On Russia's War Against Ukraine
by Peter Becker
[This excerpt posted on 1/15/2023 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=92409.]
6. the war was provoked! Evaluation of the processes
We consider the following processes:
The advantages of the U.S. since the beginning of the war: they implement long-term political goals, which they have long worked towards, without any fuss:
They achieve the profound divisiveness of Russia and Germany by removing Ukraine from the Eurasian bloc;
their wars and interventions in violation of international law are suddenly forgotten.
The U.S. tools are many and have been used since the end of the Cold War:
The financial support of the nearly bankrupt Ukraine;
the unprovoked NATO expansion to the East;
the charter of the U.S.-Ukrainian partnership;
the intervention in Ukrainian domestic politics with the support of the Western-oriented presidential candidate Yushchenko with the help of the "Revolutionary Ltd."
Overthrow of President Yanukovych, who was restored to power, through direct support of the processes on the Maidan, even the "Right Sector" is accepted;
Joint maneuvers, arming of the Ukrainian army;
Incitement against Russia through unsubstantiated allegations of Russia's support for separatists in the Donbass;
NATO deployment beginning with the Partnership for Peace in 1994.
In all actions, the U.S. knew they were directed against Russia's interests. Putin, after all, protested many times. Nevertheless, the actions continued.
A fine example is Putin's speech at the Munich Security Conference. Putin addressed
NATO expansion, saying it was a "provocative factor." So the U.S. had to continue it;
so-called light U.S. outpost bases of 5,000 troops each were being built in Bulgaria and Romania, which Putin classified as a violation of the CFE Treaty, while Russia "strictly adhered to the treaty." So NATO had to continue its deployments in other countries as well;
"We are also concerned about plans to build a missile defense system in Europe." So the U.S. just had to implement its plans, which it did.
The U.S. just had to take Putin at his word to provoke him further. Biden also knew exactly how to irritate Putin: He called him a "murderer," had Russian diplomats expelled, and even placed a U.S. banker in the Ukrainian government. He could not have demonstrated U.S. influence over the government in Kiev more clearly.
Obama, too, had already pejoratively called Russia a "regional power." And Biden succeeded: Putin responded with his offer of a treaty aimed at easing tensions. And Biden - wisely - did not accept it. Thus, war became inevitable, which was also correctly predicted by the U.S. intelligence services.
7 The sanctions probably miss their target
There are numerous indications of this:
The seizure of Russian dollar reserves will boomerang. This is because Russia is a member of OPEC. The latter has cut oil production and thus increased the demand for oil - and the price. The higher price more than compensates for the loss of dollar reserves.
Saudi Arabia and Russia have grown closer. This is the result of Western attacks on the Kashoggi murder, for which Saudi Crown Prince (and Saudi Arabia's secret ruler) Salman is arguably responsible.
Already, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is moving toward West Asia, with Iran joining it and Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Egypt gaining dialogue partner status and Turkey seeking full membership. The SCO summit in Samarkand laid out a roadmap for gradually increasing the share of national currencies in mutual payments, underscoring the seriousness of this intention.
The end of dollar domination could be the result: oil is conventionally paid for in dollars ("petrodollars"). As a result, all countries that have a need for oil must maintain high dollar reserves. In return, the U.S. had to commit itself to granting all countries free access to the dollar.
However, this pledge has proven false since the dollar has been weaponized and the U.S. has absurdly attempted to appropriate other countries' dollar reserves. Not surprisingly, Putin has pointed to the need to create an alternative reserve currency to the dollar, and this is resonating with world opinion.
This is supported by the fact that the White House, rather than reconsidering, is considering new forms of punishment for Saudi Arabia and Russia. While it is difficult to "punish" Russia, since the U.S. has exhausted all options, Biden probably thinks the U.S. has Saudi Arabia by the throat: as an arms supplier and custodian of massive Saudi reserves and investments.
8. the secret war of the USA against the EU
The EU is suffering from Russia's war against Ukraine:
Capping Russian gas supplies to EU states is driving up energy costs and fueling inflation.
Member states are forced to increase their spending on the military instead of using it for social purposes.
The entire economy is affected as a result.
The EU subscribes to a logic of war instead of a logic of peace.
In the global struggle for hegemony, the position of the EU is weakened, that of the USA strengthened.
9 A fitting quote on this
"Coal-fired power plants, considered a "scandal" just twelve months ago, are being reopened in Europe with the blessing of environment ministers. European politicians court autocrats and dictators around the world in the hope of being allowed to buy a bit of gas or oil, which is then transported to Europe using polluting oil tankers and bulk carriers. Shale gas and shale oil, just of the devil, are big in fashion. And all this to boycott Vladimir Putin, who as president of Russia has always been willing to provide us with more environmentally friendly gas and oil for little money?" (Guy Mettan: Europe betrays its values, in: Zeit-Fragen No. 22 v. 18.10.2022).
__________________________________________________________________________________
What are the war aims?
Interview with Erich Vad:
[This interview posted on 1/15/2023 is translated from the German on the Internet, Erich Vad: Was sind die Kriegsziele?.]
Erich Vad ist Ex-Brigade-General. Von 2006 bis 2013 war er der militärpolitische Berater von Bundeskanzlerin Ang...
Erich Vad is an ex-brigade general. From 2006 to 2013, he was the military policy advisor to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He is one of the rare voices who spoke out publicly against arms deliveries to Ukraine early on, without political strategy or diplomatic efforts. Even now he speaks an uncomfortable truth.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Brigadier General Erich Vad in Kunduz in 2010.
Mr. Vad, what do you say about the delivery of the 40 Marder to Ukraine just announced by Chancellor Scholz?
This is a military escalation, also in the perception of the Russians - even if the more than 40-year-old Marder is not a wonder weapon. We are going down a slippery slope. This could develop a momentum of its own that we can no longer control. Of course it was and is right to support Ukraine and of course Putin's invasion is not in conformity with international law - but now the consequences must finally be considered!
And what could be the consequences?
Does one want to achieve readiness for negotiations with the deliveries of the tanks? Do they want to reconquer the Donbass or the Crimea? Or does one want to defeat Russia completely? There is no realistic end-state definition. And without an overall political and strategic concept, arms deliveries are pure militarism.
What does that mean?
We have a military stalemate that we cannot resolve militarily. That, by the way, is also the opinion of U.S. Chief of Staff Mark Milley. He has said that a military victory for Ukraine is not to be expected and that negotiations are the only possible way. Anything else means the senseless wear and tear of human lives.
General Milley's statement caused much anger in Washington and was also heavily criticized publicly.
He spoke an uncomfortable truth. A truth, by the way, that was almost not published in the German media. The interview with Milley by CNN did not appear anywhere bigger, while he is the Chief of Staff of our Western leading power. What is being conducted in Ukraine is a war of attrition. And one with now close to 200,000 soldiers killed and wounded on both sides, with 50,000 civilian dead, and with millions of refugees. Milley has thus drawn a parallel with World War I that could not be more apt. In World War I, the so-called 'Blood Mill of Verdun' alone, designed as a battle of attrition, resulted in the deaths of nearly a million young French and Germans. They fell for nothing at that time. So the refusal of the warring parties to negotiate led to millions of additional deaths. This strategy did not work militarily then - and will not do so now.
You, too, have been attacked for calling for negotiations.
Yes, so has the Inspector General of the Bundeswehr, General Eberhard Zorn, who, like me, has warned against overestimating the Ukrainians' regionally limited offensives during the summer months. Military experts - who know what goes on among the intelligence services, what it looks like on the ground and what war really means - are largely excluded from the discourse. They don't fit in with the media's opinion-making. To a large extent, we are witnessing a media conformity that I have never seen before in the Federal Republic of Germany. This is pure opinion mongering. And not on behalf of the state, as is known from totalitarian regimes, but out of pure self-empowerment.
They are attacked by the media on a broad front, from BILD to FAZ and Spiegel, and thus also the 500,000 people who signed the Open Letter to the Chancellor initiated by Alice Schwarzer.
That's right. Fortunately, Alice Schwarzer has her own independent media to be able to open this discourse at all. It probably wouldn't have worked in the leading media. The majority of the population has been against further arms deliveries for a long time, and according to the latest polls. But none of this is being reported. There is no longer any fair, open discourse on the war in Ukraine, and I find that very disturbing. It shows me how right Helmut Schmidt was. He said in a conversation with Chancellor Merkel: Germany is and remains a nation at risk.
Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock in Kharkiv. - Xander Heinl/IMAGO
What do you think of the foreign minister's policy?
Military operations must always be coupled with an attempt to bring about political solutions. The one-dimensionality of the current foreign policy is hard to bear. It is very much focused on weapons. But the main task of foreign policy is and remains diplomacy, reconciliation of interests, understanding and conflict resolution. That's what I miss here. I'm glad that we finally have a female foreign minister in Germany, but it's not enough just to engage in war rhetoric and walk around Kiev or the Donbass wearing a helmet and flak jacket. That is not enough.
Yet Baerbock is a member of the Greens, the former peace party.
I don't understand the mutation of the Greens from a pacifist party to a war party. I myself don't know any Green who has even done military service. Anton Hofreiter is for me the best example of this double standard. Antje Vollmer, on the other hand, whom I would count among the 'original' Greens, calls a spade a spade. And the fact that a single party has so much political influence that it can maneuver us into a war, that's quite alarming.
If Chancellor Scholz had taken you over from his predecessor and you were still the chancellor's military adviser, what would you have advised him to do in February 2022?
I would have advised him to support Ukraine militarily, but in a measured and prudent manner, in order to avoid slippery slope effects into a war party. And I would have advised him to influence our most important political ally, the United States. Because the key to a solution to the war lies in Washington and Moscow. I have liked the course the chancellor has taken in recent months. But the Greens, the FDP and the bourgeois opposition - flanked by largely unanimous media accompaniment - are exerting such pressure that the chancellor can hardly absorb it.
And what if the leopard is also delivered?
Then the question arises again as to what should happen with the tank deliveries in the first place. To take over Crimea or the Donbass, the Marder and Leopard are not enough. In eastern Ukraine, in the Bachmut area, the Russians are clearly on the march. They will probably have completely conquered the Donbass before long. Just consider the numerical superiority of the Russians over Ukraine alone. Russia can mobilize up to two million reservists. The West can send 100 martens and 100 leopards, they will not change the overall military situation. And the all-important question is how to get through such a conflict with a belligerent nuclear power - by the way, the strongest nuclear power in the world! - without going into a third world war. And exactly this does not go into the heads of the politicians and the journalists here in Germany!
The argument is, Putin does not want to negotiate and that one must put him in his place, so that he does not rage further in Europe.
It is true that one must signal to the Russians: This far and no further! Such a war of aggression must not be allowed to set a precedent. That's why it's right for NATO to increase its military presence in the east and for Germany to join in. But Putin's refusal to negotiate is untrustworthy. Both the Russians and the Ukrainians were prepared to reach a peace agreement at the beginning of the war at the end of March, beginning of April 2022. Then nothing came of it. After all, it was also during the war that the grain agreement was finally negotiated by the Russians and Ukrainians with the involvement of the United Nations.
Now the dying continues.
You can continue to wear down the Russians, which in turn means hundreds of thousands of deaths, but on both sides. And it means further destruction of Ukraine. What will be left of this country? It will be razed to the ground. In the end, that is no longer an option for Ukraine either. The key to resolving the conflict does not lie in Kiev, it does not lie in Berlin, Brussels or Paris, it lies in Washington and Moscow. It is ridiculous to say that Ukraine must decide this.
With this interpretation one is quickly considered a conspiracy theorist in Germany...
I myself am a convinced transatlanticist. I'll tell you honestly, when in doubt, I'd rather live under an American hegemony than under a Russian or Chinese one. This war was initially just a domestic Ukrainian dispute. It started back in 2014, between the Russian-speaking ethnic groups and the Ukrainians themselves. So it has been a civil war. Now, after Russia's invasion, it has become an interstate war between Ukraine and Russia. It is also a struggle for the independence of Ukraine and its territorial integrity. That is all true. But it is not the whole truth. It is also a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia, and there are very concrete geopolitical interests at stake in the Black Sea region.
What are those?
The Black Sea region is as important to the Russians and their Black Sea fleet as the Caribbean or the Panama region is to the United States. As important as the South China Sea and Taiwan for China. As important as Turkey's protection zone, which they established against the Kurds in violation of international law. Against this background and for strategic reasons, the Russians cannot get out of it either. Apart from the fact that in a referendum in Crimea, the population would certainly decide in favor of Russia.
So how should this continue?
If the Russians were forced by massive Western intervention to withdraw from the Black Sea region, then before they step off the world stage, they would certainly turn to nuclear weapons. I find naive the belief that a nuclear strike by Russia would never happen. Along the lines of, 'They're just bluffing.'
But what could be the solution?
One should simply ask the people in the region, i.e. in the Donbass and Crimea, who they want to belong to. One would have to restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine, with certain Western guarantees. And the Russians need such a security guarantee as well. So no NATO membership for Ukraine. Since the Bucharest summit in 2008, it's been clear that that's the red line for the Russians.
And what do you think Germany can do?
We have to dose our military support in such a way that we don't slide into a Third World War. None of those who went to war with great enthusiasm in 1914 thought afterwards that it was the right thing to do. If the goal is an independent Ukraine, we must also ask ourselves in perspective what a European order involving Russia should look like. After all, Russia will not simply disappear from the map. We must avoid driving the Russians into the arms of the Chinese and thus shifting the multipolar order to our disadvantage. We also need Russia as the leading power of a multi-ethnic state to avoid flare-ups of fighting and war. And frankly, I don't see Ukraine becoming a member of the EU, much less NATO. We have high corruption and rule by oligarchs in Ukraine just as we have in Russia. What we in Turkey - rightly - denounce in terms of the rule of law, we also have that problem in Ukraine.
What do you think, Mr. Vad, what awaits us in 2023?
There needs to be a broader front for peace building in Washington. And this senseless actionism in German politics must finally come to an end. Otherwise, we'll wake up one morning and find ourselves in the middle of World War III.
