What does the fall of Bakhmut in Ukraine really mean?

 Written by:

Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, Responsible Statecraft, May 23, 2023

Print

Reports indicate that after months of fighting, the Russians have taken the eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut. This comes at a time when world leaders are pledging more aid and weapons — including sophisticated, American-made F-16s — to Ukraine in hopes that its armed forces will be able to mount a much anticipated counteroffensive this spring.

I asked the two top Russia experts at the Quincy Institute — Anatol Lieven and George Beebe — for their candid takes on what this apparent victory for Russia really means, and how it might change the war’s landscape. 

Additionally, what might we read into the transfer of F-16s to Ukraine, and does it risk escalation into a broader NATO-Russia conflict, given the new facts on the ground? Where does that leave those who would like to move away from fighting and to a ceasefire?

---

Kelley Vlahos: Okay, so reports today say that after many months the Russians have taken over the city of Bakhmut. What does this mean tactically and strategically for both sides? 

George Beebe: Sure. Well, I think the real question of the significance of this victory is not going to be apparent for quite some time. I think a lot of military experts have argued that Bakhmut in and of itself is not strategically important, that it’s not likely to lead to some breakthrough for the Russians, enabling, you know, a rapid advance to more Ukrainian cities, or encirclement, or an ability to break Ukraine’s defenses all together. I don’t think that’s going to happen. 

The bigger question is whether Ukraine’s decision to basically mount an all-out defense of Bakhmut, despite its lack of strategic significance, is going to result in crippling its ability to mount a new counteroffensive elsewhere in Ukraine, something that they’ve long planned and long been talking publicly about. And I think a lot of Western military experts, including Pentagon officials, have long been urging the Ukrainians simply to mount an orderly withdrawal from Bakhmut to preserve their men and munitions for use in more important battles in the future. 

But Zelensky essentially overruled that advice and decided that they were going to send more troops — including some of Ukraine’s best troops — to try to keep Bakhmut. He made quite a theatrical display of this. You recall when he came to Washington last December, he came carrying a flag from Bakhmut taken from the defenders there, which he quite ceremonially gifted to the U.S. Congress as a symbol of Ukraine’s determination to hold the city and beat back Russia’s forces. Well, all that failed. Now it’s clear that everything that they put into defending it ended up being wasted, and what the larger implications are for Ukraine’s ability to push Russia back in remains to be seen, but my guess is that there are a lot of heads that are shaking in Washington today wondering what Zelensky was thinking. 

Anatol Lieven: Yes, I agree with all of that. What I would add is we can’t be sure how much damage has been done to the Russian Armed Forces through this long, long battle of attrition. They have certainly suffered heavily as well. I suppose the one key question is quite unrelated to the fighting itself. It’s what this will do for the prestige of (Wagner Group head Yevgeny Prigozhin) and the Wagner Group. Will this really strengthen his hand in Russian internal politics? Because of course, it’s very amusing this phrase from Wagner that they are going to hand over Bakhmut to the Russian army, as if basically they were an allied force, not under Russian military command at all. And as a very gracious and generous gesture, they will now give it to the Russians, which is a really striking statement. And of course, [it] will pour coals on the fire of anger in the Russian Defense Ministry at Prigozhin.

George: Yeah, I agree with that. And I would add that Putin, in announcing the fall of Bakhmut, actually named Wagner, and I don’t believe that this is something that he has done before. So he’s giving them some public credit in all of this, and I think he’s trying to walk a very fine line between using Wagner and Prigozhin for Russia’s broader national purposes, while not at the same time creating a potential political rival or somebody, you know, the man in the white horse whose political influence could get out of control. So he’s trying to strike a balance there, and it’s not clear how that’s gonna play out either.

Kelley: So all of this comes at a time when the United States has paved the way for the transfer of advanced fighters, the F-16s, and the G7 leadership just committed more aid and weapons to Ukraine. Do you perceive there being more NATO involvement now, to reverse what appears to be a Russian victory, as symbolic as that victory might be? Does this open the way for more escalation?

Anatol: Well, yes, I think undoubtedly, that is NATO’s and America’s intention. The question is whether it will work. And also, of course, where the Ukrainians attack because, you know, most of the expectation has been that they will attack towards the Sea of Azov in an effort to cut the Russian position in two, but having signaled that so much, they’ve given the Russians lots and lots and lots of time to prepare. And satellite images show several lines of Russian defense. On the other hand, if (Ukraine) tried to counterattack again in the Donbass they could simply, you know, enmesh themselves in yet another battle of attrition with no breakthrough at all. 

So certainly, NATO is trying to strengthen the Ukrainians, and if, of course, the Russians can hold the Ukrainians and they don’t break through, then there won’t be so much of an incentive for Russia to escalate. But the problem is, if NATO’s support works, and Ukrainians really do break through, then I think there is every chance that Russia will escalate, and what that will lead to we do not know.

George: Yeah, I agree. We are in an escalation dynamic with the Russians. We have been for quite some time. Every Russian advance or escalatory step is matched on the West’s part and vice-versa. I think one of the things about the F-16 transfer, and it’s still not clear exactly how many of these planes the Ukrainians are ready to get and how quickly they’re going to come, but they’re difficult planes to operate for the Ukrainians without extensive Western support. They require enormous amounts of maintenance, and they require long and relatively well maintained runways. And the Ukrainians have very few of those. So they are either going to have to upgrade existing runways in Ukraine in order to accommodate these aircraft, or they’re gonna have to fly them out of NATO country air bases. 

Now, either one of those is problematic because if they upgrade the runways, the Russians are going to see that. So they will essentially be signaling to the Russians where they ought to be attacking in order to cripple Ukraine’s ability to fly these aircraft. And if they operate out of NATO air bases, then the Russians are going to have a real decision to make as to whether they strike at the bases from which these aircraft are flying. And in any case, the Ukrainians can’t maintain them. They’re going to have to be shipping these things back and forth to NATO countries for maintenance, or the West is going to have to put Western maintenance crews in Ukraine to do the maintenance there. So this is, I think, an act that is fraught with escalatory potential. 

The other thing I would say is my guess — I have no evidentiary basis for this judgment, but it’s just a strong suspicion — (that) the more the Ukrainians run out of air defense missiles, the greater the pressure has grown in the West to provide Ukraine with F-16’s. We just don’t have the missiles to supply them. And the only way we can make sure that the Ukrainians are are not defenseless against Russian air attacks is to provide this kind of fighter aircraft support there. So I think this is actually a bad sign about the West’s assessment of the state of Ukrainian air defenses.

Kelley: That’s pretty scary. I mean, in your assessment, both of you, are we any closer to talking about a ceasefire, or are we much further away from it today as we were say, yesterday, after the news of the F-16s and the fall of Bakhmut to the Russians? What is your confidence level that there actually could be some diplomacy in the near future?

Anatol: Well, I mean, the G7 statement, you know, went out of its way to demand total Russian withdrawal. Now it didn’t say specifically from all Ukrainian territory since 2014. But certainly that was not an encouraging sign for any kind of compromise. But in the end, we will have to simply see what happens on the battlefield. Because we’ve heard repeatedly suggestions in recent weeks and months that if Ukraine fails to win a major victory this year, then present levels of aid cannot be sustained. George was absolutely right when it comes to our inability to provide anti aircraft missiles, air defense missiles. But in the end it is a war, and developments on the battlefield will be the decisive factor — or the lack of developments on the battlefield.

Kelley: George, any last thoughts on that?

George: I think that at this point, the sides are very far apart. And neither Ukraine nor Russia is inclined to compromise. And the G7 statement and the decision in Washington to provide the F-16s do not encourage me to believe that the United States is anywhere close to trying to find a compromise way out of this. The one encouraging thing on peace is that the other parts of the world — China, Brazil, the Holy See — apparently are more intent than ever on trying to find a way out of this.

Kelley: Thank you.

Written by
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

America’s Wars and the US Debt Crisis

 

"America’s annual military spending is now around $900 billion, roughly 40% of the world's total," writes Sachs, "and greater than the next 10 countries combined."

(Photo: U.S. military)

To surmount the debt crisis, America needs to stop feeding the Military-Industrial Complex, the most powerful lobby in Washington.

Jeffrey D. Sachs, May 20, 2023, Common Dreams

In the year 2000, the U.S. government debt was $3.5 trillion, equal to 35% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By 2022, the debt was $24 trillion, equal to 95% of GDP. The U.S. debt is soaring, hence America’s current debt crisis. Yet both Republicans and Democrats are missing the solution: stopping America’s wars of choice and slashing military outlays.

Suppose the government’s debt had remained at a modest 35% of GDP, as in 2000. Today’s debt would be $9 trillion, as opposed to $24 trillion. Why did the U.S. government incur the excess $15 trillion in debt?

The single biggest answer is the U.S. government’s addiction to war and military spending. According to the Watson Institute at Brown University, the cost of U.S. wars from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2022 amounted to a whopping $8 trillion, more than half of the extra $15 trillion in debt. The other $7 trillion arose roughly equally from budget deficits caused by the 2008 financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic.

Facing down the military-industrial lobby is the vital first step to putting America’s fiscal house in order

To surmount the debt crisis, America needs to stop feeding the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC), the most powerful lobby in Washington. As President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned on January 17, 1961, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” Since 2000, the MIC led the U.S. into disastrous wars of choice in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and now Ukraine.

The Military-Industrial Complex long ago adopted a winning political strategy by ensuring that the military budget reaches into every Congressional district. The Congressional Research Service recently reminded Congress that, “Defense spending touches every Member of Congress’s district through pay and benefits for military servicemembers and retirees, economic and environmental impact of installations, and procurement of weapons systems and parts from local industry, among other activities.” Only a brave member of Congress would vote against the military-industry lobby, yet bravery is certainly no hallmark of Congress.

America’s annual military spending is now around $900 billion, roughly 40% of the world's total, and greater than the next 10 countries combined. U.S. military spending in 2022 was triple that of China. According to Congressional Budget Office, the military outlays for 2024-2033 will be a staggering $10.3 trillion on current baseline. A quarter or more of that could be avoided by ending America’s wars of choice, closing down many of America’s 800 or so military bases around the world, and negotiating new arms control agreements with China and Russia.

Yet instead of peace through diplomacy, and fiscal responsibility, the MIC regularly scares the American people with a comic-book style depictions of villains whom the U.S. must stop at all costs. The post-2000 list has included Afghanistan’s Taliban, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and recently, China’s Xi Jinping. War, we are repeatedly told, is necessary for America’s survival.

A peace-oriented foreign policy would be opposed strenuously by the military-industrial lobby but not by the public. Significant public pluralities already want less, not more, U.S. involvement in other countries’ affairs, and less, not more, US troop deployments overseas. Regarding Ukraine, Americans overwhelmingly want a “minor role” (52%) rather than a “major role” (26%) in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. This is why neither Biden nor any recent president has dared to ask Congress for any tax increase to pay for America’s wars. The public’s response would be a resounding “No!”

While America’s wars of choice have been awful for America, they have been far greater disasters for countries that America purports to be saving. As Henry Kissinger famously quipped, “To be an enemy of the United States can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.” Afghanistan was America’s cause from 2001 to 2021, until the U.S. left it broken, bankrupt, and hungry. Ukraine is now in America’s embrace, with the same likely results: ongoing war, death, and destruction.

The military budget could be cut prudently and deeply if the U.S. replaced its wars of choice and arms races with real diplomacy and arms agreements. If presidents and members of congress had only heeded the warnings of top American diplomats such as William Burns, the U.S. Ambassador to Russia in 2008, and now CIA Director, the U.S. would have protected Ukraine’s security through diplomacy, agreeing with Russia that the U.S. would not expand NATO into Ukraine if Russia also kept its military out of Ukraine. Yet relentless NATO expansion is a favorite cause of the MIC; new NATO members are major customers of U.S. armaments.

The U.S. has also unilaterally abandoned key arms control agreements. In 2002, the U.S. unilaterally walked out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. And rather than promote nuclear disarmament—as the U.S. and other nuclear powers are required to do under Article VI the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty—the Military-Industrial Complex has sold Congress on plans to spend more than $600 billion by 2030 to “modernize” the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Now the MIC is talking up the prospect of war with China over Taiwan. The drumbeats of war with China are stoking the military budget, yet war with China is easily avoidable if the U.S. adheres to the One-China policy that properly underpins U.S.-China relations. Such a war should be unthinkable. More than bankrupting the U.S., it could end the world.

Military spending is not the only budget challenge. Aging and rising healthcare costs add to the fiscal woes. According to the Congressional Budget Office, debt will reach 185 percent of GDP by 2052 if current policies remain unchanged. Healthcare costs should be capped while taxes on the rich should be raised. Yet facing down the military-industrial lobby is the vital first step to putting America’s fiscal house in order, needed to save the U.S., and possibly the world, from America’s perverse lobby-driven politics.

This article was updated with the $9 trillion figure in the second paragraph.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Jeffrey D. Sachs

Jeffrey D. Sachs is a University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the UN Broadband Commission for Development. He has been advisor to three United Nations Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Sachs is the author, most recently, of "A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism" (2020). Other books include: "Building the New American Economy: Smart, Fair, and Sustainable" (2017) and "The Age of Sustainable Development," (2015) with Ban Ki-moon.

Full Bio >

US imperialism’s relentless escalation in Ukraine

 Andre Damon, WSWS.Org, May 22, 2023

An Air Force F-16 Fighting Falcon participates in an agile combat employment training exercise at Yokota Air Base, Japan, May 8, 2022. [Photo: US Department of Defense/Yasuo Osakabe, Air Force]

On Friday, against the backdrop of the debacle for the Ukrainian army in Bakhmut, US President Joe Biden announced that the US has authorized members of the NATO alliance to send F-16 fighter jets to Ukraine.

In a cruel mockery of the victims of America’s war crime in Hiroshima, the leaders of the world’s imperialist powers grinned and grimaced as they announced a reckless escalation of a war that, just last year, Biden said threatened the world with nuclear “Armageddon.”

The deployment of the F-16 and other fighter jets will create an unacceptable and untenable situation for Russia. F-16s have a range of more than 500 miles and are capable of deploying missiles with a range of over 1,200, placing Moscow and St. Petersburg within striking distance of the Ukrainian military.

Most significantly, F-16s can carry tactical nuclear weapons. This sets up an incredibly dangerous situation. With F-16s flying eastward, the Russian government will not know where they are going or what they are carrying. Russia will be compelled to escalate in return, setting the stage for an even more aggressive response by the NATO powers.

The Biden administration has rejected out of hand any ceasefire or attempt at a peaceful settlement of the war—including one proposed by China. Rather, the White House, in line with plans worked out months and years in advance, is determined to press for the military defeat of Russia.

According to official narrative, the decision to send F-16s was only made this week, with a “reluctant” Biden finally “convinced” to take the action. The Washington Post wrote, for example, “For more than a year, getting F-16s into the skies above Ukraine for use against Russia has been Kyiv’s holy grail… Suddenly, President Biden has said yes.

“The turnaround, according to US, European and Ukrainian officials, is the result of steady pressure from allies, Congress and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who just completed visits to European capitals.”

This is a lie, aiming to obscure the actual decision-making process in Washington. While the Biden administration is operating with a systematic plan to escalate the war, all of its actions are presented as semi-spontaneous, reactive responses to external “pressure.”

Donate to the WSWS 25 Year Fund

Watch the video of workers internationally explain why you should donate to the WSWS.

Donate today

In fact, the US has been making active preparations to send F-16 jets to Ukraine for nearly a year. In July 2022, the World Socialist Web Site reported that White House spokesperson John Kirby confirmed that the Pentagon is discussing “providing fighter aircraft to the Ukrainians,” and Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. asserted that “discussions are ongoing” to send US-NATO fighters to Ukraine.

Three months ago, following Biden’s announcement that the US would send Abrams battle tanks against Russia, the WSWS wrote that “despite Biden’s categorical declaration that the United States will not send F-16 fighters to Ukraine, the decision to do so has already been made. Nothing remains but the working out of the political details within NATO and the launching of the media propaganda campaign of lies to sell the decision to a skeptical public.”

And that is precisely the process that has culminated over the past week.

The charade in the media is aimed at obscuring the basic fact that, in each of his promises not to escalate the war, the president was deliberately lying to the public.

In January 2023, Biden was asked, “Will the United States provide F-16s to Ukraine?” to which he replied, “No.”

In March 2022, Biden asserted, “The idea that we’re going to send in offensive equipment and have planes and tanks and trains going in with American pilots and American crews, just understand—and don’t kid yourself, no matter what you all say—that’s called World War Three.”

One year later, at least 100 American active-duty troops are in Ukraine, alongside dozens of US tanks and hundreds of armored vehicles, and US fighter jets are on the way.

Every government in the NATO alliance knows that by providing nuclear-capable jets to Ukraine—weapons that put Russia’s major cities in range of strikes—they risk the deaths of millions of their own citizens in a nuclear war with Russia.

The fateful decision to send the jets would have been made months in advance, requiring the approval of the most powerful members of the NATO alliance. In March, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz flew to Washington on short notice and met with Biden alone, before flying directly back to Germany, with neither the American or German public being told what they discussed.

It is in such meetings that decisions are made. They are then announced to the public at a convenient time, as a fait accompli, with the appropriate packaging.

But this raises an ominous question. If the decision to send F-16s to Ukraine was taken months ago, it was taken at a time when the US-NATO proxy forces in Ukraine were performing far better than they are now.

But on Saturday, Russian forces reported that they captured the entire strategic city of Bakhmut, under conditions in which a vaunted Ukrainian counter-offensive has failed to materialize.

How will the United States respond to this latest debacle? How much further can Washington escalate? Can anyone doubt that, having sent Ukraine advanced fighter jets, demands will emerge in the press for Biden to send “defensive” nuclear weapons to Ukraine, or even for NATO troops, whether in the skies or on the ground, to become directly involved in the fighting.

It is such discussions, in fact, that were held behind closed doors at the G7 meeting. The summit over the weekend served two purposes: First, to bring into line any dissidents in the cabal of imperialist conspirators, and second, to discuss the overriding question: What next?

As the WSWS warned on the occasion of the first anniversary of the war, “The Biden administration has created a situation where there can be no retreat, because to do so would irreparably undermine its prestige and credibility, and lead to the breakup of NATO. Victory in this war has become an existential question for American imperialism.”

There is no lengths to which the US and NATO powers will not go to ensure its victory in this war. This government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that it considers the lives of American citizens to be as valueless as the tens or hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians that have been killed in its war. American imperialism is preparing a new bloodbath that will make Iraq and Afghanistan pale in comparison.

The working class must respond to the escalation of war through the escalation of the class struggle. Throughout the world, workers are entering into struggle against governments that are declaring that workers’ living standards must be slashed to pay for rearmament. These struggles must be unified on the basis of the perspective of international socialism, taking up as a central demand the struggle to end the war in Ukraine.

 

“𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗨.𝗦. 𝗦𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗕𝗲 𝗮 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗲”: 𝗨𝗦 𝗡𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗗𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗨.𝗦. 𝗣𝘂𝘀𝗵 𝘁𝗼 𝗘𝗻𝗱 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗪𝗮𝗿

   𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝑌𝑜𝑟𝑘 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠, 𝑀𝑎𝑦 16, 2023, ℎ𝑎𝑑 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙-𝑝𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑎𝑑𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑅𝑢𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑎-𝑈𝑘𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑡 𝑠𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑦 𝑓𝑖𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑈𝑆 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑒𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑠.

 The Russia-Ukraine War has been an unmitigated disaster. Hundreds of thousands have been killed or wounded. Millions have been displaced. Environmental and economic destruction have been incalculable. Future devastation could be exponentially greater as nuclear powers creep ever closer toward open war.

We deplore the violence, war crimes, indiscriminate missile strikes, terrorism, and other atrocities that are part of this war. The solution to this shocking violence is not more weapons or more war, with their guarantee of further death and destruction.

As Americans and national security experts, we urge President Biden and Congress to use their full power to end the Russia-Ukraine War speedily through diplomacy, especially given the grave dangers of military escalation that could spiral out of control.

Sixty years ago, President John F. Kennedy made an observation that is crucial for our survival today. “Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy–or of a collective death-wish for the world.”

The immediate cause of this disastrous war in Ukraine is Russia’s invasion. Yet the plans and actions to expand NATO to Russia’s borders served to provoke Russian fears. And Russian leaders made this point for 30 years. A failure of diplomacy led to war. Now diplomacy is urgently needed to end the Russia-Ukraine War before it destroys Ukraine and endangers humanity.

 

The Potential for Peace

Russia’s current geopolitical anxiety is informed by memories of invasion from Charles XII, Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler. U.S. troops were among an Allied invasion force that intervened unsuccessfully against the winning side in Russia’s post-World War I civil war. Russia sees NATO enlargement and presence on its borders as a direct threat; the U.S. and NATO see only prudent preparedness. In diplomacy, one must attempt to see with strategic empathy, seeking to understand one’s adversaries. This is not weakness: it is wisdom.

We reject the idea that diplomats, seeking peace, must choose sides, in this case either Russia or Ukraine. In favoring diplomacy we choose the side of sanity. Of humanity. Of peace.

We consider President Biden’s promise to back Ukraine “as long as it takes” to be a license to pursue ill-defined and ultimately unachievable goals. It could prove as catastrophic as President Putin’s decision last year to launch his criminal invasion and occupation. We cannot and will not endorse the strategy of fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian.

We advocate for a meaningful and genuine commitment to diplomacy, specifically an immediate ceasefire and negotiations without any disqualifying or prohibitive preconditions. Deliberate provocations delivered the Russia-Ukraine War. In the same manner, deliberate diplomacy can end it.

 

U.S. Actions and Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

As the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended, U.S. and Western European leaders assured Soviet and then Russian leaders that NATO would not expand toward Russia’s borders. “There would be no extension of…NATO one inch to the east,” U.S. Secretary of State James Baker told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990. Similar assurances from other U.S. leaders as well as from British, German and French leaders throughout the 1990s confirm this.

Since 2007, Russia has repeatedly warned that NATO’s armed forces on Russian borders were intolerable – just as Russian forces in Mexico or Canada would be intolerable to the U.S. now, or as Soviet missiles in Cuba were in 1962. Russia further singled out NATO expansion into Ukraine as especially provocative.

 

Seeing the War Through Russia’s Eyes

Our attempt at understanding the Russian perspective on their war does not endorse the invasion and occupation, nor does it imply the Russians had no other option but this war.

Yet, just as Russia had other options, so too did the U.S. and NATO leading up to this moment.

The Russians made their red lines clear. In Georgia and Syria, they proved they would use force to defend those lines. In 2014, their immediate seizure of Crimea and their support of Donbas separatists demonstrated they were serious in their commitment to defending their interests. Why this was not understood by U.S. and NATO leadership is unclear; incompetence, arrogance, cynicism, or a treacherous mixture of all three are likely contributing factors.

 

Again, even as the Cold War ended, U.S. diplomats, generals and politicians were warning of the dangers of expanding NATO to Russia’s borders and of maliciously interfering in Russia’s sphere of influence. Former Cabinet officials Robert Gates and William Perry issued these warnings, as did venerated diplomats George Kennan, Jack Matlock and Henry Kissinger. In 1997, fifty senior U.S. foreign policy experts wrote an open letter to President Bill Clinton advising him not to expand NATO, calling it “a policy error of historic proportions.” President Clinton chose to ignore these warnings.

Most important to our understanding of the hubris and Machiavellian calculation in U.S. decision-making surrounding the Russia-Ukraine War is the dismissal of the warnings issued by Williams Burns, the current director of the Central Intelligence Agency. In a cable to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2008, while serving as Ambassador to Russia, Burns wrote of NATO expansion and Ukrainian membership:

“Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.”

Why did the U.S. persist in expanding NATO despite such warnings? Profit from weapons sales was a major factor. Facing opposition to NATO expansion, a group of neoconservatives and top executives of U.S. weapons manufacturers formed the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO. Between 1996 and 1998, the largest arms manufacturers spent $51 million ($94 million today) on lobbying and millions more on campaign contributions. With this largesse, NATO expansion quickly became a done deal, after which U.S. weapons manufacturers sold billions of dollars of weapons to the new NATO members.

So far, the U.S. has sent $30 billion worth of military gear and weapons to Ukraine, with total aid to Ukraine exceeding $100 billion. War, it’s been said, is a racket, one that is highly profitable for a select few.

NATO expansion, in sum, is a key feature of a militarized U.S. foreign policy characterized by unilateralism featuring regime change and preemptive wars. Failed wars, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, have produced slaughter and further confrontation, a harsh reality of America’s own making. The Russia-Ukraine War has opened a new arena of confrontation and slaughter. This reality is not entirely of our own making, yet it may well be our undoing, unless we dedicate ourselves to forging a diplomatic settlement that stops the killing and defuses tensions.

Let’s make America a force for peace in the world.

Read more at
www.EisenhowerMediaNetwork.org

 

SIGNERS

Dennis Fritz, Director, Eisenhower Media Network; Command Chief Master Sergeant, US Air Force (retired)
Matthew Hoh, Associate Director, Eisenhower Media Network; Former Marine Corps officer, and State and Defense official.
William J. Astore, Lieutenant Colonel, US Air Force (retired)
Karen Kwiatkowski, Lieutenant Colonel, US Air Force (retired)
Dennis Laich, Major General, US Army (retired)
Jack Matlock, U.S. Ambassador to the U.S.S.R., 1987-91; author of Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended
Todd E. Pierce, Major, Judge Advocate, U.S. Army (retired)
Coleen Rowley, Special Agent, FBI (retired)
Jeffrey Sachs, University Professor at Columbia University
Christian Sorensen, Former Arabic linguist, US Air Force
Chuck Spinney, Retired Engineer/Analyst, Office of Secretary of Defense
Winslow Wheeler, National security adviser to four Republican and Democratic US
Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Colonel, US Army (retired)
Ann Wright, Colonel, US Army (retired) and former US diplomat

TIMELINE

1990 – U.S. assures Russia that NATO will not expand towards its border “…there would be no extension of…NATO one inch to the east,” says US Secretary of State James Baker.

1996 – U.S. weapons manufacturers form the Committee to Expand NATO, spending over $51 million lobbying Congress.

1997 – 50 foreign policy experts including former senators, retired military officers and diplomats sign an open letter stating NATO expansion to be “a policy error of historic proportions.”

1999 – NATO admits Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic to NATO. U.S. and NATO bomb Russia’s ally, Serbia.

2001 – U.S. unilaterally withdraws from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

2004 – Seven more Eastern European nations join NATO. NATO troops are now directly on Russia’s border.

2004 – Russia’s parliament passed a resolution denouncing NATO’s expansion. Putin responded by saying that Russia would “build our defense and security policy correspondingly.”

2008 – NATO leaders announced plans to bring Ukraine and Georgia, also on Russia’s borders, into NATO.

2009 – U.S. announced plans to put missile systems into Poland and Romania.

2014 – Legally elected Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, fled violence to Moscow. Russia views ouster as a coup by U.S. and NATO nations.

2016 – U.S. begins troop buildup in Europe.

2019 – U.S. unilaterally withdraws from Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty.

2020 – U.S. unilaterally withdraws from Open Skies Treaty.

2021 – Russia submits negotiation proposals while sending more forces to the border with Ukraine. U.S. and NATO officials reject the Russian proposals immediately.

Feb 24, 2022 – Russia invades Ukraine, starting the Russia-Ukraine War.

This ad reflects the views of the signers. Paid for by Eisenhower Media Network, a project of People Power Initiatives.

𝐔𝐒 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐉𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐈𝐬𝐫𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧

 

Officials tell Axios that the idea was proposed by Milley and Austin during recent visits to Israel

by Dave DeCamp, Antiwar. com, May 17, 2023

The US has proposed to Israel to conduct joint military planning on potential attacks on Iran, Axios reported Wednesday.

The report cited US and Israeli officials who said the idea was proposed a few weeks ago during recent visits to Israel by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.

Israel is known for conducting covert attacks inside Iran and has stepped up its threats to launch an overt military attack against the Islamic Republic in recent years, although it’s not clear if Israel could pull off such an operation without US support.

The US and Israel have been stepping up military cooperation and held their largest-ever joint military exercises in January. US officials told Axios that the proposal for joint planning against Iran is unprecedented and could significantly boost US-Israel military ties even more.

The report said Israeli officials have taken the proposal with suspicion, worrying that it could “tie Israel’s hands.” A US official said that the idea is “not about planning any kind of joint US-Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear program.”

But a US official also told Axios that the proposal was meant as a reassurance that the US backs Israel and is not meant to tie their hands. An Israeli official said that Israel is looking for the US to clarify exactly what joint planning means.

US-Iran tensions have been soaring since indirect negotiations to revive the nuclear deal, known as the JCPOA, fell apart toward the end of 2022. The US announced last week that it was increasing its military presence in the Persian Gulf after Iran seized two tankers, which came after the US seized a tanker carrying Iranian oil and stole the cargo.

---

Author: Dave DeCamp

.

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave.

Israel denies the Nakba while perpetuating it

by Neve Gordon, Aljazeera, 13 May 2023

This picture taken on February 27, 2023 shows the aftermath of an attack by Israeli settlers on the Palestinian town of Huwara near Nablus in the occupied West Bank [File: AFP/Ronaldo Schemidt]

On the 75th anniversary of the Palestinian Nakba, it seems apt to think about how the events of 1948 have shaped not only the history of the Palestinian people, but also their present colonial reality.

For Palestinians, the Nakba is a “ghostly matter” – to use a phrase first introduced by sociology professor Avery Gordon. It has become a psychic force that ceaselessly haunts the present.

Haunting, as Gordon explains, is one of the ways in which oppressive forms of power continue to make themselves known in everyday life.

The Nakba – the displacement of 750,000 Palestinians from their ancestral homes in Palestine and the destruction of 500 villages and towns – is not simply an event that occurred some 75 years ago.

As many Palestinians insist, it is also an ongoing process characterised by lasting forms of state-sanctioned violence. It is something that Zionist forces continue to practise. Indeed, every time a Palestinian is executed by Israeli soldiers or a home that took years to build is demolished, this specific act of violence not only shocks, but also summons the memory of the Nakba.

The permanence of the Nakba was made quite apparent when in February, Jewish vigilantes carried out a pogrom in the Palestinian town of Huwara, and instead of condemning the crime, Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich complained that state forces rather than private citizens should be erasing Palestinian villages.

But the Israeli state’s strategy to create new memories of violence among Palestinians and thus ensure that the Nakba remains a constant presence seems to contradict its official policy of denying it ever occurred.

Israeli officials and pro-Israel activists have repeatedly rejected the term, calling it an “Arab lie” and a “justification for terrorism”. The Israeli authorities have also sought to eradicate any public references to the Nakba.

In 2009, the Israeli Education Ministry banned the use of this word in textbooks for Palestinian children.

In 2011, the Knesset adopted a law prohibiting institutions from holding any events commemorating the Nakba. This law is actually an amendment to the Budget Foundation Law, and conflates any ceremony marking the Nakba – in say, a public high school in Nazareth – with incitement to racism, violence and terrorism and the rejection of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

In other words, the Israeli state considers the Palestinian effort to consciously mark and preserve the Nakba in living memory as extremely dangerous and is consequently determined to penalise anyone who carries out such public ceremonies.

Israel, however, is not really interested in imposing social amnesia about the events of 1948, but rather aims to shape and control Palestinian memory.

The strategy is clear: ensure through daily acts of violence that Palestinians remain haunted by the Nakba, lest they forget what Israel is capable of doing. At the same time, however, the state makes every effort to bar Palestinians from determining how they remember this history in public lest they use forms of commemoration to incite people against colonial rule.

This paradoxical policy – wavering between memory and commemoration, where the first is continuously reproduced and the second is banned – is an essential component of the settler-colonial logic which aims to violently erase the history and geography of the native people in order to justify their displacement and replacement by settlers.

The suppression of the Nakba as an historical event worthy of commemoration is part of Israel’s effort to invert the history of colonial dispossession. Israel’s fear is that Nakba ceremonies will undermine the Zionist narrative that presents Jewish settlers as perpetual victims of Palestinian violence and reveal, instead, the horrific forms of violence that Zionist forces deployed in 1948 and are still deploying to achieve their goal.

In other words, Israel also aims to control the narration of history to advance the Zionist moral framework.

This objective is, however, destined to fail. Israel may prohibit its Palestinian citizens from commemorating the 1948 events in public ceremonies, but for them and their diasporic brethren across the globe, the Nakba is never dead; it is not even past.

For as long as Israel’s objective to eliminate the idea of a Palestinian nation – either through genocide, ethnic cleansing, or the creation of enclaves and ghettos – has not been fully accomplished or, alternatively, fully negated by Palestinians achieving self-determination, the Nakba will continue to serve both as ghostly presence and as a concrete, integral part of Israel’s colonial structure. The Nakba can be transcended only when the settler colonial project reaches an end.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

---

• Neve Gordon is a Marie Curie Fellow and Professor of International Law at Queen Mary University of London.

𝐔𝐊 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐦𝐬 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐔𝐤𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐋𝐨𝐧𝐠-𝐑𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬

The provision of Storm Shadow missiles marks an escalation of NATO support for Ukraine

 

by Dave DeCamp, Antiwar. com, May 11, 202

 

British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace confirmed on Thursday that London is providing Ukraine with longer-range missiles, marking another escalation of NATO support for Kyiv.

The UK is sending Storm Shadow missiles, which are air-launched and can be fired by Ukraine’s Soviet fighter jets. According to CNN, the Storm Shadows London is sending Kyiv have a range of 250km (155 miles).

Wallace said the Storm Shadows are “now going in, or are in the country itself,” signaling some have been delivered. He didn’t specify how many London is sending. “The use of Storm Shadow will allow Ukraine to push back Russian forces based within Ukrainian sovereign territory,” he said.

US officials have welcomed the British move but have said it won’t mean the US will be providing Kyiv with the Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) it has been requesting. ATACMS have a range of up to 190 miles and can be fired by the HIMARS rocket systems.

The current munitions Ukraine has been using with the HIMARS have a range of up to 50 miles, although there have been reports of Kyiv using Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs (GLSDB), which can hit targets up to 94 miles away. The US first pledged the GLSDBs for Ukraine in February.

The provision of longer-range weapons to Ukraine risks a major escalation as they can be used to target Russian territory. Ukrainian officials have insisted they wouldn’t use them for attacks inside Russia, but leaked Pentagon documents have indicated President Volodymyr Zelensky would want to.

Ukraine and its Western backers also don’t recognize Crimea as Russian territory, meaning targeting the peninsula is not off-limits. attacks on Crimea can be just as escalatory, as even Secretary of State Antony Blinken has acknowledged the peninsula is a “red line” for President Vladimir Putin.

-

Author: Dave DeCamp

 

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave. View all posts by Dave DeCamp

𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐔𝐒 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐑𝐚𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐝𝐚 𝐓𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐛'𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐌𝐜𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐲

 

--- Nasir Khan

 

Thank you, Rashida Tlaib, for stating the facts in commemoration of the crime against humanity that was the Nakba (Catastrophe) when, in 1948, Israel started the ethnic cleansing and systematic destruction of Palestine and its people. We know that the colonial settler state in Palestine came into existence because of the British imperial power. Since its creation, it has received all the material and diplomatic support of imperial powers, especially the United States, to commit crimes against colonized people which are still going on. 

 

It is obvious to many people around the world that the rulers and power elites of the United States fully stand by and defend all the cowardly killings, violence and terror against the Palestinians. Speaker McCarthy is only fulfilling a traditional role to emasculate the voice and memory of the Nakba among the Palestinians and other people who ask for freedom and justice for the colonized people of occupied Palestine.

.

 

𝐋𝐮𝐥𝐚'𝐬 𝐋𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞'𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐬 ‘𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐫’ 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬

-- Ben Chacko, Morning Star, May 7, 2023

 

 

BRAZILIAN President Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva’s call for freedom for Julian Assange shows a rising “international clamour” for Britain to release the jailed journalist, campaigners say.

 

The socialist president spoke out in London during a trip to attend the coronation.

 

“It is an embarrassment that a journalist who denounced trickery by one state against another is arrested, condemned to die in jail and we do nothing to free him. It’s a crazy thing,” Lula told reporters after the ceremony.

“We talk about freedom of expression; the guy is in prison because he denounced wrongdoing. And the press doesn’t do anything in defence of this journalist.”

Mr Assange continues to languish in Belmarsh prison, where he has now been held for four years, awaiting possible extradition to the United States — and a potential 175-year jail sentence for publishing details of US war crimes committed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

“Every day the UK detains Julian Assange at the behest of the US, it undermines its claim to be a defender of media freedom,” Tim Dawson of the National Union of Journalists told the Morning Star.

 

“Government statements on behalf of [journalists imprisoned in Russia] Evan Gershkovich and Vladimir Kara-Murza are rendered hollow. As the world wakes up, the shame on our country grows.”

 

John Rees of Don’t Extradite Assange said: “Lula’s support for Assange is part of a growing international clamour for his release. Seven South American heads of state have demanded he be freed. So has the Australian prime minister, MPs the length and breadth of Europe and lawmakers in the US.

 

“It’s time the government woke up to the fact they have made a serious error. Release Assange now.”

.

 

 

𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐎 𝐭𝐨 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐎𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐉𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞’𝐬 𝐅𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐀𝐬𝐢𝐚

 

Now NATO is getting a foothold in the Asia Pacific region 

 

 .

China warned against NATO's 'eastward foray into the Asia Pacific'

 .

by Dave DeCamp, Antiwar. com, May 4, 2023

 .

NATO is planning to open a liaison office in Japan next year, the alliance’s first in Asia, Nikkei Asia reported Wednesday.

 

In recent years, NATO has turned its gaze toward the Asia Pacific region and named China a “systemic challenge” in its 2022 Strategic Concept. As part of its strategy against China, the alliance is deepening cooperation with countries in the region.

According to Nikkei, the purpose of the liaison office in Japan is to “allow the military alliance to conduct periodic consultations with Japan and key partners in the region, such as South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand as China emerges as a new challenge, alongside its traditional focus on Russia.”

 

The report said NATO and Japan will take more steps to increase cooperation by signing an agreement known as an Individually Tailored Partnership Programme ahead of the NATO summit that will be held in Vilnius, Lithuania, in June. Japan also plans to open an independent mission to NATO, separate from the Embassy in Belgium.

 

In response to the news, China warned of NATO’s plans to expand into Asia. “Asia is an anchor for peace and stability and a promising land for cooperation and development, not a wrestling ground for geopolitical competition,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning.

 

“NATO’s continued eastward foray into the Asia Pacific and interference in regional affairs will inevitably undermine regional peace and stability and stoke camp confrontation. This calls for high vigilance among regional countries,” she added.

-

Author: Dave DeCamp

Dave DeCamp is the news editor of Antiwar.com, follow him on Twitter @decampdave. View all posts by Dave DeCamp