The Anchorage summit: a triumph for Putin

Glenn opens with a stark assessment of Trump’s relationship with Russia. He calls it “bizarre” and suggests that Trump is, at the very least, manipulated by Russian intelligence. He argues that Trump often echoes Russian foreign policy talking points verbatim, making him one of the easiest political figures for Moscow to influence. For Glenn, the Anchorage summit is nothing less than a symbolic and practical victory for Putin. By meeting with the world’s leading sanctioning power, Putin breaks out of the containment imposed since the Ukraine invasion.

Glenn dismisses Trump’s pre-summit tough rhetoric as little more than tactical posturing, perhaps designed to create leverage or even burnish his credentials for a Nobel Prize. From Glenn’s perspective, the meeting yields nothing for Washington while granting Russia international legitimacy. He concludes that Trump achieves his personal goal — being the center of attention and restoring Putin’s prominence — while Europe is sidelined and Ukraine left in a vulnerable position.

Gary echoes this view, calling Trump’s treatment of Putin “bizarre, uncanny and solicitous,” almost as if Trump is a subordinate. He highlights Putin’s deliberate tactic of keeping the US president waiting — a classic power play in diplomacy designed to show dominance. For Gary, Trump’s behavior upon greeting Putin is shocking for a US president and signals weakness rather than resolve.

Gary goes further by analyzing Putin’s body language, which he interprets as a display of dominance shaped by the Russian leader’s background in judo. Putin’s habit of speaking at length, he argues, is a strategic move to frame his vision as the superior approach. Trump seems to accept this by abandoning demands for a ceasefire.

Instead, Trump moves toward Putin’s preferred path of a swift “peace plan.” Gary warns that genuine peace agreements are complex and time-consuming, and Trump’s negotiating team lacks the experience to manage such intricacies. In his view, Trump essentially concedes on the ceasefire while Putin flatters Trump with dubious claims, such as saying Trump won the 2020 election and that Russia would not have invaded Ukraine under his presidency. Gary dismisses these as manipulative falsehoods.

A Russian journalist describes the event as a “total victory for Russia and for Putin.” Both Gary and Glenn find this judgment accurate. Glenn reiterates that Trump has no coherent strategy, only the desire to appear successful in the moment. Trump’s foreign policy, he argues, is not guided by principles or philosophy but by self-interest and personal image.

Atul sums up the consensus: The United States gains nothing, Putin emerges as a clear winner and Trump, in his own mind, wins by being the center of attention.

The Washington summit: damage control or crisis?

The Washington follow-up summit was meant to address the fallout from Anchorage, but brought mixed results. Gary notes that Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy prompts the latter to seek a meeting in Washington. This is significant, given Zelenskyy’s bruising experience in February when US Vice President JD Vance publicly told him to capitulate, straining US–Ukraine relations.

Gary believes the presence of European leaders at the Washington summit helped prevent a repeat of that debacle. Trump’s talk of territorial concessions, however, unsettled Zelenskyy and European allies, raising fears of a US pivot toward Russian terms. While some US officials floated the possibility of peacekeeping missions, Gary warns such assurances could vanish quickly if not endorsed directly by Trump.

Atul asks whether the Washington summit amounts to damage control. Gary agrees, though he doubts that is the official intention. Glenn, in typically blunt terms, describes the event as moving from “the jaws of a definitive catastrophe” — namely the collapse of Ukraine, NATO’s unraveling and ��ܲ�������’s absorption of Central Europe — to a severe crisis. He likens this to shifting from certain death to “fourth-stage cancer.” His advice to Europe is clear: Stay close to the US but prepare to defend yourselves independently. Europe, he argues, has shown more capability and resilience than expected, but reliance on Trump’s America is risky.

Style, strategy and strain: reactions to Zelenskyy and Europe

At this point, Atul introduces three journalistic observations:

Zelenskyy’s appearance: Some European journalists criticize his all-black attire and angled chair as brash. Glenn dismisses such concerns, praising Zelenskyy for presenting himself as a wartime leader rather than a supplicant.

European leaders’ weakness: Most, apart from Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, face domestic political fragility due to economic hardship and low approval ratings. Glenn attributes these vulnerabilities to broader social strains such as modernization and immigration, but insists their support for Ukraine is rational and necessary. Gary acknowledges the fragility but emphasizes that the public understands the importance of standing behind Ukraine and NATO.

Zelenskyy as a “dead man walking:” Some commentators suggest his thin-skinned behavior, corruption scandals and dwindling US support undermine his leadership. Glenn admits he is starting to see troubling signs, citing showing Ukrainians’ desire for peace. Gary, however, strongly rejects such polls as misleading. He stresses that large majorities of Ukrainians oppose territorial concessions, comparing pro-peace responses to vague platitudes like “motherhood and apple pie.”

The two experts diverge on polling but agree that European unity on defending Ukraine remains strong. Leaders may overstate praise for Trump to keep him engaged, but Gary worries about the lack of substantive detail in Washington. Both warn that Trump’s negotiating team lacks the expertise for serious diplomacy.

Patterns of aggression and fragile diplomacy

Glenn broadens the lens, pointing to ��ܲ�������’s record of unchecked aggressions — in Montenegro, Nagorno-Karabakh, Georgia, Moldova, Estonia, Crimea and Ukraine. He argues that the West has consistently ignored these actions, responding only with vague calls for peace. For him, Trump represents a continuation of this failure, offering little interest in complex policy and even less capacity for nuanced statecraft.

Gary, only “microscopically” more optimistic after Washington than Anchorage, hopes Zelenskyy and European leaders can persuade Trump of Ukraine’s security importance. He underscores the brutality of Putin’s policy, particularly the kidnapping of thousands of Ukrainian children, who are placed in Russian families — a tactic with long-term consequences.

Looking ahead: pressure, politics and possibilities

The final portion of the discussion looks ahead. Atul raises two questions: the influence of domestic pressures in Europe, particularly among Muslim populations who see Western support for Ukraine as biased compared to Gaza, and the Republican narrative in Washington portraying Europe as weak and dependent.

Gary believes Trump remains fixated on staging a trilateral summit with Putin and Zelenskyy, though he doubts Putin’s willingness to participate. Without major US financial commitments — perhaps $50–80 billion — Russia has little incentive to engage. NATO’s future, he warns, is tied directly to the Ukraine question. Keeping Trump involved, possibly with the prospect of a Nobel Prize, might help, but Gary doubts Trump will take substantive steps.

Glenn, however, sees a potential path forward. He notes that the US could provide arms to NATO countries, which could then transfer them to Ukraine, allowing Trump to maintain his pro-Putin image without entirely abandoning Kyiv. This arrangement, he argues, might be the most plausible near-term strategy. Ultimately, he lays out two possible outcomes: Either Ukraine collapses or it is sustained by European and American support until Putin is forced to halt or accept defeat.

The future hangs in the balance

The discussion paints a sobering picture of Trump’s foreign policy approach. For Glenn, Trump is a leader driven solely by self-image, easily manipulated yet impossible to control. For Gary, Trump’s diplomatic style is reckless and devoid of substance, leaving NATO allies anxious and Ukraine imperiled. Both agree that Putin emerges strengthened from Anchorage and that Washington offers only a slight reprieve from disaster.

In their eyes, the uncertainty of Trump’s summits reflects a deeper crisis in transatlantic relations, where Europe must prepare to defend itself while still relying on an unpredictable US. The stakes, they conclude, are nothing less than Ukraine’s survival and NATO’s future.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post FO° Live: Trump Hands Putin a Win in Alaska as Zelenskyy and EU Leaders Huddle in the White House appeared first on 51�Թ�.

“Support from NATO Allies and support from the United States to Ukraine is something which benefits our own security interests. It is therefore in the security interests of the United States to make a decision and provide Ukraine with ammunition. Because by allocating a fraction of our defense budgets we have enabled the Ukrainians to destroy significant parts of the Russian combat capability without putting any NATO soldier, any US soldier, in harm’s way. So this is really something that is in our interest to continue to do. And not only continue to do, but to do more, to step up, and to ensure that we do it in a predictable, robust way for the long haul.”

After citing Stoltenberg’s words, I asked this question.

“Doesn’t he realize that he is saying two things which sensible Ukrainians will not appreciate?

1)    Ukrainian lives don’t count, at least not as much as European or American lives,

2)    The best situation for NATO is the current one, in which Ukraine is not a part of NATO, because it means only Ukrainians die. And so there’s every reason to maintain the status quo, meaning Ukraine will never be in NATO. It will just be useful for NATO’s plan to weaken Russia.”

ChatGPT showed no hesitation agreeing with the logic that underlay my question.

“**Jan Stoltenberg**, the Secretary General of NATO, recently emphasized the importance of supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. He stated that providing aid to Ukraine benefits NATO’s security interests and allows Ukrainians to counter Russian aggression without risking NATO or US soldiers’ lives. However, his statements raise valid concerns:

1. **Ukrainian Lives**: Some may interpret Stoltenberg’s remarks as prioritizing European and American lives over Ukrainian lives. Sensible Ukrainians might find this perspective troubling, as it implies a hierarchy of value based on nationality.
2. **NATO’s Strategic Position**: Stoltenberg’s assertion that the current situation (where Ukraine is not a NATO member) benefits NATO could be seen as maintaining the status quo. In this scenario, only Ukrainians bear the brunt of the conflict, while NATO avoids direct involvement. This approach may align with NATO’s strategic interests but raises ethical questions.

Ultimately, the situation is complex, and different perspectives exist. As the conflict continues, it’s essential to consider the humanitarian impact and geopolitical implications. NATO’s role in supporting Ukraine remains a critical topic of discussion¹²..

Is ethical AI a thing?

“You say this raises ethical questions. I presume you are referring to the idea that authorities in one part of the world are making life-and-death decisions about tens of thousands of people in another part of the world, effectively condemning them to death. Given that we know UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the spring of 2022 ‘persuaded’ the Ukrainians to reject a peace agreement whose terms had already been negotiated, the moral onus here would be on any of the leaders responsible for imposing this policy on Ukraine. Since then literally hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have died, the nation is seriously depopulated, and according to every honest observer of the military situation, including Zelenskyy himself, it is clearly on the defensive with no hope of turning the tide. In such circumstances shouldn’t Stoltenberg himself be held morally responsible for any deaths to come, even if we leave aside consideration of those who have already been sacrificed? The head of NATO has declared this to be a desirable and justifiable policy.”

“Indeed, the ethical implications of geopolitical decisions are profound, especially when they involve life-and-death consequences for people in distant regions. Let’s delve into this complex matter:

1. **Decision-Makers and Responsibility**: When leaders in one part of the world make decisions that impact the lives of others elsewhere, they bear a significant moral responsibility. The case of UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s alleged influence on Ukraine’s rejection of a peace agreement underscores this point. If such actions lead to loss of life, the moral onus lies with those who imposed such policies.
2. **Human Cost**: The conflict in Ukraine has exacted a devastating toll. Hundreds of thousands of lives lost, a nation depopulated, and a military situation that appears dire—all these realities weigh heavily on the collective conscience. Honest observers, including President Zelenskyy, acknowledge the defensive position Ukraine finds itself in.
3. **Stoltenberg’s Role**: As the head of NATO, Jan Stoltenberg’s recent statements advocating for continued support to Ukraine have implications. While he frames it as a justifiable policy, the question remains: Should he be held morally responsible for any future deaths, even if we set aside those already sacrificed?
4. **Balancing Interests**: Geopolitical decisions often involve balancing national interests, security concerns, and humanitarian considerations. Stoltenberg’s stance reflects NATO’s strategic perspective, but it intersects with the human cost borne by Ukrainians.

In the intricate web of international relations, the moral compass is tested. As citizens and global observers, we must critically examine these decisions and advocate for policies that prioritize peace, human dignity, and shared security.”

I found this response by ChatGPT to be very revealing of what we may expect from AI. It shows that ethical logic is not absent from an AI engine. But does it prove that the same ethical logic is present? That is less clear since past experience shows that ChatGPT tends to agree with a position if it cannot find a set of arguments to counter the position. Its response is little more than a verbatim echo of my accusations.

To test this I asked a further question that sought to empathize with Stoltenberg’s position.

“The leaders of NATO feel unquestionably justified by an action that was designed from the beginning to punish a serious violation of international law. The majority of Ukrainians have always been favorable to resisting the Russian assault. That is certainly why Stoltenberg today can feel comfortable making the case for continuing to allow Ukrainians to die in the cause. But isn’t there a criterion of proportionality that compromises whatever justification he believes he has for continuing such a murderous policy?”

“The leaders of NATO indeed perceive their actions as justified, stemming from a desire to respond to a serious violation of international law. It is evident that a significant portion of Ukrainians favor resisting the Russian assault. This context likely informs Jan Stoltenberg’s comfort in advocating for continued support to Ukraine, even if it means further loss of Ukrainian lives.

However, your question about proportionality is crucial. When assessing the morality of any policy, proportionality plays a pivotal role. It prompts us to consider whether the means employed—such as providing aid to Ukraine—are proportional to the ends achieved. Here are some reflections:

1. **Proportionality in Conflict**: In armed conflicts, proportionality refers to balancing military actions against the expected harm to civilians or non-combatants. It questions whether the benefits outweigh the costs in terms of human suffering.
2. **Ethical Dilemmas**: Stoltenberg’s stance raises ethical dilemmas. While supporting Ukraine strengthens NATO’s strategic position, it also entails a human cost. The lives lost in this conflict cannot be dismissed lightly.
3. **Long-Term Impact**: The concept of proportionality extends beyond immediate gains. It compels us to consider the long-term consequences. Will continued support lead to lasting stability, or will it perpetuate a cycle of violence?
4. *Accountability**: Leaders must be held accountable for their decisions. If a policy results in unnecessary loss of life, moral responsibility rests with those who shaped it.

In the complex arena of geopolitics, striking the right balance between security interests and humanitarian considerations remains an ongoing challenge. As global citizens, we must engage in critical dialogue and advocate for policies that prioritize peace, justice, and human dignity.

In this case ChatGPT didn’t flinch. It stuck to its ethical guns. Its final observation about “striking the right balance” sums up its standard approach to anything that seems controversial. But I must give it credit here for maintaining the judgment that Jan Stoltenberg and his associated decision-makers are violating observable ethical standards and should be held to account.

An open dialogue

So, dear readers, here’s the real question. If ChatGPT can do it, why can’t our commercial media? 

We invite anyone who wishes to weigh in on this to share their thoughts with us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We will publish your insights as part of an ongoing three-way dialogue we propose to develop between 51�Թ�, ChatGPT and our readers.

[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At 51�Թ�, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Outside the Box: Stoltenberg’s Taste for More Ukrainian Blood appeared first on 51�Թ�.

When Russia invaded Ukraine two years ago, Zelensky the American offer to helicopter him to safety (“I need ammunition, not a ride,”) and in doing so, galvanized Ukraine and the world. Without Zelensky’s inspirational courage and flair, Ukraine could have been overrun, its culture destroyed and its people no longer free.

From TV star to head of state

Zelensky’s ascent from actor to President of Ukraine began when he starred in the TV series, Servant of the People. The wildly popular series began in 2015 and aired for three years. Even today you can find online reviews of it that say, as a certain Derping Flamingo said, “This is the best show ever. I died laughing and now I’m a ghost!” Or who says, “This series is so hilarious, unpredictable, and well done that it needs to be seen by EVERYONE.”

The plot is an idealistic schoolteacher becomes president of Ukraine and works to combat corruption. The background of the show is, in 2014, after Ukrainians forced a corrupt Putin-puppet president to flee the country, people saw the possibility of a rebirth of freedom and prosperity.

The head of the Ukrainian TV network 1+1 was swept along in this enthusiasm and he asked screenwriters to come up with a series based on the idea of, “A new government is coming to this country.”

Thinking back on this time, Dmytro Hryhorenko, one of the show’s writers, remembers: “We started with a clean slate, imagining the perfect picture: a simple person, untouched by politics, becomes president overnight. The show would offer a satirical yet hopeful vision of a Ukraine free from corruption and oligarchy.”

Although Zelensky played the fictional president, Hryhorenko points out, “Zelensky was more than just an actor. It was his production company, and each of the company’s shows was personally edited by him.”

Servant of the People turned out to be wildly popular in Ukraine. It was more than just entertainment; it was a reflection of a nation’s yearning for change. By the second season, Hryhorenko and his fellow screenwriters learned that their viewers were imagining that the man who played the fictional president might become the real president. 

Hryhorenko says that it was at this point that Zelensky began thinking seriously about going into politics for real. Hryhorenko remembers talking with him in the actors’ van. “We could watch him struggle with the fear of such a task,” Hryhorenko recalls. “We got to witness how Zelensky gained determination from one shooting scene to another.”

An anti-corruption candidate

Zelensky may have been awed by the seriousness of what he was contemplating, but Hryhorenko knew that Zelensky knew that if he didn’t run for president, there was no other candidate who would be as well-positioned and as well-motivated to fight corruption. 

Ukrainians had good reason to want to attack corruption. A Ukrainian social worker told me, “The worst legacy of the Soviets was you couldn’t get anything done without a bribe. Your kid doesn’t get into a good school, you don’t get a good job, you aren’t seen by the right doctor, your legal case doesn’t go the way you want, everything depended on bribes.”

And further, the corrupt oligarchs were siphoning off the people’s wealth to pay for their yachts and their villas in France. This kind of theft was keeping the country poor. 

In this context, Zelensky and his scriptwriters knew that fighting corruption needed to be the focus of the series. “We laid out the dramatic twists and complications that faced the President in the show,” says Hryhorenko, “but all of these were solved in 25 minutes and evil was punished. In real life, the battle is not between good and evil. It’s between terrible and bad. Reforms cannot change the country overnight. But they can help take another step from a bad reality to a slightly better one.”

Inspired by Servant of the People, Ukrainians began to demand a new and better kind of leader, one who could take on corruption. The culmination of this came when Zelensky ran for office in 2019. He won with of the vote.

“At its best,” says Hryhorenko, “good art gives the impulse to change reality.” 

Hryhorenko and his colleagues did change reality. Without them, Zelensky would almost certainly not be Ukraine’s President today. And without Zelensky, Ukrainian people might today be under Putin’s Mafia-style thumb, and Putin himself might be invading still more countries. The Servant of the People script writers changed history.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Script That Changed History: Zelensky’s Servant of the People appeared first on 51�Թ�.

“All the elements were present on the spot for the outbreak of a conflict which might have precipitated the catastrophe,” one of those diplomats after the conclusion of the agreement. “We had populations inflamed to a high degree; we had extremists on both sides ready to work up and provoke incidents; we had considerable quantities of arms which were by no means confined to regularly organized forces. Therefore, it was essential that we should quickly reach a conclusion.”

The diplomat, of course, was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who had just negotiated the Munich Agreement with Nazi leader Adolf Hitler. In September 1938, Hitler had given Europe an end-of-month deadline to give Germany the Sudetenland, a section of Czechoslovakia where a large German minority lived. Otherwise, the German leader intended to seize the region by force.

Hitler that it would be the last territorial demand he would make of Europe.

In the brief speech he gave in front of 10 Downing Street, Chamberlain declared that the Munich Agreement was “peace for our time,” which for some reason has been repeatedly misquoted as “peace in our time.”

It wouldn’t be Hitler’s last diktat or his last territorial grab. The following September, after Germany invaded Poland, Chamberlain would reverse himself and declare war against Hitler’s regime.

In retrospect, it’s easy to criticize Chamberlain’s �Բ�ï�����é. Perhaps he wasn’t fully versed in Hitler’s appropriation of the concept of lebensraum (“living space”) to justify his desire to expand the national borders of Germany. Maybe he didn’t know that, in 1936, Hitler had of the “rich forests” of Siberia and the “incalculable farmlands” of Ukraine.

But of a “peace for our time” in Ukraine by compromising with Russian President Vladimir Putin — effectively trading land that is not theirs for a peace that won’t endure — have a much harder time explaining away their �Բ�ï�����é. For one, they have to reckon with this earlier history of appeasement that holds lessons for all those who engage with authoritarian leaders with imperial ambitions.

These “peace advocates” must also deliberately close their eyes and ears to Putin’s version of lebensraum, namely the “Russian world” that he routinely invokes to extend Moscow’s “protection” to Belarus, Ukraine and areas on the Russian border with significant Russian-speaking minorities.

These erstwhile lovers of diplomacy probably don’t know that the word mir in Russian means both “world” and “peace.” So, when Putin talks of this “Russian world,” he is also speaking of a Russian peace. Such a “peace” would preserve Russian territorial gains in Ukraine, grant amnesty to all Russians who have committed war crimes during this conflict and absolve Russia of its financial responsibility for damages incurred during the war. In other words, any such consolidation of the “Russian world” of Vladimir Putin requires a “Russian peace.”

Instead, peace activists should be clamoring for a “peace in their time,” namely a peace on Ukrainian terms. Ukraine, after all, is the victim in this conflict. It should ideally decide the timing and the parameters of any peace deal.

Fortunately, it now seems that the international community may be coming around to that position as well.

The meeting in Jeddah

In August, representatives from over 40 countries came to the Saudi city of to talk about peace in Ukraine.

Russia was not invited.

The snub was deliberate. The meeting was designed to build a peace plan around principles that Ukraine has put forward, especially the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory and the return of those lands to Ukrainian control.

Territorial integrity and the inviolability of sovereignty are bedrock principles in international law that inform the operating consensus of the United Nations. So, it’s really no surprise that the participants in the Jeddah meeting that these Ukrainian demands should be at the heart of any peace deal. Other issues, such as war crimes and compensation, remain controversial.

That so many countries showed up in Jeddah is already a step forward for Ukraine and the prospects for a “peace in their time.” The participants were not just the usual suspects who are already supplying Ukraine with arms. Many of the countries in the Global South who showed up had been hitherto reluctant to anger Russia, which is a source of arms shipments, grain and occasionally other products. But ��ܲ�������’s and its deliberate targeting of Ukraine’s agricultural infrastructure, a war crime in and of itself, has been a step too far for many countries in the Global South who have come to depend on cheaper Ukrainian grain exports.

For the time being, countries like China, India, Saudi Arabia and Brazil continue to insist that they are working with both sides. But the Jeddah meeting sends a signal to the Kremlin that it can no longer take for granted even the qualified support it has received from these powerful countries.

Ukraine that the Jeddah meeting will lead to two summits that will finalize a peace deal that could come with the imprimatur of the international community.

Putin cracks down (again)

Boris Kagarlitsky is the most prominent Russian leftist of his generation. In October 1990, during the waning days of the Soviet Union, I in Moscow about the challenges of creating a left party and the emergence of a “second dissidence” in response to the ruling elite and their economic programs. He was the most interesting commentator on the ultimately quixotic efforts to pull some version of democratic socialism out of the wreckage of Soviet communism.

Kagarlitsky is now sitting in jail, having been arrested for his statements against the war in Ukraine. This week, the Russian government him a “terrorist.”

Opposing the war in Ukraine required something of an about-face for Kagarlitsky, who improbably ��ܲ�������’s annexation of Crimea and involvement in the Donbas secession struggles in 2014. Becoming part of the “patriotic left,” he took advantage of the greater media exposure that came with his newfound allegiance to the Russian government.

But that only made his subsequent criticism of Putin’s war in Ukraine all the more threatening to the Russian government. His arrest has come amid a crackdown against dissent across the political spectrum. This week, the government also to the sentence of the country’s most prominent dissident, Alexei Navalny. A rather conventional nationalist during his protest days, Navalny has also recently changed his tune on aspects of the Ukraine War, for instance now supporting the of Crimea to Ukraine.

And then there’s Igor Girkin, who occupies a position on the political spectrum further to the right of Putin. A former intelligence operative and mercenary, Girkin helped set up the pro-war Club of Angry Patriots in April. But not even these extremist, pro-war credentials have saved Girkin from the wrath of Putin. When the military blogger directly criticized the Russian president last month, he too was .

Russia will hold presidential elections next year. Though press spokesman Dmitry Peskov of a landslide victory, Putin is clearly concerned that someone or something will pose a significant challenge to his authority.

But as long as Putin remains in charge, Ukraine will face a major obstacle in achieving peace on its own terms. Like Hitler, Putin has been coy about his own territorial ambitions. His spokesman Peskov that “we just want to control all the land we have now written into our Constitution as ours.” That means the Donbas and Crimea — and a few more pieces of territory — but Russia doesn’t currently control all of the Donbas. So, even this “modest” imperialism would entail a broader land grab.

Putin’s ambitions, meanwhile, range from a “” of Russian-occupied territory that prevents Ukrainian missiles from reaching Russian territory, to the seizure of all of Ukraine’s Black Sea ports, to the all-out replacement of the “Nazi” government in Kyiv. The Russian government has also threatened to use nuclear weapons, so it is not above using nuclear blackmail to achieve its aims.

But all talk of Putin being satisfied with control of the territory the Russian army currently controls is �Բ�ï�����é at the level of believing Hitler’s promise that Nazi Germany wouldn’t occupy any territory beyond the Sudetenland. The world soon saw through the claims of “peace in our time.” With the wisdom of hindsight and given the widely available evidence of Putin’s intentions, it’s time to rally behind the alternative: “peace in their time.”

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Peace in Their Time: No Appeasement for Putin appeared first on 51�Թ�.

So, based on Biden’s own definition of US war aims, his policy is failing. Tragically, it is hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers, not Americans, who are paying the price with their and their lives. 

This result was far from unexpected. Early in the year Pentagon documents, , had a bleak assessment of the likelihood of Ukrainian success. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy himself the offensive in May to avoid what he called “unacceptable” losses. 

The delay allowed more Ukrainian troops to complete NATO training on Western tanks and armored vehicles, but it also gave Russia more time to reinforce its anti-tank defenses and prepare lethal kill zones along the 700-mile front line.

Now, after two months, Ukraine’s new armored divisions have advanced only 12 miles or less in two small areas, at the cost of tens of thousands of casualties. of newly deployed Western armored vehicles and equipment were reportedly destroyed in the first few weeks of the new offensive as armored divisions tried to advance through Russian minefields and kill zones without demining operations or air cover. 

Meanwhile, Russia has made similar toward Kupyansk in eastern Kharkiv province, where land around the town of Dvorichna has changed hands for the third time since the invasion. These tit-for-tat exchanges of small pieces of territory, with massive use of heavy artillery and appalling losses, typify a brutal war of attrition not unlike the First World War.

Missed chances for peace

Last spring, peace talks in Turkey , but UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson encouraged Ukraine to stay in the fight for the long haul in a . Just three days after this Western intervention in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that talks were at “,” and Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, that the US and UK “blocked” negotiations.

Ukraine’s military successes in the provinces of Kharkiv and Kherson the following autumn provoked serious debate within NATO over whether it was the moment for Ukraine to return to the negotiating table. As by Italy’s La Repubblica, NATO leaders saw the capture of Kherson as providing the opportunity they had been waiting for to try to negotiate a peace agreement from a position of Ukrainian strength.

On November 9, 2022, the very day that Russia ordered its withdrawal from Kherson, General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Economic Club of New York, where the interviewer asked him whether the time was now ripe for negotiations. The general expressed hope that leaders might be able to seize the opportunity provided by the winter slowdown in fighting to negotiate.

General Milley compared the situation to the First World War, explaining that leaders on all sides understood by Christmas 1914 that that war was not winnable, yet they fought on for another four years, multiplying the million lives lost in 1914 into 20 million by 1918, destroying five empires and setting the stage for the rise of fascism and the Second World War.

Milley underscored the point of his cautionary tale by noting that, as in 1914, “… there has to be a mutual recognition that military victory is probably in the true sense of the word, is maybe not achievable through military means. And therefore, you need to turn to other means … So things can get worse. So when there’s an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved, seize it, seize the moment.”

But Milley and other voices of experience were ignored.

At Biden’s February State of the Union speech in Congress, General Milley’s face was a study in gravity, a rock in a sea of misplaced self-congratulation and ignorance of the real world beyond the circus tent, where the West’s incoherent war strategy was not only sacrificing Ukrainian lives every day but flirting with nuclear war. Milley didn’t crack a smile all night, even when Biden to glad-hand after his speech.

No US, NATO or Ukrainian leaders have been held accountable for failing to seize that moment , nor the previous missed chance for peace in spring, when Western leaders rejected a near-agreement, mediated by Turkey and Israel, that could have brought peace based on the of a Russian withdrawal in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality. Nobody has demanded a serious account of why the West let these chances for peace slip through their fingers. 

The West has no idea what it is doing

Whatever their reasoning, the result is that Ukraine is caught in a war with no exit. When Ukraine seemed to have the upper hand in the war, NATO leaders were determined to press their advantage and launch another offensive, regardless of the shocking human cost. But now that the new offensive and weapons shipments have only succeeded in laying bare the weakness of Western strategy and returning the initiative to Russia, the architects of failure reject negotiating from a position of weakness.

So, the conflict has fallen into an intractable pattern common to many wars, in which all parties to the fighting—Russia, Ukraine and the leading members of the NATO military alliance—have been encouraged, or we might say deluded, by limited successes at different times into prolonging the war and rejecting diplomacy. In doing so, they are willing to bear not only the appalling human costs but the rising danger of a wider war and the existential risk of nuclear confrontation.

The reality of war is laying bare the contradictions of Western policy. If Ukraine is not allowed to negotiate with Russia from a position of strength or from a position of weakness, what stands in the way of its total destruction?

And how can Ukraine and its allies defeat Russia, a country whose nuclear weapons policy that it will use nuclear weapons before it will accept an existential defeat? 

If, as has warned, any war between the United States and Russia, or of “tactical” nuclear weapons, would most likely escalate into full-scale nuclear war, where else is the current policy of incremental escalation and ever-increasing US and NATO involvement intended to lead?

Are they simply praying that Russia will implode or give up? Or are they determined to call ��ܲ�������’s bluff and push it into an inescapable choice between total defeat and nuclear war? 

Hoping, or pretending, that Ukraine and its allies can defeat Russia without triggering a nuclear war is not a strategy. 

In place of a strategy to resolve the conflict, the United States and its allies welded the natural impulse to resist Russian aggression to a plan to prolong the war indefinitely. The results of that decision are of Russian and Ukrainian casualties so far and the gradual destruction of Ukraine by millions of artillery shells fired by both sides.

Since the end of the first Cold War, successive US governments, Democratic and Republican, have made catastrophic miscalculations regarding the United States’ ability to impose its will on other countries and peoples. Their naive assumptions about American power and military superiority have led to this fateful, historic crisis in US foreign policy.

Now, Congress is being asked for to keep fueling this war. They should instead listen to the majority of Americans, who, according to the latest CNN , oppose more funding for an unwinnable war. They should heed the words of the by civil society groups in 32 countries calling for an immediate ceasefire and peace negotiations to end the war before it destroys Ukraine and endangers all of humanity.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The West’s Disastrous Decision to Reject Peace in Ukraine appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In recent months, among Russian President Vladimir Putin’s followers, there has been much talk of a “forever war” in Ukraine dragging on for years, if not decades. “For us,” Putin a group of factory workers recently, “this is not a geopolitical task, but a task of the survival of Russian statehood, creating conditions for the future development of the country and our children.”

Visiting Kyiv last February, US President Joseph Biden assured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, “You remind us that freedom is priceless; it’s worth fighting for, for as long as it takes. And that’s how long we’re going to be with you, Mr. President: for as long as it takes.” A few weeks later, the European Council “its resolute condemnation of ��ܲ�������’s actions and unwavering support for Ukraine and its people.” 

With all the major players already committed to fighting a forever war, how could peace possibly come about? With the UN compromised by ��ܲ�������’s seat on the Security Council and the G7 powers united in “��ܲ�������’s illegal, unjustifiable, and unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine,” the most likely dealmaker when it comes to ending this forever war may prove to be President Xi Jinping of China.

China? Really?

In the West, Xi’s self-styled role as a peacemaker in Ukraine has been widely mocked. In February, on the first anniversary of the Russian invasion, China’s as the “only viable solution to the Ukraine crisis” sparked a barbed reply from US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, who claimed the war “could end tomorrow if Russia stopped attacking Ukraine.”

When Xi visited Moscow in March, the statement Chinese officials released claiming that he to “play a constructive role in promoting talks” prompted considerable Western criticism. “I don’t think China can serve as a fulcrum on which any Ukraine peace process could move,” Ryan Hass, a former American diplomat assigned to China. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, pointed out that “China has taken sides” in the conflict by backing Russia and so could hardly become a peacemaker. Even when Xi made a to Zelensky promising to dispatch an envoy to promote negotiations “with all parties,” critics dismissed that overture as so much damage control for China’s increasingly troubled trade relations with Europe.

The symbolism of peace conferences

Still, think about it for a moment. Who else could bring the key parties to the table and potentially make them honor their signatures on a peace treaty? Putin has, of course, already violated UN accords by invading a sovereign state and ruptured his economic entente with Europe by trashing past agreements with Washington to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty. And yet the Russian president relies on China’s support, economically and otherwise, which makes Xi the only leader who might be able to bring him to the bargaining table and ensure that he honors any agreement he may sign. That sobering reality should raise serious questions about how any future Beijing-inspired peace conference might happen and what it would mean for the current world order.

For more than 200 years, peace conferences have not only resolved conflicts but regularly signaled the arrival at stage center of a new world power. In 1815, amid the whirling in Vienna’s palaces that accompanied negotiations ending the Napoleonic wars, Britain emerged into its century-long reign as the globe’s . Similarly, the 1885 that carved up the continent of Africa for colonial rule heralded Germany’s rise as Britain’s most serious rival. The somber grand Hall of Mirrors that officially ended World War I in 1919 marked America’s debut on the world stage. Similarly, the at San Francisco that established the UN (just as World War II was about to end) affirmed the ascent of US global hegemony.

Imagine the impact if, sooner or later, envoys from Kyiv and Moscow convene in Beijing beneath the gaze of President Xi and find the elusive meeting point between ��ܲ�������’s aspirations and Ukraine’s survival. One thing would be guaranteed: after years of disruptions in the global energy, fertilizer and grain markets, marked by punishing inflation and spreading hunger, all eyes from five continents would indeed turn toward Beijing.

After all, with the war disrupting grain and fertilizer shipments via the Black Sea, world hunger to an estimated 345 million people in 2023, while basic food insecurity now afflicts 828 million inhabitants of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Should such negotiations ever prove fruitful, a televised signing ceremony hosted by President Xi and watched by countless millions globally would crown China’s rapid 20-year ascent to world power.

The world’s newest great power

Forget Ukraine for a moment and concentrate on China’s economic rise under communist rule, which has been little short of extraordinary. At the founding of the People’s Republic in 1949, China was an economic lightweight. Its massive population, 20% of the world’s total, was just 4% of global economic output. So weak was China that its leader Mao Zedong had to amid a Moscow winter for an audience with Soviet leader Joseph Stalin just to plead for the industrial technology that would help rebuild an economy devastated by 12 years of war and revolution. In the decade following its admission to the World Trade Organization in 2001, however, China quickly became the workshop of the world, an unprecedented $4 trillion in foreign exchange reserves.

Instead of simply swimming in a hoard of cash like Scrooge McDuck in his Money Bin, in 2013 President Xi announced a trillion-dollar development scheme called the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It aimed to build a massive infrastructure across the Eurasian landmass and Africa, thereby improving the lives of humanity’s forgotten millions, while making Beijing the focal point of Eurasia’s economic development. Today, China is not only an industrial powerhouse that 18% of the global gross domestic product (GDP), compared to 12% for the US, but also the world’s chief creditor. It provides capital for infrastructure and industrial projects to while offering some hope to the still subsisting on less than four dollars a day.

Testifying to that economic prowess, for the past six months world leaders have ignored Washington’s pleas to form a united front against China. Instead, remarkable numbers of them, including Germany’s Olaf Scholz, Spain’s Pedro Sánchez and Brazil’s Lula da Silva, have been to pay court to President Xi. In April, even French President and US ally Emmanuel Macron visited the Chinese capital, where he a “global strategic partnership with China” and urged other countries to become less reliant on the “extraterritoriality of the U.S. dollar.”

Then, in a diplomatic coup that stunned Washington, China took a toward healing the dangerous sectarian rivalry between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia by a meeting of their foreign ministers in Beijing. As the Saudis’ and Iran’s , Beijing had the commercial clout to bring them to the bargaining table. China’s top diplomat Wang Yi then the restored diplomatic relations as part of his country’s “constructive role in facilitating the proper settlement of hot-spot issues around the world.”

Geopolitics as a source of change

Underlying the sudden display of Chinese diplomatic clout is a recent shift in that essential realm called “geopolitics” that’s driving a fundamental realignment in global power.

Around 1900, at the high tide of the British Empire, the English geographer Sir Halford Mackinder started the modern study of geopolitics by publishing a highly arguing that the construction of the 5,000-mile-long Trans-Siberian Railway from Moscow to Vladivostok was the beginning of a merger of Europe and Asia. That unified land mass, he said, would soon become the epicenter of global power.

In 1997, in his book , former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brezinski updated MacKinder, arguing that “geopolitics has moved from the regional to the global dimension, with preponderance over the entire Eurasian continent serving as the central basis for global primacy.” In words particularly apt for our present world, he added: “America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.”

Imagine geopolitics as the deep substrate shaping far more superficial political events, even if it’s only noticeable in certain moments, much the way the incessant grinding of the planet’s tectonic plates only becomes visible when volcanic eruptions break through the earth’s surface. For centuries, if not millennia, Europe was separated from Asia by endless deserts and sprawling grasslands. The empty center of that vast land mass was crossed only by an occasional string of camels traveling the .

Now, thanks to its in infrastructure—rails, roads, pipelines, and ports—China is fundamentally changing that geopolitical substrate through a more-than-metaphorical merger of continents. If President Xi’s grand design succeeds, Beijing will forge a unified market stretching 6,000 miles from the North Sea to the South China Sea, eventually encompassing 70% of all humanity and effectively fusing Europe and Asia into a single economic continent: Eurasia.

Despite the Biden administration’s fervid attempts to create an , recent diplomatic eruptions are shaping a new world order that isn’t at all what Washington had in mind. With the economic creation of a true Eurasian sphere seemingly underway, we may be seeing the first signs of the changing face of international politics. The question is: Could a Chinese-engineered peace in Ukraine be next in line?

Pressures on China for peace

Such growing geopolitical power is giving China both the motivation and potentially even the means to negotiate an end to the fighting in Ukraine. First, the means: as ��ܲ�������’s for its commodity exports, and Ukraine’s largest before the war, China can use commercial pressure to bring both parties to the bargaining table, much as it did for Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Next, the motivation: while Moscow and Kyiv might each exude confidence in ultimate victory in their forever war, Beijing has reason to grow impatient with the economic disruptions radiating out across the Black Sea to roil a delicately balanced global economy. According to the World Bank, almost (47%) is now surviving on seven dollars a day, and most of them live in Africa, Asia and Latin America where China has made massive, long-term developmental loans to under its Belt and Road Initiative.

With 70% of its lands and their rich black soils devoted to agriculture, Ukraine has for decades produced bumper crops of wheat, barley, soybeans and sunflower oil that made it “the of the world,” providing the globe’s hungry millions with reliable shipments of affordable commodities. Right after the Russian invasion, however, world prices for grains and vegetable oils shot up by 60%. Despite stabilization efforts, including the UN’s Black Sea Grain Initiative to allow exports through the war zone, prices for such essentials remain all too high. They threaten to go higher still with further disruption of global supply chains or more war damage like the recent rupture of a crucial Ukrainian that’s turning more than a million acres of prime farmland into “desert.”

As costs for imports of fertilizer, grain and other foodstuffs have soared since the Russian invasion, the Council on Foreign Relations that “a climbing number of low-income BRI countries have struggled to repay loans associated with the initiative, spurring a wave of debt crises.” In the Horn of Africa, for example, the sixth year of a crippling drought has pushed an estimated into a “hunger crisis,” forcing the governments of Ethiopia and Kenya to balance costly food imports with the repayment of Chinese loans for the creation of like factories, railroads and renewable energy. With such loans surpassing in nations like Ghana, Malaysia, Pakistan and Zambia, while China itself holds outstanding credits equivalent to , China is far more invested in global economic peace and stability than any other major power.

Beyond western fantasies of victory

At present, Beijing might seem alone among major nations in its concern about the strain the Ukraine war is placing on a world economy poised between starvation and survival. But within the coming six months, Western opinion will likely start to shift as its inflated expectations for Ukrainian victory in its long-awaited “” meet the reality of ��ܲ�������’s return to trench warfare.

After the stunning success of Ukraine’s offensives late last year near Kharkiv and Kherson, the West dropped its reticence about provoking Putin and began shipping billions of dollars of sophisticated equipment—first and missiles, then and battle tanks and, by the end of this year, advanced . By the war’s first anniversary last February, the West had already provided Kyiv with in aid, and expectations of success rose with each new arms shipment. Adding to that anticipation, Moscow’s own “winter offensive” with its desperate suicide attacks on the city of Bakhmut , as Foreign Affairs put it, that “the Russian military demonstrated … it was no longer capable of large-scale combat operations.”

But defense is another matter. While Moscow was wasting some in suicide assaults on Bakhmut, its specialized tractors were cutting a formidable network of along a 600-mile front designed to stall any Ukrainian counteroffensive.

Ukraine’s troops will probably achieve some breakthroughs when that offensive finally begins, but are unlikely to push Russia back from all its post-invasion gains. Remember that ��ܲ�������’s army of 1.3 million is than Ukraine’s, which has also suffered many casualties. In March, the commander of Ukraine’s 46th Air Assault brigade the Washington Post that a year of combat had left 100 dead and 400 wounded in his 500-man unit and that they were being replaced by raw recruits, some of whom fled at the very sound of rifle fire. To counter the few dozen “symbolic” Leopard tanks the West is sending, Russia has thousands of in reserve. Despite US and European sanctions, ��ܲ�������’s economy has actually continued to grow, while Ukraine’s, which was only about a tenth the size of ��ܲ�������’s, has shrunk by 30%. Facts like these mean just one thing is likely: stalemate.

Beijing as peacemaker

By next December, if Ukraine’s counteroffensive has indeed stalled, its people face another cold, dark winter of drone attacks, while ��ܲ�������’s rising casualties and lack of results might by then begin to challenge Putin’s hold on power. In other words, both combatants might feel far more compelled to sit down in Beijing for peace talks. With the threat of future disruptions damaging its delicate global position, Beijing will likely deploy its full economic power to press the parties for a settlement. By trading territory, while agreeing with China on reconstruction aid, and some further strictures on Ukraine’s future NATO membership, both sides might feel they had won enough concessions to sign an agreement.

Not only would China then gain enormous prestige for brokering such a peace deal, but it might win a preferential position in the reconstruction bonanza that would follow by offering aid to rebuild both a ravaged Ukraine and a damaged Russia. In a recent report, the World Bank that it could take $411 billion and over a decade to rebuild a devastated Ukraine through infrastructure contracts of the very kind Chinese construction companies are so ready to undertake. To sweeten such deals, Ukraine could also allow China to build massive factories to supply Europe’s soaring demand for renewable energy and electric vehicles. Apart from the profits involved, such Chinese-Ukrainian joint ventures would ramp up production at a time when that country is likely to gain duty-free access to the European market.

In the post-war moment, with the possibility that Ukraine will be an increasingly strong economic ally at the edge of Europe, Russia still a reliable supplier of cut-rate commodities and the European market ever more open to its state corporations, China is likely to emerge from that disastrous conflict—to use Brzezinski’s well-chosen words—with its “preponderance over the entire Eurasian continent” consolidated and its “basis for global primacy” significantly strengthened.

[ first published this piece.]

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Peace for Ukraine…Courtesy of China? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Ukraine after independence

On December 21, 1991, the Alma-Ata Protocols formally ended the Soviet Union. The day before, the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) held its first meeting and to uphold the values of “building a Europe a whole and free.” The NACC invited the former Soviet countries that now formed part of the Commonwealth of Independent States to join on March 10, 1992. This established Ukraine’s first formal relationship with NATO. In 1997, the NACC evolved into the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, which broadened the focus of cooperation outside of Europe.

NATO invited all members of the NACC to join the Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme on its launch in 1994. Ukraine became the first former Soviet country to sign on . PfP was not a pathway towards membership in NATO, nor a vehicle for enlargement. Rather, it was a more mundane means of formalizing relations between countries that wanted to  more closely with NATO.

Alongside these developing relationships with NATO that were open to all countries, Ukraine, alongside Belarus and Kazakhstan, was involved in more specific institutional mechanisms due to its inheritance of nuclear weapons following the breakup of the Soviet Union. On December 5, 1994, Russia, the US and the UK signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, including the following clause:

The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations

The process allowed for Ukraine to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and provided security assurances to Ukraine—which were by Russia and the US in 2009—to enable it to give up its inherited nuclear weapons. This cooperative spirit was further enhanced with Ukraine reaching a with Russia over the Black Sea Fleet in 1995.

Deepening ties

NATO has always acknowledged Ukraine as a country of unique importance. Just as with , NATO developed a special relationship with Ukraine.

.In January 1997 NATO and Ukraine agreed to a special partnership, which by July 9th, 1997, led to the , which included the provision that NATO and Ukraine recognize “that security of all states in the OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] area is indivisible.”

Relations were further solidified on November 22, 2002, with the signing of the . This identifies areas where NATO and Ukraine can work more closely together across different security interests of mutual concern. On July 15, 2004, Ukrainian President Kuchma that the intention was not for Ukrainian membership of NATO, but a significant deepening of the relations with NATO (and the EU) as security guarantors of Europe.

The significant issue of membership became prevalent in 2008, with the so-called  sent  for a NATO membership action plan (MAP). The 2008 Bucharest summit decided that Ukraine (and Georgia) were not yet ready to be members of NATO, but that they would be members in the future, according to Jaap de Hoop Scheefer, NATO’s Secretary General. Russia that the promise was a “huge strategic mistake.”

In October 2018, the Ukrainian Parliament reaffirmed this position by NATO (and EU) membership its central foreign policy objective.

This is the position today. A promise of membership at some point in the future, which has been affirmed since the 2008 Bucharest summit, though no specific MAP for how this will be delivered.

Different Ukrainian leaders and the relationship with NATO

Different Ukrainian administrators since the end of the Cold War have varied their approach to NATO membership, as has the Ukrainian public. Indeed, the decisive in favor of NATO membership among the Ukrainian public only occurred after the Russian invasion in 2022.

Leonid Kuchma, president from 1994 to 2005, initially seemed supportive of NATO membership but changed his approach towards the end of his tenure. I offer no comment as to whether this was his own personal desire or a reflection of the apparent political reality that Ukraine would not be admitted as a member. His successor Viktor Yushchenko, president from 2005 to 2010, was a keen proponent of NATO membership, though the general public was less convinced in the 2000s. At the time, opinion polls ran around the 25% mark in favor of NATO membership. had it at 21% in favor of joining.

On the other hand,  did support a referendum on membership in 2008, influenced primarily by the Bucharest Summit and its acknowledgment that Ukraine would be able to join at some point in the future.

Viktor Yanukovych, president from 2010 to 2014, took the position that the existing relationship with NATO was sufficient and didn’t require any further development. In the wake of the Euromaidan uprising, he fled the country, with Petro Poroshenko taking over from 2014–2019. Given the Russian invasion of Crimea and the Donbas in February 2014, Poroshenko pursued a series of policies that were favorable to NATO membership, such as joint exercises and securing a  at the Warsaw summit.

Volodymyr Zelensky, since 2019, has continued the approach of NATO membership and has continually called for, and received, assistance from NATO members. NATO has supplied equipment and military training following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Public support for joining NATO is now regularly above in favor.

No MAP for Ukraine?

 have not traditionally been controversial in the NATO accession process. The process focuses on : political and economic, military, resource, security, and legal issues. These areas have posed particular problems for Ukraine (and Georgia) since the Bucharest Summit. Ukraine has never met the criteria for a MAP; thus, its membership has been in a state of limbo. Ukraine is not alone in this; North Macedonia was obliged to wait twenty-odd years for its membership to be validated.

The main issues center on territorial sovereignty and the settling of ethnic disputes, alongside issues of corruption. Ukraine ranks  out of 180 countries on corruption, even after a decade of reform attempts.

Despite the lack of meaningful progress towards meeting the MAP requirements, Jens Stoltenberg in April 2023 that all NATO members have agreed that Ukraine will join NATO once the war with Russia is over. Indeed, it is now apparent that the accession process could be fast-tracked, with the usual MAP conditions .

Before NATO considers the questions of the geopolitical situation and its relationship with Russia, there is a procedural question to decide. Should NATO set aside the MAP to allow Ukraine to join? Proponents point to Sweden and Finland’s accession earlier in 2023, though each of these countries meets the MAP requirements and has a long history of doing so. Simply waiting for the war to end before offering membership is a bad plan as it could encourage Russia to  to avoid Ukraine joining NATO. In any case, it could be argued that, given the levels of assistance provided to Ukraine, it is a  already.

The tone of the statements that emanate from the Vilnius summit will be crucial. NATO needs to thread the needle of reassuring Ukraine while avoiding encouraging Russia to achieve its objectives by prolonging the conflict. Further, consideration has to be given to . For instance, Georgia, the other declared future member from Bucharest 2008, will likely question why it hasn’t received a fast-track membership process too.

Despite the support of many leaders of NATO countries, the public remains much more sceptical. For example, a May 2023 of Germans found the majority opposed offering Ukraine NATO membership. Support fluctuates between different members; there is no consensus of public opinion for Ukrainian membership of NATO. Never mind the trickier questions as to whether it should be fast-tracked, or when precisely it should join.

Navigating the challenge could well prove to be the most significant issue that the Alliance has faced since its founding in 1949.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post NATO And Ukraine: How Have We Gotten Here From 1991? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

While condemning ��ܲ�������’s invasion, the statement provides a more objective account of the crisis in Ukraine than the US government or The New York Times has previously presented to the public, including the disastrous US role in NATO expansion, the warnings ignored by successive US administrations and the escalating tensions that ultimately led to war. 

The statement calls the war an “unmitigated disaster,” and urges President Joe Biden and Congress “to end the war speedily through diplomacy, especially given the dangers of military escalation that could spiral out of control.”

This call for diplomacy by wise, experienced former insiders—US diplomats, military officers and civilian officials—would have been a welcome intervention on any one of the past 442 days of this war. Yet their appeal now comes at an especially critical moment in the war.

Ukraine Is in a Tough Spot

On May 10, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that he is delaying Ukraine’s long-awaited “spring offensive” to avoid “” losses to Ukrainian forces. Western policy has repeatedly put Zelenskyy in positions, caught between the need to show signs of progress on the battlefield to justify further Western support and arms deliveries and, on the other hand, the shocking human cost of continued war represented by the fresh graveyards where tens of thousands of Ukrainians now lie buried.

It is not clear how a delay in the planned Ukrainian counter-attack would prevent it leading to unacceptable Ukrainian losses when it finally occurs, unless the delay in fact leads to scaling back and calling off many of the operations that have been planned. Zelenskyy appears to be reaching a limit in terms of how many more of his people he is willing to sacrifice to satisfy Western demands for signs of military progress to hold together the Western alliance and maintain the flow of weapons and money to Ukraine.

Zelenskyy’s predicament is certainly the fault of ��ܲ�������’s invasion, but also of his April 2022 deal with the devil in the shape of the then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Johnson Zelenskyy that the UK and the “collective West” were “in it for the long run” and would back him to recover all of Ukraine’s former territory, just as long as Ukraine stopped negotiating with Russia.

Johnson was never in a position to fulfill that promise and, since he was forced to resign as prime minister, he has a Russian withdrawal only from the territory it invaded since February 2022, not a return to pre-2014 borders. Yet that compromise was exactly what he talked Zelenskyy out of agreeing to in April 2022, when most of the war’s dead were still alive and the framework of a peace agreement wason the at diplomatic talks in Turkey.

Zelenskyy has tried desperately to hold his Western backers to Johnson’s overblown promise. But short of direct US and NATO military intervention, it seems that no quantity of Western weapons can decisively break the stalemate in what has degenerated into a brutal, fought mainly by artillery and trench and urban warfare. 

An American general that the West has supplied Ukraine with 600 different weapons systems, but this itself creates problems. For example, the different sent by the UK, France, Germany and the US all use different shells. And each time heavy losses force Ukraine to re-form survivors into new units, many of them have to be retrained on weapons and equipment they’ve never used before.

Despite US of at least six types of anti-aircraft missiles—Stinger, NASAMS, Hawk, Rim-7, Avenger and at least one Patriot missile battery—a leaked Pentagon document that Ukraine’s Russian-built S-300 and Buk anti-aircraft systems still make up almost 90 percent of its main air defenses. NATO countries have searched their weapons stockpiles for all the missiles they can provide for those systems, but Ukraine has nearly exhausted those supplies, leaving its forces newly vulnerable to Russian air strikes just as it prepares to launch its new counter-attack.

Diplomacy Is the Only Way Forward

Since at least June 2022, Biden and other US officials have that the war must end in a diplomatic settlement, and have insisted that they are arming Ukraine to put it “in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.” Until now, they have claimed that each new weapons system they have sent and each Ukrainian counter-offensive have contributed to that goal and left Ukraine in a stronger position.

But the leaked Pentagon documents and recent statements by US and Ukrainian officials make it clear that Ukraine’s planned spring offensive, already delayed into summer, would lack the previous element of surprise and encounter stronger Russian defenses than the offensives that recovered some of its lost territory last fall. 

One leaked Pentagon document warned that “enduring Ukrainian deficiencies in training and munitions supplies probably will strain progress and exacerbate casualties during the offensive,” concluding that it would probably make smaller territorial gains than the fall offensives did.

How can a new offensive with mixed results and higher casualties put Ukraine in a stronger position at a currently non-existent negotiating table? If the offensive reveals that even huge quantities of Western military aid have failed to give Ukraine military superiority or reduce its casualties to a sustainable level, it could very well leave Ukraine in a weaker negotiating position, instead of a stronger one.

Meanwhile, offers to mediate peace talks have been pouring in from countries all over the world, from the Vatican to China to Brazil. It has been six months since the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, publicly, after Ukraine’s military gains last fall, that the moment had come to negotiate from a position of strength. “When there’s an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved, seize it,” he said.

It would be doubly or triply tragic if, on top of the diplomatic failures that led to the war in the first place and the US and UK peace negotiations in April 2022, the chance for diplomacy that General Milley wanted to seize is lost in the forlorn hope of attaining an even stronger negotiating position that is not really achievable. 

If the United States persists in backing the plan for a Ukrainian offensive, instead of encouraging Zelenskyy to seize the moment for diplomacy, it will share considerable responsibility for the failure to seize the chance for peace, and for the appalling and ever-rising human costs of this war.

The experts who signed The New York Times statement recalled that, in 1997, 50 senior US foreign policy experts the then president Bill Clinton that expanding NATO was a “policy error of historic proportions” and that, unfortunately, Clinton chose to ignore the warning. Biden, who is now pursuing his own policy error of historic proportions by prolonging this war, would do well to take the advice of today’s policy experts by helping to forge a diplomatic settlement and making the United States a force for peace in the world.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post US National Security Experts Now Call for Peace in Ukraine appeared first on 51�Թ�.

US support for Ukraine over the last year has not been confined to military hardware. The Biden administration has led a global campaign to: condemn Russia; levy both multilateral and unilateral sanctions against the Kremlin and its domestic supporters; persuade allies to provide military and economic assistance of their own; strengthen NATO and usher in new NATO members; and mobilize energy supplies for Europe to substitute for Russian imports.

Despite this broad-based effort to defend Ukraine, the United States has nonetheless displayed a certain degree of caution. It has drawn the line at committing US forces to the battlefield, aside from a handful of . It has refused to support a no-fly zone over the country, and it has not sent over the Black Sea for fear of engaging Russian forces. It has hesitated to supply Kyiv with every weapon system on its wish list, whether fighter jets or long-range missiles. This caution reflects in particular the anxieties of the Pentagon—a risk-averse institution—about provoking an escalation of the conflict both horizontally (into adjoining countries) and vertically (involving non-conventional weapons like tactical nuclear devices).

A Fine and Tricky Balance

The Biden administration has calibrated this balance between military assistance and geopolitical caution within a rapidly changing global context. ��ܲ�������’s actions have divided the world into three blocs: illiberal supporters of the Kremlin and its imperial policy, the largely democratic club of nations who directly support Ukraine, and the much larger group of fence-sitters who generally acknowledge that the invasion was a violation of international law but are reluctant to break with Moscow.

The United States has tried to turn these divisions into assets by expanding ties with allies, isolating ��ܲ�������’s few supporters, and pushing the fence-sitters away from the Kremlin. The skepticism that Donald Trump brought to the trans-Atlantic relationship, with his threats to withdraw the United States from NATO, has been decisively reversed. All talk of a “strategic reset” of relations with Russia, which was popular during the Obama years and seemed again possible under Trump, has disappeared. The Biden administration has warned China—and other countries—not to supply Russia with weapons or violate technology bans.

��ܲ�������’s invasion of Ukraine has not fundamentally altered US national interests, but it has shifted the means by which Washington pursues those interests.

Certain things remain unclear, however, about US policy. For instance, to what degree is the United States committed to weakening Russia further by supporting either a successful Ukrainian counteroffensive or a prolonged war of attrition? Or is the United States eager to push for negotiations between the aggressor and the victim to resolve a conflict that distracts attention from other strategic US priorities, primarily the containment of China? How long can the Biden administration maintain the flow of military aid to Ukraine, given a divided Congress and weakening public support? What role can the United States play in advancing a just peace in Ukraine? What plans does the United States have for transatlantic relations after the war is over, and in what way does Russia fit into those plans?

What Lies Ahead?

This moment for east-west relations is bleak. The war rages on in Ukraine. Arms control is a dead issue. A cold war threatens to descend upon the larger world order. The “peace” that is discussed in foreign policy circles in the West often comes with several asterisks: loss of territory and a fragile state for Ukraine, lack of prosecution of war crimes for Russia, few guarantees that the conflict will not resume after a strategic pause. This kind of “peace” was secured under the Minsk agreements following ��ܲ�������’s military interventions in Ukraine in 2014. Ukraine, quite sensibly, fears a “Minsk 3” that effectively rewards the Kremlin for its aggression.

The United States will play a pivotal role in determining this outcome through its mix of military assistance and diplomatic leverage. For now, the Biden administration seems to believe that a relatively low-cost and low-risk commitment will enable Ukraine to achieve the same results that Croatia secured in 1995. If Ukraine fails to do so in the first half of 2023, the Biden administration will have to decide whether to maintain this approach, dramatically increase assistance, or push for a “diplomatic endgame.” There isn’t likely political support now for the second option, given Republican control of Congress. Nor is there sufficient support within the administration to pressure Ukraine to abandon its territorial ambitions. So, unless the Ukrainian government itself decides that it is time to negotiate, the United States will continue with the current status quo approach.

For the time being, then, the Biden administration supports a “just peace” in Ukraine that would give victory to the victim and punishment to the aggressor. But this approach is highly contingent on what happens on the ground in Ukraine and what happens in American politics. Even though they have both benefited from the way the war has squeezed Russia, the United States and China will not let the conflict go on indefinitely. In the interim, however, a relatively weak country that gave up its nuclear weapons three decades ago continues to buck the geopolitical odds by beating back a nuclear superpower bent on expanding its empire. That, in itself, is a win for international law and points toward a more just world order.

[ published this piece, which was originally published in the .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Is the US Helping or Pressuring Ukraine Now? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The hope, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, is that the Western allies will continue to furnish money, tanks, missiles, and everything else his battered country needs to fend off Putin’s forces. The war will be won, according to Zelensky, not through backroom compromises but on the battlefield with guns and ammo.

“I appeal to you and the world with these most simple and yet important words,” he to a joint session of Great Britain’s parliament in February. “Combat aircraft for Ukraine, wings for freedom.”

The United Kingdom, which has committed well over in assistance to Ukraine, has so far refused to ship fighter jets there but has promised to supply more weaponry, including tank shells made with depleted uranium (DU), also known as “.” A by-product of uranium enrichment, DU is a very dense and radioactive metal that, when housed in small torpedo-like munitions, can pierce thickly armored tanks and other vehicles.

Reacting to the British announcement, Putin ominously said he would “” if the Ukrainians begin blasting off rounds of DU.

While the UK’s decision to send depleted-uranium shells to Ukraine is unlikely to prove a turning point in the war’s outcome, it will have a lasting, potentially devastating, impact on soldiers, civilians, and the environment. The controversial deployment of DU doesn’t pose faintly the same risks as the actual nuclear weapons Putin and his associates they might use someday in Ukraine or as would a potential meltdown at the embattled in that country. Still, its use will certainly help create an even more lethal, all too literally radioactive theater of war — and Ukraine will end up paying a price for it.

The Radioactive Lions of Babylon

Stuart Dyson survived his deployment in the first Gulf War of 1991, where he served as a lance corporal with Britain’s Royal Pioneer Corps. His task in Kuwait was simple enough: he was to help clean up “dirty” tanks after they had seen battle. Many of the machines he spent hours scrubbing down had carried and fired depleted uranium shells used to penetrate and disable Iraq’s T-72 tanks, better known as the .

Dyson spent five months in that war zone, ensuring American and British tanks were cleaned, armed, and ready for battle. When the war ended, he returned home, hoping to put his time in the Gulf War behind him. He found a decent job, married, and had children. Yet his health deteriorated rapidly and he came to believe that his military service was to blame. Like so many others who had served in that conflict, Dyson suffered from a mysterious and debilitating illness that came to be known as Gulf War Syndrome.

After Dyson suffered years of peculiar ailments, ranging from headaches to dizziness and muscle tremors, doctors discovered that he had a severe case of colon cancer, which rapidly spread to his spleen and liver. The prognosis was bleak and, after a short battle, his body finally gave up. Stuart Dyson in 2008 at the age of 39.

His saga is unique, not because he was the only veteran of the first Gulf War to die of such a cancer at a young age, but because his cancer was later as having been caused by exposure to depleted uranium. In a landmark 2009 ruling, jurors at the Smethwick Council House in the UK found that Dyson’s cancer had resulted from DU accumulating in his body, and in particular his internal organs.

“My feeling about Mr. Dyson’s colon cancer is that it was produced because he ingested some radioactive material and it became trapped in his intestine,” Professor Christopher Busby, an expert on the effects of uranium on health, said in his court testimony. “To my mind, there seems to be a causal arrow from his exposure to his final illness. It’s certainly much more probable than not that Mr. Dyson’s cancer was caused by exposure to depleted uranium.”

The US Department of Defense estimated that American forces fired during that 1991 war to push Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein’s military out of Kuwait. The result: a poisoned battlefield laced with radioactive debris, as well as toxic nerve agents and other chemical agents.

In neighboring southern Iraq, background radiation following that war rose to 30 times normal. Tanks tested after being shelled with DU rounds had readings 50 times higher than average.

“It’s hot forever,” explains Doug Rokke, a former major in the US Army Reserve’s Medical Service Corps who helped decontaminate dozens of vehicles hit by DU shells during the first Gulf War. “It doesn’t go away. It only disperses and blows around in the wind,” he adds. And of course, it wasn’t just soldiers who suffered from DU exposure. In Iraq, has been buildingthat DU, an intense carcinogenic agent, has led to increases in cancer rates for civilians, too.

“When we were moving forward and got north of a minefield, there were a bunch of blown-out tanks that were near where we would set up a command post,” says Jason Peterson, a former American Marine who served in the first Gulf War. “Marines used to climb inside and ‘play’ in them … We barely knew where Kuwait was, let alone the kind of ammunition that was used to blow shit up on that level.”

While it’s difficult to discern exactly what caused the Gulf War Syndrome from which Dyson and so many other soldiers suffered (and continue to suffer), experts like Rokke are convinced that exposure to depleted uranium played a central role in the illness. That’s an assertion Western governments have consistently downplayed. In fact, the Pentagon has repeatedly the two.

“I’m a warrior, and warriors want to fulfill their mission,” Rokke, who also suffers from Gulf War Syndrome, Vanity Fair in 2007. “I went into this wanting to make it work, to work out how to use DU safely, and to show other soldiers how to do so and how to clean it up. This was not science out of a book, but science done by blowing the shit out of tanks and seeing what happens. And as we did this work, slowly it dawned on me that we were screwed. You can’t do this safely in combat conditions. You can’t decontaminate the environment or your own troops.”

Death to Uranium

Depleted uranium can’t produce a nuclear explosion, but it’s still directly linked to the development of atomic weaponry. It’s a by-product of the uranium enrichment process used in nuclear weapons and fuel. DU is alluring to weapons makers because it’s heavier than lead, which means that, if fired at a high velocity, it can rip through the thickest of metals.

That it’s radioactive isn’t what makes it so useful on the battlefield, at least according to its proponents. “It’s so dense and it’s got so much momentum that it just keeps going through the armor — and it heats it up so much that it catches on fire,” says RAND nuclear expert and policy researcher Edward Geist.

The manufacturing of DU dates back to the 1970s in the United States. Today, the American military employs DU rounds in its M1A2 Abrams tanks. Russia has also used DU in its tank-busting shells since at least 1982 and there are plenty of accusations, though as yet no hard evidence, that Russia has already deployed such shells in Ukraine. Over the years, for its part, the US has fired such rounds not just in Kuwait, but also in Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo, Syria, and Serbia as well.

Both Russia and the US have reasons for using DU, since each has piles of the stuff sitting around with nowhere to put it. Decades of manufacturing nuclear weapons have created a mountain of radioactive waste. In the US, more than of depleted-uranium waste has accumulated since the Manhattan Project first created atomic weaponry, much of it in Hanford, Washington, the country’s main plutonium production site. As I investigated in my book , Hanford is now a cesspool of radioactive and chemical waste, representing the most expensive environmental clean-up project in history with an estimated price tag of $677 billion.

Uranium, of course, is what makes the whole enterprise viable: you can’t create atomic bombs or nuclear power without it. The trouble is that uranium itself is radioactive, as it emits alpha particles and gamma rays. That makes mining uranium one of the most dangerous operations on the planet.

Keep It in the Ground

In New Mexico, where uranium mines were primarily worked by Diné (Navajo People), the toll on their health proved gruesome indeed. According to a 2000 in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, rates of lung cancer in Navajo men who mined uranium were 28 times higher than in those who never mined uranium. The “Navajo experience with uranium mining,” it added, “is a unique example of exposure in a single occupation accounting for the majority of lung cancers in an entire population.”

Scores of studies have shown a direct correlation between exposure to uranium and , in infants (when mothers were exposed), increased rates of , and several . The list is both extensive and horrifying.

“My family had a lot of cancer,” anti-nuclear activist and Indigenous community organizer Leona Morgan. “My grandmother died of lung cancer and she never smoked. It had to be the uranium.”

One of the largest radioactive accidents, and certainly the least reported, occurred in 1979 on Diné land when a dam broke, flooding the Puerco River near Church Rock, New Mexico, with . The incident received virtually no attention at the time. “The water, filled with acids from the milling process, twisted a metal culvert in the Puerco and burned the feet of a little boy who went wading. Sheep keeled over and died, while crops curdled along the banks. The surge of radiation was detected as far away as Sanders, Arizona, fifty miles downstream,” writes Judy Pasternak in her book .

Of course, we’ve known about the dangers of uranium for decades, which makes it all the more to see a renewed push for increased mining of that radioactive ore to generate nuclear power. The only way to ensure that uranium doesn’t poison or kill anyone is to leave it right where it’s always been: in the ground. Sadly, even if you were to do so now, there would still be tons of depleted uranium with nowhere to go. A put the world’s mountain of DU waste at more than one million tons (each equal to 2,000 pounds).

So why isn’t depleted uranium banned? That’s a question antinuclear activists have been asking for years. It’s often met with government claims that DU isn’t anywhere near as bad as its peacenik critics allege. In fact, the US government has had a tough time even acknowledging that Gulf War Syndrome exists. A Government Accountability Office released in 2017 found that the Veterans Affairs Department had denied more than 80% of all Gulf War illness claims by veterans. Downplaying DU’s role, in other words, comes with the terrain.

“The use of DU in weapons should be prohibited,” maintains Ray Acheson, an organizer for the and author of . “While some governments argue there is no definitive proof its use in weapons causes harm, it is clear from numerous investigations that its use in munitions in Iraq and other places has caused impacts on the health of civilians as well as military personnel exposed to it, and that it has caused long-term environmental damage, including groundwater contamination. Its use in weapons is arguably in violation of international law, human rights, and environmental protection and should be banned in order to ensure it is not used again.”

If the grisly legacy of the American use of depleted uranium tells us anything, it’s that those DU shells the British are supplying to Ukraine (and the ones the Russians may also be using there) will have a radioactive impact that will linger in that country for years to come, with debilitating, potentially fatal, consequences. It will, in a sense, be part of a global atomic war that shows no sign of ending.

[ first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Risk of Nuclear War in Ukraine Is Rising High appeared first on 51�Թ�.

There wasn’t much for Putin to celebrate. The invasion had failed to dislodge the government of Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv or incorporate all of Ukrainian territory into greater Russia.

Over the last year, the Russian military has 60-70,000 fatalities plus nearly 200,000 injuries. It has half of its fleet of tanks, and monthly it continues to lose while only managing to replace 20 of them from the country’s only tank factory.

The call-up of new recruits for the army in the fall significant pushback throughout the country. The new soldiers, many of them well into , are and equipped. Russians of the Ukrainian front as a “meat grinder” because the Russian army has been throwing wave after wave of these unprepared recruits into the line of fire.

Russia Is Not Doing So Well

The much-anticipated Russian winter offensive to retake territory in the Donbas region has either not materialized or failed to make any mark beyond some negligible gains around the battered city of Bakhmut. Western intelligence that nearly all of ��ܲ�������’s forces are now deployed to Ukraine, and all of these soldiers still haven’t been able to turn the tide in ��ܲ�������’s favor.

The Russian economy hasn’t collapsed under the weight of international sanctions, but it isn’t doing well. Russian GDP shrank by last year. Hundreds of foreign companies have or suspended operations. The Putin government has kept the economy afloat—and its war effort funded—by increasing exports of raw materials, especially fossil fuels. But this is not a sustainable strategy.

Somewhere between 500,000 and a million of Russians the country, either in protest of Putin’s policies or to avoid serving in the military. Although this exodus has reduced the ranks of Putin’s opposition, it has also robbed the country of its most creative professionals. Combined with the failure to diversify the economy away from raw materials, this “brain drain” means that Russia is mortgaging its future in order to wage war in Ukraine.

On the foreign policy front, Putin’s determination to expand the “Russian world” has served only to expand the coalition of forces equally determined to halt his advance. Sweden and Finland, despite decades of ambivalence, have signed up to join NATO. In Finland, public support for NATO membership, which stood at in 2018, rose to in fall 2022. Justifiably angry at NATO’s eastward creep, Putin has nonetheless provided the Western alliance with the motivation to add to its ranks, increase its military spending, and accelerate its coordination with non-members like Ukraine.

Meanwhile, after the invasion, Putin lost nearly all of his within European far-right parties. Even his non-European allies are wavering. Only seven countries voted against the UN resolution condemning ��ܲ�������’s invasion of Ukraine. Although China and India, among other countries, continue to buy Russian energy, often at a significant discount, they are not happy with the war and have pushed for a peace settlement.

Putin Still Carries On

Despite all of these failures, Putin remains committed to the war. At the very least, he wants to control all of the Donbas—the provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk—as well as the land in southern Ukraine that connects the Russian mainland to the Crimean Peninsula, which the Kremlin seized in 2014. The Russian president believes that he can win a war of attrition, given that Russia has a demographic edge over Ukraine. Even though Russia has lost upwards of a million people to emigration post-invasion, far more have left Ukraine: around 8 million, around 20 percent of the population.

Putin also thinks that support in the West for Ukraine will decline and the military assistance will dry up. Polls in the and indeed confirm that support for unabated military assistance has ebbed. This hasn’t yet affected deliveries of weapons. But it could.

Ukraine is certainly concerned that a drawn-out conflict will not be to its advantage. That’s why Zelensky has been trying to get as many arms—the more sophisticated the better—as soon as possible. Much hinges on a second Ukrainian counter-offensive, slated for some time in the spring after the mud has dried up. If Ukrainian forces can drive a wedge between the Donbas and Crimea, it can isolate the latter and create an aura of inevitability around its efforts to expel Russian occupiers.

Call this the Croatian scenario, after the successful 1995 campaign by the Croatian army to push Serbian forces out of positions they occupied inside Croatia. Ultimately, Operation Storm led to a peace agreement that ended the Yugoslav wars and contributed to undermining Serbian support for strong-arm leader Slobodan Milosevic, who lost elections five years later.

The other scenario is the Korean one. As in the Korean War, the first year of the Ukrainian conflict has featured dramatic reversals of territorial control. What comes next might resemble the last two years of the Korean War, in which the two sides battled to a virtual stalemate around the original line of demarcation. If Ukraine and Russia battle to a similar stand-off, they might also agree to a reluctant armistice.

It’s hard to know which of these scenarios will transpire. If there is one salient take-away from the first year of the war in Ukraine it’s the unpredictability of the course of events.

Russia surprised nearly everyone by actually invading Ukraine. Kyiv then surprised almost everyone by successfully repelling the attack, followed by a surprise counter-offensive that pushed even more Russian troops from Ukrainian territory. Meanwhile, despite many predictions of collapse, Russia hasn’t backed down.

Perhaps this second year will see the biggest surprise of all: an end to the war that is just, with the aggressor punished and the victim vindicated. That kind of peace is certainly worth fighting for.

[ first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post What Now is the Future of Ukraine: Korea or Yugoslavia? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

On the eastern side, the Russian rulers are strongly interested in maintaining control over Siberia, which gives the country access to the Pacific Ocean. Hence, they have a geopolitical interest in having friendly relations with China. On the western side, Russia retains access to the Baltic Sea in Saint Petersburg and has managed to keep the enclave of Kaliningrad despite the three Baltic republics declaring independence from the Soviet Union. On the southern side, Russia wants access to the Black Sea, which is the gateway to the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal. Hence, Crimea is of vital importance to Russia.

If Putin were a new Peter the Great or a new Stalin, a settlement between great powers would be within reach: a Yalta-Potsdam-style division of spheres of influence. But as a country in decline with repeated loss of territories, Russia views the hostility from its neighbors as an existential threat. Therefore, it has responded with exasperated despair.

Not a very good war so far

The invasion has not worked as well for Russia as Putin expected. We have learned that, in war, it is more difficult to conquer than to defend. Some experts in military history and strategy estimate that for an attack to succeed in conquering adverse territory,the attacker may need more resources, in troops and weapons, than the defender. This alone can explain why, so far, the Russians haven’t entered Kyiv or Kharkiv, while the Ukrainians have not arrived in Crimea or most of the Donbas.

The attacker’s disadvantage is aggravated by bad management, typical of authoritarian governments. As stated by strategist “A lot of most catastrophic decisions come from autocratic decision-making.” Autocracies lack open and often critical feedback. They believe that “the advantage of autocracy is bold and decisive decision-making.” However, the lack of feedback mechanisms mean that “one poor decision or bit of bad luck can put [them] out completely.”

Along with catastrophic decisions, Russia has been hampered by the fact that some crucial potential allies have not joined its adventure. A few weeks before the invasion, Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping signed an agreement for “unlimited cooperation,” but the Chinese have kept their distance since the war broke out. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has gone further than Xi and told Putin in public that today’s era is not an era of war.

A long bloody war looms

The current protracted stalemate has so far not yielded a clear winner. In a lecture at Georgetown University, CIA Director William Burns that the next six months will be critically decisive. He suggested that the alternatives are either a quick military overturn followed by negotiation and peace or an escalation towards a long war.

A negotiated peace would require that none of the two sides achieves absolute victory or faces bitter defeat. In his recent visit to Warsaw, US President Joe Biden that “Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia. Never.” This is a very different declaration to a call for Ukrainian victory or Russian defeat.

So far, both Russia and Ukraine are still at the rhetorical stage of being maximalist in their demands. Each expects to be in a strong position if a real negotiation ever starts. In the past, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy explicitly he could accept painful concessions on Crimea and Donbas, which were the original objectives of the Russian “special military operation.” As the war has gone on, Zelenskyy has changed his position. He regularly proclaims his determination to move back to Ukraine’s 2014 borders. Zelenskyy also insists on applying for EU and NATO memberships. Russia, in turn, verbally rejects any concession of moving backward.

For an escalation in conflict, the Kremlin would have to make risky domestic moves, including new conscriptions and mass mobilizations. This would make Russian politics the continuation of war by other means, which is what Clausewitz meant even if he phrased it the other way. It is from impatience and distress that Putin toys with using tactical nuclear weapons over Kyiv. He is playing a game of chicken with the US on the assumption that Washington wants to avoid the risk of World War III.

As of now, it seems that Ukraine might be able to sustain its belligerence for as long as the US and NATO keep providing increasingly effective and lethal weapons, including drones, missiles, tanks and even fighter jets. However, political calculations and concern about excessive financial costs of war might make the US Congress and several European countries restrict unrestricted support.

The conflict has already lasted longer than many regional wars and might degenerate into a war of attrition. An end might come from changes away from the war fronts. There should be elections in Russia and Ukraine twelve months from now. There is uncertainty not only about the results of these elections but also whether they will actually be held. The US, the UK and the European Parliament also face elections in 2024, which will come in the middle of a war.One thing we certainly know and can be sure about is that war is the worst human activity with tragic consequences of death and destruction. We have plenty of information and images about the human tragedy in Ukraine. To understand the gruesome nature of war further, you could watch the movie . It is probably the best war movie ever because of the way it captures the horrors of war. Sadly, that horror continue for a while in Ukraine.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Reasons for the Peril of a Russia-Ukraine Stalemate appeared first on 51�Թ�.

They don’t get along.

Religious affiliation by itself does not determine political or military alliances. Plenty of wars have pitted Christians against Christians and Moslems against Moslems. But there are only about 15 million Jews in the world. Especially in the post-Holocaust era, Jewish communities have generally stuck up for one another. Think of American Jews rallying in support of Soviet refuseniks during the Cold War or the huge number of Ethiopian Jews welcomed in Israel (though not always with completely ).

Changing My Mind on Ukraine

Zelensky has certainly played up this natural affinity in his efforts to acquire military weaponry from Israel. He has several times to Israeli audiences, including an impassioned to the Knesset.

But Zelensky’s relationship with former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett was and took a turn for the worse when Bennett Zelensky for publicly pressuring him for more aid. When Israel refused to provide Ukraine with its Iron Dome air defense system, in the face of ��ܲ�������’s brutal aerial assault on Ukrainian infrastructure, Zelensky couldn’t contain his frustration in an with French TV: “You know there are many people in Ukraine of Jewish origin, and there are a lot of Ukrainians in Israel. How is it possible to have this attitude? I was shocked.”

All of Israel’s allies in the West have rallied behind Ukraine. Meanwhile, even as it claims to be fighting Nazis, Russian leaders have made outlandish, anti-Semitic claims, like Sergei Lavrov’s back in May that Hitler, too, had Jewish origins and the Russian foreign minister’s of Western strategy in Ukraine to Hitler’s “final solution.” And, of course, Russian attacks have killed real Jews, including Boris Romantschenko, a 96-year-old survivor of four Nazi concentration camps when a Russian missile destroyed his apartment building in Kharkiv last spring.

So, why on earth has the world’s only Jewish state failed to support the only other country with a Jewish leader? So much for conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the world. We can’t even get together to control the outcome of the war in Ukraine.

Dear Mr. Netanyahu, Do You Want Power at Any Cost?

The Return of Netanyahu

Ordinarily, power is attracted to power. How else to explain why authoritarian leaders seem to flock together, regardless of political ideology.

It must be the pheromones.

Donald Trump was so enamored of his “love letters” from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un that he breached national security to abscond with them after his term in office ended. Several prominent far right-wing politicians—Matteo Salvini of Italy, Marine Le Pen of France—couldn’t wait to kiss the ring of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, despite his background as a communist apparatchik.

So, too, has Benjamin Netanyahu spoken of his close relationship with Putin. Back in 2021, Bibi asked the Russian leader to help out with an Israeli woman detained in Syria. “I spoke twice with my friend Russian President Vladimir Putin,” Netanyahu . “I requested his assistance in returning her, and he acted.”

Of course there are much larger geopolitical reasons for the close relations between the Kremlin and the Jewish state. The Israeli government depends on the good graces of the Russian military, which effectively controls the airspace over Syria, to monitor what’s going on near the Israeli border and to over the border. Israel has also in the past relied on Russian channels to Palestinian groups, particularly Hamas.

For these reasons, Israel has condemned Russia for its invasion of Ukraine but hasn’t enforced the sanctions against the Kremlin or supplied any military assistance to Ukraine. That might change under Netanyahu, but only if Ukraine sides more explicitly with Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories.

The Truth About US Support for Ukraine, But Not Palestine

One day after he took office late last month, Netanyahu with a specific request. The UN General Assembly was voting on whether to authorize the International Court of Justice to issue a report on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land. Netanyahu wanted Ukraine to vote against the resolution or at least abstain. In return, he promised to reconsider the provision of the Iron Dome system to Ukraine.

Disappointed that Bibi hadn’t provided a more concrete quid pro quo, Zelensky retaliated by instructing his UN representative not to attend the vote. This gap between Israel and Ukraine is not unbridgeable. But it would be a supreme irony if Ukraine managed to get an air defense system from Israel only by supporting the latter’s illegal occupation of Palestinian land.

Jews Speak Out

Since the invasion of Ukraine last February, have left Russia for Israel. Thousands of others have gone to other countries. A community that numbered around 165,000 before the invasion is rapidly shrinking.

Last month, one of the more prominent Jews to leave Russia, former chief rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, the rest of the community to rush to the exits. “We’re seeing rising antisemitism while Russia is going back to a new kind of Soviet Union, and step by step the iron curtain is coming down again,” he told The Guardian. “This is why I believe the best option for Russian Jews is to leave.” Goldschmidt himself left because he wouldn’t succumb to government pressure to support the war.

The Jewish community in Ukraine, meanwhile, has mobilized to defend the country. It has that the Russian army has come to save them from Nazis. “Before the war, we laughed at this,” Avraham Wolff, chief rabbi of Odessa and southern Ukraine. “We thought it was a joke. But now, it’s a very painful joke. It hurts. It’s impossible to say that Ukraine is full of Nazis. It’s wrong.”

In a , only 5 percent of Ukrainians said they wouldn’t want Jews as neighbors, the lowest number in the region compared to 14 percent of Russians, 18 percent of Poles, and 23 percent of Lithuanians. Meanwhile, the influx of Ukrainian Jews fleeing Russian-occupied areas in the east has “created a miniature Jewish renaissance in Ukraine’s western regions,” according to .

On the ground in Ukraine and Russia, in other words, Jews have made their choice clear.

Meanwhile in Israel

During his most recent electoral campaign, Netanyahu promised to take another look at Israel’s refusal to offer military assistance to Ukraine. But given his relationship with Putin and the role that Russia plays in Israel’s geopolitics, Bibi will not likely change the status quo in any substantial way.

After all, the Israeli prime minister is already busy with radical moves elsewhere.

The is the most right-wing yet, with several noted political extremists, a couple convicted criminals, and representatives of the ultra-Orthodox Shas, Religious Zionism, and United Torah Judaism parties. The head of a far-right, anti-LGBT party, meanwhile, will be in charge of “Jewish national identity.”

Top of the list of priorities for the new government is to press forward on not just expanding Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories but effectively annexing Palestinian land. Several cabinet members come directly from the settler communities, like Itamar Ben-Gvir, the new national security minister who in the West Bank city of Hebron. The person in charge of settlement policy, Bezalel Smotrich, is himself an ultra-Orthodox settler leader.

To facilitate the makeover of Israeli society, Netanyahu has ambitions much larger than simply expanding Israeli territory at the expense of Palestinians. He has taken a page from the handbook of right-wing authoritarian leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán by going after the independence of the courts. In recent years, Israeli courts have been the one government institution that has preserved the civil liberties of citizens.

On this issue, at least, the Israeli public is making itself heard: 110,000 people recently showed up in Tel Aviv for a third week of protests over Netanyahu’s plans to transform the judiciary into his lapdog. “Night is descending upon Israel,” former deputy attorney general Dina Silber the protestors. “It’s a real alarm… We’re not imagining it.”

In other words, Netanyahu is busy turning Israel into Putin’s Russia: authoritarian governance combined with an ultra-conservative social policy and a colonial occupation of the “near abroad.” The early Zionists drew inspiration and support from the Soviet Union. Today, the right-wing in Israeli is following the example of a reactionary Russia.

Zelensky and Netanyahu may share the distinction of being Jewish leaders. But the Ukrainian should not expect much in the way of military help from Israel. Frankly, the latter is too busy heading in the direction of to be much help in defending a democratic state from Putinism.

[ first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Make Sense of Israel’s Strange Ambivalence on Ukraine appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Those rare analysts curious enough to tease out the tangled threads of Ukrainian history that led up to the December border standoff knew that Ukraine’s drama was complex. Seven years after the signing of the Minsk II accord, the Normandy format had failed to achieve anything that resembled a possible resolution. Ukraine was a divided country with powerful pressure coming from two sides and a divided population inside the nation. Ukraine had been living through a decade of what those too squeamish to call it civil war may have thought of as a “civil misunderstanding” between the European-focused west of Ukraine and the Russia-rooted east. In other words, Ukraine was a powder keg and there were people on either side playing with matches.

But the reigning belief among the pundits in 2021 was that if warlike gestures were possible, war itself, within Europe, was a thing of the past. After all, despite numerous warnings whispered or intoned over three decades by a series of Russian leaders – Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin – the eastward expansion of NATO, which none of those leaders said they would tolerate, had taken place without the slightest hiccup and only occasional tension. If integrating Ukraine, as promised by George W Bush in 2008, was likely to grate on Russian nerves, Westerners assumed that one more fait accompli would follow the same logic that permitted the easy integration of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in 1999, seven others in 2004, and a handful more in 2009, 2017 and 2020. As John Mearsheimer frequently explains: for the West, Russia was weak. However aggrieved it might be by the events it was forced to witness, a weak nation will never be capable of countering a well-rehearsed game plan that had proved successful for more than two decades.

By October 2021, Vladimir Putin’s unusual demonstration of force had become evident and appeared alarming to most observers. It would be followed in December by a formal proposal Putin sent to both NATO and the US to sit down and hammer out a solution and avoid confrontation. But the West was busy explaining away Putin’s folly and the sources of his misguided histrionics, believing at the time that he would back down and accept the inevitable, as Russia had consistently done in the face of NATO’s “manifest destiny.” Even Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Ukraine’s president, days before the actual invasion, thought the troop buildup was little more than a theatrical. He complained about the deleterious effects of Western fearmongering. Military action was unthinkable.

Ukrainian Oligarchs Go to Acting Class

READ MORE

How things have changed! To get a better idea of how much, The Guardian deemed on October 3, 2021 – a mere five months before ��ܲ�������’s invasion –  to be the appropriate moment to the scandals of what it described as Zelenskyy’s corrupt government, including the president himself among the explicitly corrupt. The lede of the article read: “Volodymyr Zelenskiy has railed against politicians hiding wealth offshore but failed to disclose links to BVI firm.”

This revelation from the Pandora Papers seemed to contradict the mission of reform proudly proclaimed by the Ukrainian president five months earlier. In May 2021, The Atlantic Council published an authored by Zelenskyy himself announcing his commitment to “deoligarchization.” The article ended with these words: “Our ultimate objective is to destroy the traditional oligarchic order and replace it with a fairer system that will allow Ukraine to flourish.”

Today’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Fairer system:

The same system as before but with a few superficial cosmetic improvements designed to reduce chatter about its failings or dysfunction.

Contextual note

Today, of course, the media and Western politicians compare Zelenskyy to Churchill. He is the heroic defender of liberal values against the forces of evil. Nit-picking about corruption in Ukraine would no longer be tolerated in any Western media, just as pointing to the enduring influence of Ukraine’s neo-Nazi ultra-nationalists – once a topic of media reportage – could have no place in today’s news cycle.

The now independent journalist Patrick Lawrence who once worked for The New York Times, after describing Zelenskyy’s sanctions and of the Ukrainian branch of the Russian Orthodox Church, the logic at the core of this “fairer system.” “Making Ukraine ‘Western’,” he writes, “requires that a nation with pronounced differences turn itself into a profoundly and comprehensively intolerant society in contradiction of the most basic assumptions of Western liberalism.” Banning the traditionally dominant religion of at least a significant part of a nation has never been considered a liberal ideal or one of the “freedoms” we associate with democracy.

Historical note

In other words, what was previously a lambent civil war has now become – if we are to believe no less an expert than former CIA director, Leon Panetta – a proxy war between the US and Russia. The civil war itself took a dramatic form in 2014, producing a historical situation that led the Ukrainian government to begin acquiring some of the characteristics we associate with the worst fascist regimes.

Oligarchy is one part of it, but oligarchies are not necessarily fascist. The of opposition parties is one salient feature of fascism. A form of cultural genocide, which began in Ukraine with the of the Russian language long before the Russian invasion, is something we clearly associate with fascism. The demonizing of Vladimir Putin was an expected consequence of war, especially following a brutal invasion. But Zelenskyy’s government has pushed things further, vilifying nor only everything Russian but all Russians.

What might seem slightly more surprising is that this hatred of everything Russian has spread to the West and is now routinely echoed in Western media. But another reading of modern history tells us that hatred of Russia and Russianness began in the West long ago. In recent years it became useful in some sectors of the United States because of an atavistic but inappropriate association with communism. It has proved convenient to use it to explain away various embarrassments, such as Hillary Clinton’s loss of the 2016 election to Donald Trump.

Associative Xenophobia in Europe: a New Old Trend

READ MORE

Scapegoating a nation and its people in time of war has been a standard response in the history of nation states. During World War I, the United States performances of Beethoven and renamed sauerkraut “liberty cabbage.” Germany. George W Bush even renamed French fries “freedom fries,” not because France was at war with the US, but because it refused to be associated with the invasion of Iraq, done in the name of democracy and liberal values. Turbaned Sikhs were murdered after 9/11, on the mistaken belief by “patriotic” Americans that they were Arabs and therefore responsible for the destruction of the Trade Towers. This, of course, wouldn’t have happened if the Bush administration had treated the attack as a spectacular crime to be prosecuted rather than an act of war conducted by a nation (Afghanistan), a people (Arabs) and a religion (Islam).

So what about Zelenskyy’s “fairer system”? The historical reality is that oligarchic and plutocratic systems can rarely be made fairer because they are based on the idea that success in the acquisition of wealth, whether realized through cheating or hard work, will always be its own reward and the key to power. And cheating, if it can go unpunished, is always more efficient than hard work. Oligarchs defend their system by calling it a “rules-based order” because the rules of power relationships make it possible to cheat. Tax havens are perfect examples of that.

In a published by The Guardian titled, “Europe put tax havens in the Caribbean – and now punishes them for it,” Kenneth Mohammed described a system that works smoothly and applies its rules efficiently.

“Opaque money eventually equates to opaque power; if dirty money is left to flow unhindered into the financial system, the cancer of corruption spreads, global development is retarded and inequity and inequality escalate.”

Zelenskyy was doing nothing wrong. He was simply playing by the rules.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Fair is Foul: In Ukraine Fairer Can Also Be Fouler appeared first on 51�Թ�.

And yet, three weeks into the war, the no-fly zone proposal just won’t die. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky begs for air support almost daily. In protests and social media posts, millions of ordinary people around the world ask NATO to #closethesky. 

No, the Ban on Russian Athletes Should Not Be Lifted

READ MORE

Here in America, a nationwide poll showed that 74% of Americans  a no-fly zone. And earlier this month, 27 foreign policy experts published an open  requesting a limited no-fly zone over humanitarian corridors. 

If a no-fly zone is so obviously impractical, why are we still talking about it? The answer — which is conspicuously missing from mainstream Western discourse — lays bare the fundamental problem in the US response to the war. 

A False Dichotomy

Politicians and the offer a  simplistic  against protecting Ukraine’s airspace: ��ܲ�������’s nuclear arsenal. Almost every official statement, article and op-ed can be summarized in one sentence: A no-fly zone would start World War III.

But here’s the part no one says out loud: What happens if the West doesn’t institute a no-fly zone? Will such a move keep us safe from nuclear Armageddon? Can the US manage to stay out of this war and out of ��ܲ�������’s crosshairs? 

Vladimir Putin’s rhetoric — and his actions — offer a clear answer. The US can avoid direct confrontation but at a price: handing the Russian leader an absolute, total victory. In Ukraine, of course, but also in Moldova and Georgia and perhaps the Baltics, and who knows where else? And, of course, carte blanche to commit whatever atrocities he’d like worldwide (à la Syria). 

If Putin cannot win, he will lash out against enemies real and imagined. At that point, it won’t matter whether those enemies have instituted a no-fly zone. Putin has already likened sanctions and weapons deliveries to declarations of war on Russia, creating a ready excuse for retaliation. He’s set up a false narrative about Ukraine building a nuclear bomb, building a rationale to use his own nuclear weapons. 

America’s Choice 

The real question before the US government isn’t whether to institute a no-fly zone. It’s whether America is ready to help Ukraine win or prefers to stand by and watch the rise of a new Russian empire. 

If not, we must stand up to Putin now. There are multiple viable policy options for doing so. One is  a no-fly zone administered by the United Nations rather than NATO. Another is  Ukraine decommissioned Western fighter jets and several dozen volunteer air force vets who would be granted Ukrainian citizenship. Yet another would be to send only jets — Ukrainian fighter pilots have confirmed that they can, in fact, learn to fly Western jets in just a few days. 

The specific mechanism matters less than the political will — the decision to send Putin a clear message that the US will not let him take Ukraine, backed up by sufficient military support. This option is not risk-free. But it’s impossible for Ukraine to prevail without angering Putin. 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Is the risk worth it? Ukrainians believe so because they see something most Americans haven’t yet figured out: World War III has already started. Putin’s grand ambitions are reminiscent of a certain German dictator 80 years before him, as is the US strategy of appeasement. In the end, US involvement is inevitable, so why not be strategic and proactive rather than reacting years later when the human and economic costs of Putin’s empire-building are too high to be ignored? 

Of course, the US government may disagree with this perspective and opt for appeasement 2.0. Maybe this time around, the unstable dictator will be more reasonable?

If this is the case, and the US government is not ready to stand up to Putin, it’s essential to make it clear that Zelensky is on his own. If we cannot make a commitment to let Ukrainians win, we should let them lose. Ukraine’s government deserves an honest understanding of what it can and can’t expect from the US so it can make decisions accordingly.  

The Worst of Both Worlds

So far, American politicians have spurned both of these options. Instead, they’re pursuing an immoral, dangerous fantasy, waiting for someone to stop Putin without America getting its hands dirty. To this end, they offer half-measures that drag out the conflict and cost thousands of lives. They wear blue and yellow, they send aid and enact sanctions, but they consciously steer clear of any support that could lead to a Ukrainian victory. 

This brings us back to the absurd situation we started with: ongoing calls for an impossible no-fly zone, which we can now see are absolutely logical. Let’s review.

America: Ukraine, we support you in your brave fight for freedom!

Ukrainians and their friends abroad: Great! So, the one thing we need is support with our airspace.

America: No can do. But believe us — we’re on your side here and we’re ready to help! 

Ukrainians: Thank you. We’re dying here and we can’t win without air support. 

America: Once again, no. But we stand with you.

This hypocrisy goes well beyond the debate over the no-fly zone. For instance, on March 6, Secretary Blinken gave the green light for Poland to donate its fighter jets to Ukraine. When Poland agreed to cede the jets to the US for immediate transfer to the Ukrainian army, American officials  in a truly impressive display of doublespeak. 

Ukraine cannot win this war without the US taking tangible steps to protect Ukrainian airspace. Pretending otherwise and willfully extending the bloodshed with partial measures is the worst possible option for the United States. 

The US government doesn’t owe Ukraine support. But it does owe Ukraine an immediate end to the falsehoods and the empty words — a bullshit ceasefire, if you will. An admission that, no matter how many civilian deaths, no matter what kind of banned weapons Russia uses or how many war crimes it commits, no matter if Russia drops a nuclear bomb on Kyiv, the US will not step in. 

Until then, Russia pushes new boundaries every day with impunity, Ukraine holds out hope for help that will never come and Joe Biden wavers while children die. 

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post American Hypocrisy and Half-Measures Damn Ukraine and Help Russia appeared first on 51�Թ�.

COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories Have Real-World Consequences

READ MORE

But the government in Kyiv — first represented by the parliament leader Olexander Turchynov and then by the newly elected President Petro Poroshenko — preferred a different approach. An ongoing civil war soon broke out, in which Russia supports the Russian-speaking population of the separatist regions. Ukraine accuses Russia of military and financial support for the separatists. Moscow rejects these allegations and does not consider itself a party to the conflict. Meanwhile, in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, people continue to die.

Zelensky’s Promise

Unlike his predecessor, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during his election campaign in 2019, promised to put an end to the war. Despite opposition from armed nationalist groups, he has managed to separate fighting forces in several regional sectors. In , he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Paris, which brought new hope for peace to the region.

It is understood that Zelensky is eager to reach an agreement to put an end to hostilities. At the Munich Security Conference on February 14, he his intention to complete the process of reintegration for Donbas this year. To do so, he wants to hold local elections in the fall of 2020 in accordance with the Ukrainian Constitution.

To achieve this goal, Zelensky made the following two statements in Munich. First, he wants to completely separate the fighting forces in the east of the country. Second, he aims to withdraw military equipment from the demarcation line in eastern Ukraine. As he put it, this fundamentally new approach will help to reduce the risk of shelling from both sides. He added that local elections are impossible without control over the border between the Ukrainian Donbas region, on the one hand, and Russia, on the other.

Given that the separatists fear the closing of the border with Russia, Zelensky made a truly revolutionary proposal. He agreed to joint control of this section of the border with representatives of the separatist Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR) people’s republics in eastern Ukraine, as well as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Yet while he ruled out the of holding direct dialogue with the official leaders of the self-proclaimed republics in Donbas — which Russia seeks from Ukraine — it is rather a tribute to nationalists who are against making any concessions to the separatists and believe there is only one way to peace: by force.

At the end of 2019, a series of protests led by nationalists took place in Kyiv against any cooperation with the leadership of the unrecognized DPR and LPR. Their position was expressed by Yuri Gurenko, the head of the Kyiv branch of the ultra-nationalist organization Right Sector. “If Ukrainian control is established over this (separatist-held) territory, then we can talk about elections, not just the border but the whole territory,” he . “Elections held by terrorist groups can’t be legitimate.”

Given that the nationalists disrupted the complete separation of forces in eastern Ukraine in October 2019, Zelensky knows he needs to be careful when making statements about peace. Indeed, Ukrainian nationalist groups have not been fringe movements for a long time. These groups form the basis of the state ideology in Ukraine. The reincarnation of the ideology of integral nationalism, as well as the glorification of Ukrainian nationalist leader Stepan Bandera and veterans of the SS Galicia division — who fought with the Nazis against the Soviet Union in World War II — began with the radical right in the 1990s.

The Right Sector’s Units

In addition, since 2014, almost all the nationalists have created the combat units. Many of these units have joined the ranks of the armed forces and the Ministry of Internal Affairs as volunteer battalions. In July that year, for example, the Right Sector formed the so-called (DUC-PS). The DUC-PS participated in military operations in the Donetsk region against armed groups of the DPR. The combat units of the DUC-PS were under the operational command of the anti-terrorist operation (ATO), interacting with neighboring units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU).

The DUC-PS withdrew from the frontline in April 2015, but that did not change anything. It is still an official armed group that de facto submits only to the political leadership of the Right Sector. Moreover, at the end of that year, the leader of the Right Sector, Dmitry Yarosh, created a new corps of the , which actively participated in hostilities until recently.

But the DUC-PS and Yarosh’s corps are not the only two armed units of the radical right in Ukraine. There are dozens of such battalions that are formal subordinates of either the Ministry of Defense or the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The most famous among them are the Azov and Donbas battalions but, in reality, there are many more.

There are also so-called independent volunteer units of Ukrainian nationalists who do not answer to anyone. As of August 2016, there were up to 5,000 armed fighters in their ranks. In addition to the DUC-PS, there are the OUN Battalion — or the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists — three Islamic organizations and others. Most of these groups are financed by Ukrainian oligarchs, who, by 2016, led the conversation about the of volunteer groups into private armies. This factor remains a serious argument in the formation of Ukrainian politics, especially in the fight against separatists and Russia.

Many of these groups work with the younger generation, recruiting not only ideological supporters but also ordinary militants. In 2015, the Right Sector’s DUC-PS teenagers. Today, its training camps are not empty. They actively interact with nationalist and even pro-Nazi ATO veterans, primarily in western Ukraine.

Clearly, without solving the problem of the influence of the radical right in Ukrainian politics, Zelensky is unlikely to be able to achieve a peaceful settlement in the Donbas region. All of his decisions, in this sense, will be sabotaged by nationalists who are ready to use any means of pressure — from protests in Kyiv to armed battalions that have experience in military operations.

In October 2019, Ukrainian authorities were not able to the withdrawal of troops from the demarcation line that separates the warring factions. The reason was that nationalist battalions took up positions there instead of the assigned units of the Ukrainian armed forces. They also refused to comply with the order of the supreme commander to withdraw. Since being elected in April 2019, Zelensky has simply not tried his luck and has not had direct confrontation with neo-Nazis, given the mass protests organized by them in Kyiv in October 2019.

However, the question is whether there has there been any change in the attitude of officials toward these groups since Zelensky was elected. Indeed, has the new president done anything to reduce the political and ideological influence of these movements? The answer is still no. The future outlook does not look good either.

Issuing Grants

Since Zelensky came to power, the policy of moral and material support of nationalists by the state has not changed and, in fact, has only intensified. In late January 2020, the Ministry of Culture reallocated almost half of all funds originally set for youth NGOs to nationalist instead. Of the 20 million Ukrainian hryvnias ($744,000), they received 8 million hryvnias ($297,000). Among these organizations are the Educational Assembly and National Center for Human Rights, associated with the ultra-right group C-14; the National Youth Congress, the Young People’s Movement; and the youth wing of the neo-Nazi Freedom Party, Falcon of Freedom, among others.

In December 2019, the exact same situation developed with the distribution of state by the Ministry of Youth and Sports to national-patriotic education. The radical right received 9 million hryvnias. According to the State Competition Commission, grants were provided for the implementation of aimed at “the formation of value guidelines and the establishment of a national-patriotic consciousness of children and youth, the popularization of the national spiritual and cultural heritage, and the raising of the level of knowledge about outstanding personalities of Ukraine.”

The lion’s share of the winning projects focused on the glorification of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). The UPA is well known for its ties with the Nazis and participating in the extermination of Jews and Poles in World War II. It is also known for individuals such as Simeon Petlyura, the organizer of the Jewish pogroms during the civil war of 1918-20; Stepan Bandera, the leader of Ukrainian nationalists who collaborated with Adolf Hitler; and Roman Shukhevych, the commander-in-chief of the UPA, the Wehrmacht Hauptmann and deputy commander of the Nachtigal special forces Whermacht battalion.

Several projects were won by the national scout organization Plast, which is associated with nationalists from the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists-Ukrainian Insurgent Army (OUN-UPA). It is worth noting that Bandera and Shukhevych were once part of this organization. The money from the grants will go to the organization of military-patriotic for youth.

One of the most expensive projects will be the festival of “Ukrainian spirit,” known as Banderstat. It will be hosted by the NGO of the same name and will receive 420 thousand hryvnias from the Ministry of Youth and Sports. The organizers have not yet announced the list of musicians who will perform at the festival on August 7-9 in Lutsk, but they say the event will be “patriotic and ideological.” An important of Banderstat and the main slogan of the organization is to remember “your story and [be] worthy of creating a new one.” UPA veterans visit the event every year, and “rebel and liberation battles” are reenacted. There is no doubt what Banderstat will be promoting this year.

The Union of Ukrainian Youth, which claims to “the restoration of historical justice, rehabilitation in the minds of the people … the names of Petlyura, Bandera and Shukhevych, the struggle of the OUN and the UPA” — as written in the grant application — also won several state grants. In particular, a grant of 95 thousand hryvnias was provided to the mobile camp Zagrava, which says will have “an exciting journey through the historical sites of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army.”

The Ukrainian Reserve Army — created in 2014 — will receive 310 thousand hryvnias for the Unizh Forge, a sports and “patriotic” camp designated for children of combatants. Another 230 thousand hryvnias will be sent to the Wings Youth Foundation, which has proposed the Rebel Nights project. This initiative was implemented last year in the Rivne region. Young people were involved in restoring and cleaning the graves of UPA soldiers.

Patriotic Education

According to Eduard Dolinsky, the director of the Jewish Ukrainian Committee (JUC), in January 2020, the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Youth and Sports in parliament on the topic titled, “How to form a national identity and educate Ukrainians nationally and patriotically.” The hearings led to 10 pages of recommendations that were sent to all government agencies. The document states that national-patriotic education is of strategic importance for the future of Ukraine and, therefore, it is necessary to create a state agency for this purpose and allocate money for television programs. In particular, these would focus on the OUN-UPA, in order “to determine that the presence of harmful information products in the information space that lead to the degradation of the society.”

The document emphasizes that in Ukrainian schools, before the lesson of patriotic education, it is necessary to sing the UPA anthem, which was recently adopted as a theme of the new Ukrainian army. It states that when children are resting at youth camps, they should be provided with national education activities, taken to more national art events and that libraries should be filled with national-patriotic literature. The document focuses on the word “national.” So, instead of patriotic, it is national-patriotic, and instead of artistic events, it is national-artistic. This practice was widely practiced by integral nationalists of Bandera in the 1940s and 1950s.

The policy of glorifying Ukrainian collaborators from the Second World War has not changed under Zelensky. In February 2020, according to Dolinsky, a memorial to Yuri Polyansky, the burgomaster of Lviv during the Nazi occupation, was officially opened in Lviv in western Ukraine. Under Polyansky, Jewish pogroms and the destruction of Polish intellectuals took place, while a Judenrat and auxiliary police were created.

On February 8, the took place in the Hall of Columns of the Kyiv City Hall. Participants examined the global challenges of transhumanism, discussed the “great personality of Stepan Bandera” and looked at whether Ukrainian nationalism can withstand artificial intelligence.

In that same month, authorities in Lviv a jubilee stamp in honor of the late war criminal Vasyl Levkovych, in what would have been his 100th birthday. Levkovych was the commandant of the Ukrainian auxiliary police of the town Dubno, the organizer of Jewish pogroms, and the executioner of 5,000 Dubna and Rivne Jews and thousands of Poles. The Ukrainian Institute of National Memory, already with a new head, Anton Drobovich — who was appointed by President Zelensky — published an article about the so-called “hero” on his Facebook page and on the institute’s website. However, in December 2019, the Verkhovna Rada, where 70% of the seats are controlled by the Servant of the People, a pro-presidential party, adopted a resolution honoring Levkovych.

Zelensky Can’t Move

All of this suggests that President Zelensky is either afraid to oppose the radical right in Ukraine, or he has become a hostage to the system that has been formed in Ukraine over the past six years. As such, he is politically paralyzed and cannot effectively confront the far right when it comes to negotiating peace for the Donbas region. If this is the case, then he will not fulfill his election promise and will likely see a fall in his popularity ratings.

It is intriguing that the Ukrainian leader has publicly set the deadlines for local elections — October 2020 — and his next steps in this direction. In any case, over the next few months, we will either see a clash between the president and the radical right or the Ukrainians will freeze the Minsk protocol, which aims to put an end to the war in eastern Ukraine.

*[The (CARR) is a partner of .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Can Volodymyr Zelensky Bring Peace to Eastern Ukraine? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Now, when the pressure is the greatest, Trump has not a single “teammate” available to lead by example, what “teammates” he has are all calculating what is in it for them, and pushing through rough spots means running for the door. The Democrats are the better team, flawed for sure, but a much better team. Now is the time to recognize that and “” that they have finally begun in earnest.

A big part of the Democratic advantage is that no one seems remotely able to stop Trump from mind farting on his Twitter feed. This means that he is always on the edge of calamity and not even his sycophants can know from one minute to the next how today’s ignorance will undermine yesterday’s “message.” If the Democrats keep pressing and stay united, Trump will continue to double down on his lies to deny the factually undeniable. The more he does this, the more the Democrats will have Trump’s words to paste on his forehead.

Next, there is nothing that the Democrats can do to separate the morally and factually challenged wing of the Republican Party (almost all of the party) from Trump. And it seems there is nothing Trump can do, no matter how dangerous, morally bankrupt or divorced from reality, to cause Republicans to abandon him. So, Democrats, take a deep breath and remember that there are way than Republicans in the electorate.

The Call

With this backdrop in mind, it is time to carefully examine Trump’s telephone “landline” activities without allowing his handheld Twitter feed to obscure the seriousness of his misconduct. These telephone calls to world leaders appear to create a treasure trove of marvelous moments when ignorance, narcissism, greed and just plain stupidity seem to coalesce to produce real harm that cannot be tweeted away. All the while, Trump plows ahead with others listening in.

It is now beyond question that America’s fearless leader loves to chat on the phone with other world leaders, particularly the ones he thinks are fearless like him and know enough to flatter him without using multisyllable words that might confuse him. Dial-up Vladimir Putin, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Mohammed bin Salman, Rodrigo Duterte, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and the like. And then stop to remember that even now, with an impeachment investigation swirling around Trump’s corrupt call to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, the nation knows little of the undoubtedly ignorant and potentially dangerous content of most of Trump’s calls to his democracy-challenged buddies.

Notwithstanding the content of other calls, the extortion call to the president of Ukraine either was a tipping point or someone made a big mistake. For whatever reason, a few people of conscience were allowed to listen in before Trump, Mike Pompeo, William Barr and Mick Mulvaney even suspected that there might be people of conscience anywhere near the White House, never mind with access to the imperial landline.

So it has come to pass in the land of the free and the home of the brave that some of those people of conscience finally heard enough of Trump’s corrupt duplicity to raise collective concerns that America’s precious “national security” was being threatened by the highest officer in the land. Yes, by the very person constitutionally-mandated to lead the fight to protect the nation and its citizenry — the commander-in-chief, the president of the United States. (Cue to a stirring rendition of “God Bless America.”)

As Trump’s enablers scrambled to lift the drawbridge, Trump and one of his most trusted acolytes jumped the moat and screamed to the heavens that what the people of conscience say I said is what I said, we do it all the time, it was “perfect,” and even admitted there was a . (To help those for whom Latin is not even a second language, an easy example of quid pro quo, likely lifted from Trump’s playbook, might be helpful: If you agree to never sell this condo to black people, I will give you a better deal on the purchase price.)

Today’s America

This would be the impeachment ballgame if America were a nation that could agree that facts matter, that there is no such thing as “alternative facts” and that no matter how many times you tell the same lie, it never becomes the truth. But that is not today’s America.

When confronted with uncomfortable truths and allegations of serious misconduct, Trump goes on the attack. He lies, and then the press broadcasts his lies as “breaking news.” He lies again, and the process is repeated so often that there is talk of something called a “new normal.” It might be worthwhile to interrupt the breaking news to remind viewers that there is nothing new about those accused of misconduct lying to hide it. What is new is that so many seem so willing to accept the lies as some alternative truth.

But this time, not only were people of conscience listening in to Trump’s “perfect” phone call with the new president of Ukraine, but Trump himself released a wonderfully incriminatory incomplete of that phone call. As the factual context of the call and the full content of Trump’s message are increasingly exposed, each new revelation seems to bury Trump under an avalanche of official misconduct aided and abetted by a rogues gallery of high-level government officials and lowlife private operatives.

With real evidence being fully released and public testimony about to begin, Trump stooges like Barr, Pompeo, Mike Pence and Mulvaney are likely to step to any microphone they can find that doesn’t require sworn testimony to try their hand at convincing the public that Trump’s “perfect” phone call was something other than the extortion for personal gain that sworn testimony has shown it to be. They will talk about process, their version of real-world diplomacy, Barack Obama, servers without borders and then tell all that even if the call wasn’t “perfect,” the caller is.

I have a dream that the give us the “we do it all the time” version of the story. Then, in my dream, each one of them has a favorite phone call to share in which Trump corruptly debases the nation and undermines America’s security. I imagine there are some all-time greats with Putin, Erdogan and Mohammed bin Salman. Not to mention cringeworthy moments with Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and Boris Johnson.

*[A version of this article was cross-posted on the author’s , Hard Left Turn.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post When Trump Calls World Leaders appeared first on 51�Թ�.

And the president continues to bet that his fantasy narrative — a misreading of Ukrainian politics that lies at the heart of the impeachment inquiry — will ultimately win the jackpot. He’s still banking on acquittal in the Senate, reelection in 2020 and all the economic rewards that come to a president unshackled by constitutional restraints.

But the real Ukraine — as opposed to Trump’s fantasy version — may well lead to the unmaking of the president. Revelations from the real Ukraine, also known by the quaint shorthand phrase “facts on the ground,” have already produced a jail term for Trump’s former campaign manager and are threatening to bring down his personal lawyer. 

The real Ukraine unseats corrupt autocrats. And Trump may well be next in line.

Trump as Marionette

Trump didn’t come to office with any particular view of Ukraine. He knew Russia to a certain extent, and he liked Russia because Russians invested in his properties and he dreamed of building a Trump Tower in Moscow. 

Ukraine, however, was a mystery to him. The Trump Organization  building a hotel and golf course in Kyiv and a resort in the coastal city of Yalta, and Trump’s children (Ivanka, Trump Jr.) visited the country in the 2000s to push these deals forward. But, politically, Ukraine didn’t register on Trump’s radar as anything other than Russia’s poorer stepbrother. 

Take a look at this  of George Stephanopoulos interviewing Trump in July 2016 on the Republican Party’s position on military aid to Ukraine. First, Stephanopoulos had to remind the candidate about the relevant portion of the party platform:

STEPHANOPOULOS: “They took away the part of the platform calling for the provision of lethal weapons to Ukraine to defend themselves. Why is that a good idea?”

TRUMP: “Well, look, you know, I have my own ideas. He’s not going into Ukraine, OK? Just so you understand. He’s not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down and you can put it down, you can take it anywhere you want.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Well, he’s already there, isn’t he?” 

TRUMP: “OK, well, he’s there in a certain way, but I’m not there yet. You have Obama there.”

It’s quite clear from the interview that Trump didn’t have his own ideas. He had no ideas at all other than the ridiculous notion that Russian President Vladimir Putin was “not going into Ukraine” even though the Kremlin had already incorporated Crimea and provided support on the ground for secessionists in the eastern flank of the country. With only a tenuous grasp of what was going on in Ukraine, Trump soon lapsed into utter incoherence.

But as president, Trump quickly developed a view of Ukraine that was built on a number of fanciful tales fed to him by advisors at home and abroad. Trump thinks of himself as an unconventional actor on the world stage, someone who listens to his own gut. 

When it comes to Ukraine, however, he has been manipulated as deftly as a mindless marionette. 

The Charge of Corruption

Ukraine is one of the few countries that Donald Trump routinely calls corrupt. He has , for instance, on corruption, though it routinely ranks as a more corrupt country. But the US president doesn’t care about corruption in general in Ukraine. He is only obsessed with how Ukraine’s corruption intersects with his own political ambitions. Thus, he has focused on two false narratives: how Hunter Biden’s involvement in a Ukrainian energy company influenced US policy during the Obama administration and how Ukraine tried to undercut the Republican Party in the 2016 campaign.

There’s no question that Ukraine has been very corrupt since it became independent after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Partly, this corruption has been a legacy of the Soviet system and the highly irregular transition from communism to crony capitalism. The privatization of state resources — and the privileged position of  — produced the same kind of economic oligarchy that prevails in neighboring Russia. 

The concentration of economic wealth and its myriad connections to political power inspired two social uprisings in Ukraine. Both were centered around the Maidan Nezaleznosti (Independence Square) in the capital of Kyiv and the various malfeasances of the very Trump-like figure, Viktor Yanukovych. 

In 2004, the Orange Revolution targeted Yanukovych’s electoral fraud and managed to force a revote that went in favor of his opponent. The second uprising in 2013, the Euromaidan, protested the deal that Yanukovych, having become president in the interim, made with Russia at the expense of closer association with the European Union. At the heart of this second uprising, however, was Yanukovych’s rampant corruption, which he  to other heads of state. During his mafia-like rule, criminal activities spirited as much as  out of the country. 

But this isn’t the corruption that Trump and his allies have fretted about. In fact, they’ve been all too cozy with precisely that set of corrupt actors. Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort, for instance,  Yanukovych in the wake of his electoral loss in 2004 and helped him win the presidency in 2010, earning tens of of dollars in fees. Manafort would eventually be convicted of corruption himself — bank and tax fraud — as a result of the Mueller investigation. 

Beginning in 2016, Manafort also began pushing the idea that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for the hacking of the Democratic National Committee.  writes, “Manafort seems to have picked up that narrative from his associate Konstantin Kilimnik, a former Russian intelligence officer who, according to federal prosecutors, ‘has ties to a Russian intelligence service and had such ties in 2016.’”

After Trump’s election, his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, made his own connections to Ukraine, signing on to help improve the image of the city of Kharkiv in 2018. But Giuliani has  to shady operators in the region for some time, people like Ukrainian real-estate develop Pavel Fuks, who was part of the effort to try to build Trump Towers in Moscow. 

Also in 2018, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, both Soviet-born American citizens, hired Giuliani to construct a shadow Ukraine policy designed to promote Trump’s interests over the national interests of both countries. The trio visited Ukraine at different points to dig up dirt on Trump’s political opponents and pressured the president to remove US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who was devoted to cleaning up Ukrainian corruption. 

Giuliani also took advantage of former President Petro Poroshenko’s desperate desire to curry favor with Trump, which basically put Prosecutor-General Yuriy Lutsenko at Giuliani’s disposal. Lutsenko, a thoroughly unsavory , very conveniently  connected to Mueller’s inquiry and moved forward on investigations into Joe Biden and family. 

Both Parnas and Fruman have been arrested and charged with campaign finance irregularities. When Trump denied knowing Parnas, who had been an obsequious devotee of the president, the businessman  and decided to cooperate with the impeachment investigation.

Why the campaign to remove Yovanovitch? She was knowledgeable and clearly unwilling to be a Trumpian brownnose. She had alienated Lutsenko by putting pressure on him to clean up his act. But the precipitating factor was the embassy’s decision, on her watch, to block Viktor Shokin, another Ukrainian prosecutor general, from visiting the United States. According to : “Consular staffers at the embassy blocked the application because of Shokin’s ‘known corrupt activities,’ Yovanovitch testified. ‘And the next thing we knew, Mayor Giuliani was calling the White House’ to inform Trump loyalists that Yovanovitch was denying entry to a Ukrainian who could provide Trump “information about corruption at the embassy, including my corruption.”

Yes, you read that correctly. Not only was Giuliani working with corrupt forces in Ukraine, but he also wanted the Trump administration to focus on an entirely different hotbed of corruption: the American Embassy. Trump, in other words, has never been concerned about the real corruption going on in Ukraine. As the impeachment inquiry has revealed,  had nothing to do with Trump’s holding up of military assistance to the country. 

Trump has only ever been concerned about the imaginary corruption that Giuliani, Manafort and others had manufactured to fit the president’s conspiratorial worldview: by a government that didn’t interfere in the 2016 elections (non-spoiler alert: it was Russia), by a vice-presidential son who didn’t affect US policy (Hunter Biden’s presence on the board of Burisma was stupid and nepotistic but there’s no of wrongdoing), and by an American ambassador who was trying to help clean up corruption in the country (she deserved a commendation, not expulsion).

Foreign Entanglement

It’s bad enough that Trump was misled by his corruption cronies, one who’s in prison and another who, if there’s any justice in this world, will soon join him there. The president’s view of Ukraine was also being influenced by two leaders who have had designs on that country.

The first is the most obvious: Vladimir Putin. The Russian leader has wanted to keep Ukraine as weak as possible and disrupt any potential military deals between Washington and Kyiv so as to consolidate dubious territorial claims on the country. Toward that end, he has emphasized that Ukraine is a “den of corruption,”  to a former US official familiar with the phone calls between Putin and Trump. 

Like Giuliani and Manafort, Putin was not referring to the corruption of Yanukovych, whom he counted on as an ally. He had more contemporary targets, including Volodymyr Zelensky, who had been elected as Ukrainian president in 2019 on a wave of anti-corruption fervor. The Washington Post reports: “Trump turned to Putin for guidance on the new leader of Ukraine within days of Zelensky’s election. In a May 3 call, Trump asked Putin about his impressions of Zelensky, according to a Western official familiar with the conversation. Putin said that he had not yet spoken with Zelensky but derided him as a comedian with ties to an oligarch despised by the Kremlin.”

Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, shares Putin’s worldview on many issues, including Ukraine. Added to that is Orban’s not-so-hidden desire to expand his influence over the trans-Carpathian section of Ukraine that was part of Hungary prior to World War I. On May 13, over the objections of National Security Adviser John Bolton and the National Security Council’s Fiona Hill, Trump invited Orban to the White House for a meeting. Orban, who has steered Hungary away from democracy and many European Union norms, had been persona non grata in Washington until Trump took office.

Orban has not been enthusiastic about Zelensky and the faction within Ukraine eager to repair its relations with Europe. Following Putin, he prefers those in the country who lean toward Russia. To that end, the Orban government has referred to Ukraine as “semi-fascist” to make it as undesirable as possible to European sensibilities. This narrative pushed by Putin and Orban, that Ukraine is a semi-fascist den of corruption, is worth examining more closely.

Ukraine Today

Corruption has been rampant in Ukraine. The country ranks 120 out of 180 countries in the , which puts it behind Pakistan and Moldova. A number of journalists have been and killed for covering the corruption beat.

But even before the current president took over, there were signs that the government was getting a handle on the problem. As Karl Volokh  in The National Interest in March: “Reforms now in place in Ukraine have reduced national corruption by a staggering $6 billion per year — a figure equivalent to nearly six percent of the country’s official GDP. These reforms and the increased effectiveness of state tax and revenue authorities have also helped to significantly reduce the size of the country’s once-formidable shadow economy.”

And instead of encouraging corruption in Ukraine, the Obama administration (including Biden) did the opposite. “Back in 2015, we relied on the solidarity of our U.S. and European allies to push our elites to take the right steps — steps that would make Ukraine less corrupt and strengthen the rule of law,”  Maksym Eristavi in Foreign Affairs. One of those steps was firing Viktor Shokin, which Trump has repeatedly pointed to as exhibit number one in his case that Biden, who wanted Shokin out, is the corrupt politician, not him.

Zelensky, despite his anti-corruption exhortations, has faced charges of  to a corrupt oligarch, in this case Ihor Kolomoisky, who owns the TV station that aired “Servant of the People,” the show that brought the president-cum-comedian to worldwide notice. The station was a big supporter of Zelensky’s campaign. Kolomoisky himself left Ukraine in the wake of embezzlement charges connected to the bank he owned, PrivatBank, and took up residence in Switzerland and then Israel. 

In what looked a lot like a quid pro quo, Kolomoisky returned to Ukraine just before Zelensky’s inauguration. A district court in Kyiv, meanwhile, ruled that the government’s nationalization of Privatbank was illegal, which means that Kolomoisky might be able to regain control of it.

So, when it comes to corruption, Ukraine is in a better place now than a few years ago, but it’s not out of the woods.

The assertion that Ukraine is semi-fascist is more problematic. True, in the wake of the Euromaidan protests and Russian intervention, far-right and neo-Nazi formations became more powerful. In the government, the Svoboda party controlled three ministries; in the military realm, the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion acquired battle-hardened credibility. 

Nationalists have meanwhile attempted to enforce Ukrainian language laws and resurrect far-right figures from history. Right-wing paramilitary  still launch pogroms against Roma and try to terrorize the LGBTQ population. The far-right National Militia served as official  in the 2019 elections.

But fascism has little popular appeal in the country. Svoboda, though it created an electoral alliance with several other parties for the 2019 elections, couldn’t get anywhere near the electoral threshold of 5% to get into parliament (though it did win a single constituency seat). As a result, the infamous head of the Azov Battalion, Andriy Biletsky, lost his seat in parliament. 

The government, meanwhile, has shed any connections to the far right. The current president and previous prime minister are both  (though non-practicing). The president is also, primarily, a Russian speaker and is  with the language law crafted by his predecessor that makes Ukrainian mandatory for public servants.

Ukraine has 99 problems, but a fascist state ain’t one. The organizing of the radical right remains a major problem in the country, as it is throughout Europe and in the United States. But in Ukraine, the radical right has virtually no political power.

So, to recap, a group of self-serving statesmen and craven consultants created a fantasy Ukraine that fed into Trump’s primary preoccupations: the supposed crimes of his political predecessors, the embarrassment of his loss of the popular vote in 2016 and his ruthless determination to win a second term. 

That fictitious narrative prompted Trump to break the law. And now he is scrambling to prove that he didn’t do anything wrong and that his understanding of Ukraine is correct. If this were a real fantasy league, Donald Trump’s team would be in last place.

When ousted by popular demand in 2014, Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych had few places to turn. He ended up in exile in Russia. Booted from office by impeachment or popular vote and hounded by investigations into his myriad financial improprieties, Trump may discover that he, too, might need Putin’s protection. Nancy Pelosi’s  that “all roads lead to Putin” may turn out to be prophetic.

The real Ukraine of anti-corruption advocates will have had its revenge once again.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Examining Trump World’s Fantastic Claims About Ukraine appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The released “transcript” (in fact, a memo, not a verbatim account) is something of an embarrassing if not directly incriminating read. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reveals, in his sycophantic fawning over Trump’s personal success story, what politics is like when practiced by two former TV celebrities with no previous experience of politics. Zelensky does have a slight advantage over Trump, having played a fictional Ukrainian president on TV before becoming one. That may have provided him with more appropriate rhetorical training and it may protect him against future revolts demanding his impeachment.

Even so, his rhetoric reveals more about the world of political hyperreality than it does about politics, unless the two have become identical, which many of us have suspected for some time (pre-dating Trump, who cannot be blamed for it since he has simply made the hyperreality of politics more visible).

Here is a passage early in the reported conversation in which Zelensky defines the relationship between the two men, who, it should be noted, had never previously met: “I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Friends:

1) The name people give to other human beings whom they may not like but who have the power to help them in some way

2) The title of a popular television show from the 1990s about young people who share an apartment

3) The status of anyone with a Facebook account

Contextual Note

The news media are clearly hyped up about an issue that could lead to months of high drama featuring the always exciting title: “the impeachment process.” And it won’t be just any impeachment. Unlike lame duck Bill Clinton’s impeachment, this one a hyper-inflated ego preparing for a bruising reelection campaign.

For the moment, the drama is focused on the question of whether the discovery of the latest in the pattern of Trump’s criminal actions can actually be identified as a crime rather than hyperreal politics as usual. ABC News that while Trump may be right that nothing in the transcript indicates an offer of exchange of services, the reporters do call it an “implicit quid pro quo.” In the coming days and weeks, we will see whether there are ways of turning the implicit into the explicit. Trump maintains that it’s just about being nice and developing friendly relations with another leader who believes in friendship. But what friendship?

The notion of friendship Zelensky seems to be referring to when he says “nobody but friends around us” clearly means something closer to people who will do their bidding and not complain than, for example, people they know well and appreciate for their empathy and personal qualities. When he promises to “make sure” that he will be surrounded by the “best and most experienced,” he appears to mean the most amenable to their mutual interests. And when he insists on telling Trump “that we are friends … great friends,” though the two had never previously met, he clearly means they are now in a position to do each other favors. As for the “friends [of Trump] in our country,” he can only mean people who cheer Trump’s politics.

Zelensky delivers a few other hints about what friendship means when he tells Trump that the last time he was in New York, he “stayed at the Trump Tower.” It’s all about two things: doing profitable business and belonging to the same elite group.

Historical Note

Aristotle was the first Western thinker to philosophize in-depth about what friendship meant. He had much to say about the in Book 8 of his work, Nicomachean Ethics.

The philosopher divided friendship into three basic categories: friendship of utility, which he associated with mature adults, who have an interest in associating; friendship of pleasure or enjoyment, which he associated with young people sharing pleasurable activities, such as sport and the friendship of goodness, which depends on a commitment that goes beyond personal utility and pleasure and includes a sincere, complex and long-term appreciation of the friend’s qualities. He considered the first two accidental because they do not exist outside of the external circumstances that defined the specific acts or events of sharing, exchanging or collaborating between two people who become friendly.

The third form of friendship, stressing the notion of merit and moral compass, nevertheless englobes the other two, since good friends tend to be both useful to one another and pleasant to be with. Aristotle adds another important consideration: True friendship “seems to lie in loving rather than being loved.”

Aristotle would undoubtedly have considered Trump, an absolute narcissist, to be incapable of friendship at any level, even at the level of utility. Not only does he appear to be incapable of loving anyone other than himself — as his constant self-congratulation reveals — but he also expects others to love him as much as he loves himself.

Speaking to his “friend,” Zelensky, apart from congratulating the newly-elected president on his unexpected victory, Trump shamelessly claims that as president of the US, he has achieved the in the history of humanity, and in every domain that counts (mainly the size of the military and stock market, the only ones that do count for him, though he does throw the number of people with jobs into the tally).

For hyperreal actors like Trump and Zelensky, Aristotle should have divided his first category — utilitarian friendship — into two sub-categories: friends who, as the French say, are willing but not committed to “sending the elevator back” (renvoyer l’ascensceur) and quid pro friends. Elevator friends represent what Aristotle had in mind when referring to utility. It refers to people who get to know one another and then discover opportunities to be helpful with favors. But such favors do not require an exchange, they simply open the door to a favor in return. Trump, whose ethics are summed up in the “art of the deal,” knows no other form of friendship than quid pro quo.

In other words, in today’s politics and media hyperreality, the idea of friendship has lost all meaning. That is why we can all be friends on Facebook in a hyperreal space where even quid pro quos are virtual and where low-level narcissism — not as quite dangerous for humanity as Trump’s hyperreal narcissism — becomes the foundation of our relationships.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book,, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Zelensky and Trump Share a Hyperreal Friendship appeared first on 51�Թ�.