There have been a lot of developments in the past couple of days with respect to the high tensions between Ukraine – with its NATO cheerleaders on one side and Russia on the other. Let’s recap what has happened since February.

First, in February, according to respected analyst Dmitri Trenin of the Carnegie Moscow Center: “Zelenskiy ordered troops (as part of the rotation process) and heavy weapons (as a show of force) to go near to the conflict zone in Donbas. He did not venture out as far as Poroshenko, who dispatched small Ukrainian naval vessels through the Russian-controlled waters near the Kerch Strait in late 2018, but it was enough to get him noticed in Moscow.”

At the beginning of March, the Zelensky government banned three opposition media outlets with the justification that they were pro-Russian and therefore essentially a source of enemy disinformation. Then on March 24th, Zelensky signed a decree approving a strategy to reintegrate Crimea and the Russian naval base at Sevastopol into Ukraine. Reporting by Telesur at the time stated:

On March 24, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky signed the Decree 117/2021 approving the “strategy of disoccupation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Sevastopol city.”

In practical terms, Ukraine’s decision could trigger actions leading to an armed conflict with Russia in which the United States or other Western countries could become involved.

What’s more, on April 1st, the commander in chief of Ukraine’s armed forces admitted that Ukraine had sent troops to the areas in question:

During an extraordinary session in the Parliament held on April 1, the Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Army Ruslan Khomchak said that his troops are present in the “temporarily occupied areas… containing 28 enemy tactical groups.”

“Our armed forces are prepared to give an adequate response both to an escalation of the conflict and to an aggravation of the political-military and strategic-military situation on the border of Ukraine,” he stressed.

As summarized in my post from last week, ceasefire violations in the conflict zone in eastern Ukraine have greatly increased in recent weeks and Russia has amassed troops and military equipment in Crimea and near the border of eastern Ukraine in response to Ukraine’s moves. Moreover, U.S. diplomatic and military leaders were decrying Russian “aggression” and offering “unwavering support” for Ukraine.

(Keep in mind that these tensions are occurring amidst the backdrop of NATO’s Defender Europe 2021 exercises – or war games, depending on your point of view – in the region, including the Balkans and the Black Sea areas).

Late last week, it was reported that the U.S. would be sending two warships, the USS Donald Cook and USS Roosevelt, to the Black Sea. They are set to arrive today and tomorrow. Additionally, the U.S. Navy planned on flying recon flights over the area near Crimea. In response, Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, Sergei Ryabkov, publicly stated that NATO forces should stay away from Crimea. According to reporting yesterday by the UK’s Daily Mail:

Russia warned the US to keep its warships away from Crimea ‘for their own good’ as it accused Washington and NATO of turning the region into a ‘powder keg’ amid soaring tensions on the Ukraine border. 

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov called Washington’s decision to deploy two ships to the Black Sea ‘a provocation’ designed ‘to test our nerves’ as he branded the US ‘an adversary’ of Russia, ramping up a war of words between the two nuclear-armed superpowers. 

Furthermore, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu made a surprise visit to Russian troops near the Ukrainian border and stated that the Russian military would be ready to act in response to any escalation. RT reported:

Two detachments of the Russian Army, along with three airborne units, are ready to act in the event tensions with the West escalate into full-blown fighting, Moscow announced on Tuesday following a surprise inspection of troops.

After paying a visit to the soldiers, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu told journalists that the personnel met the standards required for the situation. “The troops have shown full readiness and ability to fulfill the tasks of ensuring the country’s military security,” he said. “Currently, these associations and formations are engaged in drills and exercises.”

Shoigu said that the redeployments had taken place “in response to the military activity of the alliance that threatens Russia.” The move comes amid escalating tension with the US-led NATO bloc and after bloody fighting in eastern Ukraine between Kiev’s forces and two breakaway republics.

Biden initiated a phone call with Putin yesterday to discuss the situation and offered to have a summit where the two leaders could meet in a third country. There is no confirmation yet as to whether Putin has agreed to the summit, but he reportedly reiterated the Minsk agreements as the basis for settlement of the conflict.

According to Trenin’s analysis from yesterday of the tensions, Russia’s actions include a desire to let Washington and Ukraine know that if they want to play with fire, there is a high chance of getting burned:

The Russian military massed troops along the entire Russo-Ukrainian border, from the north to the east to the south. It did so visibly and made sure that Western observers could analyse the manoeuvres and conclude that they might not necessarily be a drill. Some reports, for example, spoke of field hospitals being brought to the border. In making its move, Moscow was pursuing several objectives:

To intimidate and deter Ukraine’s leaders, whom the Kremlin regards as inexperienced and irresponsible (in Kozak’s disparaging words, “children with matches”);

To send a message to the United States urging Washington to take better care of its wards, lest they get America itself into trouble (there were repeated references to the Mikheil Saakashvili syndrome, referring to the then Georgian leader launching an attack in 2008 against the Russian-protected breakaway region of South Ossetia in the belief that he would be supported by a US military intervention, which never came);  

To convince the Germans and the French that supporting everything that Ukraine says or does carries a cost for Europe;

To reassure the people of Donbas that Russia will not abandon them to the Ukrainian army should it attack the two enclaves. 

During the crisis, Kozak, who is also the Kremlin’s deputy chief of staff, essentially repeated President Vladimir Putin’s earlier stern warning that a Ukrainian offensive in Donbas would spell the end of Ukrainian statehood.

Having made their points by means of actions on the ground, the Russians were then available to discuss the situation, both with German and French political leaders and the top US military commander. In those conversations, they dismissed out of hand all European criticisms about the troop movements on their own territory and only engaged in a detailed professional discussion with the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, simply to help him avoid a dangerous miscalculation. 

Unfortunately, this situation and the dangerous implications have not been getting the attention they deserve in US media. One exception was Tulsi Gabbard appearing on Tucker Carlson Tuesday night.

By Ted Galen Carpenter, Antiwar.com, 3/9/21

An especially dangerous threat to liberty occurs when members of the press collude with government agencies instead of monitoring and exposing the abuses of those agencies. Unfortunately, collusion is an all-too-common pattern in press coverage of the national security state’s activities. The American people then receive official propaganda disguised as honest reporting and analysis.

The degree of collaboration frequently has reached stunning levels. During the early decades of the Cold War, some journalists even became outright CIA assets. Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein’s January 1977, 25,000-word article in Rolling Stone was an extraordinarily detailed account of cooperation between the CIA and members of the press, and it provided key insights into that relationship. In some cases, the “journalists” were actually full-time CIA employees masquerading as members of the Fourth Estate, but Bernstein also confirmed that some 400 bona fide American journalists had secretly carried out assignments for the ClA during the previous 25 years. He noted that “journalists provided a full range of clandestine services – from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go-betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs.”

A December 26, 1977, investigative report in the New York Times described the scope of the CIA’s global campaign to influence opinion through media manipulation. “In its persistent efforts to shape world opinion, the C.I.A. has been able to call upon” an extensive network “of newspapers, news services, magazines, publishing houses, broadcasting stations and other entities over which it has at various limes had some control. A decade ago, when the agency’s communications empire was at its peak, [it] embraced more than 500 news and public information organizations and individuals. According to one CIA official, they ranged in importance ‘from Radio Free Europe to a third‐string guy in Quito who could get something in the local paper.’” The CIA funded those foreign “journalistic assets” generously…

…Reforms enacted in the late 1970s after investigative hearings by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Sen. Frank Church (D-ID), supposedly brought an end to such CIA penetration of the press. However, evidence of recent media-intelligence agency collaboration suggests that while the manipulation may have become more subtle, it has not gone away. A startling September 2014 exclusive report in the Intercept confirmed that the problem of excessively close ties between the CIA and certain prominent journalists is not a merely a historical artifact….

Read full article here.

By Dmitry Trenin, Carnegie Moscow Center, 3/30/21

Following U.S. President Joe Biden’s recent comment indicating that he considers his Russian counterpart a killer, Russia recalled its ambassador, Anatoly Antonov, back to Moscow for consultations: an unprecedented step in the history of Russian-American relations. But even before this, bilateral relations were in need of a reassessment, one free of the emotions and illusions stirred up by the presidential clash.

Emotions compel Russia to escalate the confrontation with the United States, or even turn the fight against U.S. global domination into the central idea of Russia’s foreign—and to some extent domestic—policy. This positioning harks back to Cold War–era Soviet policy, but it’s not practicable with Moscow’s current shortage of resources.

Furthermore, overextension in foreign policy was one of the factors that led the Soviet Union into crisis in the 1980s. Letting off emotional steam through rhetoric—which is what we are seeing for now—is less dangerous, of course, but also entirely unproductive.

There is an illusion that Russia can still prove something to the United States, bring Washington to its senses, and force the United States to respect Russian national interests on the basis of a global Russian-American understanding: some sort of a grand bargain. These illusions have faded over the past four years, but the Russian elites still haven’t completely let them go.

We need to recognize that three decades after the collapse of the USSR, the mindset of Soviet-American détente and “equal, mutually beneficial cooperation” is hopelessly outdated. Furthermore, Russia’s foreign policy suffers from its fixation on relations with the United States.

Setting aside emotions and illusions, there are at least ten realistic objectives for Russia’s foreign policy.

First, continue to ensure that any incidents involving Russian and U.S. or NATO troops, aircraft, or ships are avoided or quickly resolved. This is why lines of communication exist, and these lines appear to be in good order. The main goal in U.S.-Russian relations for the foreseeable future is to prevent an unintentional armed conflict.

Second, reinforce the combined nuclear and non-nuclear deterrence of the United States as the cornerstone of Moscow’s independent position with respect to Washington. Deterrence—not arms control agreements—is the foundation for strategic stability and the guarantee of Russia’s very existence. While a costly quantitative arms race should be avoided, in the current conditions, deterrence is not limited to nuclear weapons, but increasingly involves outer space and cyberspace.

Third, begin talks on strategic stability, bearing in mind that the subject of these talks is extremely complicated, and that Washington will try to negotiate from a position of strength. This means that Russia and the United States are unlikely to reach an agreement during the five years that the recently extended New START agreement will remain in effect. Russia must therefore be ready to uphold strategic stability without an international agreement framework.

Continue reading here.

There have been recent reports of intensified fighting near the line of contact in the Donbass area of eastern Ukraine between Kiev forces and Donbass rebels who are supported by Russia. The OSCE Special Monitoring Mission reported a rise in ceasefire violations at the end of last week from 89 to nearly 500. There are accusations back and forth of new attacks by Kiev forces on Donbass and a military buildup in Russia near the border with eastern Ukraine. According to reporting from RT yesterday:

Speaking to journalists on Friday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that a series of military clashes in the Donbass region was a cause for concern. “Unfortunately for us,” he said, “the reality on the line of contact is quite frightening, and not just one, but many, provocations by the Ukrainian Armed Forces are taking place.”

Kiev insists that Russia is building up troops near the shared border and blames separatists, who have previously received support from Moscow, for breaking a ceasefire. “Russia’s current escalation is systemic, [the] largest in recent years,” Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dimitry Kuleba said in a statement issued earlier this week. Kiev officials last week said that four of its soldiers had been killed by shelling during clashes with rebels in the east of the country.

Andrey Rudenko, Russia’s deputy foreign minister, denied that Moscow had anything to gain from an increase in tensions. “I am sure that all the talk about some upcoming conflict between Ukraine and Russia is an example of another fake spread primarily by the Ukrainian authorities,” he said. “Russia is not interested in any conflict with Ukraine, let alone a military one.”

Some western outlets are reporting on admittedly unverified footage that purports to show Russian forces moving tanks and other military equipment into the Donbass and Crimea. The Pentagon’s press secretary, meanwhile, has repeated claims from Kiev that 4 Ukrainian soldiers were killed in the Donbass, blaming it on Russian operations.

Russian aggression in eastern Ukraine undermines de-escalation intentions achieved through an OSCE-brokered agreement – Pentagon spokesperson John Kirby pic.twitter.com/bq8Ncy4RPC

— TRT World Now (@TRTWorldNow) April 1, 2021

According to Russian news agency TASS, the Donetsk People’s Republic has claimed that the four Ukrainian soldiers died as a result of a mine explosion during an inspection. Russian media also states that “The Ukrainian command also transported military equipment and personnel in an eastern direction in February-March 2021 by railroad.”

Yesterday, President Biden spoke to his Ukrainian counterpart by phone for the first time and, according to reporting by the WSJ, was partly to add to calls from other important figures in Washington seeking to bolster Ukraine amidst what is being characterized as Russian aggression:

With Russia’s military mobilizing along Ukraine’s borders, Mr. Biden’s call is the latest of a flurry of efforts to reassure Kyiv. Earlier this week, there were calls between U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley and their Ukrainian counterparts.

On Monday, Biden’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan held a phone conversation with Mr. Zelensky’s chief of staff, Andriy Yermak.

One of those previous calls, by Defense Secretary Austin, included promises of “reaffirmed unwavering US support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and Euro-Atlantic aspirations.”

It is worth remembering that part of the backdrop of these increased tensions is Ukraine’s plans to build two military bases in the Black Sea area with financial backing from the UK, a NATO member. In fact, the project was officially announced at NATO headquarters in Brussels in February. According to an article from Stars & Stripes:

The Navy destroyers USS Porter and USS Donald Cook have been operating with allies and with Ukraine’s navy in the Black Sea since January. On Tuesday, both warships, along with a P-8A reconnaissance plane, joined with two Turkish frigates and F-16 fighters in an integrated surface, air and subsurface warfare drill. On Wednesday, the destroyers departed after 17 days, one of the Navy’s largest deployments in the Black Sea in recent years.

This is in addition to NATO member Turkey’s assistance to Ukraine against the Donbass.

As for whether Kiev will move ahead with an all out offensive to regain control over the Donbass – something that Russia would not allow to happen and would thus trigger a military reaction – plenty of people are speculating that Kiev would do so under the belief that Washington would step in and defend Kiev militarily. This is reminiscent of then Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili’s belief in 2008 that Washington would have his back when he decided to attack Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia in order to take back the breakaway region. Consequently, he was left in the lurch and got his rear end handed to him by the Russian military. The political class in Washington has no problem setting others up to achieve its own ends regardless of the cost to the lackey who is foolish enough to play this role. There are numerous reasons why the blobby swamp creatures might want to create a provocation in the hopes of getting Russia labeled yet again as the aggressor: to keep it isolated with more sanctions, one last desperate attempt to kill Nordstream 2, undermine a tendency in Berlin and Paris to work toward some kind of reconciliation with Moscow, etc.

I can’t emphasize enough how utterly stupid and insane this would be. But both DC and Kiev have shown that they can do stupid and insane quite well, so it can’t entirely be ruled out.

Analyst Anatoly Karlin wrote recently that he thinks there is an increased chance of an all-out military conflict in Donbass due to military equipment being moved in through the port of Odessa in Ukraine recently from the U.S.:

The other reason is that quite a few people I know who are connected with the Donbass are near certain about a coming conflict to an extent that I don’t recall seeing in years (this excerpt from a discussion featuring Igor Strelkov on Sergey Zadumov’s show is not unrepresentative). Expected timeline appears to be late April to July.

I spoke 2 days ago with independent journalist and documentary filmmaker Regis Tremblay who is currently in Russia and has his own sources in the Donbass. He told me the following;

I can assure you that the situation all along the Ukrainian Donbass and Crimean borders is extremely tense and volatile. The US is putting heavy pressure on Ukraine to attack and take back The Donbass and Crimea. The US, Turkey, and NATO have been delivering heavy artillery and supplies to Ukraine via Odessa’s seaport, and the airport in Kiev. These “supplies” along with US, Canadian, French, and Turkish advisors is VERY expensive. Is it a bluff? If it is it’s a very expensive one.

A US general has been there along with special ops troops from the US, France, Turkey, and Canada are there and have been as trainers and advisors.

It has been widely reported by Kiev, that Ukraine has posted some 100,000 troops along the border of Ukraine, Donbass and Crimea. Last night President Zelinsky went on TV and declared that Ukraine would attack and take back The Donbass and Crimea, and it was then all over Russian TV news.

In response, Russia has sent several thousand troops to Crimea and to Russia’s border with The Donbass. Russian state media has confirmed the troop movement within Russia’s borders. Russia is ready and on high alert.

I personally do not think this is just another bluff. From what I am hearing from [my] sources, this is extremely dangerous.  I went on a video shoot today with several Crimeans…not one of them thinks this situation is dangerous…just more bluffing. I couldn’t disagree more. When two armies are positioned just kilometers apart and the Kiev side keeps violating the truce and killing civilians, anything could result in that “shot heard round the world.”

I do hope this is another big bluff, but even if it is, it is still extremely reckless. There can always be dangerous unintended consequences when you play chicken, especially with a nuclear superpower.