By Gilbert Doctorow, Website, 7/24/23

This evening’s News of the Week program on Russian state television opened with a 30 minute documentary survey of Polish-Russian relations from the end of WWI and during the period of the Russian Civil War, when the government under Marshall Pilsudski wrested substantial territory from Russian control. It also dealt extensively with Poland’s well documented role as aggressor and occupier of Czechoslovak, Lithuanian, Ukrainian and Belarus lands from before the start of WWII and until Hitler overran Poland.

This reportage was all built around Vladimir Putin’s speech to the RF Security Council on Friday which was partly broadcast then. Excerpts from that speech were used to introduce or segments of the overall documentary.

Let us recall that on Friday, Putin explained how and why we may expect the formal entry into the war of a Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian joint military force that will officially be presented as defending Ukrainian statehood by occupying the Western Ukraine. However, Putin described this as an occupying force which once installed in Lvov and Western Ukraine would never leave. This would in effect be a repeat of the sell-out of Ukrainian interests to Poles and cession of territory to Poland such as had been perpetrated by their leader Semyon Petlyura in April 1920 and has now been repeated in the secret agreements between presidents Zelensky of Ukraine and Duda of Poland.

However, that was not the only pending Polish aggression announced by Vladimir Putin on Friday. He said that Poland also had designs on Belarus land. The documentary this evening fleshed out that remark and reminded us of what Belarus territory Poland had grabbed by force in the 20th century when it had the opportunity. It also pointed a finger at those Belarus fighters abroad who will be used by Poland to spearhead their move against Minsk from Polish territory, and what armaments they are receiving from the United States and NATO member countries.

With respect to Polish designs on Ukraine, Putin did not tip his hand on what Russia’s response may be. But as regards Belarus, he stated directly on Friday that any act of aggression against Belarus will be considered an attack on Russia and Russia will respond with all the military force at its disposal. He warned Warsaw to consider the consequences of their actions.

Putin’s speech on Friday appeared to be directed at Warsaw. The program this evening was clearly directed at the broad Russian public, to prepare them for the onset of a possible Russian-Polish war in the immediate future.

This point was highlighted by the ongoing visit of Belarus president Lukashenko to Petersburg. There has been pomp and ceremony in this visit. Both presidents today visited Kronstadt, touring its principal church, which is the spiritual home of the Russian Navy. They also visited the about to be opened new museum of the Russian Navy, and its featured exhibit, which is Russia’s first nuclear submarine, the country’s answer to the American Nautilus at the time. And they held talks on the military and political threats their countries face. These talks unexpectedly will continue in the Konstantinovsky Palace outside Petersburg tomorrow. The reason for extensive consultations was clear from remarks that Lukashenko made to the press during his meeting with Putin: namely that Belarus military intelligence has been following very closely the massive build-up of Polish forces including tanks, helicopters and other heavy military equipment close to the Belarus border at several locations.

Tonight’s News of the Week program explained to the Russian public that the Poles’ new aggressive plans are proceeding only because of their confidence that Uncle Sam supports them. And they named the person embodying this link as former Foreign Minister of Poland Radoslaw Sikorsky (2014-15), who is today a Member of the European Parliament and delegate responsible for relations with the United States. A photo of Sikorski’s latest meetings with Pentagon officials and with Joe Biden and his advisers was put on the screen. For those who may wonder about Sikorsky’s political views, it pays to remember that he is the husband of neo-con, Russia-hating journalist Anne Applebaum, who is very well known to American audiences for her regular columns in The Washington Post.

From Russian talk shows of the past several days, it is easy to understand the Kremlin’s reading of the present proxy war in and around Ukraine: Washington sees that the Ukrainian counter-offensive is a complete failure that has cost tens of thousands of lives among the Ukrainian armed forces and has seen the destruction of a large part of the Western equipment delivered to Ukraine over the past months. Instead of suing for peace, Washington seeks to open a ‘second front,’ using Poland for this purpose.

One possible Russian response to any move against Belarus has also been discussed on air: to seize the Suwalki corridor that connects Kaliningrad to Belarus across Polish territory.. Taking control of that corridor would have the effect of isolating the Baltic States from Poland and thereby put their security at peril.

The inescapable conclusion from the latest news is that Washington’s incendiary policies and continuing escalation of the conflict cannot secure Russia’s defeat. On the contrary, they may well lead to the total collapse of the NATO alliance once its military value is disproven in a way that cannot be talked away or papered over by the most creative propagandists in DC. 

Kremlin website, 7/21/23 (English translation via Google translate)

The meeting was attended by the Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, Chairman of the Federation Council Valentina Matvienko, Chairman of the State Duma Vyacheslav Volodin, Vice-President of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev, Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Anton Vaino, Secretary of the Security Council Nikolay Patrushev, Minister of the Interior Vladimir Kolokoltsev, Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Defence Sergei Shoigu, Director of the Federal Security Service Alexander Bortnikov, Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service Sergey Naryshkin.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues.

We have several issues today, one of which is the development of relations with our friends on the African continent, and the Russia-Africa summit will soon be held in Russia. And the issue related to such an important area as the use of information technology, of course, in relation to ensuring the country’s security.

But first, I would like to ask if anyone has any current questions? Yes, please, Sergei Evgenievich.

Sergei Naryshkin: Mr President, colleagues!

According to information coming to the service from several sources, official Warsaw is gradually coming to the realization that no Western assistance to Kyiv is able to support Ukraine for the purposes that were laid down in this assistance. Moreover, there comes the realization that the issue of Ukraine’s defeat is only a matter of time.

In this regard, the Polish leadership is strengthening its intention to control the western territories of Ukraine, the western regions, by deploying its troops there. Such a step, as one of the options, is planned to be formalized as the fulfillment of allied obligations within the framework of the Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian security initiative – this is the so-called Lublin Triangle.

In this regard, we see that it is planned to significantly increase the size of the combined arms Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian brigade, which operates under the auspices of this so-called Lublin triangle.

It seems to us that these rather dangerous plans of the Polish leadership should be closely monitored.

Vladimir Putin: Yes. This is what Mr Medvedev has just said, and it should be discussed in more detail. This information has already appeared in the European, in particular in the French, press.

In this regard, I think it would be appropriate to recall some of the lessons of the history of the twentieth century.

Today it is obvious that the Western curators of the Kyiv regime are clearly disappointed with the results of the so-called counteroffensive, which the current Ukrainian authorities loudly broadcast in previous months. There are no results, at least not yet. Neither the colossal resources that were “pumped” into the Kyiv regime, nor the supply of Western weapons: tanks, artillery, armored vehicles, missiles, nor the dispatch of thousands of foreign mercenaries and advisers who were most actively used in attempts to break through the front of our army help.

At the same time, the command of the special military operation acts professionally. Our soldiers and officers, units and formations fulfill their duty to the Motherland courageously, steadfastly, heroically. At the same time, the whole world sees that the vaunted Western, supposedly invulnerable equipment is on fire, and in terms of its tactical and technical data, it is often even inferior to some Soviet-made weapons.

Yes, of course, Western weapons can still be additionally supplied and thrown into battle. This, of course, causes us some damage and prolongs the conflict. But, first, NATO’s arsenals and stocks of old Soviet weapons in some states are already largely devastated. And secondly, the existing production facilities in the West do not allow to quickly replenish the consumption of reserves of equipment and ammunition. We need additional, and more resources and time.

And most importantly, as a result of suicidal attacks, the formations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine suffered huge losses. These are tens of thousands, tens of thousands of people.

And, despite the constant raids, the incessant waves of total mobilization in the cities and villages of Ukraine, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the current regime to drive new recruits to the front. The country’s mobilization resource is being depleted.

People in Ukraine are increasingly asking a question, a legitimate question: for what, for whose selfish interests are their relatives and friends dying? Gradually, slowly, but sobering up.

We see that public opinion is changing in Europe as well. Both Europeans and representatives of the European elites see that the so-called support for Ukraine is, in fact, a dead end, a waste of money and effort, but in fact it serves someone else’s, far from European interests: the interests of the overseas global hegemon, which benefits from the weakening of Europe. He also benefits from the endless prolongation of the Ukrainian conflict.

Judging by what is happening in real life, today’s ruling elites in the United States are doing just that. In any case, they act in this logic. Whether such a policy corresponds to the true, fundamental interests of the American people is a big question, a rhetorical question, of course, let them decide for themselves.

However, now the fire of war is being intensively fomented. In particular, they use the ambitions of the leaders of some Eastern European states, who have long turned hatred of Russia and Russophobia into their main export commodity and an instrument of their domestic policy. And now they want to warm their hands on the Ukrainian tragedy.

In this regard, I would be remiss if I did not comment on what has just been said: the press reports about plans to create a so-called Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian unit. That is, we are not talking about some kind of gathering of mercenaries – there are enough of them there, and they are being destroyed – but about a regular, cobbled-together, equipped military unit that is planned to be used for operations on the territory of Ukraine. Including to supposedly ensure the security of modern Western Ukraine, and in fact, if you call a spade a spade, for the subsequent occupation of these territories. After all, the prospect is obvious: if Polish units enter, for example, Lviv or other territories of Ukraine, then they will remain there. And they will remain forever.

And this, by the way, will not be anything new. Let me remind you that after the defeat of Germany and its allies following the results of the First World War, Polish units occupied Lviv and adjacent lands that then belonged to Austria-Hungary.

Poland, instigated by the West, took advantage of the tragedy of the Civil War in Russia, annexed some historical Russian provinces. Our country, which was then in a difficult situation, was forced to conclude the Treaty of Riga in 1921 and actually recognize the rejection of its territories.

And even earlier, in 1920, Poland seized part of Lithuania – the Vilnius region, the territory around modern Vilnius. It seems that together with the Lithuanians they fought against the so-called “Russian imperialism”, and as soon as the opportunity turned up, they immediately chopped off a piece of land from their neighbors.

Poland, as you know, also took part in the partition of Czechoslovakia as a result of the Munich agreement with Hitler in 1938. Completely occupied Cieszyn Silesia.

In the 20s and 30s of the last century, in the so-called Eastern Kresy of Poland – and this is the territory of Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and part of Lithuania – severe Polonization and assimilation of local residents was carried out, national cultures and Orthodoxy were suppressed.

I would also like to remind you of how such an aggressive policy ended for Poland as a result. It ended with the national tragedy of 1939, when Poland was abandoned by the Western Allies to be devoured by the German war machine and actually lost its independence and statehood, which was restored to a large extent thanks to the Soviet Union. And it was thanks to the Soviet Union, thanks to Stalin’s position, that Poland received significant lands in the West, the lands of Germany. This is exactly right: the western territories of present-day Poland are Stalin’s gift to the Poles.

Have our friends in Warsaw forgotten about it? We will remind.

Today we see that the regime in Kiev is ready to do anything to save its corrupt skin and prolong its existence. They do not care about the people of Ukraine, its sovereignty and national interests.

They will trade in everything: both people and land. By the way, just like their ideological predecessors, the Petliurists, who in 1920 concluded so-called secret conventions with Poland, according to which, in exchange for military support, they gave Poland the lands of Galicia and Western Volhynia. Such traitors are still ready to open the gates for foreign owners and once again sell Ukraine.

As for the Polish leaders, they probably expect to form some kind of coalition under the NATO umbrella and directly intervene in the conflict in Ukraine, in order to then tear off a fatter piece for themselves, to regain for themselves, as they believe, their historical territories – today’s Western Ukraine. It is well known that they also dream of Belarusian lands.

As for the policy of the Ukrainian regime, this is his business. They want, as is usual with traitors, to hand over something, sell it, pay off the owners with something – this, I repeat, is their business in the end. We will not interfere in this.

But as for Belarus, it is part of the Union State, unleashing aggression against Belarus will mean aggression against the Russian Federation. We will respond to this with all the means at our disposal.

The Polish authorities, nurturing their revanchist plans, do not tell the truth to their people either. And the truth is that the West is clearly not enough Ukrainian “cannon fodder”, not enough. Therefore, they plan to use new consumables: the Poles themselves, Lithuanians and further down the list – everyone who is not sorry.

I will say one thing: this is a very dangerous game, and the authors of such plans should think about the consequences.

Sergey Evgenievich, I hope that your service, as well as our other special services, will closely follow the development of events.

Now let’s get down to our main questions.

RT, 7/21/23

Igor Strelkov, a controversial former Donbass militia commander, was detained in Moscow on Friday amid an investigation into allegations of extremism, according to news outlets and family members. The soldier-turned-blogger is also known by his real name, Igor Girkin.

Citing sources, newspaper RBK reported that the Russian Investigative Committee was executing a search order at Strelkov’s home, and that he had been taken into custody.   

Strelkov became the focus of international attention in 2014 while serving as defense minister of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR), which was then unrecognized.  

The role made him the prime suspect in the Dutch investigation into the downing of MH17, which crashed in July 2014, killing all 298 people on board. In November 2022, a Dutch court sentenced Strelkov in absentia to a life term in prison. Moscow rejected the prosecution as politically motivated and claimed it was an attempt to whitewash possible Ukrainian guilt.

Strelkov’s lawyer confirmed his detention, according to RBK. Sources in law enforcement claimed that the arrest was based on a criminal complaint filed by a former member of the Wagner private military company. 

A message posted on Strelkov’s social media, which was signed by his wife, said she had learned about the detention from the concierge of their apartment block. Unidentified friends said Strelkov was suspected of extremism, according to the message.

Other Russian news outlets later confirmed the news about Strelkov’s detention, citing their own sources.

Strelkov is now a popular military blogger, and is a vocal critic of the Russian government and military leadership amid the conflict with Ukraine. He believes Moscow is not going far enough in mobilizing the capacity of the country. 

READ MORE: MH17 verdict ‘politically motivated’ – Russia

Earlier this year, Strelkov was involved in a public feud with Evgeny Prigozhin, head of the Wagner Group. Prigozhin challenged Strelkov to go to the front lines and join his forces, although the pair could not reach agreement over which position he would take.

Prigozhin is now viewed as a pariah in Russia after staging a brief mutiny last month. He ordered some of his men to march on Moscow with the stated goal of replacing senior Russian generals. Moscow branded Prigozhin a traitor, but allowed him to leave the country to avoid major bloodshed.

Strelkov has also had tensions with fellow members of his ‘Club of Angry Patriots’ online group over his criticism of Wagner troops.

By Eric Zuesse, RT, 7/14/23

In late June, a former advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Professor Sergei Karaganov, of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, published an article headlined ‘Here’s why Russia has to consider launching a nuclear strike on Western Europe.’ He argued that the time has now come for Moscow to seriously consider the possibility to pre-emptively invade or use atomic weapons against the most hostile European members of NATO:

“When discussing a hypothetical atomic attack on Western Europe, the question arises: how would the US answer? Virtually all experts agree that under no circumstances would the Americans respond to a nuclear attack on their allies with a nuclear attack on our territory. Incidentally, even [President Joe] Biden has said so openly. Russian military experts, however, believe that a massive conventional retaliatory strike could follow. It could be pointed out that this would be followed by even more massive nuclear strikes. And they would finish off Western Europe as a geopolitical entity.”

However, I believe that if Russia so much as even considers this course it would be a catastrophic mistake without first having offered to each and every Western European country a certain type of bilateral mutual non-aggression treaty which would also require – where applicable – that they withdraw from America’s anti-Russia military alliance, NATO. Even if only one member of the bloc broke away, that could spark the end of the organization.

Putin has thus far responded to the West’s aggressive expansion of NATO right up to Russia’s borders by targeting missiles against new member states, and not by offering each of them individually a bilateral treaty-proposal and guarantees for peace, including mutual weapons-inspections. Instead, it seems that a NATO nation cannot quit the anti-Russia bloc and manage its own peaceful relations with Moscow, plus increased trade, and other mutual bilateral benefits. However, by abandoning alliances with the world’s most aggressive nation, the US, and agreeing with Russia directly, a future of peace and mutual economic benefit could prevail across Europe. Putin ought to make this offer now. It might prevent World War Three. The historical background explains why:

I agree with Dr. Karaganov that a fundamental change is needed in Russia’s relations with the other countries of Europe, but I propose that the first step in this regard MUST be the following Russian offer to each one of them:

The offer should be made only privately to each US-allied country. If any government concerned privately says no, Russia should then offer the deal publicly. Public opinion might then force that government – whose prior rejection of the deal would not yet be publicly known – to agree to it. Thus, there would be two chances to obtain an agreement, and this would greatly increase the odds of success in each case.

The substance of the agreement would be as follows:

Russia will announce that its nuclear missiles will be targeted ONLY against the US and its allies, including all NATO member-nations, but not neutral or unaligned nations. In other words, any new NATO member-nation will thereby become a target added to Russia’s list for destruction in any World War III scenario that might transpire between the United States and Russia. Any existing NATO nation that accepts the offered treaty would no longer threaten Russia and would consequently no longer be targeted by Russia.

Furthermore, Moscow should simultaneously announce that if any nation wishes to have an assurance that Russia will never, under any circumstance, invade it, then it will welcome from that nation a request for such an assurance from Russia. Moscow will include in that announcement explicit invitations to all nations which have, at some time, expressed an intention or a possible future intention to join NATO. In this regard, it will also state, in advance, that if ever Russia were to provide to a nation such an assurance and subsequently to violate it, then it would be violating its own tradition of rigidly adhering to international treaties that it has signed. Additionally, it would also thereby be forfeiting to the country it had thereby broken its commitment to and violated, any and all of its rights under international law. Consequently, under the arrangement that is being proposed here, there would be no nation in the entire world that has, or ever did have, so strict an international treaty legal obligation as Russia would be beholden to under this proposed arrangement. It would be much clearer than what the international law-breaking US government ever did or can offer in the NATO treaty or any other. Russia’s record of strictly abiding by its agreements speaks for itself. So does America’s record of violating agreements.

Finally, this proposed arrangement would offer, to all existing members of NATO, a promise that if and when any such existing member-nation will quit that anti-Russia military alliance, Moscow will be happy to – at the moment that this is done – automatically provide to that nation the same legal commitment never to invade that nation, as has just been described here. In other words, the proposed arrangement will offer, to the entire world, a stark and clear choice between peace with Russia or being allied with the most aggressive nation in the world’s history. One that places illegal sanctions, organizes coups, and even invades states that fail to cooperate with its goal to replace the United Nations as being the ultimate arbiter of international laws. A country seeking to be the ultimate arbiter of what it calls “the rules-based international order” in which all of those ‘rules’ come ultimately from whomever rules the US government.

On the other hand, Moscow would be helping to reposition the UN into what had been its original goal: to replace the historic use of force by-and-between rival international empires. This vision was to create a peaceful and democratic international world order, in which a “United Nations” would be a worldwide federation of all nations, in which international laws will be produced by the global legislature of duly authorized (under each individual nation’s own internal laws) representatives, and adjudicated by the global Supreme Court, and enforced by the sole global possessor and user of strategic weaponry – the UN. Additionally, penalties that are ruled by this global Court of international relations should be enforced against the government of any nation that has been ruled by this Court to have violated the rights of any other nation’s government.

In this understanding of the UN’s proper scope of power and of authority, the body would have no authority and no power regarding the constitutions or laws of any nation that apply internally to a given nation, but ONLY to international laws, which pertain exclusively to international relations, and never to a nation’s internal matters. It would make another World War – another war between empires – impossible, by eliminating all empires, and replacing all of them by an international democracy of (an international federation of) nations. Russia, in the proposed arrangement, would be striving to achieve, for the entire planet, what had been once planned for the post-War War Two world.

Link here.

Garland Nixon is a former police investigator and currently a political analyst and interviewer.