Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has left Americans on edge, according to a recent poll which found a majority of people in the U.S. are worried that the war has made the impending use of nuclear weapons more likely.
Nearly three-quarters of respondents told the Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research that the invasion has increased the likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used anywhere in the world.
Eighty-five percent of people surveyed said they were concerned that the U.S. could be drawn into the conflict, including 47% of people who said they were “extremely or very concerned” about this scenario, which would amount to a conflict between the two countries with the world’s largest nuclear stockpiles…
First is an excerpt from an article by Ben Aris at Intellinews, which provides a few more details about the proposal by Ukraine that came out of yesterday’s negotiations.
The Ukraine delegation has offered a compromise in the form of a written commitment from Kyiv to abandon plans to regain Crimea and Sevastopol using military force, Medinsky said after the talks were over.
“These guarantees of security do not cover the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol, which means that Ukraine abolishes its intent to return Crimea and Sevastopol military, claiming that this would only be possible via negotiations,” Medinsky said as cited by Tass. “Of course, this does not correspond to our position in any way, but Ukraine has formulated its approach.”
The proposals would include a 15-year consultation period on the status of Russian-annexed Crimea, and could come into force only in the event of a complete ceasefire, the Ukrainian negotiators said…
…The comments from the Russia delegation suggest that the issue of the Donbas region is not resolved. The Ukrainian proposal on Crimea amounts to an offer to “agree to disagree” over the Crimea, but offers guarantees that Kyiv will not use force to try to regain the peninsula.
Resolving the disagreements over Donbas remains a sticking point. Russia’s Donbas and Crimea demands are “not realistic,” Turkish presidential spokesperson Ibrahim Kalin said in an interview with CNN on March 27.
Russia’s request to recognise the annexation of Crimea and independence of Donbas is a “very maximalist” position, Kalin said, adding that giving away territory is “off the table” and that Russia “should really come up with some other ideas.”
“These are the red lines for the Ukrainians in the Crimea and Donbas, and rightly so, because they pertain directly to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. We have not recognised the annexation of Crimea as, like the rest of the world, even China has not recognised the annexation of Crimea …They [the Russians] should really come up with some other ideas,” he told CNN on the sidelines of the Doha Forum.
Next is an excerpt from reporting by The Bell, which provides some insight from an insider in the Russian government:
The talks in Istanbul on Tuesday lasted about four hours. For Ukraine, it was important to put forward proposals Russia could accept, a source familiar with Moscow’s position told The Bell. Russia was prepared to move toward a genuine agreement because any further military advance would mean fighting in major cities and a repeat of the destruction of Mariupol, the source believes.
The head of the Russian delegation, Vladimir Medinsky, said Ukraine’s written proposals would be submitted to President Vladimir Putin prior to a discussion at Foreign Minister level. A presidential meeting between Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy would take place only when a peace treaty was ready, he said.
It is assumed that any ceasefire would include agreements on a neutral, nuclear-free Ukraine with security guarantees. Further clauses would ensure mutual respect for languages and cultures. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said he would like to broker similar agreements with all Ukraine’s other neighbors: Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Belarus and Moldova.
“Reduction of military activity”
Russia’s deputy minister of defense, Alexander Fomin, made the biggest announcement of the day – about a “dramatic, manifold reduction in military activity” around Kyiv and Chernihiv.
On the one hand, this is merely a statement of the fact – over the past week Russian forces have made no serious advances in these areas and the Ministry of Defense stated Friday that Russian forces will concentrate their resources on “liberating Donbas”. Medinsky later clarified that the Ministry of Defense statement did not amount to a ceasefire.
However, this is the first time the Russian military has made such a statement – and followed it up with action on the ground. Within an hour of Fomin’s comments, a U.S. intelligence source said the U.S. was indeed observing the partial withdrawal of Russian forces near Kyiv and Chernihiv.
Any decision on a complete ceasefire has been postponed. It seems that both sides feel time is on their side and hope to occupy territory that can bolster their negotiating positions, the source close to the talks told The Bell.
According to a 2019 Rand report titled “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia”, the US goal is to undermine Russia just as it did the Soviet Union in the cold war. Rather than “trying to stay ahead” or trying to improve the US domestically or in international relations, the emphasis is on efforts and actions to undermine the designated adversary Russia. Rand is a quasi-US governmental think tank that receives three-quarters of its funding from the US military.
The report lists anti-Russia measures divided into the following areas: economic, geopolitical, ideological/informational, and military. They are assessed according to the perceived risks, benefits and “likelihood of success”.
The report notes that Russia has “deep seated” anxieties about western interference and potential military attack. These anxieties are deemed to be a vulnerability to exploit. There is no mention of the cause of the Russian anxieties: they have have been invaded multiple times and had 27 million deaths in WW2.
Significance of Ukraine
Ukraine is important to Russia. The two countries share much common heritage and a long common border. One of the most important leaders of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, was Ukrainian. During WW2, Ukraine was one of Hitler’s invasion routes and there was a small but active number of Ukrainian collaborators with Nazi Germany. The distance from the capital of Ukraine, Kiev, to Moscow is less than 500 miles.
Prior to 2018, the US only provided “defensive” military weaponry to Ukraine. The Rand report assesses that providing lethal (offensive) military aid to Ukraine will have a high risk but also a high benefit. Accordingly, US lethal weaponry skyrocketed from near zero to $250M in 2019, to $303M in 2020, to $350M in 2021. Total military aid is much higher. A few weeks ago, “The Hill” reported, “The US has contributed more than $1 billion to help Ukraine’s military over the past year”.
The Rand report lists many techniques and “measures” to provoke and threaten Russia. Some of the steps include:
Repositioning bombers within easy striking range of key Russian strategic targets
Deploying additional tactical nuclear weapons to locations in Europe and Asia
Increasing US and allied naval force posture and presence in Russia’s operating areas (Black Sea)
Holding NATO war exercises on Russia’s borders
Withdrawing from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty
These and many other provocations suggested by Rand have, in fact, been implemented. For example, NATO conducted massive war exercises dubbed “Defender 2021” right up Russia’s border. NATO has started “patrolling” the Black Sea and engaging in provocative intrusions into Crimean waters. The US has withdrawn from the INF Treaty.
Since 2008, when NATO “welcomed” the membership aspirations of Ukraine and Georgia, Russia has said this would cross a red line and threaten its security. In recent years NATO has provided advisers, training and ever increasing amounts of military hardware. While Ukraine is not a formal member of NATO, it has increasingly been treated like one. The full Rand report says “While NATO’s requirement for unanimity makes it unlikely that Ukraine could gain membership in the foreseeable future, Washington’s pushing this possibility could boost Ukrainian resolve while leading Russia to redouble its efforts to forestall such a development.”
The alternative, which could have prevented or at least forestalled the current Russian intervention in Ukraine, would have been to declare Ukraine ineligible for NATO. But this would have been contrary to the US intention of deliberately stressing, provoking and threatening Russia.
Ukraine as US client
In November 2021, the US and Ukraine signed a Charter on Strategic Partnership. This agreement confirmed Ukrainian aspirations to join NATO and rejection of the Crimean peoples decision to re-unify with Russia following the 2014 Kiev coup. The agreement signaled a consolidation of Washington’s economic, political and military influence.
December 2021 Russia red lines followed by military action
In December 2021, Russia proposed a treaty with the US and NATO. The central Russian proposal was a written agreement that Ukraine would not join the NATO military alliance.
When the proposed treaty was rebuffed by Washington, it seems the die was cast. On February 21, Putin delivered a speech detailing their grievances. On February 24, Putin delivered another speech announcing the justification and objectives of the military intervention to “demilitarize” and “denazify” Ukraine.
As Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov later said, “This is not about Ukraine. This is the end result of a policy that the West has carried out since the early 1990’s.”
Afghanistan again?
As earlier indicated, the Rand report assesses the costs and benefits of various US actions. It is considered a “benefit” if increased US assistance to Ukraine results in the loss of Russian blood and resources. Speculating on the possibility of Russian troop presence in Ukraine, the report suggests that it could become “quite controversial at home, as it did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.” (p 99 of full report)
That historical reference is significant. Beginning in 1979, the US and Saudi Arabia funded and trained sectarian foreign fighters to invade and destabilize the Afghan government. The goals were to overthrow the socialist inclined government and lure the Soviet Union into supporting the destabilized government. It achieved these Machiavellian goals at the cost of millions of Afghan citizens whose country has never been the same.
It appears that Ukrainian citizens are similarly being manipulated to serve US goals.
A “disadvantageous peace settlement”
The Rand report says, “Increasing US military aid would certainly drive up the Russian costs, but doing so could also increase the loss of Ukrainian lives and territory or result in a disadvantageous peace settlement.”
But who would a peace settlement be “disadvantageous” for? Ukrainian lives and territory are currently being lost. Over fourteen thousand Ukrainian lives have been lost in the eastern Donbass region since the 2014 coup.
A peace settlement that guaranteed basic rights for all Ukrainians and state neutrality in the rivalry of big powers, would be advantageous to most Ukrainians. It is only the US foreign policy establishment including the US military media industrial complex and Ukrainian ultra-nationalists who would be “disadvantaged”.
Since Ukraine is a multi-ethnic state, it would seem best to accept that reality and find a compromise national solution which facilitates all Ukrainians. Being a client of a distant foreign power is not in Ukraine’s national best interest.
The Rand report shows how US policy focuses on actions to hurt Russia and manipulates third party countries (Ukraine) toward that task.
Rick Sterling is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. He can be contacted at rsterling1@protonmail.com.
This interview of Zelenskyy was conducted jointly by opposition media outlets Meduza, Dohzd, and Kommersant. It has been censored by Russia’s media regulator but is posted to YouTube which is reportedly still accessible in Russia.
