Ukraine Reloaded Revisited
This article directly follows the previous Ukraine Reloaded article.
Do we have another ‘forever war’ on our hands? With the Russian invasion in Ukraine approaching three months duration, what are the ramifications? Lets get one thing clear. The invasion was illegal under international law. But so were other conflicts. What stands out here is the 24/7 wall-to-wall coverage of the corporate media, or ‘propaganda blitz’. This article will analyse the legal issues surrounding the war and the media approach and how it compares with other conflicts.
The Paradox of International Law
The first major agreement between the West and the former Soviet Union was the Helsinki Final Act or accords, which established the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE). This brought a degree of stability during the cold war. The accords were signed by all European countries (except Albania, which signed in September 1991) and the US and Canada.
The Act was divided into four key areas:
Questions of European security
Cooperation in economics, science and technology, and the environment
Humanitarian and cultural cooperation, and
Follow-up to the conference.
The Soviet Union was keen to push the agreement forward. It was formally implemented on August 1, 1975. Although not a formal treaty, it nevertheless formalised the recognition of the post-war boundaries of the Warsaw Pact and NATO and allowed mutual cooperation to take place. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a second summit took place to discuss the future of the Agreement, the Paris Summit of November 1990, which led to the transition of the CSCE to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) at the Budapest Summit in December 1994.
The OSCE ran a Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM), which was deployed on 21 March 2014. But this expired on 31 March 2022, although the OSCE still continues to play a role.
On 5 September 2014, the first Minsk Agreement was signed. This initiated the fragile Minsk process that has continuously faltered, leading to the current conflict. Two papers provide a background. The first, published in East European Politics, asks, The Minsk Agreements – more than “scraps of paper”?
The Euromaidan clashes during 2013-2014, stemmed from Victor Yanukovych’s refusal to sign the Association Agreement with the EU, in favour of a customs union with Russia, based on an offer from Putin to buy $15bn of distressed Ukrainian bonds and the slashing of gas prices. The emerging crisis prompted negotiations with EU representatives, which led to the Kiev Agreement of 21 February 2014. This fell apart and the country splintered with Yanukovych fleeing to Russia. The coup that took place with Yanukovych’s expulsion was illegal, perpetuated by US interference. This is elaborated upon by the late Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York and Princeton Universities:
Putin and his ministers sought to persuade the EU to make the economic agreement with Ukraine “tripartite,” including Moscow so as not to disadvantage the very substantial trade relationship between Ukraine and Russia. The EU leadership, for whatever reason, refused, telling Kiev it had to choose between Russia and the West. For years, as all sides knew, Washington and other Western actors had been pouring billions of dollars into Ukraine to prepare it for the West’s “civilizational” values. That is, the “march” on Ukraine had long been under way.
Cohen points out that Yanukovych, despite being regarded as joined to the hip with the Kremlin, was actually acquiescing to the west and was taking advice from Paul Manafort. Apparently Putin had little time for Yanukovych, who saw him ‘as a greedy and corrupt opportunist’. The day before he was pushed out of the country:
he signed an agreement, brokered by three EU foreign ministers, to end the crisis peacefully by forming a coalition government with opposition leaders and agreeing to an early presidential election. …privately endorsed by President Putin and President Obama… . Why none of the Western parties defended their own agreement, insisting that it be honored, remains uncertain, though perhaps not a mystery.
Cohen elaborates the illegality of the coup, pointing out that once Yanukovych, who was the formally elected leader of the country, was forced out of office, ‘the constitution [was] changed, and pro-Yanukovych parties banned.’ What emerged was a neo-Nazi oriented Government that was just as corrupt as what went before. With the US pumping weapons into Kyiv, Cohen predicted (accurately) that this would end:
in military disaster for Kiev while perhaps bringing neofascists, who may well come into possession of the American weapons, closer to power, and the new US-Russian Cold War closer to a larger, more direct war between the nuclear superpowers.
In the US at the time there was the nonsensical ‘Russiagate’ allegations that were being spun by the usual media suspects, which added to the anti-Russian narrative. Cohen tags Joe Biden as being an instigator in the Ukrainian crisis.
How does Paul Manafort fit into the equation? He started Pericles, a private equity fund that attracted Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, closely linked to Putin. Deripaska invested around $60 million into the company. In 2014, a dispute alleging Manafort owed him millions from an investment erupted.
Manafort began working with Yanukovych in 2004, after he lost his claim to the presidency following revelations of corruption after the election. Manafort:
guided the politician through an image makeover; critics also say the consultant went along with campaign tactics that exacerbated the divide between the country's Russian and Ukrainian speakers.
As a result, Yanukovych won the 2010 election, taking power. After his expulsion from Ukraine in 2014, Manafort continued to advise Yanukovych's political party. In 2016, he became an advisor for Donald Trump during his election campaign. In August the New York Times ran an article claiming he received $12 million in illegal payments whilst working in Ukraine. Eventually it all caught up with him:
In October 2017, a federal grand jury indicted Manafort on 12 counts, including money laundering and conspiracy against the United States — a result from the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller. Following an August 2018 trial, in which he was convicted on eight counts of bank and tax fraud, and an attempted plea deal, he was sentenced to 7 1/2 years behind bars.
Following the signing of Minsk 1, there was much suspicion between the two camps, with Kyiv doubting the legitimacy of the representatives from Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR). One of the key aims of Minsk 1 was to allow local self-government in Donetsk and Luhansk under a “Ukrainian Law on Special Status”. But ceasefire violations continued to escalate.
In November 2014, the DPR and LPR held local elections. The OSCE, which was charged with the responsibility of monitoring the Agreement, ‘declared these elections unauthorised and “counter to the letter and spirit of the Minsk Protocol”’. Finally after difficult and protracted negotiations, Minsk 2 was signed on 12 February 2015. But again the legitimacy of the representatives from the DPR and LPR (Alexander Zakharchenko and Igor Plotnitski) were questioned:
critics of the Agreements regard these representatives as “private actors” and not as relevant parties to the conflict or the Minsk Agreements and Process. Second, former President Leonid Kuchma’s mandate to negotiate and sign an agreement for Ukraine was questioned by Ukrainian critics who stressed that “None of the procedures envisaged by the Constitution or the Law on International Treaties has been followed. A private citizen isn’t authorised to make any obligations on behalf of the Ukrainian state”
However, as the paper notes, international agreements have been reached by third party representatives before. But the whole process was marred by inconsistencies, with elements from Minsk 1 included in the Minsk 2. It seemed that failure was inevitable. The issue revolved around decentralisation. Constitutional amendments were attempted by Ukraine’s parliament (The Rada) to accommodate this. But a riot took place outside during the process, highlighting the almost impossible task of attempting to resolve the wider dispute. It also reflects contradictions within Ukrainian law, which cites Russia as an occupying force in the the DPR and LPR as well as failing to incorporate the principles of Minsk properly into domestic law. This pulls in a case lodged at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) by Ukraine: Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). To date, the case has not been resolved yet.
The charge is linked to alleged oppression of the Crimean Tartars by Russia following the annexation of Crimea and terrorist activities in the DPR and LPR.
Ukraine’s approach is based on the fact that Russia is not a party to the ICJ and wanted to frame the case around specific elements of international law. This would allow ‘the possibility of dispute settlement by the ICJ if direct negotiations between treaty parties failed to lead to a settlement of conflicts concerning the treaties’ interpretation and implementation.’ Also the ICJ allows both parties to engage on an equal footing under the auspices of ‘a higher, objective institution’.
In relation to Minsk, the ICJ has noted:
With regard to the situation in eastern Ukraine, the Court reminds the Parties that the Security Council, in its resolution 2202 (2015), endorsed the “Package of Measures” for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements, adopted and signed in Minsk on 12 February 2015 by representatives of the OSCE, Ukraine and the Russian Federation, as well as by representatives of “certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions”, and endorsed by the President of the Russian Federation, the President of Ukraine, the President of the French Republic and the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany. The Court expects the Parties, through individual and joint efforts, to work for the full implementation of this “Package of Measures” in order to achieve a peaceful settlement of the conflict in the eastern regions of Ukraine. (Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, 34, para. 104).
To sum up the position of the parties:
Russia and Ukraine disagree on both the nature of the conflict and the status of the parties to the Minsk Process. Whereas Ukraine considers Russia a direct conflict party that bears responsibility for the implementation of the Minsk Package, Russia implicitly positions the conflict in East Ukraine as a non-international armed conflict, the status of the LPR and DPR “representatives” as parties to the peace agreements and its own role as that of mediator and international negotiator.
In short, it appears that Minsk by its very nature is insoluble and is unlikely to have the legal force to implement a lasting solution, despite the best intentions of the OSCE in monitoring the process.
As noted above, the UN Security Council played a role. But with Russia being a permanent member with veto powers, this has been like walking a tightrope. As the paper notes:
Russia’s unusual role as both first party and third party and the lack of clear SC engagement under Chapter VII UN Charter are non-typical core-features of the Minsk Agreements’ negotiation and implementation processes from a comparative perspective. At first glance these non-typical features could themselves turn out to be typical features of peace agreements and processes in the “post-Soviet space”, i.e. Russia’s Near Abroad. In effect this means the Minsk Agreements could end up “freezing the conflicts” and creating two more non-recognised de facto state entities backed by Russia as a protector or kin state in the post-Soviet space.
The problem is that, ‘Neither party negotiated the Minsk Agreements in good faith regarding their transformative nature.’ Minsk then can be regarded as a ‘political settlement’, which is:
the expression of a common understanding, usually forged between elites, about how power is organised and exercised.
They can also be informal, often unarticulated agreements that underpin a political system, like deals made between elites to control the division of spoils.
But they are also ‘political unsettlements’, whereby the underlying problems remain unresolved. As the paper sums up:
formalised political unsettlements cannot be considered something static like a stalemate; nor do they enable either of the conflict parties to attain their maximum goal. Instead they can create islands of agreement and enable formats for dialogue but also enduring struggle between the parties to a (violent) conflict.
The paper Destined for deadlock? Russia, Ukraine, and the unfulfilled Minsk agreements, published in Post-Soviet Affairs, considers the use of agreements for the purpose of political and popular gain:
While creating a public perception that they are committed to negotiations, the negotiating parties may try to use the process simply to obtain information that they can benefit from, or use as a propaganda tool, for instance to influence third parties, including domestic and/or foreign audiences.
Negotiations will go through distinct phases. Firstly the “diagnostic phase”, which lays the groundwork as parties evaluate each other. Then the “substance phase,” which is building common ground and understanding. This leads to the “detail phase”, the establishment of an actual agreement. Following this is the challenging “implementation phase”, the whole purpose of the agreement. From a Russian perspective, the tendency is ‘to view the signing of an agreement not as the end result of a negotiation, but rather as a stage in an extended process.’ Negotiations fall into certain categories:
BATNA, WATNA, and RATNA, which refer, respectively, to “the best alternative to a negotiated agreement,” “the worst alternative to a negotiated agreement,” and “the (most) realistic alternative to a negotiated agreement”. These concepts may also aid our understanding of the considerations and concerns that shape the behavior of actors in armed conflicts, and the degree of their commitment to war-ending negotiation processes.
The key to success of negotiations is finding a “zone of possible agreement,” (ZOPA). But, if such a state of affairs is elusive, a party may decide that force is the only option:
parties that consider themselves to be in a mutually hurting stalemate are more likely to compromise than parties that believe that they can win a decisive military victory, which they often think they can do in the early stages of a conflict. In contrast, as an armed conflict progresses and the warring parties inflict increasingly painful losses on one another, they may become less willing to compromise, due to the involved political costs.
As such, the structure of an agreement is vital. But if two parties are far apart, this can lead to a situation where ‘irreconcilable differences in the interpretation of a signed agreement may delay, prolong, or undermine the agreement’s implementation,’ ending up with a “pseudo-agreement”.
But what characterises the initial conflict itself, is it civil or international? As far as Russia’s concerned, it’s a civil war. But its not as straight forward as that. There’s little doubt that Russia has supported the breakaway regions, has had a military presence, and provided logistical support to insurgents in what is technically Ukrainian territory.
The UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset describes the conflict as “Type 4”:
[I]nternationalized internal armed conflict occurs between the government of a state and one or more internal opposition group(s) with intervention from other states (secondary parties) on one or both sides.
The UCDP/PRIO Dataset is a partnership between the Department of Peace and Conflict Research, University of Uppsala in Sweden and the The Peace Research Institute Oslo, Norway. The UCDP notes that:
The conflict in eastern Ukraine remains deeply tied to the national security of Ukraine on the one hand, Russia’s security on the other, and how these differing interests tie into the European security architecture. Without
addressing these aspects, attempts at resolving the conflict have a very high risk of failure.
Statistics and an outline relating to the conflict during 2014 can be found here. The paper outlines the timeline that marked the Minsk process:
Five milestones stand out as particularly relevant to retrospective analyses of the Donbas negotiation process: (1) the “Joint Declaration” signed in Geneva on 17 April 2014; (2) President Poroshenko’s peace plan, issued on 20 June 2014; (3) the first Minsk agreement (“The Minsk Protocol”), signed on 5 September 2014; (4) the second Minsk agreement (“Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements”), signed on 12 February 2015; and (5) the “Steinmeier formula,” which was put forward by Germany’s Foreign Minister in October 2015 and formally accepted by the parties in October 2019.
Why did Minsk fail? It was a combination of factors. Ambiguous unclear language; different interpretations from both sides; mistrust; lack of official representation and no real legal form. The latter effectively rendered the agreements impotent and ineffective. The paper sums up the impasse:
Given the generally pro-Russian terms of the second Minsk agreement, it is tempting to raise the question of how Kyiv could agree to it. The answer to this question seems to be that Ukraine in February 2015 had no good alternatives to a negotiated settlement. The most realistic alternative to a negotiated agreement, or “RATNA,” would have been a large-scale war with what appeared to be a militarily superior counterpart. Since then, the Ukrainian military has risen to the challenge and undertaken a comprehensive modernization, with the support of Western partners. This may in turn have had an impact on the perceived attractiveness of no-deal (or less-than-wholehearted implementation) alternatives.
It would appear from the evidence outlined above, that the current war in Ukraine was a foregone conclusion, given the insolubility of the fractured chasm between east and west Ukraine along with US interference in Kyiv and Russian influence and support in the east.
As noted above, the Russian invasion was illegal. But who cares about international law? No - not a rhetorical question. Lets look at the technicalities. The illegality of the invasion is based on the UN Charter. Three sub-paragraphs in Article 2 states:
(1) The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
(3) All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
(4) All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
There are three exceptions in the charter that would allow a State to use force. Articles 41 and 42 puts the decision in the hands of the UN Security Council. Article 51 covers self-defence:
Article 41
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Article 42
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Clearly the UNSC has not authorised the use of force in this situation and Russia has not been directly attacked. But law is open to interpretation. This article from Dr Marko Milanovic, Professor of Public International Law at the University of Nottingham School of Law, in the European Journal of International Law, states that:
The burden is now on Russia to attempt to justify this use of force in legal terms. As the ICJ held in Nicaragua, para. 266, it is not for the Court – and I would add for international lawyers more generally – to ‘ascribe to States legal views which they do not themselves formulate.’ We should take into account only those justifications that Russian government officials themselves formally offer, and evaluate them objectively.
Milanovic outlines the details of a keynote speech made by Putin on the day of the invasion (Russian version). He specifically outlined US actions in Iraq, Libya and Syria:
“The illegitimate use of military force against Libya, the perversion of all decisions of the UN Security Council on the Libyan issue led to the complete destruction of the state, to the emergence of a huge hotbed of international terrorism, to the fact that the country plunged into a humanitarian catastrophe that has not stopped for many years. civil war. The tragedy, which doomed hundreds of thousands, millions of people not only in Libya, but throughout this region, gave rise to a massive migration exodus from North Africa and the Middle East to Europe.
A similar fate was prepared for Syria. The fighting of the Western coalition on the territory of this country without the consent of the Syrian government and the sanction of the UN Security Council is nothing but aggression, intervention.
However, a special place in this series is occupied, of course, by the invasion of Iraq, also without any legal grounds. As a pretext, they chose reliable information allegedly available to the United States about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As proof of this, publicly, in front of the eyes of the whole world, the US Secretary of State shook some kind of test tube with white powder, assuring everyone that this is the chemical weapon being developed in Iraq. And then it turned out that all this was a hoax, a bluff: there are no chemical weapons in Iraq. Unbelievable, surprising, but the fact remains. There were lies at the highest state level and from the high rostrum of the UN. And as a result: huge casualties, destruction, an incredible surge of terrorism.
In general, one gets the impression that practically everywhere, in many regions of the world, where the West comes to establish its own order, the result is bloody, unhealed wounds, ulcers of international terrorism and extremism. All that I have said is the most egregious, but by no means the only examples of disregard for international law.”
Much of his speech revolves around the post-Soviet period, the encroachment of NATO and the nuclear situation. Regardless of what your impression of Putin is, his comments are generally accurate and pertinent. But there is an inherent danger in his speech. Prior to making this speech, he delivered a warning to the west:
“To anyone who would consider interfering from the outside: if you do, you will face consequences greater than any you have faced in history. All relevant decisions have been taken. I hope you hear me."
This is effectively a Russian version of the Munroe Doctrine. US President James Monroe on December 2, 1823, cited his position in his annual State of the Union speech in Congress. It was a message to European kingdoms at the time to keep colonisation away from the western hemisphere and that the US would not interfere in European wars. Although not legally enforceable, the doctrine has underpinned US foreign policy to this day, resulting in an overbearing influence and interference in the affairs of Latin American countries. What Putin is doing is holding a mirror up to the US and saying “anything you can do we can do better”.
To put it another way, if the US regards itself as above the law and can do whatever it pleases with impunity, then Russia can as well. This then begins a race to the bottom towards global lawlessness and anarchy. Russia by following this path makes it no better than the west by following the US’s hegemonic playbook.
US Presidents have recently made the US position as the worlds dominant superpower perfectly clear. In an interview, Noam Chomsky made reference to the Clinton Doctrine:
Events have consequences; however, the facts may be concealed within the doctrinal system.
The status of international law did not change in the post-Cold War period, even in words, let alone actions. President Clinton made it clear that the U.S. had no intention of abiding by it. The Clinton Doctrine declared that the U.S. reserves the right to act “unilaterally when necessary,” including “unilateral use of military power” to defend such vital interests as “ensuring uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies and strategic resources.” His successors as well, and anyone else who can violate the law with impunity.
The Nation has more background. Clinton’s approach revolved around the conflict in the Balkans. The NATO bombing of Serbia was part of a wider strategic process whereby apparently the US is threatened by ‘perils’ emerging from every corner of the globe, and:
the United States has a vested interest in maintaining international stability. Because no other power or group of powers can guarantee this stability, the United States must be able to act on its own or in conjunction with its most trusted allies (meaning NATO).
In order to deal with these ‘perils’ and maintain stability:
the United States must maintain sufficient forces to conduct simultaneous military operations in widely separated areas of the world against multiple adversaries, and it must revise its existing security alliances–most of which, like NATO, are defensive in nature–so that they can better support US global expeditionary operations.
In short, this means transitioning NATO ‘from a defensive alliance in Western Europe into a regional police force governed by Washington.’ As the article sums up:
If the newly hatched Clinton Doctrine is not repudiated, the bombing of Yugoslavia may be only the first in a series of recurring overseas interventions–a prospect that should galvanize peace and disarmament groups across America.
But another US president went even further in making it clear that the US was above the law. As reported by Human Rights Watch:
U.S. President George Bush today signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American or citizen of a U.S.-allied country being held by the court, which is located in The Hague. This provision, dubbed the "Hague invasion clause," has caused a strong reaction from U.S. allies around the world, particularly in the Netherlands.
The timing of this legislation was crucial, following the events of 9/11 and the ‘war against terror’. It also preceded the illegal invasion of Iraq, that violated the same tenets of international law that the invasion of Ukraine has violated. But there is another doctrine that underpins the position of the US in the world. Its called the Wolfowitz Doctrine. This Counterpunch article outlines the background. It notes:
The United States is stoking tensions in both Europe and East Asia, with Ukraine and Taiwan as the current flashpoints on the doorsteps of Russia and China which are the targeted nations. …the endpoint of this process is not for the U.S. to do battle with Russia or China but to watch China and Russia fight it out with the neighbors to the ruin of both sides. The US is to “lead from behind’ – as safely and remotely as can be arranged.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine emerged in the wake of the Soviet collapse. It proclaimed:
that the U.S.’s “first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet union or elsewhere….” It stated that no regional power must be allowed to emerge with the power and resources “sufficient to generate global power.” It stated frankly “we must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global power.”
Something similar happened during World War 2. The US provided resources to Europe and elsewhere. The US of course entered the war late and managed to survive relatively unscathed, allowing the US to emerge as a superpower. During the war, Harry Truman stated, before he became president:
“If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible… . ”
The article quotes a piece from Alfred W. McCoy, who is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison:
“Like all past imperial hegemons, U.S. global power has similarly rested on geopolitical dominance over Eurasia, now home to 70% of the world’s population and productivity. After the Axis alliance of Germany, Italy, and Japan failed to conquer that vast land mass, the Allied victory in World War II allowed Washington, as historian John Darwin put it, to build its “colossal imperium… on an unprecedented scale,” becoming the first power in history to control the strategic axial points “at both ends of Eurasia.”
“As a critical first step, the U.S. formed the NATO alliance in 1949, establishing major military installations in Germany and naval bases in Italy to ensure control of the western side of Eurasia. After its defeat of Japan, as the new overlord of the world’s largest ocean, the Pacific, Washington dictated the terms of four key mutual-defense pacts in the region with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia and so acquired a vast range of military bases along the Pacific littoral that would secure the eastern end of Eurasia. To tie the two axial ends of that vast land mass into a strategic perimeter, Washington ringed the continent’s southern rim with successive chains of steel, including three navy fleets, hundreds of combat aircraft, and most recently, a string of 60 drone bases stretching from Sicily to the Pacific island of Guam.”
All this is happening in the shadows. With a wall-to-wall 24/7 propaganda blitz (see below) most people will be too mesmerised to realise that the real threat to global security and stability is not from the east but from the west, not to mention the looming threat of the climate crisis, which should be the issue getting the wall-to-wall coverage and which is intricately connected to the war machine.
Aaron Mate relates to an interview with Stephen F. Cohen that brings the reality of the buildup to war to the fore. To put it into perspective:
"Zelensky ran as a peace candidate," Cohen explained. "He won an enormous mandate to make peace. So, that means he has to negotiate with Vladimir Putin." But there was a major obstacle. Ukrainian fascists "have said that they will remove and kill Zelensky if he continues along this line of negotiating with Putin… His life is being threatened literally by a quasi-fascist movement in Ukraine."
On that basis, Zelensky won 73% of the vote. In his inaugural speech, he stated that he was "not afraid to lose my own popularity, my ratings," and was "prepared to give up my own position – as long as peace arrives." But:
Ukraine's powerful far-right and neo-Nazi militias made clear to Zelensky that reaching peace in the Donbas would have a much higher cost.
"No, he would lose his life," Right Sector co-founder Dmytro Anatoliyovych Yarosh, then the commander of the Ukrainian Volunteer Army, responded one week after Zelensky's inaugural speech. "He will hang on some tree on Khreshchatyk - if he betrays Ukraine and those people who died in the Revolution and the War."
Zelensky was up against it. The Nazi factions gave him no room for maneuver.
It boils down to this:
The far-right threats to Zelensky undoubtedly thwarted a peace agreement that could have prevented the Russian invasion. Just two weeks before Russia troops entered Ukraine, the New York Times noted that Zelensky "would be taking extreme political risks even to entertain a peace deal" with Russia, as his government "could be rocked and possibly overthrown" by far-right groups if he "agrees to a peace deal that in their minds gives too much to Moscow."
In short, Zelensky was facing a coup if he didn’t toe the line. And Washington was behind the fascists.
Mate sums up:
"There were moments in history, political history, when there’s an opportunity that is so good and wise and so often lost, the chance," Cohen told me in October 2019. "So, the chance for Zelensky, the new president who had this very large victory, 70 plus percent to negotiate with Russia an end to that war, it’s got to be seized. And it requires the United States, basically, simply saying to Zelensky, 'Go for it, we’ve got your back.'"
By choosing to ignore the pleas of lonely voices like Cohen to instead have the back of Ukraine's far-right, Washington sabotaged a historic peace mandate and helped provoke a catastrophic war.
From the Russian perspective, a reason given for the invasion is collective self-defence of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics, who proclaimed independence. The problem here is that only Russia has recognised this self-proclamation, so collective self-defence isn’t valid unless the new States are recognised as such by the UN.
Another well-used excuse to justify intervention is the humanitarian angle. Russia donned this with Ukraine. The west has used it extensively in conflicts. The paper, Humanitarian Intervention: A Legal Analysis, unpacks what is an ambiguous concept:
Over the last forty years, a number of governments have justified unilateral military action with reference to the “customary law” of military humanitarian intervention in one form or another, and without exception, the international community has refused to recognize these actions as legitimate. But this “customary law” is reckless and offers absolutely no guidance to the manner in which the intervention itself should be conducted. If there is to be humanitarian intervention, there should be a coherent humanitarian justification coupled with a proper procedural and substantive legal regime to underwrite it.
Therein lies the problem. There isn’t a coherent framework, but Governments give the impression there is. Chomsky - quoted in the paper - puts it in a nutshell:
“for one thing, there’s a history of humanitarian intervention. You can look at it. And when you do, you discover that virtually every use of military force is described as humanitarian intervention.” Chomsky precisely pointed out everything that is wrong with the way humanitarian intervention is frequently justified and carried out: There is a quick resort to military force without relying on force itself as a last resort; there is always an ulterior motive that predisposes a state’s decision to intervene; and, many a time, the intervention itself is unilateral and unauthorized. Therefore, it is no longer about whether a state should intervene or not, but rather, that a law should be brought into place for the state that intervenes to conform to, in its modus operandi.
There is nothing explicit in the UN Charter about this. But in the Nicaragua Case:
the ICJ had explicitly ruled that the use of force could not be the appropriate method to monitor or ensure respect for human rights, that there is no general right of intervention in international law and, therefore, intervention violated international law. Although humanitarian intervention does exist in state practice, and although state practice is deemed a source of law as under Article 38 (1) (a) of the Statute of the ICJ, considering the hegemony of the sources of law in the same provision, there is a generally accepted notion that state practice cannot over rule treaty and customary law, both of which denounce the use of force except in self-defence.
With the concept already largely ingrained in conflict interventions, the paper sums up that:
Scholarly debates should stop focussing on whether the practice should be allowed or not, and shift to evaluate the expected standard and yardstick of behaviour that must be adhered to during an intervention on humanitarian grounds. The fact is that humanitarian intervention is here to stay, and instead of trying to get rid of it there is more prudence in allowing the lesser evil of a streamlined and legally-regulated form of humanitarian intervention to continue. When such a modus of intervention is accommodated under the rubric of the law with a clearly enunciated ‘expected yardstick’ to adhere to, its practical implementation can be subjected to control, and can be streamlined to bring in good results.
If the penny hasn’t dropped yet, this should raise eyebrows. On 16 December 2021, there was a vote on a draft resolution at the UN General Assembly Plenary. The resolution was Combating glorification of Nazism, neo‑Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
The resolution was passed with a majority vote of 130. But two countries voted against it, the US and Ukraine. Yes that’s right, the US effectively publicly and openly endorsed Nazism at the UN. But the story doesn’t end there, as former UK Ambassador turned whistleblower Craig Murray outlines in an article:
the European Union, in support of its Baltic states members and their desire to forget or deny historical truth and to build a new national myth expunging their active role in the genocide of their Jewish and Roma populations, would not support the UN Resolution on Nazism. The EU countries abstained, as did the UK.
Put simply, the continent that lay in ruins at the end of world war 2 has turned a blind eye to the same disease that destroyed it 80 years ago. That’s a measure of where we are now. Of course the US needed to concoct a couple of excuses to use as a fig leaf:
The United States Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the constitutional right to freedom of speech and the rights of peaceful assembly and association, including by avowed Nazis.
Murray debunks this:
…why does the United States Government believe that avowed Nazis have freedom of speech, but that Julian Assange does not? You can have freedom of speech to advocate the murder of Jews and immigrants, but not to reveal US war crimes?
Why was the United States government targeting journalists in the invasion of Iraq? The United States believes in freedom of speech when it serves its imperial interests. It does not do so otherwise. This is the very worst kind of high sounding hypocrisy, in aid of defending the Nazis in Ukraine.
The second reason the United States gives is that Russia is making the whole thing up:
a document most notable for its thinly veiled attempts to legitimize Russian disinformation campaigns denigrating neighboring nations and promoting the distorted Soviet narrative of much of contemporary European history, using the cynical guise of halting Nazi glorification.
Finally there’s the nuclear threat, which I covered in some depth in the preceding article. I outlined a CND report that cited violations in international law regarding US deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe. An article from Dr Kate Hudson, CND General Secretary, outlines the dangers of escalation in Ukraine. She notes that as well as Russia, following the invasion:
…US, British and French nuclear forces assigned to NATO – were already on ‘prompt-launch’ (high-alert) status – this is the normal situation. Most high-alert missiles are armed with strategic nuclear weapons with yields of at least 100 kilotons. They can be launched in 15 minutes and the nominal flight time of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles carrying these weapons, travelling between the U.S. and Russia, is around 30 minutes.
She goes on to say:
If the war expands into a direct conflict between NATO and Russia then it becomes a likelihood rather than a possibility. A no-fly Zone is the most rapid route to nuclear war. Breach of a NATO-imposed no-fly zone over Ukraine would lead to a direct Russia/NATO war.
Another important point is that:
It has often been said that NATO is the means by which the US makes Europe pay for its wars and its attempts at global military hegemony. That is more so the case than ever, and it brings with it ever greater dangers of nuclear annihilation.
Its back to the old days of cold war anxiety, wondering if a fireball will erupt in the neighbourhood.
The Alternative Reality Bubble
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons… who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.
Thus wrote Edward Bernays in his book Propaganda, first published in 1928. Bernays, was Sigmund Freud’s nephew and the son of Anna Freud. His uncle’s ideas influenced his thinking. He became known as the “the father of public relations.” He may not be well known, but his ideas and theories became the foundation stone for modern propaganda and PR. This article from the Conversation gives a brief biography of the man, who developed “the engineering of consent,” providing leaders with the means to “control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it.”
To do so, it was necessary to appeal not to the rational part of the mind, but the unconscious.
The use of propaganda during war time was particularly effective, especially in Nazi Germany (emphasis added):
In the 1920s, Joseph Goebbels became an avid admirer of Bernays and his writings – despite the fact that Bernays was a Jew. When Goebbels became the minister of propaganda for the Third Reich, he sought to exploit Bernays’ ideas to the fullest extent possible. For example, he created a “Fuhrer cult” around Adolph Hitler.
Bernays learned that the Nazis were using his work in 1933, from a foreign correspondent for Hearst newspapers. He later recounted in his 1965 autobiography:
They were using my books as the basis for a destructive campaign against the Jews of Germany. This shocked me, but I knew any human activity can be used for social purposes or misused for antisocial ones.
Over the past century, Bernays ideas have been well honed to further the aims of corporations and consumer culture as well as politics and economics. Its an area where art meets science. Today, propaganda and PR techniques are highly sophisticated and effective. This prompted an analysis by Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman, resulting in the book and documentary Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. The book is based around what the authors describe as a ‘propaganda model’, which is:
an analytical framework that attempts to explain the performance of the U.S. media in terms of the basic institutional structures and relationships within which they operate. It is our view that, among their other functions, the media serve, and propagandize on behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them. The representatives of these interests have important agendas and principles that they want to advance, and they are well positioned to shape and constrain media policy.
As this article is focused on conflict I’ll refer to a section in the book that covers the Indochina Wars, with Vietnam as the focal point.
According to some critics, the media lost the war for the US in Vietnam. So what happened to the propaganda model? Initial reporting on the war followed a familiar pattern. It was the first major conflict that featured modern and rapid communications from the front line. Although there were elements of criticism of the war, nevertheless reporting kept ‘closely to the perspective of official Washington and the closely related corporate elite, in conformity to the general “journalistic-literary-political culture”’, with dissident views largely excluded. As such, the anti-war movement was initially sidelined. The message was that the war is a righteous struggle against the tyranny of communism and therefore an honorable and just endeavour. But as the war dragged on the US was becoming trapped in a quagmire of its own volition. Despite the staggering indiscriminate destruction inflicted by the US, the Viet Kong had succeeded in outwitting the superpower in the conflict. The tide was starting to shift.
The book goes on to compare how Soviet aggression in Europe is depicted relative to US aggression. It points out that ‘the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Afghanistan, holds Poland in a firm grip, etc.’ This constitutes an act of aggression. And, ‘The United Nations has repeatedly condemned the Soviet aggression in Afghanistan and regularly investigates and denounces the crimes they have committed.’ Western media covered the war from the perspective of Afghan rebels, ignoring Soviet coverage of the conflict. But in the case of Indochina by comparison, ‘the reporting practice of journalists and commentators is also radically different in the two cases.’ Indeed:
In sharp contrast to the Soviet aggression, it was standard practice throughout the Indochina war for journalists to report Washington pronouncements as fact, even in the extreme case when official statements were known to be false.
Such evidence as was available was ignored or dismissed. In reporting the war in Afghanistan, it is considered essential and proper to observe it from the standpoint of the victims. In the case of Indochina, it was the American invaders who were regarded as the victims of the “aggression” of the Vietnamese, and the war was reported from their point of view, just as subsequent commentary, including cinema, views the war from this perspective.
But most crucially was the blatant exhibition of a global double standard:
In contrast to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the United Nations never condemned the U.S. “intervention,” nor did it investigate or denounce the crimes committed in the course of U.S. military operations, a reflection of U.S. world power and influence. These facts notwithstanding, it is common practice to denounce the UN and world opinion for its “double standard” in condemning the U.S. “intervention” in defense of South Vietnam while ignoring the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, regularly described as “genocidal,” a term never used in the mainstream media with regard to the United States in Indochina.
Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Even the build up to Vietnam followed what has become a familiar script. When the French withdrew from Indochina in 1954, the US deliberately set out to scupper international agreements that had been put in place. In the early 1960’s, the US ramped up a campaign of violence:
In a highly regarded military history and moral tract in justification of the American war, Guenter Lewy describes the purpose of the U.S. air operations of the early 1960s, which involved “indiscriminate killing” and “took a heavy toll of essentially innocent men, women and children,” in a manner that Orwell would have appreciated: villages in “open zones” were “subjected to random bombardment by artillery and aircraft so as to drive the inhabitants into the safety of the strategic hamlets.”
There was widespread global efforts to prevent war in Vietnam, but the US ‘was committed to preventing any political settlement.’ Part of this process was installing a client Government in South Vietnam.
The main invasion in 1965 was triggered by the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which involved US destroyer Maddox entering North Vietnamese territorial waters to conduct surveillance. As a result, the ship was challenged, but subsequently left the area. It returned a few days later with reinforcements, which resulted in the bombardment of north Vietnamese positions. But this was framed by the US administration as an attack on US forces:
Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in which he falsely claimed that the Maddox “was operating in international waters, was carrying out a routine patrol of the type we carry out all over the world at all times,” Congress passed a resolution authorizing the president to “take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression” (416 to 0 in the House, Wayne Morse and Ernest Gruening alone in opposition in the Senate). This August 7 resolution was subsequently exploited as the basis for the escalation of the U.S. attack against Vietnam.
Ultimately:
The U.S. government version was simply adopted as unquestioned truth, with no further discussion or inquiry necessary.
When the war ended, the US had a major image problem. It had become saddled by what became known as “Vietnam syndrome.” Vietnam had also caused a “crisis of democracy”:
perceived by Western elites as the normally passive general population threatened to participate in the political system, challenging established privilege and power.
But the US would eventually learn some of the lessons from Vietnam. Any future ‘intervention’ would require not just a media driven propaganda model, but a full-scale carefully orchestrated ‘Propaganda Blitz’ - the title of a book published by David Edwards and David Cromwell, the media critics behind Media Lens, that outlined How the Corporate Media Distort Reality.
To set the scene:
On every single issue of consequence – from party politics, to the economy, from Iraq, to Libya, to Syria, to Venezuela, to climate change, to the nature of human happiness and the prospects for human survival – corporate media reporting and commentary are systematically filtered to further the interests of the state-corporate elites who own, manage and fund them. It is not that corporate media ‘spin’, ‘hype’ or ‘sex up’ the news – they fundamentally distort every significant issue they touch, often rendering them incomprehensible to readers, listeners and viewers.
What is a propaganda blitz (PB)? Basically it’s a full scale across the board media attack against some official enemy that is:
1. based on allegations of dramatic new evidence
2. communicated with high emotional intensity and moral outrage
3. apparently supported by an informed corporate media/academic/expert consensus
4. reinforced by damning condemnation of anyone daring even to question the apparent consensus
5. often generated with fortuitous timing
6. characterised by tragicomic moral dissonance.
The route towards the illegal invasion of Iraq was paved by a PB. It revolved around weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that Iraq allegedly had. But there was no clear evidence of WMD. Nevertheless the UK Government led by Tony Blair:
had transformed a purely hypothetical danger into an immediate and deadly threat.
The fakery surrounding the Iraq War was so extreme that even the ‘mainstream’ media could not ultimately ignore the collapse of the case for war. But by then the powers that be had got the invasion and occupation they were seeking.
The book then cites the parallels with the Gulf of Tonkin incident and notes the release of declassified documents in 2008:
These new documents and tapes reveal what historians could not prove: There was not a second attack on U.S. Navy ships in the Tonkin Gulf in early August 1964. Furthermore, the evidence suggests a disturbing and deliberate attempt by Secretary of Defense McNamara to distort the evidence and mislead Congress.
The book elaborates further on how the process works:
A crucial component of the propaganda blitz is the tone of political and corporate commentary, which is always vehement, even hysterical.
…claims of dramatic new evidence of alleged horrors committed by ‘Official Enemies’ are invariably followed by expressions of deep moral outrage.
The rationale is clear enough: insanity aside, in ordinary life outrage of this kind is usually a sign that someone has good reason to be angry. People generally do not get very angry in the presence of significant doubt. So, the message to the public is that there is no doubt.
We see this script being followed virtually to the letter with Ukraine. In an article published in March 2022, Media Lens outlines Doubling Down On Double Standards – The Ukraine Propaganda Blitz:
Every time US-UK-NATO launches a war of aggression on Iraq, Libya, Syria – whoever, wherever – our TV screens and front pages fill with ‘beautiful pictures’ of missiles blazing in pure white light from ships. This is ‘Shock And Awe’ – we even imagine our victims ‘awed’ by our power.
The power of ‘smart’ bombs are revealed in their glorious pinpoint accuracy. No civilian need fear. The Cavalry won’t harm a fly as they save the world from despots and dictators. Compare the media euphoria surrounding the invasion of Iraq, with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine:
By contrast, the morning after Russia launched its war of aggression on Ukraine, front pages were covered, not in tech, but in the blood of wounded civilians and the rubble of wrecked civilian buildings.
A tweet from Jonathan Cook was cited:
The BBC then asks a silly question; Ukraine invasion: Are Russia's attacks war crimes? The obvious answer:
The answer is ‘yes,’ of course – Russia’s attack is a textbook example of ‘the supreme crime’, the waging of a war of aggression. So, too, was the 2003 US-UK invasion and occupation of Iraq. But, of course, the idea that such an article might have appeared in the first week of that invasion is completely unthinkable.
There is of course another conflict going on that has been largely ignored:
The result is that Yemen faces the worse humanitarian crisis in living memory. But:
We can be sure that Instagram, YouTube and Tik Tok will never be awash with the sentiment: ‘I stand with Yemen!’
Just to make sure there is no dissent and the prevailing 24/7 blitz can continue unabated, anything remotely connected with Russian media has been subjected to a Soviet style blackout, ‘as though the US and UK were under direct attack, facing an existential threat.’ And just to underline the absurdity of the whole affair:
Facebook will temporarily allow its billions of users to praise the Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian neo-Nazi military unit previously banned from being freely discussed under the company’s Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy, The Intercept has learned.
Chomsky summed it up:
Filtering The White Noise
The only way to engage with any semblance of truth in what has become a ‘post-truth’ world is to disconnect from the corporate media. There are independent outlets that cut through the bullshit and the white noise that has created an echo chamber. One such outlet is Ukrainian platform Support Commons. In an interview with the Transnational Institute, two activists involved with the outlet, Denys Gorbach, a social researcher currently doing his PhD in France on the politics of Ukrainian working class and Denis Pilash, a political scientist and activist involved in a social movement, stated, ‘We need a peoples' solidarity with Ukraine and against war, not the fake solidarity of governments’. In the interview they underline the point that is not widely reported that Zelensky has his hands tied. He was elected on a peace mandate. Gorbach echos Mate’s report above:
Even if he were to agree to some significant concession to end the war, there is an enormous risk that he would be deposed by a nationalist coup. He has visibly made a choice to be deposed, if necessary, by an occupational force rather than by his fellow Ukrainians.
He also notes that people, the left in particular, should:
refuse geopolitical bias in the analysis of events unfolding outside of your own country. Too often, in left analysis only NATO or Putin are given agency, but the tens of millions of people inhabiting Ukraine are denied this agency.
On the ‘other side’ though, the Kyiv Independent has been ensuring that the Ukrainian public is subjected to its own propaganda blitz, as reported by CovertAction. The KI was funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) - a CIA front - via its own spinoff the European Endowment for Democracy. Further analysis of the outlet is provided by Mintpress News.
The Independent’s chief editor, Olga Rudenkois was involved with the Media Development Foundation, an NGO that has received at least $225,140 from the NED, both of which have been promoting and funding so-called independent media in Ukraine. The MDF surfaced just as Ukraine’s problems began in 2013-2014.
In the west, in addition to Media Lens there are other outlets that are taking a critical view of media reporting. One such outlet is US based media watchdog group, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR). On March 4 2022 they reported, Calling Russia’s Attack ‘Unprovoked’ Lets US Off the Hook.
In short:
The “unprovoked” descriptor obscures a long history of provocative behavior from the United States in regards to Ukraine. This history is important to understanding how we got here, and what degree of responsibility the US bears for the current attack on Ukraine.
The article outlines much of what has already been covered here. It outlines the debacle over NATO expansion and how Russia’s reaction was widely predicted and warned about. It also makes clear that Ukraine was reluctant to implement Minsk, not without pressure from Washington. It notes that Putin supported Minsk and actually refrained from officially recognizing the Donbas republics until just before the invasion started.
Ultimately the US must take some responsibility for the war:
By December 2021, US intelligence agencies were sounding the alarm that Russia was amassing troops at the Ukrainian border and planning to attack. Yet Putin was very clear about a path to deescalation: He called on the West to halt NATO expansion, negotiate Ukrainian neutrality in the East/West rivalry, remove US nuclear weapons from non proliferating countries, and remove missiles, troops and bases near Russia. These are demands the US would surely have made were it in Russia’s position.
Unfortunately, the US refused to negotiate on Russia’s core concerns. The US offered some serious steps towards a larger arms control arrangement (Antiwar.com, 2/2/22)—something the Russians acknowledged and appreciated—but ignored issues of NATO’s military activity in Ukraine, and the deployment of nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe (Antiwar.com, 2/17/22).
the State Department continued to insist that they would not compromise NATO’s open door policy—in other words, it asserted the right to expand NATO and to ignore Russia’s red line.
The article sums up:
None of this is to say that Putin’s invasion is justified—FAIR resolutely condemns the invasion as illegal and ruinous—but calling it “unprovoked” distracts attention from the US’s own contribution to this disastrous outcome. The US ignored warnings from both Russian and US officials that a major conflagration could erupt if the US continued its path, and it shouldn’t be surprising that one eventually did.
Now, as the world once again inches toward the brink of nuclear omnicide, it is more important than ever for Western audiences to understand and challenge their own government’s role in dragging us all to this point.
That sums up the crux of the issue. Our own leaders condemnation of Russia is like an arsonist condemning another arsonist for lighting a fire.
A vital element of the propaganda model is character assassination. We saw this with Jeramy Corbyn and Julian Assange in the UK. Now Putin has been vilified as a madman, a latter day Hitler - amongst others. Yet ironically there was more substance in his speeches than anything coming from western mouthpieces. As FAIR put it, Depicting Putin as ‘Madman’ Eliminates Need for Diplomacy. The article spells it out:
If one believes that Putin is a “madman,” the implication is that meaningful diplomatic negotiations with Russia are impossible, pushing military options to the forefront as the means of resolving the Ukraine situation.
If Putin is not a rational actor, the implication is that no kind of diplomacy could have prevented the Russian invasion, and therefore no other country besides Russia shares blame for ongoing violence. (See FAIR.org, 3/4/22.) Yet another implication is that if Putin’s defects made Russia’s invasion unavoidable, then regime change may be necessary to resolve the conflict.
The article covers many weird and wonderful comments from a corporate media that itself seems to be rather unhinged. Thus an entire country becomes the person in charge:
It is a common Western media tactic to equate and reduce an entire country to its singular (and often caricatured) head of state, usually presented as a cartoon villain with sadistic and irrational motives, to justify further Western hostility towards those countries (Passage, 12/14/21; Extra!, 11–12/90, 4/91, 7–8/99).
To sum up:
The Western media caricature of Putin as a psychopathic leader acting on irrational and idiosyncratic beliefs is a convenient propaganda narrative that excuses US officials from taking diplomacy seriously—at the expense of Ukrainian lives and nuclear brinkmanship (Antiwar.com, 3/10/22). Recent negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul were hailed by both parties as constructive, with Russia vowing to reduce military activity around Kyiv and northern Ukraine as a result (NPR, 3/29/22). It’s important not to let US officials subvert peace negotiations between the two parties on the evidence-free grounds that negotiations with Russia are pointless.
There’s a curious conundrum though. As Natalie Fenton writes in Declassified:
We are now facing a context where public trust in the media is at an all time low – almost 70% of people believe the media is failing to be objective and non-partisan.
Its the same story in the US and elsewhere. Corporate media is on a downward spiral, whereas independent media appears to be finding a niche. Where it will all end up is anyone’s guess. But for now, the alternative reality bubble isn’t ready to burst just yet. A useful analogy is the film the Matrix, where humanity is part of a highly sophisticated and elaborate virtual reality program - hence the title of this article!
The powers that be will be well aware of the dilemma. High intensity persistent coverage (of Ukraine) will have the effect of overwhelming the senses, a media version of ‘shock and awe’. Censorship is absolutely vital in narrowing the spectrum. Ukraine has acted as an accelerating catalyst in a process that has already become prevalent in conventional and social media.
Meanwhile, former actor and comedian Zelensky has taken the stage, with guns pointing at him from both wings. In the middle is the Ukrainian people, innocents caught in the crossfire. War is a dirty business, where atrocities routinely occur from both sides - whatever the conflict. Its also a good business, as Glen Greenwald reports. And all this money is being diverted from domestic expenditure. But arms companies aren’t complaining:
The US of A itself is crumbling in order to prop up the empire. Casualties of war are simply collateral damage. As weapons and money pour into Ukraine, its clear a peaceful diplomatic settlement is not on the agenda.
Following the US invasion of Iraq, former CIA asset-come-terrorist, Osama bin Laden, vowed to ‘bleed America to bankruptcy’ (9/11 began that process). Does Putin have something similar in mind?
This is a glimpse into the future. The real conflict is yet to begin as our so-called civilisation goes into its violent death throes in the face of climate catastrophe. Or perhaps nuclear annihilation will put us out of our misery much quicker. But whatever you do and whatever happens, just ‘Don’t Look Up!’
Such a great article, covering a lot of aspects. It is a pity that I am only the 3rd liker. Thank you!