War always commands its own appeal. It has its own frazzled laurels, the calling of its own worn poets tenured in propaganda. In battle, the poets keep writing, and keep glorifying. The chattering diplomats are kept in the cooler, biding their time. The soldiers die, as do civilians. The politicians are permitted to behave badly.
With Ukraine looking desperately bloodied at the hands of their Russian counterparts, the horizon of the conflict had seemingly shrunk of late. Fatigue and desperation had set in. Washington seemed more interested in sending such musically illiterate types as the Secretary of State Antony Blinken to Kyiv for moral cuddling rather than suitably murderous military hardware.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, mindful of the losses inflicted on his own side in the conflict, thought it opportune to spring the question of peace talks. On June 14, while speaking with members of the Russian Foreign Ministry, he floated the idea that Russia would cease combat operations “immediately” if Ukraine abandoned any aspirations of joining NATO and withdrew its troops from the regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.
Rather than refrigerate the conflict into its previous frozen phase, Putin went further. It would end provided that Kyiv accepted Moscow’s sovereign control over the four regions as “new territorial realities”. Russian-speaking citizens in Ukraine would also be afforded protections; sanctions imposed by Western states would be lifted. “Today,” he stated, “we have put forward another concrete, genuine peace proposal. If Kyiv and Western capitals reject it as they have in the past, they will bear political and moral responsibility of the ‘continuation of the bloodshed.’”
He further added that, as soon as Ukraine began withdrawing its military personnel from Donbas and Novorossiya, with an undertaking not to join NATO, “the Russian Federation will cease fire and be ready for negotiations. I don’t think it will take long.”
Length and duration, however, remain the signal attributes of this murderous gambit. Ukraine’s defeat and humbling is unacceptable for the armchair strategists in the US imperium, along with their various satellites. NATO’s obsessive expansion cannot be thwarted, nor can the projection of Washington’s influence eastwards from Europe. And as for the defence contractors and companies keen to make a killing on the killings, they must also be considered.
This was unpardonable for the interests of the Biden administration. The Washington War Gaming Set must continue. Empires need their fill, their sullied pound of flesh. Preponderance of power comes in various forms: direct assault against adversaries (potentially unpopular for the voters), proxy enlistment, or the one degree removed sponsorship of a national state or entity as a convenient hitman. Ukraine, in this sense, has become the latter, a repurposed, tragic henchman for US interests, shedding blood in patriotic gore.
In keeping with that gore, US President Joe Biden, in announcing a funding package for Ukraine from the G7 group, promised that “democracies can deliver”. The amount on the ledger: $US50 billion. “We are putting our money to work for Ukraine, and giving another reminder to Putin that we are not backing down.” That particular amount is derived from frozen Russian assets outside Russian territory, most of it from the Russian Central Bank amounting to US$280 billion. The circumstances of such freezing will, in future, be the subject of numerous dissertations and legal challenges, but that very fact suggests that Ukraine’s allies are tiring from drawing from their own budgets. We support you, but we also hate to see the money of our taxpayers continually splurged on the enterprise.
Biden’s remarks from the Hotel Masseria San Domenico in Fasano have a haunting quality of repetition when it comes to US support for doomed causes and misguided goals. The fig leaf, when offered, can be withdrawn at any given movement: South Vietnam, doomed to conquest at the hands of North Vietnam; Afghanistan, almost inevitably destined to be recaptured by the Taliban; Kurds the Marsh Arabs, pet projects for US strategists encouraged to revolt only to be slaughtered in betrayal.
Thus goes Biden: “A lasting peace for Ukraine must be underwritten by Ukraine’s own ability to defend itself now and to deter future aggression anytime […] in the future,” Biden explains, drawing from the echo of Vietnamisation and any such exultation of an indigenous cause against a wicked enemy. The idea here: strengthen Ukrainian defence and deterrence while not sending US troops. In other words, we pay you to die.
The NATO disease, poxy and draining, rears its head. Weapons and ammunition are to be provided to Ukraine along with the expansion of “intelligence-sharing” and training while “enhancing interoperability between our militaries in line with NATO standards.” Money is to be put into Ukraine’s own defence industry so that they can duly “supply their own weapons and munitions.” In the floral bouquet, a cautionary note is appended. “In terms of longer range of weapons into the interior of Russia we are not changing our positions.” Killing is always a matter of quantum, and calculation. The note for Kyiv is clear: use the weapons but do so carefully.
As for the logistics of finance, US national security adviser Jake Sullivan is already voicing concerns about the complexity of the funding venture. “The simple proposition is we got to put these assets to work. The complex proposition is how you do that specifically.”
While Putin has turned his nose up at the UN Charter in its solemn affirmation of the sovereignty of states, Washington has taken its own wrecking ball to the text. It has meddled, fiddled and tampered with the internal affairs of states while accusing Russia of the very same thing. Spiteful of history and its bitter lessons, it has employed such saboteurs as former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to undertake such tasks, poking the Russian Bear while courting and seducing the Ukrainian establishment. The horror is evident for all to see, and unlikely to halt.
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
I attended a lecture earlier this year on the Ukraine conflict, delivered by a local Russian Prof, and learned plenty.
Amongst the significant financial considerations we were asked to nominate a $ spent by Western Nations/metre of ground won back from Putin!
Of course it has a negative value, and has been consistently negative since this whole thing kicked off.
Who would throw good after bad, ad infinitum?
Probably tax payers?
More evidence that Australians have gone the full (fantasy) Monty on external affairs promoting right wing talking points and sounding like Fox News?
Still running protection for Putin and his western RW libertarian & faux anti-imperialist ‘tankie’ allies vs. Ukraine, sovereignty, NATO, EU and the west?
One would think the author would pause for thought and observe what these fellow travellers have to say, and also not be so trusting of statements made by Putin, Kremlin and RW media allies in the west?
Exhibit 1:
This week the Atlas Koch Network’s CIS Sydney, led by Tom Switzer (who contributes to Murdoch’s SkyNews) on LinkedIn promoted an article he published in a US conservative journal along similar lines still blaming NATO: ‘NATO’s Prophetic Critics. Expanding the alliance has led to a war many experts predicted’.
Avoids any criticism of Putin by discussing NATO’s history, and cites Koch/Putin and Rockefeller linked ‘scholars’ (In Europe they are alleged to be purveyors of pro-Putin disinfo by Vatnik Soup post doctoral research team at Tampere University Finland:
‘Anyone—including prominent scholars such as John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs—who blames NATO expansion for the Ukraine crisis instantly arouses anger and suspicion about his or her motives.’
Exhibit 2:
British military analyst Phillips S. O’Brien eviscerating a piece from the establishment NYT this week headed ‘Here’s Why the Ukraine Should Seek Peace’.
‘In the article—Russia is a true partner for peace, and the Putin regime is looking to reach a deal. As the article says explicitly—Russia wants to negotiate a deal, but Ukraine is not working hard enough to work one out.
”…Russia has expressed willingness to negotiate, though it has not been invited to the conference because Ukraine suspects that Russia will just use the meeting for show….”
The fascinating example which the article uses to show how eager Putin is for peace, is the Russian dictator’s interview with Tucker Carlson (!!).’
https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/weekend-update-85-putins-peace-deal
Same Carlson who fawns over Abbott’s chum PM ‘mini Putin’ Orban, visits and when at Fox News promoted anti-semitic tropes towards Ukraine’s Zelensky etc. and generally, white Christian nationalism of Tanton Network.
Vatnik Soup on Carlson ‘He’s best-known for his outrageous lies and for his pro-Putin, anti-Ukrainian views while working for Fox News.’
https://vatniksoup.com/en/soups/167/
It would seem that Australian anti-imperialists of the left and the fossil fueled faux ‘free market’ think tanks of the right, with RW media, share an objective, not just to throw Ukraine under a bus, but ultimately the EU and liberal democracy to preclude empowered citizens and robust regulatory frameworks to support minimum standards for labour, consumers, environment, financial transfers, taxes and governance.
“The International Rules Based Order “
??????
You do not seem to have noticed that Zelensky is no longer the president of Ukraine. He refused to call an election, his term has expired and now he has no democratic backing for his dictatorial insanity. He does not have the legal authority to reject Russia’s terms nor dictate terms to the Russians.
Thank you for your very informative article, Dr Binoy Kampmark.
B Sullivan, nobody can logically refute your comment, my observations tell me that you are correct.
When it comes to Ukraine, Andrew Smith is not dealing with reality.
He pushes the pretence that the West is blameless in the unfolding tragedy. Amazingly, he can do that after witnessing what is happening in Gaza. By treading that path, he is supporting US imperialism in its attempt to weaken a rival power, whether he sees it that way or not. Because that is what the Ukraine conflict is all about — great power politics.
Andrew Smith’s two favourite targets for criticism, Mearsheimer and Sachs, are not merely scholars as he puts it, they are political realists. From Britannica; “realism, set of related theories of international relations that emphasizes the role of the state, national interest, and power in world politics. According to realism, states exist within an anarchic international system (as we see in the UN being unable to control the great powers) in which they are ultimately dependent on their own capabilities, or power, to further their national interests. The most important national interest is the survival of the state, including its people, political system, and territorial integrity.”
So realists assess issues based on facts on the ground, the balance of power, and the culture and aspirations of competing parties.
Here’s a fact on the ground. Russia is too powerful to be defeated in a conventional war on its doorstep.
The US knows that, which is why they will not commit to a US intervention force. Back in Obama’s day, he knew it. He stated that if war erupted between Russia and Ukraine, that “Russia has escalation dominance.” That’s realism.
Andrew has trouble dealing with realism. He denigrates the many well-placed experts from within the US Establishment who warned that if NATO kept expanding towards Russia it would provoke a war. The realists were right.
The killing will continue until realism takes over. Which is basically the message from the article, an article that Andrew has dismissed as a fantasy.
Just a quick word on the negotiations offer by Russia that the article referred to.
An aspect of political realism that Ukraine is learning is that when negotiating, the first offer from the other side is often the best. Russia has offered three solutions, one in 2014, one in 2022 just after the war began, and one now.
The first offer was for Crimea to be Russian and Donbass to be autonomous within Ukraine. It was rejected. Ukraine accepted a second deal offered by Russia just a few weeks after the start of the war, but the US rejected it. This forced Russia to invest heavily in the pursuit of its objectives.
Each Russian offer became increasingly less attractive.
The result is that because the third offer has been rejected, the final agreed-upon arrangement, whenever that might be, will be even less favourable for Ukraine so that Russia can justify its outlays.
If the worst happens, as it might, the final arrangement could be completely on Russia’s terms.
Whatever the outcome, Ukraine will realise that there is no upside to allowing yourself to become a tool in a great power game. We could do with a good dose of that reality here in Australia.
The disillusion is obvious in his tomes.
And yes, the text is not merely perverted, but outraged.
What a sad salad of wordiness we get here, full of useful information and some acceptable assessment. There is also a slant or three, and some ego on the bet of triumphing in the foretelling game. The War goes on, and it seems Russia cannot lose and Ukraine cannot win. I want peace, everywhere, no innocents dying and winning a wor game is poor outlook, We are powerless and one feels sickened at that, for surely diplomacy, negotiation, discussion, compromise, concession and agreement where possible is actually possible. Who can initiate this? This type of “dialogue” here never changes much, while people die and agony prevails. Who said what is of use, but has not led to peace. Perhaps much of this discussion can be reprinted, regularly, virtually unchanged, over time. However, bent, sick and evil people have always pushed rotten ideas over human lives, over law and decency and sense.., always.
Pardon the editing slip, for I meant “word”, not a wrongly spelt “War”
I don’t recall anyone saying the US was blameless, but too many are willing to excuse Putin’s use of war crime as a military strategy
The eastward expansion of NATO is entirely due to Russia being an untrustworthy neighbour. Just about every former Russian ally is now opposed to Putin
The author of this article has previously tried to trivialise Putin’s actolns- “the west has created a comic book villain”.
There are those that have previously claimed Russia was entitled to use section 51 of the United Nations charter. This is now completely discredited, but there has been no retraction.
They have misrepresented the 14,000 deaths in Donbas. This is also now discredited.
There is no condemnation of Russia for breaking the Budapest Memorandum, which guaranteed Ukrainian sovereignty
It seems that Ukraine remains willing to defend its territory, and independence and it it reasonable for democratic nations to support this as long as it remains the case
AC, I do hope you’re not suggesting that all here support or express leniency towards Putin.
I do not wish to be in that group.
Not at all Roswell and I apologise if I created that impression. I realise there are a great many compassionate and rational people here who detest Putin’s actions and brutality.
However, there are few vociferous contributors who have become so blinkered by their anti US sentiment that they are providing support/justification for any regime that opposes the US.
I thought as much, AC. Thank you for responding.
Putins latest peace offer was turned down in Washington, and not (as one would expect) in Kiev.
I don`t know if the civilians knew of this offer, and who is the key individual keeping this war going.
I do know the media there is very much censored, as it is in Israel.
Which makes me wonder where this claim that “Ukraine” is keen for a war of indefinite duration, and where it comes from..
The last time the Ukrainians had an election they voted for the candidate promising peace.
Zelensky.
That did not work out well.
If they were allowed an election, which is well overdue, would we see this bond to ideas of NATO, and an endless war, get their approval?
There is more than a slim chance they would settle for peace if their concerns were listened to.
Steve Davis:
Don’t gaslight me nor put words into my mouth; can you provide any credible source for your opinions, running protection for power vs waffling on about your beliefs?
The non expert acquaintance of Putin and Koch, i.e. Mearsheimer (or Kissinger II) and the ‘realism’ school is promoted by the US RW IDW ‘intellectual dark web’ and the fossil fuel Atlas Koch Network that ‘owns’ the GOP.
Suggests that the nominally powerful should always prevail over nominally weaker*; geo-political ‘social-Darwinism’ to justify Putin, Xi, Modi, GOP/Trump and ‘Project 2025’ in their quest for corrupt nativist authoritarianism, permanently.
*Nor does it explain how Russia has neither air nor naval superiority, and how now seems desperate for ‘peace’ and a ‘ceasefire’ for another breather; previously provided by his chums in Netanyahu and Hamas regimes.
I’ll trust Pekka K’s Tampere University postdoctoral research team ahead of any ignorant Oz or Anglo based grifters and analysts following anti-Ukraine Fox News etc. line, who also ignore inconvenient facts that link Anglo fossil fuels grifters, RW white Christian nationalist NJs & faux anti-imperialist tankies of the left, with Putin’s Russia.
If you know so much ‘realism’, explain your ally Tony Abbott and friends at the anti-EU Budapest Danube Institute, partnered with Koch’s Heritage and based on a foundation supported by the govt. of PM ‘mini Putin’ Orban; in a pro-Russian and pro-China ecosystem?
Steve David: Maybe try listening to US conservative Anne Applebaum, who has complained of anti-liberal democracy types around Koch partnered Danube Inst. in Hungary, Brexit, Trump etc., in an interview with Phillip Adams, or reading her latest articles and book:
‘Autocracy, Inc: The Dictators Who Want To Run The World.’
‘Anne Applebaum makes the argument that there is a global campaign by autocratic countries like Russia and China to discredit democracy and liberalism. MAGA supporters are also being influenced by propaganda campaigns on issues like Ukraine and COVID and are also starting to believe that democracy and human rights are not worth fighting for.’
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/latenightlive/anne-applebaum-propaganda-war-/103912456
In a parallel universe, the liberal UK writer George Monbiot, who has also done much on Atlas Koch Network, speaking:
‘In his new book, George Monbiot says the trend towards neoliberalism began in the 1930s, and has so dominated the political narrative that it’s now seen as the natural way of things. So as the far-right once again marches to power, is this moment a political tipping point in the direction of fascism? And can this be reversed before the planet reaches its own ecological tipping point?
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/latenightlive/george-monbiot-neoliberalism/103970852
Many of you anti-liberal (democracy) types seem happy to be used for a return to either pre segregation deep south America and/or 1930 America, Italy and Germany, or locally follow the Dutton, NewsCorp and IPA QLD LNP back to Joh’s QLD of ’70-’80s?
Douglas, you make a very good point.
You know that Andrew Smith is struggling when he quotes Anne Applebaum to make a point.
I had occasion to refer to Applebaum here just a few weeks back, to show what liberals really think about the social order. I said “She concluded a 2022 article “There is No Liberal World Order” with this — “Precisely because there is no liberal world order, no norms and no rules, we must fight ferociously for the values and the hopes of liberalism if we want our open societies to continue to exist.” It’s astounding how much damage can be done by a single sentence. By saying “there is… no norms, no rules” Applebaum has completely bypassed international law. International law is of no interest to liberals. It can be ignored. Where it serves no liberal purpose it does not exist. In the eyes of liberals, the “values and hopes of liberalism” are of greater value and have more meaning than the entire body of international law that has been painstakingly developed since the formation of the UN. Their contempt for democratic values is there for all to see.”
But you don’t need to rely on my opinion to make an assessment of Applebaum’s worth as an authority.
Law and Liberty is a website that looks at global issues from a liberal perspective.
From the site — “Law & Liberty’s focus is on the classical liberal tradition of law and political thought and how it shapes a society of free and responsible persons.”
It has an review of an Applebaum book that I’ve given a link to because it not only provides a fascinating examination of the way Applebaum operates, but also includes some interesting details of a favourite target of Applebaum. That target just happens to be a figure who features in almost every comment posted by Andrew. Yes, you guessed it, the dreaded Viktor Orban.
The review opens with a little gem. It says of Applebaum’s book “It is a barely coherent rant against ex-friends and political opponents. It is a tantrum from a liberal who expected a universalist millennium after the fall of Communism and discovered to her horror that national identity still matters.”
So this is the type of “authority” that Andrew regularly mentions but rarely quotes in detail. Now we know why.
Yeah, thanks AS & AC.
Wouldn’t trust Putin as far as I could throw him, or even consider negotiating with him until he publicly admitted his corrupt dictatorship, relinquished his stolen funds and assets to Russia’s citizens, retired Russia’s power of veto in the UNSC, and relinquished control of Russia fossil fuel assets to distribution via the determinations of the UN, against open bidding by necessity from all nations demonstrably committed to climate change abatement – Net-Zero by 2050.
Albeit, I understand this is unlikely as the man is an irretrievable narcissistic psychopath who has blackmailed and murdered his way to the top, and holds the Duma and Council along with the whole country to ransom.
Claka, what a wonderful display of ignorance and arrogance, the bigot’s brew, that’s your assessment of Putin?
Remember the most important rule in the Art of War. Know your enemy. You do not.