoi-tekhniki-ta-17-dib-stolichnikh-trivog-10-faktiv-pro-tri-misyatsi-viyni-vid-forbes-infografika-24052022-6167

[ii] https://iz.ru/1332153/2022-05-09/v-khersonskoi-oblasti-pristupili-k-vyplate-pensii-v-rubliakh

[iii] https://www.mk.ru/politics/2022/05/25/v-zaporozhskoy-oblasti-vlasti-gotovyatsya-vydavat-zhitelyam-rossiyskie-pasporta.html

[iv] https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/5368127

[v] https://www.golosameriki.com/a/zelensky-ukrainian-military-supervise-the-evacuaion-soldiers-from-azovstal/6578506.html

[vi] https://www.interfax.ru/world/842643

[vii] https://eadaily.com/ru/news/2022/05/21/svastiki-gitler-i-bandera-chto-obnaruzhilos-na-tatuirovkah-sdavshihsya-azovcev

[viii] https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/7628674.html

[ix] https://vk.com/wall-50332460_3168180?lang=en

[x] https://www.ukrinform.ru/rubric-ato/3491550-plennyh-iz-azovstali-uderzivaut-v-udovletvoritelnyh-usloviah-zena-komandira.html

[xi] https://korrespondent.net/ukraine/4478817-osnovatel-polka-azov-pryzval-ne-kommentyrovat-evakuatsyui-voennykh

[xii] https://ctrana.online/news/392621-ministerstvo-oborony-oproverhaet-otstuplenie-ukrainskoj-armii-na-donbasse.html

[xiii] https://www.pravda.ru/news/world/1712428-specoperacija_na_ukraine/

[xiv] https://ctrana.online/news/392416-voennosluzhashchikh-115-brihady-kotorye-obratilis-k-zelenskomu-i-zaluzhnomu-otpravili-v-sizo.html

[xv] https://ctrana.online/news/388825-soldat-teroborony-otpravljajut-na-front-bez-podhotovki-ikh-zheny-vystupajut-s-protestom.html

[xvi] https://klymenko-time.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/oblozhka-slavyansk.jpg

[xvii] https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/05/21/7347610/

[xviii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWsigbH8BH4

[xix] https://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2022/05/22/7347856/

[xx] https://www.gazeta.ru/politics/news/2022/05/22/17784464.shtml

[xxi] https://ru.krymr.com/a/voyna-rossii-protiv-ukrainy-transliatsiya/31819459.html

[xxii] https://vakimov.livejournal.com/2233907.html

[xxiii] https://ctrana.online/news/392339-v-rade-khotjat-razreshit-komandiram-rasstrelivat-ukrainskikh-soldat-za-nepovinovenie.html

It was interesting to get this Ukrainian writer’s take on recent events. Since she still lives in Ukraine, I wonder how much she feels she has to watch what she says. She spoke naturally, however, so I tend to think she was probably saying what she really thought. I found it interesting, among other things, how she claimed to not be aware of the infamous phone call between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt a couple of weeks prior to the 2014 coup.

By John Perry & Rick Sterling, Antiwar, 5/26/22

This article shows how media uses computer modeling and “virtual crime scenes” to assign blame for some extremely important international events. In these examples from Nicaragua, Ukraine and Syria, many people died in complex circumstances. The deaths at the “Mother’s March” in Managua, Nicaragua precipitated an attempted coup. The Maidan Massacre in Kyiv led to an actual coup. The claims of a chemical attack in Douma led to the US, France and the UK bombing Syria….

Maidan Square, Kyiv, Ukraine, 20 February 2014

On February 20, 2014, 49 protesters and four police were killed at the central square known as Maidan in Kyiv, Ukraine. Many more were injured. The event led to the overthrow of the elected government and a radical change in national politics and policy. Who was responsible for the mass killings? Eight years later, there have been no convictions. How could this be, when there were dozens of videos, hundreds of victims and thousands of witnesses to a mass killing in the heart of a European capital?

Western media and the post-coup government blamed the security services of the previous Yanukovich government. Others claim the killings and chaos were organized by the militant opposition using snipers located in adjacent buildings, including the Hotel Ukraina and Arkada Bank.

After the killings and coup, a German news team visited. Their report quotes doctors saying that both police and protesters had been shot by identical bullets. The investigation was ongoing yet the newly appointed state prosecutor, a leader of the ultra-nationalist Svoboda Party, had already declared former President Yanukovich and Berkut police to be responsible.

Despite the state prosecutor’s efforts and numerous police being charged and imprisoned, there were no convictions.

In 2018, the New York Times (NYT) published a lengthy story titled “Who Killed the Kiev Protesters? A 3-D Model Holds the Clues”. It was accompanied by a video titled “Did Police Kill these protesters? What the videos show.” The NYT story reports that Ukrainian prosecutors enlisted the help of SITU Research, who built a replica of the street where protesters were shot, then did 3D modeling of the buildings, location of protesters, police, etc.. They analyzed dozens of actual videos then produced their own video concluding “In all three cases, individual officers can be seen aiming and firing their rifles during the moments leading to the victims’ deaths.”

The “virtual crime scene” analysis focuses on three individuals killed in the same area. In all three cases, based on bullet wound locations, SITU alleges that the fatal shots were fired from the direction of the police barricade. An audio analysis, based on the time difference of a shockwave versus firearm discharge, approximates the distance of the shooter.

Looked at casually or superficially, this appears to be compelling evidence.

However, Canadian Professor Ivan Katchanovski has done rigorous research on the Maidan Massacre and reveals that the SITU model misrepresented the location of wounds in all three cases.

1. In the case of Igor Dmytriv, the wound locations are not level and straight as portrayed by SITU; they are from right to left, with a distinct downward angle. The video shows a hole in his shield near the right edge which also points to his shooting from Arkada Bank to the right, not the police barricade directly in front. The shield evidence disappeared before the trial.
2. The wound locations are also misrepresented in the case of Andriy Dyhdalovych. As discovered by Katchanovski, “The 3d model moved the exit wound location from around the middle line of the back of his body in forensic medical and clothing examinations to the right and changed a steep top and bottom direction and 17 cm difference in height.” SITU misrepresented the wounds to match up with the direction of the police barricade. The actual wound locations point to the killer also being in the upper floors of the Arkada Bank.
3. The third victim was Yuri Parashchuk: his wounds were also misrepresented. He was killed by a bullet to the back of his head. “The single bullet in the back right helmet area, and exit wounds in the back left area of his head (parietal region) in forensic examination mean that it was physically impossible to shoot him from the police barricade, contrary to the SITU model,” Katchanovski argues. The victim’s wife confirmed the gunshot wound locations.

The NYT story falsely characterized any critics as “pro-Russia sources” and “Kremlin-funded media.” University of Ottawa Professor Katchanovski has presented his findings to high interest before numerous academic conferences.

In addition to misrepresenting the body wounds, the “virtual crime scene” analysis ignores a crucial question: Who would have a motive to kill both protesters and police?

Read full article here.

By Aaron Mate, Substack, 5/24/22

In the 2016 and 2020 Democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders’ opposition to the US invasion of Iraq helped set him apart from frontrunners Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and the party establishment that they represent.

In 2022, with the US engaged in another costly and catastrophic conflict abroad, Sanders has chosen to abandon the anti-war mantle and join the ranks of his former rivals. Along with every elected Democrat — including the self-proclaimed Squad – Sanders voted last week to approve a $40 billion measure that will escalate the Ukraine proxy war and enrich its prime beneficiary, the US arms industry.

More than half of the allocated spending, $24 billion, is for military aid, including $9.1 billion for weapons makers to replenish the US arsenal. The mammoth bill follows the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act – also unanimously approved by Democrats — which invokes World War II-era policies to speed the transfer of US military equipment to Ukraine. Coupled with NATO’s likely expansion to Sweden and Finland, “the real winners are American defense companies,” Forbes columnist Jon Markman writes.

In passing the new $40 billion bill, “the leaders of both parties raised few questions about how much money was being spent or what it would be used for,” the New York Times observes. This swift bipartisan approval “was striking, given the gridlock that has prevented domestic initiatives large and small from winning approval in recent years.” This includes the progressive-backed Build Back Better agenda for social spending, once a headline issue and now seldom discussed.

The unwavering US effort to flood Ukraine with weaponry instead of diplomacy is additionally striking given its predictable consequences for the conflict and the planet. These include more bloodshed; more refugees; more arms trafficking; more weapons falling into the hands of neo-Nazis and other extremists; more war profiteering; more inflation; more global hunger; and more of a possibility of direct military confrontation between the US and Russia.

The dangers have prompted the New York Times’ editorial board, normally a reliable supporter of US militarism, to get cold feet about the Ukraine proxy war that it has heretofore cheered. To avoid “a costly, drawn-out war,” the Times editors argue, the Biden administration should make clear to Kiev that “there is a limit to how far the United States and NATO will go to confront Russia, and limits to the arms, money and political support they can muster.”

The Times’ stance will resonate with anyone worried about an escalated proxy war between the world’s top nuclear powers. But in Washington, it is difficult to see how Biden will receive that message if even the progressive, anti-war flank of his own party is voting in lockstep to fuel the danger. This group includes lawmakers like Sanders, Ilhan Omar, Ro Khanna, Pramila Jayapal, and Barbara Lee, who have previously voiced concerns about the very military escalation in Ukraine that just authorized. Remarkably, as Glenn Greenwald notes, not only have these politicians betrayed their own public statements, but have refused to provide any explanation for their tectonic about-face.

The lone exception was Cori Bush, who simultaneously defended her support for the $40 billion measure while acknowledging that it will “primarily” benefit “private defense contractors” and fuel “the increased risks of direct war and the potential for direct military confrontation” between the US and Russia.

That so many single self-identified Congressional progressives can turn against their anti-war record and public positions might seem perplexing. In light of the prevailing US political and media climate of recent years, it makes perfect sense.

The enlistment of progressive support for a neoconservative proxy war in Ukraine is the outgrowth of the Russiagate disinformation campaign that has engulfed the US since 2016. When it comes to the US posture toward the Russian government, Russiagate has normalized militarism and evidence-free allegations; blamed it for US dysfunctions; stigmatized diplomacy; and, to ensure domestic obedience, portrayed anyone who dissents from these imperatives as a Kremlin pawn, asset, or conspirator.  

The fact that a mammoth gift to the US arms industry – and attendant escalation of dangers unseen since the Cuban Missile Crisis – could win the unanimous support of politicians nominally committed to progressive causes is one of the Russiagate campaign’s strongest successes to date. Its consequences are worth considering for anyone concerned with the future of the US progressive movement, and the planet…

Read full article here.