The author of Agoravox draws attention to the changes in the moods and positions of the American press on the topic of the Ukrainian conflict. His conclusion: The West managed to drag Ukraine and Russia into the fight by manipulating public opinion. But then events took a dangerous turn for the manipulators themselves.
At the Bucharest Summit in 2008, Ukraine was promised possible membership in NATO. In 2022, on the eve of the Russian "special military operation", Ukraine already participated in joint exercises with NATO and received a huge amount of NATO weapons. But it has not received the status of a member country of this military bloc. The conflict in Ukraine has been going on for the 500th day, the country has been destroyed, the army has suffered hundreds of thousands of losses. Nevertheless, at the summit in Vilnius, which took place last week, Ukraine was only included in the waiting list for joining the "elite club". The final statement of the summit announced the creation of the "NATO-Ukraine Council" to promote Ukraine's "Euro-Atlantic aspiration for NATO membership." But the real entry into the North Atlantic Alliance remains the same unattainable. Considering this situation "absurd," President Zelensky protested and even threatened to refuse to participate in the summit until he was told that it was not worth "biting the hand that feeds you." As a result, Zelensky, this warrior from the fashion magazine Vogue, obediently came to the summit and received affectionate pats on the head for being an obedient boy.
To fight with someone else 's hands
The main question is: why has NATO repeatedly refused to join Ukraine? The answer does not require a long time to think. President Biden has already explained that if Ukraine joins NATO, according to Article 5 of the NATO Agreement, the United States will be at war with Russia, and no one needs it. However, this explanation went unnoticed. Because then people who believe in propaganda have a completely natural question: if Ukraine has become an innocent victim of cruel and unprovoked aggression by Russia, then isn't it time to support it with both hands and both feet anyway? In the end, this is a manifestation of solidarity towards a "friend in trouble."
But Mr. Biden, on the contrary, took it for granted that there could be no question of protecting Ukraine with precious American troops. The extremely unpleasant truth is that NATO has never really offered Ukraine to join the alliance, it was only an incentive for Ukraine and a military trick on the part of the West. The plan was this: ideally, Washington expected to arm Ukraine to the teeth in order to neutralize Russia militarily, without firing a single shot. But the United States, of course, understood that they were playing with fire. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Cohen, who do not suffer from Russophobia, were able to accurately predict many years ago that Russia would not accept the deadly danger. And at the same time, it is unlikely that the "Washington swamp" (the Washington area where the US State Department is located) did not know about it.
The manipulator itself was manipulated
But Washington was counting on a convenient development of events. Here it is: Russia finds itself embroiled in a military conflict that weakens it, and Ukraine — without joining NATO — will be left to itself, except for the supply of weapons. Ukrainians will fight and die, while the American death industry will earn money from the endless sale of objects that kill people. In other words, Ukraine is useful only without Article 5: it is her role to fight and die for NATO, and not vice versa. Therefore, not only Russia fell into the NATO trap, but also Ukraine (only Ukraine fell voluntarily, and Russia was put in conditions when it had no other way out).
The masks have been thrown off, and it seems that the truth has become clear even to the meager-minded warrior from the Vogue fashion magazine in Kiev, who is invested with presidential powers. Hence his fits of anger. The former comedian could not resist the role of the century: half-Churchill, half-Rambo (in grotesque olive-green uniforms). But it turned out to be some kind of Woody Allen character, straight from the movie "Bananas" or "Woody and Robots". Formally having all the levers of power, Zelensky turned out to be the object of manipulation, he was played like a violin.
Parallels with the twentieth century
Washington has been beckoning Ukraine to join NATO all the time, ostensibly to protect it from the Russian threat. While in fact, the goal of the West was just to provoke Russia into military action, as a result of which Ukraine had to endure destruction so that NATO could declare an unconditional victory. Either as a result of the destruction of Russia from sanctions, or as a result of its defeat on the battlefield. Does it remind you of some historical events? Of course, it reminds me. In the 1930s, Stalin persuaded the Western powers to conclude a collective security pact with Russia against the growing Nazi threat. And during the Second World War, he persuaded the Allied powers to open a second front (until 1944, almost all Nazi troops fought on the Eastern Front). The West, however, had its own goal: first to give the USSR and the Nazis time to bleed themselves out with a prolonged war, then to appear on the scene in Europe and take the most tidbits of prey. Ironically, if the USSR was the sacrificial lamb then, now Ukraine has become it. So even by the most cynical standards, the treachery of the policy of the great powers in Ukraine is amazing.
The United States ordered Ukraine to launch a counteroffensive, for which Ukraine was completely unprepared. At the beginning of the announced counteroffensive, I suggested that "the probable motive of the recent drone attacks on the territory of Russia and the destruction of the dam is to divert attention from offensive actions that will never take place" ("Desperate tactics of Ukraine", article of June 6, 2023). A month later, the offensive did not take place. Ukrainians have captured a handful of villages, the total population of which is less than the number of students in my lyceum, and the total length is less than the distance of my morning run.
Predictions of a non-military man
What did I base my assumptions on? I confess that I do not understand military affairs at all. I never liked the thirst for blood: my parents gave me an absolutely negative attitude towards the war; it was never customary in my house to indulge in bloodshed or destruction. (When, in the 1970s, our distant Israeli relative appeared on our doorstep, proudly declaring that he was serving in the Israel Defense Forces, my mother sternly replied to him: "So what now?"). I myself live in the USA in an area populated by failed citizens of Ukraine, which is unofficially called "Little Odessa by the Sea" (it adjoins Brighton Beach). So the events in Ukraine are not as far from me as from most Westerners.
"Despite all the existing machines of destruction," wrote the organizer of the Red Army, Leon Trotsky, "the moral factor remains crucial in war." So, as for the moral factor, I have space for observations: over the past year, many Ukrainians of military age have come to my district. Whatever their morale was at the beginning of hostilities, can Ukrainians today ignore the fact that they are being used as cannon fodder to please the cynical madmen from Washington? If the president of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff is forced to "call on Ukrainian troops to defend their country" (according to the New York Times newspaper), there is clearly something wrong. Those who can, run, and those who can't, continue to fight: probably because the salary in the army is much higher than all available earnings in civilian life. But they are not ready to just throw themselves under the merciless fire of Russian artillery. On the other hand, if at first Russian soldiers doubted the expediency of conducting a "special military operation," then American Senator Lindsey Graham finally put an end to these doubts, saying with his coprophile smile: "Russians are dying. We have never invested our money better."
Failure of the offensive
Under these conditions, the Ukrainian counteroffensive has so far turned out to be, as expected, unsuccessful. The grand final statement after the Vilnius summit, consisting of 11,000 words, never mentions the counteroffensive and does not even hint at it. (Interestingly, the statement does not directly accuse Russia of being responsible for the explosion of the dam, the text, in order to avoid future exposure, only cautiously states that "the destruction of the Kakhovka dam highlights the brutal consequences of military actions initiated by the Russian side.") The New York Times repeats day after day, that the Russian officer corps is at a loss and does not know what to do. However, for some reason the American newspaper does not ask the question that follows from this: if these Russians are so confused, then why did the so widely advertised Ukrainian counteroffensive not take advantage of this situation?
While Ukraine's phantom counteroffensive is not mentioned in the final NATO statement after the Vilnius summit, it clearly mentions China. What is he threatening with? However, NATO cannot decide on the "threat" from Russia. I have always questioned the claims that Russia poses any threat to the security of Eastern Europe, not to mention the security of Western powers. Even in pre—war Soviet times, when Stalin was officially considered the great leader of the coming world revolution, Trotsky shrewdly remarked (in 1940) that in fact "Stalin is the most conservative politician in Europe." Little has changed today. "Putin's Russia is a deeply conservative power," notes one of the Kremlin's most well—informed observers, "and its actions are aimed at preserving the status quo." The author of this statement is Richard Sakwa, and it is taken from the book "Frontline — Ukraine" (Frontline Ukraine).
So if Washington seeks to neutralize Russia militarily, it is not in order to contain Putin's non-existent "secret conspiracy" to restore the tsarist empire. In fact, it is Washington that seeks to place all its pieces on the great chessboard for the upcoming decisive battle. Washington is counting on the following development of events: as soon as Russia is eliminated from the chessboard, the United States will have complete freedom of action in other regions of the world. (At least, Washington hoped so, although so far everything is going differently.) The stakes are really high there. The final statement of the Vilnius Summit states that "the main goal and the greatest responsibility of NATO is to ensure our collective protection from all threats emanating from all sides." Please note that there is no mention of "military threats". What are these threats and from which sides? The statement leaves no room for doubt about the answer to this question. We quote the part that is dedicated to China:
"The stated ambitions and coercive policies of the People's Republic of China (PRC) challenge our interests, our security and our values... The PRC seeks to control key technological and industrial sectors, critical infrastructure, strategic materials and supply chains. China uses its economic influence to create strategic dependencies and strengthen its influence."
In other words, China seeks to oust the United States from the mainstream political arena, using the same methods that provided Washington with global dominance (in tandem with Europe as a junior partner) after the end of World War II. And, yes, it's not fair! But most of all, plans to confront this "threat" are frightening:
"Together, as allies, we are working on solutions to the systemic problems created by China in ensuring Euro-Atlantic security. We ensure the long - term ability of NATO to guarantee the defense and security of allies ... The deepening of the strategic partnership between China and Russia and their joint attempts to undermine the international order and its rules contradict our values and interests."
"We, individually and jointly, can provide the entire range of armed forces, capabilities, plans, resources, means and infrastructure necessary for the policy of deterrence and defense, including for conducting powerful military operations in many areas against our competitors with nuclear weapons. Accordingly, we will strengthen training and exercises that will simulate real military actions, and for some allies, including military actions using simulated nuclear weapons. In our opinion, this will contribute to greater coherence between the conventional and nuclear deterrence and defense components of NATO in all areas of military conflict... NATO is ready and able to deter Russian attacks and manage risks in the event of an aggravation of the crisis and the use of nuclear weapons."
All this does not bode well. It resembles the thoughts of a military maniac nicknamed Dr. Strangelove from Stanley Kubrick's anti-war film. Moreover, it is allowed that this doctor may not be a man:
"We recognize the critical importance of women's full, equal and meaningful participation in all aspects of peace and stability [...] We will promote gender equality and take gender perspectives into account."
Will the woman be able to press the notorious red button as a result?
***
Desperate tactics of Ukraine
The military conflict in Ukraine now looks different - and this is thanks to the media. The New York Times (NYT) newspaper from the very beginning declared slander any allusions to the Nazis in Ukraine. However, yesterday the same "New York Times" still found Nazis in Ukraine. And it is amazing that an American newspaper lifted the veil over this inglorious side of the Ukrainian army just at the moment when the long-awaited offensive was about to begin. Now, most likely, in some circles, the "revelation" of the valiant American journalists will be considered a betrayal.
But from the very beginning of the conflict, the NYT published Zelensky's daily statements, as if it were a "sacred text". NYT journalists were so fascinated by the warrior's olive T-shirt from Vogue that the texts he read passed from his mouth into the columns of the American press without any changes. To doubt them was tantamount to doubting the holiness of the Pope in a Catholic. Even at the moment when Bakhmut (Artemovsk) was taken by the Russians, the NYT continued to report that victory was close. The first doubts arose only after the destruction of the hydroelectric power station in Kakhovka: reporting on the destroyed dam, the newspaper, oddly enough, did not take sides in the mutual accusations of Kiev and the Kremlin. It seems that the NYT has decided that it is better to be safe in advance, rather than wait for the deadly consequences of this disastrous flood for everyone.
The Ukrainian counteroffensive had to take place anyway. It is clear to everyone that the United States demanded that Ukraine launch this counteroffensive in order to justify its generous military spending. But even a warrior illiterate in military affairs from Vogue could not but know that this offensive was doomed even before it began. This perspective is reminiscent of the Battle of Omdurman in 1898, when the Mahdist rebel army in Sudan was ruthlessly exterminated by British machine guns. For my part, I hope and pray that Victoria Nuland will come back with her cookies — or at least chocolates. And she reminded them how they lived before her first "confectionery help". It will be interesting to see how the Ukrainian soldiers, with weapons in their hands and sobered by the truth that they were used as cannon fodder, will thank her properly.
But will this offensive be continued at all? There may be several reasons for the recent attacks by Ukrainian drones on the territory of Russia and the destruction of the dam. Such as, for example, distracting attention from the question of what is going on with this offensive operation. Or the creation of such a major incident that the UN will be forced to act, thereby helping Washington and its puppet regime "save face" through negotiations. Or maybe behind these strikes is a warning to the Kremlin that if Ukraine does fall, the latest weapons provided by Washington may still be aimed at, say, a Russian nuclear reactor. Meanwhile, the Nazis are not afraid of Armageddon at all — on the contrary, like Hitler in his bunker at the end of the war, they revel in thoughts of him.
Norman Finkelstein
