China clarifies neutral stance as Russia, Ukraine poised for talks

By 

Yang Sheng

and Xu Yelu Published: Feb 27, 2022 

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202202/1253364.shtml

Although the US and some other Western countries are trying to handle the current situation in Ukraine with waves of sanctions against Russia and questioning Beijing's neutral stance, China has once again clarified its neutrality and the reason to the EU, France, Germany, and the UK as to why it opposes sanctions ahead of the UN Emergency Special Session on Sunday.

Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi had phone conversations with UK Foreign Secretary Elizabeth Truss, High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell, French Diplomatic Advisor to President Emmanuel Bonne, and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock from Friday to Saturday, according to the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Sunday. 

They had in-depth exchanges of views with a focus on the situation in Ukraine, while Wang expounded on China's basic position on the Ukraine issue. Wang stressed that "China supports and encourages all diplomatic efforts conducive to a peaceful settlement of the Ukraine crisis. China welcomes the earliest possible direct dialogue and negotiation between Russia and Ukraine."

Ukraine's delegation is now heading to Gomel in Belarus for negotiations with Russia, Russian media Sputnik reported on Sunday. This announcement comes just minutes after the deadline previously set by the Russian delegation for the negotiations with Ukraine expired. According to a member of the Russian delegation, Leonid Slutsky, Russia will demonstrate quite a "hardline" approach at the upcoming talks with Ukraine.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett had a phone call on Sunday in which Putin gave assurances that Moscow remains open to talks with Kyiv, but informed Bennett that Ukraine's leaders have shown "inconsistency" on the matter.

Chinese military experts said Russia has been restrained in using force to attack the Ukrainian army because most Russian forces are being deployed to prevent NATO intervention, but Russia does not want the conflict to last long, so it might change the strategy depending on how the situation develops.

Putin ordered the military to put the nation's nuclear deterrence forces on high alert Sunday following "aggressive statements" from NATO, Sputnik reported.

The US doesn't want to see the conflict end quickly as it wants Russia to be mired in trouble as long as possible, so the talks won't be easy, and what happens on the battlefield will decide the result of the negotiations, experts said.

When the conflict broke out, most Western countries were shocked, and only showed support by "praying for Ukraine" and announcing sanctions, but did not dare to provide weapons to Ukraine or send reinforcements. 

The situation has somehow changed over the weekend, as Ukrainian forces were not as weak as the West previously thought, and the conflict is likely to continue. Some Western countries have started supplying arms to Ukraine because they have seen the possibility of further escalating and extending the conflict to leave Russia mired in the mud of Ukraine, said analysts.

This is actually bad for negotiations, as the longer, the conflict continues, the more casualties there will be, and the West wants to maximize the losses for both Russia and Ukraine rather than minimize the damage, said Chinese experts. China's stance of neutrality is important because if there is one country that can one day effectively mediate the conflict, that country should be one with real neutrality and which respects Ukraine's sovereignty and also did not follow the West in sanctioning Russia and harming the livelihood of Russian people.

What's real neutrality?

Western voices should not be allowed to dominate the voice of the international community over the Ukraine situation, as Western powers, especially the US and NATO, have actually been the key forces in instigating the crisis and contradiction between Russia and Ukraine. In other words, the West is now deliberately taking sides, said, analysts.  

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang said, "China maintains that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be respected and protected and the purposes and principles of the UN Charter should be earnestly observed. This position of China is consistent and clear-cut, and applies equally to the Ukraine issue."  

But he also said, "The legitimate security concerns of all countries should be respected. Given NATO's five consecutive rounds of eastward expansion, Russia's legitimate security demands ought to be taken seriously and properly addressed."

Cui Hongjian, director of the Department of European Studies at the China Institute of International Studies, told the Global Times on Sunday that the US and NATO are actually part of the cause of this conflict in Ukraine, so if the world lets them dominate public opinion across the international community, it would be unfair and the problem will not be solved.

Yang Jin, an associate research fellow at the Institute of Russian, Eastern European, and Central Asian Studies under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said that Russia won't be intimidated by sanctions, and if sanctions were effective, then the conflict would have been prevented long ago.

The reason why China believes Russia does have "legitimate security concerns" is that "we have seen how NATO acted to pressure Russia and destroyed the former Yugoslavia in the past. If there hadn't been these concrete security pressures and NATO military deployments around Russian territory, Moscow would not have needed to carry out such risky military operations to respond to NATO's threat," Yang said.

Wang said to senior European diplomats that "Actions taken by the UN Security Council should help ease the situation and facilitate a diplomatic resolution rather than fuelling tensions and causing further escalation. In view of this, China has always disapproved of willfully invoking UN Charter Chapter VII, which authorizes the use of force and sanctions in UNSC resolutions."

Sanctioning or condemning Russia, just as the West has done, is actually much easier than staying neutral and responsible in order to contribute to conflict mediation while being questioned and pressured by the West, said a Beijing-based expert on international relations. He added that "China is a responsible major power with independent diplomacy and clear stance based on the objective and fair judgment of the situation, rather than a country with no independent thought that just blindly follows the West on every issue."

The 2022 Winter Paralympics will be held in Beijing from March 4 to 13, and China could use it as a chance to play a bigger role in peace mediation and make the Olympics a platform to realize peace, said some Chinese experts. 

Sustainable security mechanism

"The Ukraine issue has evolved in a complex historical context. Ukraine should function as a bridge between the East and the West, not as a frontier in big power confrontation. China also supports the EU and Russia in entering into an equal-footed dialogue on European security issues and implementing the philosophy of indivisible security, so as to eventually form a balanced, effective, and sustainable European security mechanism," the Chinese foreign minister said.

Cui said that for Europe to establish a balanced, effective, and sustainable security mechanism, the security concerns of all parties should be resolved in an equal way. "This is the precondition."

Europe needs to stop engaging in a collective security mechanism that excludes Russia and even targets Russia. "If NATO cannot accept Russia, then obviously one of NATO's purposes is to target Russia, and then the problem of European security will never be solved," Cui said.

Europe should also try to avoid interference from external powers, especially the US, said the experts. Key EU members such as France and Germany always have divergences with the US not only on issues related to Russia, but also on the Iran nuclear deal, ties with China, and Middle East affairs. Unfortunately, however, the US and US-led NATO dominate security issues in Europe, making it hard for the continent to reach mutual trust and respect with Russia in the past, which has caused today's tragedy, they noted. 

"If the Ukraine crisis is mainly handled by Europe, rather than by the US and NATO, maybe peaceful negotiation would already have been realized long before Russia lost patience and launched military operations. At least, it wouldn't be as bad as it is now," Cui said.

But unfortunately, the US and the US-led NATO are unlikely to let this happen, as they need Russia to play the enemy to keep trans-Atlantic ties solid, and unfortunately, the current conflict in Ukraine has boosted this trend, so it will be hard for Europe to completely act independently to build a new security mechanism with Russia in the future, Yang said.  

Ukraine: What Will Be Done and What Should Be Done?

by Thomas Palley Posted on February 26, 2022

https://original.antiwar.com/Thomas_Palley/2022/02/25/ukraine-what-will-be-done-and-what-should-be-done/

Reprinted with permission from Economics for Democratic and Open Societies.

The inevitable has happened. Russia has invaded Ukraine. It was inevitable because the US and its NATO partners had backed Russia into a corner from which it could only escape by military means.

In effect, Russia confronted a future in which the US would increasingly tighten the noose around its neck by the further eastward expansion of NATO, combined with military upgrading by the US of its Eastern European NATO proxies.

Accompanying that militarization was the prospect of a ramped-up propaganda war in which western media fanned the flames of public animus against Russia. Side-by-side, US government-financed entities (such as the National Endowment for Democracy and the German Marshall Fund) would seek to influence European and Russian politics with the goal of regime change.

At this stage, there are two questions. What will be done? And what should be done?

What will be done?

The answer to the first question is clear. We now confront another era of the cold war, which could easily turn hot and even nuclear. Moreover, the situation is far more dangerous than the first cold war as the US is much more powerful than Russia, relative to its standing vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. Consequently, the balance is precarious, which is why it could easily trip into something terrible.

The Neocon tendency holds that the US should be globally hegemonic and militarily unchallengeable, and it has triumphed definitively in US politics. That triumph is reflected in the Democratic Party which represents the “liberal” wing of US national politics.  It is also reflected in the opinions of elite liberal media.

The winners are the Washington DC status quo. The biggest winner is the liberal wing of the Neocon establishment which now has a clear runway to push US global hegemony under the false flag of democracy promotion. Even more importantly, the Neocons have ensnared European political leaders, cleaving the possibility of a peaceful productive rapprochement that might have joined Russia with the European economy and European family. The second obvious winner is the military-industrial complex which can look forward to continuing massive profits and larded budgets.

Unlike the first cold war, there will be no payoff for working families. That is because Russia has no global political-economic agenda equivalent to socialism, the threat of which forced the ruling elite to make concessions to workers. Indeed, working families stand to lose as the military budget will become even larger. More importantly, the revival of jingoism and militarism stand to play their historic role as a wedge issue that divides working families, thereby enhancing the ability of business and liberal elites to shaft any agenda for progressive economic change.

But by far the biggest loser is Europe which has been shamefully sold out by its pusillanimous political class. First, Europe has foregone the economic opportunity of peaceful partnership with Russia. Instead, it will lose important markets and it will pay a lot more for energy. It will also make itself even more economically vulnerable and susceptible to US punishment, as already happened with the multi-billion dollar fines the US imposed on European banks.

Second, once again, Europe will suffer the backwash of the US push for hegemony. That is what happened with Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan. The backwash has already fertilized a European right-wing extremist renaissance, which now promises to worsen. Meanwhile, the US is protected from most of that backwash by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

What should be done?

Answering the question of what should be done is also easy but getting there is beginning to look impossible. What should be done is a profound recalibration that diminishes the influence of the US in Europe, strengthens the European Union, and aims for inclusion of Russia in the European family as envisaged by President Gorbachev in 1990.

The starting point is recognizing that there is no going back in time. New facts have been created. They were created by NATO’s eastward expansion, by the 2014 US-sponsored coup in Ukraine, by Russia’s reoccupation of Crimea, and now by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Next, there is a need for a fundamental change of mindset that requires acknowledging Russia is not the Soviet Union. It is a weak economy with a declining population, and it has neither the capacity nor the desire to rule former Warsaw pact countries.

With those two building blocks in place, the way forward can be mapped out. Ukraine must agree to permanently be a neutral state, as were Finland and Austria in the Cold War. The US must stop arming Poland which is an intolerant nationalist polity that is likely to be a future source of major trouble. And the US must stop upgrading the military capabilities of the Baltic states which is an aggressive provocation.  

The European Union must build trade and commerce with Russia. That is an economic marriage made in heaven. Russia has resources and needs technology and capital goods. Europe has the technology and capital goods and needs resources.

Even better, by diminishing the threat against President Putin, such a partnership will promote internal political improvement in Russia. Authoritarian regimes clamp down when threatened. They are more tolerant when unthreatened.

Now for the difficult part. Ukraine should be reconstituted as a federal state, and it may even need to be partitioned given the new facts that have been created. With US encouragement, Ukraine played with fire and it has gotten burned.

Lastly, there is a need to build a Western European defense force and to diminish US military presence and influence in Western Europe. The US military was an essential presence in the Cold War when Western Europe lacked the capacity to deter the combined power of the Warsaw Pact. Those conditions are long gone. The Warsaw Pact no longer exists, and Russia is a shadow of the Soviet Union. Western Europe now dwarfs Russia in both economic and demographic terms, and it can (and should) look after itself.

The US Neocon menace

Tragically, none of this is likely to happen because it is profoundly at odds with the US Neocon goal of global hegemony, and Western European politicians have disgraced themselves as US flunkies.

A strong, prosperous, and liberalizing Russia would be an enormous threat to the US Neocon agenda. That is why the US has demanded Russian political liberalization now, knowing full well it will only cause weakness and disintegration at this moment in history.

A strong, united, and prosperous Western Europe would compound the threat to the Neocon agenda. And a Western Europe that helped Russia along the path to prosperity would doubly compound the threat.

History and George Orwell’s memory hole

The Western media is now focusing attention on Russia’s invasion. Built into that focus is a tacit remaking of history.

US Neocons want history to begin with the invasion. All else that went before is to be swept into Orwell’s “memory hole”.

That means forgetting the injuries and threats the US has heaped on Russia for thirty years; forgetting how the US helped loot Russia after the fall of the Berlin Wall, forgetting the promise made not to expand NATO eastward, forgetting the threat posed by putting missile defense and launch capabilities close to Russia’s borders and forgetting the fateful 2014 US-sponsored coup in Ukraine.

Thomas Palley is an economist living in Washington DC. He holds a B.A. degree from Oxford University and an M.A. degree in International Relations and Ph.D. in Economics, both from Yale University. He currently runs Economics for Democratic & Open Societies. He has previously served as Senior Economic Adviser to the AFL-CIO and Chief Economist with the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

 LA APUESTA DE PUTIN

Putin ha decidido que éste era el mejor momento para “desacoplar” definitivamente a Rusia de Occidente; establecer su perímetro de seguridad, para mantener a distancia a sus enemigos de la OTAN; e internamente, aislar y derrotar a la facción prooccidental de las élites políticas y económicas rusas.

Veamos cada uno de estos objetivos.

Para Putin y la dirigencia político-militar rusa quedó claro durante 22 años, que Occidente no estaba interesado, ni deseaba que Rusia se integrara como potencia mundial, a la que se le reconociera respeto, zona de influencia y capacidad de decisión en los asuntos mundiales.

Para Estados Unidos y Europa Occidental, Rusia había sido “derrotada” en la Guerra Fría, y por ello debía “pagar” el costo de esa guerra de más de 40 años. De ahí que el saqueo y la destrucción de los recursos financieros y naturales; y la explotación de la mano de obra rusa, desde la desaparición de la Unión Soviética (1991), hasta el fin de la desastrosa presidencia de Boris Yeltsin (2000) era el destino permanente de Rusia, según los designios occidentales.

Pero Putin, los militares y los servicios de seguridad rusos decidieron recuperar el control de su país, y para ello lo primero que hicieron fue encarcelar u obligar a huir a los aliados rusos y ruso-judíos de Occidente que, junto con las trasnacionales, depredaron la economía rusa durante más de una década.

Esto fue considerado en Occidente como una afrenta mayúscula, pero en vista de que Estados Unidos e Israel se habían inventado una “Guerra contra el Terror” para terminar con los enemigos de los israelíes en el Medio Oriente, dejaron para un mejor momento el “castigo” a Putin y a la coalición gobernante que lo apoyaba.

Después, Putin decidió mantener su apoyo a regiones prorrusas adyacentes a Georgia (Osetia del Sur y Abjasia), lo que para Washington y la OTAN constituyó una gran oportunidad para provocar a Moscú.

Así, desde 2007, el gobierno de George Bush había planteado la posibilidad de que Ucrania y Georgia se integraran a la OTAN, como ya lo habían hecho varios de los países que antes habían formado parte del Pacto de Varsovia.

Esto para Rusia constituía una evidente amenaza a su seguridad, en la medida en que esa expansión hacia el este por parte de la OTAN sólo tenía un objetivo, rodear a Rusia y evitar cualquier intento de expansión de la influencia rusa en Europa Oriental.

En este contexto, el presidente georgiano Mijeil Saakashvili, ordenó en agosto de 2008 a su ejército recuperar la región de Osetia del Sur, que estaba defendida por fuerzas rusas. Esto sucedió mientras el presidente ruso Vladimir Putin asistía a los Juegos Olímpico de Beijing.

Inmediatamente, el ejército ruso respondió y propinó una rápida derrota al ejército georgiano, que inútilmente esperó ayuda de Occidente, que había instigado al gobierno georgiano a recuperar las regiones prorrusas.

Después, Putin decidió que no permitiría que su antiguo aliado en Siria, el gobierno de la familia Assad, fuera derrotado por mercenarios y terroristas financiados y armados por Estados Unidos, las Petro monarquías del Golfo, Gran Bretaña, Israel y Turquía.

Así, desde 2015, Rusia intervino en el conflicto sirio apoyando al gobierno de Bashar El Assad y junto con Irán, evitaron el derrocamiento de Assad y la partición de Siria, logrando que en 2018 la mayor parte de los grupos terroristas y mercenarios fueran derrotados.

Occidente vio así como Putin evitaba la destrucción de uno de los principales enemigos del Estado de Israel, principal objetivo por el cual se había manufacturado la estrategia denominada “Guerra contra el Terror” desde 2001, y que ya había permitido el derrocamiento de Saddam Hussein y la casi destrucción de Irak; y el derrocamiento de Gaddaffi en Libia, y la destrucción de este país.

Así, Putin se había convertido en el principal enemigo de Occidente, pues había logrado que la estrategia deliberada de caos y destrucción en el Medio Oriente planeada por Washington, Tel Aviv y Londres, se detuviera; así como había detenido el saqueo de la economía rusa por parte de Occidente; y había evitado que Georgia se convirtiera en una punta de lanza de la OTAN en contra de Rusia.

Todo esto ya había convertido a Putin en el enemigo a vencer por parte de las potencias occidentales, que siguieron en su estrategia de acorralar a Rusia.

En 2014 un golpe de Estado apoyado por Estados Unidos derrocó al presidente prorruso de Ucrania, Víctor Yanukovich (mientras se celebraban los Juegos Olímpicos de Invierno en Sochi, Rusia), llevando al poder a fracciones abiertamente antirrusas al gobierno, que se propusieron eliminar toda influencia rusa en Ucrania.

Ello llevó a que Putin decidiera defender a la minoría rusa en Ucrania, y su base naval en Sebastapol, en la península de Crimea, que se veía amenazada por el nuevo gobierno ucraniano.

Putin se anexó la península de Crimea (con más del 80% de la población de origen ruso, apoyando dicha acción en un referéndum), y apoyó a los separatistas rusos en las regiones de Donetsk y Luhansk que fueron atacados por grupos armados y por el ejército ucraniano.

Nuevamente Occidente vio como sus planes de arrebatar a Putin la iniciativa y ponerlo contra la pared se vieron parcialmente frustrados, por lo que aplicaron numerosas sanciones económicas y político-diplomáticas contra Rusia desde 2014.

A lo largo de estos 8 años Putin ha tratado de sortear el acoso y las sanciones occidentales, mientras Occidente ha mantenido la narrativa de que el “agresor” es Putin, equiparándolo incluso con Hitler.

Putin ha intentado mantener puentes con Occidente (especialmente con Alemania), para no romper definitivamente con los países principales que lo conforman, y para evitar un mayor aislamiento de Rusia.

Pero está claro que ello no le ha funcionado, y por lo mismo ha intensificado su relación con la segunda potencia económica mundial y la tercera potencia militar del mundo, esto es China, que también ha sido continuamente hostigada y presionada por Occidente, que no desea que Beijing se convierta en la primera potencia mundial en todos los órdenes.

Así llegamos a 2022, en que Putin ha decidido terminar con la posibilidad de que Occidente utilizara a Ucrania como base para posibles sabotajes o ataques contra su país, y al mismo tiempo recuperar su influencia, derrocando al gobierno ucraniano prooccidental; mandando al mismo tiempo el mensaje a las repúblicas bálticas, Polonia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Eslovaquia, Chequia, Finlandia, Georgia e incluso Azerbaiján (que acaba de derrotar hace unos meses a Armenia, aliada de Moscú, en una guerra por la mayor parte de la región de Nagorno Karabaj), que no tolerará más amenazas a su territorio de países que forman parte de la OTAN o que desean formar parte de dicha alianza militar; y que actuará en consecuencia con todo su potencial militar (incluyendo armas nucleares).

Si Putin y la dirigencia político-militar rusa llegaron a la conclusión de que ya no era posible seguir cediendo ante Occidente, aguantando sus sanciones económicas; sus intentos de intervención en la política interna rusa (apoyo a los disidentes Navalny y Kasparov) y su narrativa constante contra Rusia, fue porque sintieron que podían enfrentarse a todavía más sanciones económicas, y al mismo tiempo porque consideraron que militarmente su ventaja en el teatro de operaciones del este de Europa es superior a la OTAN.

Así, Putin estaba consciente de que Rusia, al invadir Ucrania, quedaría aislado de los circuitos económicos y financieros de Occidente, y ello le ocasionaría un enorme daño a su población, por lo que es factible que los planificadores rusos hayan considerado que cuentan con los recursos económicos (reservas internacionales por 600 mil millones de dólares), alimenticios, industriales (refacciones necesarias para sus fuerzas armadas, insumos para mantener lo esencial de la producción para consumo interno) y energéticos (potencia mundial en producción de petróleo y gas) necesarios, para sostener un pulso de esa magnitud con Occidente por 2, 3 o 4 años, por lo menos.

Más le vale a Putin y a la dirigencia rusa que así sea, porque de lo contrario, la población rusa no va a tener tanta paciencia como para sufrir la escasez que han sufrido por décadas en Cuba, Irán o Venezuela, con las sanciones y el aislamiento económico que les ha recetado Occidente.

Por otra parte, Putin y su entorno estimaron que el avance que tienen en su armamento con los nuevos misiles hipersónicos (con los que aún no cuenta Occidente), su masivo ejército, fogueado en los últimos 20 años en numerosos combates en Medio Oriente, el Cáucaso y Ucrania misma; y su arsenal nuclear, el mayor del mundo, le permiten aceptar cualquier reto que la OTAN esté dispuesta a plantearle, y salir victorioso.

Por ello Putin ha decidido que éste es el momento de establecer, sin lugar a duda, cuál es el perímetro de seguridad que la OTAN no debe cruzar, a menos que quiera enfrentar todo el poder militar ruso.

Deben tener muchísima confianza los comandantes militares rusos al plantear este reto, porque de lo contrario, si sólo es “bluff”, bien podría derrumbarse en pocos meses el “perímetro” y entonces, no sólo ese cinturón de seguridad podría venirse abajo (con guerras de guerrillas; continuos amagos de parte de las fuerzas de la OTAN; otras provocaciones militares de países subordinados a Occidente, etc.), sino el gobierno mismo de Putin.

Por último, todo parece indicar que con este deliberado rompimiento de los últimos vínculos que tenía Rusia con Occidente la facción prooccidental del gobierno ruso queda aislada, y quizás próximamente separada de las posiciones que ocupan, lo que por un lado favorece a Putin y a su coalición que pretenden fortalecer los nexos con China, y expulsar de Rusia la influencia de Occidente.

Pero por otro lado, una parte no desdeñable de la población rusa siempre ha visto con simpatía a Occidente, por lo que al perderse ese vínculo y la facción del gobierno que ayudaba a mantener esa ilusión, puede generar frustración, en especial cuando a una parte de esa población le interesaba participar con los países occidentales mediante eventos como la Fórmula 1, cancelada; la Champions League, cambiada la sede de San Petersburgo a París; o los Juegos Olímpicos, en los que se obliga a Rusia a participar sin su bandera, y sin que se toque su himno nacional en las premiaciones.

Y dicha frustración puede generar el crecimiento de una oposición que por lo pronto no es muy importante, pero que con los efectos de las sanciones económicas, el aislamiento político, cultural, deportivo, turístico, etc. y la narrativa permanente de Occidente de demonización del gobierno de Vladimir Putin, bien puede llevar a que se presente en unos años un reto político mayúsculo para el presidente ruso.

 

El Kremlin sostiene que la parte ucraniana rechazó las negociaciones

https://mundo.sputniknews.com/20220226/el-kremlin-sostiene-que-la-parte-ucraniana-rechazo-las-negociaciones--1122336570.html

La parte ucraniana rechazó las negociaciones, declaró el Kremlin. Las Fuerzas Armadas de Rusia retomaron su operación especial este 26 de febrero, declaró el portavoz del Kremlin, Dmitri Peskov.

En la tarde del 25 de febrero, recordó, el presidente de Rusia, Vladímir Putin, "ordenó suspender el avance de las principales fuerzas rusas" en vísperas de las negociaciones que se esperaban con las autoridades ucranianas.

El portavoz del Ministerio de Defensa de Rusia, Ígor Konashénkov, a su vez, confirmó que las fuerzas rusas suspendieron "las hostilidades activas en todas las principales direcciones de la operación tras las declaraciones del régimen de Kiev sobre la disposición a negociar".

Por su parte, el asesor del jefe de la oficina presidencial ucraniana, Alexéi Arestovich, afirmó que Kiev se negó a negociar porque no le convinieron las condiciones formuladas por Moscú.

"Las condiciones que Rusia envió a través de los intermediarios no nos satisfacen", respondió Arestovich al portal de noticias ucraniano Strana.ua, destacando que constituyeron "un intento de forzarnos a capitular".

En la madrugada del 24 de febrero el presidente de Rusia, Vladímir Putin, anunció el lanzamiento de una "operación militar especial" en el territorio de Ucrania alegando que las Repúblicas Populares de Donetsk y Lugansk, ya reconocidas por Rusia como Estados soberanos, solicitaron ayuda frente a la agresión por parte de Kiev.

Uno de los objetivos fundamentales de esa operación, según Putin, es "la desmilitarización y la desnazificación" de Ucrania. El mandatario ruso también amenazó con llevar a juicio a los autores de "numerosos crímenes sangrientos contra civiles", pidió a uniformados y civiles en Ucrania que no opongan resistencia a esa operación, y advirtió de que Rusia responderá de inmediato a cualquier fuerza externa que le amenace o se ponga en su camino.

El Ministerio de Defensa ruso aseguró que los ataques militares no están dirigidos contra ciudades ucranianas ni ponen en peligro a la población civil, sino que buscan inutilizar la infraestructura bélica.

Ucrania rompió las relaciones diplomáticas con Rusia, impuso el toque de queda en Kiev y la ley marcial en todo el territorio nacional, decretó la movilización general e instó a la comunidad internacional a activar "todas las sanciones posibles" contra el líder ruso.

Numerosos países condenaron en términos contundentes la operación militar de Rusia en Ucrania. Estados Unidos, Canadá, Japón y los países de la Unión Europea decidieron imponer nuevas sanciones a Rusia por la situación en Ucrania, apuntando no solo contra representantes del Gobierno, sino también sus sectores bancario, energético, aéreo y espacial.

El secretario general de las Naciones Unidas, António Guterres, pidió al presidente Putin "en nombre de la humanidad, retirar las tropas a Rusia" y "no permitir que en Europa comience lo que podría ser la peor guerra desde comienzos de siglo".

Russian bear wants justice

February 25, 2022 

by Batko Milacic for the Saker Blog

https://thesaker.is/russian-bear-wants-justice/

Despite possible sanctions and their hard-hitting economic consequences, the hunted Russian bear has got out of the den and is going after the hunters. Until recently, Russians, Ukrainians, and Europeans believed that there would be no war. What we see now, however, is a full-scale Russian intervention and quite a successful one too. Where are the Russian troops going, and most importantly, why? And where will they stop?

Strengthened since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia was quite content with its new status of a leading regional power, and only verbally recalled its glorious imperial past. During the early 2000s, Russia even mulled the possibility of integrating into NATO and the EU, only to see its natural and legitimate interests repeatedly and shamelessly ignored. Millions of Russian-speakers living in the post-Soviet republics were deprived of their right to use their native language, while the Baltic countries and Ukraine profited from the transit of gas, oil, and raw materials. There was even a new “policy of gas pipelines,” when Russia was pressured into making concessions in exchange for being allowed to build a gas pipeline or simply put a stop to the siphoning off of its pipeline gas.

In fact, a resurgent Russia was gradually being presented as a “potential enemy” for the sake of reiterating NATO’s role as a defender against the imagined Russian threat. All this resulted in the 2013 events in Ukraine where nationalists came to power not without outside help, flatly refusing to safeguard the interests of the country’s Russian-speaking population, primarily in eastern Ukraine. Facing the risk of losing its naval base in Sevastopol (existing there since the 18^th century) and wishing to protect the Russian-speaking people living in Ukraine, Russia, with the full support of the local population, re-absorbed Crimea and supported the separatists of Donbas. This was followed by Kyiv’s ban on the use of the Russian language in the country (not entirely successful, though, since it was the main spoken language of Ukraine) and police persecution of those who advocated a dialogue with Moscow. In its effort to support Ukraine, the West introduced a series of anti-Russian sanctions, which seriously damaged the Russian economy. Still, for the past eight years, Russia was ready for dialogue. In exchange for autonomy for Russian-speakers and guarantees of non-deployment of a NATO infrastructure in eastern Ukraine, Moscow was prepared to roll back its support for the separatists and, possibly, even hold a new referendum in Crimea on its reunification with Russia.

However, during all these eight years, people continued to die along the disengagement line in Donbas, separating Kyiv’s armed forces and the separatists (at the rate of more than 100 a year). Meanwhile, Russia was officially branded by Kyiv as an “aggressor,” and those in power in Ukraine started to busily prepare for a big war, demanding military and financial assistance from the EU and Washington. And while President Zelensky’s predecessor, the millionaire Petro Poroshenko, was still able to maintain a dialogue with Moscow with the help of the oligarchs, the current president, who came to power on the strength of promises to seek peace and reconciliation, was trying hard to enter NATO and was threatening Russia with missiles deployed near Chernigov (750 km from Moscow). As for the Kremlin, it has spent the past six months trying to negotiate with Brussels, Washington, and Zelensky himself. All that Putin was asking for were security guarantees for Russia. In fact, Moscow never really threatened Ukraine but was still being systematically pushed towards a military solution.

It should be noted that prior to the intervention, Putin explained in great detail to his compatriots what was going on, recalling how the borders of the Soviet republics had been cut and how Russian-speaking territories had been handed over to Ukraine. He also made it clear that one cannot talk about a violation of international law after the invasion of Iraq, the bombing of Serbia, the recognition of Kosovo, and NATO’s move to the Russian borders.

Let’s be honest: a bear sleeping peacefully in its den was smoked out of thereby being poked with a stick, and now they are wondering why it is chasing those who did that. Moscow has been pushed into a corner and is now demonstrating its strength and standing up for its interests. Now Putin will at best be satisfied with a change of guard in Kyiv, and at worst, Ukraine as a state will disappear from the map of Europe. Is it possible to justify aggression that has been provoked for a long time? This is a matter of a lengthy discussion. One thing is clear: 20 years ago, Russia could and wanted to join NATO and unite Europe. However, the latter chose to make Russia an enemy…

 Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: An Explainer

Responses to common questions on day one of Putin’s war of choice.

David Klion

February 24, 2022

https://jewishcurrents.org/russias-invasion-of-ukraine-an-explainer

Over the past 24 hours, after months of feverish speculation, Russia launched a full-scale assault on Ukraine. Three days after announcing in a televised speech that Russia would recognize the self-declared republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine—where Moscow-backed separatists have been mired in a geographically contained on-and-off shooting war with the Ukrainian government since 2014—Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday declared a “special military operation,” ostensibly to secure the independence of the two breakaway regions. The tens of thousands of Russian soldiers that entered Ukraine Thursday morning, however, attacked cities in every part of the country. Scenes of horror have ensued: Ukrainian civilians are hiding in basements, sheltering from air raids in metro stations, and attempting to flee to the west on jam-packed roads. Russia’s action constitutes the largest-scale invasion Europe has seen since World War II—or that the world has seen since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.

Events are unfolding with stunning speed. Ukraine has declared martial law and mandatory enlistment, while the Biden administration and governments around the world have condemned Russia and prepared a range of policy responses. Meanwhile, confusion about the war’s origins and implications reigns across the ideological spectrum. For this week’s newsletter (subscribe here), I’ve put together an explainer and attempted to answer some common questions, based on suggestions from my colleagues at Jewish Currents.

Why is Russia invading Ukraine?

Many longtime observers of Russia have expressed shock at the country’s actions: Even though Putin has telegraphed for months his intention to invade on this scale, plenty of experts have found it hard to believe that he would actually do so, given not only the expected human toll in Ukraine but also the massive diplomatic and economic costs that Russia is likely to endure. Ukraine—unlike Russia—is not especially rich in natural resources and posed no imminent threat to Russian security. This war is perhaps better understood as a nationalistic adventure aimed at shoring up Putin’s flagging domestic support: Though it’s not clear that there’s much active demand for war among the Russian public or from most Russian elites, Putin seems to be betting that in the short term, many Russians will rally round the flag. He has successfully used military campaigns to his political advantage before—in eastern Ukraine since 2014, as well as in Chechnya in 1999, Georgia in 2008, and Syria since 2015.

Putin detailed his own motivations at great length on Monday, in a speech that offered Russia’s one-sided view of the past century of regional history. He emphasized that the modern Ukrainian state was actually created by the Bolsheviks in the wake of the Russian Revolution: It was Lenin who recognized Ukraine as a theoretically autonomous republic within the borders of the newly constituted Soviet Union in 1922, and subsequent Soviet leaders who expanded Ukraine’s borders to their present dimensions. What this account ignores is that Ukrainian national identity developed in the 19th century alongside other such identities in Eastern Europe and that the desire for a Ukrainian nation-state was an authentic one that the Bolsheviks felt a legitimate need to address. Putin’s narrative suggests that the Communist Party is to blame for recognizing Ukraine as distinct from Russia in the first place, and for allowing the Soviet Union to disintegrate into its constituent republics in 1991, granting Ukraine independence. While Western commentators have often accused Putin of wanting to recreate the Soviet Union, this interpretation of history actually blames the Soviet Union for Ukrainian independence and stresses a much deeper Russian connection to Ukraine dating back to the tsars. Either way, Putin effectively called the legitimacy of Ukraine as a sovereign nation into question, and in particular asserted the rights of Russian-speaking regions within Ukraine—including not only Donetsk and Luhansk but also Crimea, which Russia unilaterally annexed in 2014—not to be governed from Kyiv. This, of course, ignores that all three regions voted by large margins to join an independent Ukraine in 1991.

In his speech, Putin extensively criticized NATO, the US-led transatlantic alliance formed in 1949 to contain the Soviet Union, which has expanded eastward in the past 30 years to include member states on or near Russia’s borders—most dramatically in 1999 under Bill Clinton (the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland) and in 2004 under George W. Bush (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia). (It’s worth acknowledging that the states in question actively sought NATO membership out of an understandable fear that Russia might eventually attempt to reconquer them.) In 2008, Bush also insisted on opening a long-term path to NATO membership for the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Georgia—a decision now widely viewed as having helped trigger a war between Russia and Georgia later that year. Bush’s decision also laid the groundwork for the current crisis between Russia and Ukraine. In 2013, Ukraine’s Kremlin-aligned (but duly elected) president Viktor Yanukovych rejected an association agreement with the European Union in favor of closer integration with Russia, leading to his ouster the following year in what Ukrainians now call “the Revolution of Dignity.” (Russia maintains that the overthrow was a Western-backed coup.) Putin—who fears encirclement by hostile, US-aligned governments—responded to Ukraine’s effort to forge closer ties with the West by annexing Crimea and backing insurgencies in the eastern Donbas region, beginning the war that he dramatically escalated yesterday.

Putin continues to view Ukraine’s aspiration to join NATO as an unacceptable threat to Russia’s security and regional ambitions; he maintains that Russia should be regarded as a great power with a rightful sphere of influence over neighboring countries. But despite Putin’s attempts to frame the invasion in terms of Western intervention, Russia’s decision to invade is not easily explained by anything the US, other Western governments, or Ukraine itself have done in the past year. Although the US has declined to take the prospect of NATO expansion off the table, it also hasn’t pushed the issue in years. Given this, many analysts believe that something fundamental has changed in Putin’s own mind to cause him to take such reckless steps. As the political scientist Gleb Pavlovsky, a former Putin confidante, told The New York Times today, “He’s become an isolated man, more isolated than Stalin was.”

How serious a problem is the far right in Ukraine?

In his announcement of the invasion yesterday, Putin said Russia’s goal is the “demilitarization” and “denazification” of Ukraine. Russia has asserted since the overthrow of Yanukovych in 2013 that Ukraine’s government is controlled by far-right, neo-Nazi elements. The same claim has been used as a justification for Russia’s actions by elements of both the left and the right in Western countries.

As with most propaganda, there is an element of truth to this claim, but it has been greatly exaggerated. Far-right parties do exist in Ukraine, as they do in many European countries, but their electoral results have been unimpressive in Ukraine’s multiparty democratic system. Ukraine’s president since 2019, Volodymyr Zelensky, is Jewish, as was its prime minister from 2016 to 2019, Volodymyr Groysman. Ukraine is home to well over 100,000 Jews, and while antisemitism is a live problem in Ukraine—as it is in Russia and many other countries—Ukrainian Jews are integrated into the body politic and do not welcome a Russian invasion of their country. This week, Pavel Kozlenko, the director of the Museum of the Holocaust in the heavily Jewish port of Odessa, told a reporter from The New York Times a joke that conveyed his view as a primarily Russian-speaking Ukrainian. It began with two Jews standing on the street speaking in Yiddish. “A third comes up and says, ‘Guys, why are you speaking in Yiddish?’” he said, “to which one of the Yiddish-speaking men replied, ‘You know, I’m scared to speak in Russian because if I do Putin will show up and try to liberate us.’”

Much of the focus on Ukraine’s far-right has centered on the Azov Battalion, an extremist militia in eastern Ukraine that openly embraces Nazi symbols and that has been involved in the fight against Russian-backed separatists. Left-wing publications like Jacobin have sounded the alarm about Western financial and military support going to Azov and similar groups. This is a valid concern, but it is unfair to the vast majority of Ukrainians to cast the Azov Battalion as representative of their country’s political leanings or to use the existence of a far-right group to excuse Russia’s attack on Ukrainian sovereignty.

Why have some parts of both the left and the right in the US been slow to condemn Russia?

While the mainstream US political establishment—including the Biden administration, leading members of both parties, and the Washington foreign policy community—has long been critical of Putin’s Russia, including of its military buildup against Ukraine, some voices on both the left and the right have made statements holding the US primarily responsible for the crisis.

Much of the left is understandably averse to war and accurately understands the US as the leading purveyor of violence internationally since World War II. This perspective is exemplified by a statement released late last month by the Democratic Socialists of America’s International Committee, which accused the US of “ongoing militarization in the region” and condemned “a sensationalist Western media blitz drumming up conflict in the Donbas”—descriptions that read awkwardly then, when Russia was massing troops on Ukraine’s border, and seem even less apt today. What this kind of left-wing analysis of the Ukraine crisis misses is that there are other aggressive, imperialist actors in the world besides the US. In reality, Washington has done little if anything to trigger the immediate crisis, and there is no evidence that the Biden administration desired war. At every stage in the leadup, Biden pursued diplomacy, offered off-ramps, demonstrated negligible enthusiasm for further NATO expansion, and made clear that US troops would not be deployed to Ukraine (a promise he reiterated in a speech responding to the invasion earlier today). Ultimately, it is Russia that decided to mobilize for war and Russia that decided to launch an invasion of a sovereign country, and a robust anti-imperialist left could recognize that as a form of imperialism in its own right. As Social Movement, a left-wing party in Ukraine, put it in a statement last October, “the decline of American imperialism has been accompanied not by the emergence of more democratic world order, but by the rise of other imperialist predators, fundamentalist, and nationalist movements. Under these circumstances, the international left, accustomed to fighting only against Western imperialism, should reconsider its strategy.”

On the right, leading voices like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, and Donald Trump himself have been more likely to offer actual defenses of Putin and Russia. In their view, Putin is a strong leader asserting Russia’s legitimate sphere of influence against a weak, corrupt, and feckless Biden administration. To a certain extent, this stance is tied up in the scandals of the Trump years—including Trump’s exhaustively documented admiration for Putin, as well as his attempt to condition US support to Ukraine on Kyiv’s agreement to investigate the Biden family’s dealings there (a move that ultimately triggered Trump’s impeachment). But there’s also a deeper ideological affinity between the Western far-right and Putin’s Russia, one that emphasizes Russia’s Christianness and whiteness, its hostility to LGBTQ minorities, and its potential role as a bulwark against China, which many on the right view as 21st century America’s true geopolitical rival.

Is this war contained within Ukraine, or is it the beginning of World War III?

As of this writing, the actual violence is limited to Ukraine itself but is far more extensive in geographic scope than many observers predicted or hoped, with Russian incursions reported in practically every part of the vast country, including western cities close to countries like Poland and Romania. Russian troops are also invading Ukraine from bases in Belarus, a former Soviet republic and close Russian ally.

Though Western countries including the US have promised a swift and devastating response to Russia’s invasion, there is little appetite even among longtime Russia hawks for any direct military engagement. Still, the possibility of such engagement is real; while Ukraine is not part of NATO, multiple countries in the immediate vicinity are, meaning that the US is obligated by treaty to defend them against foreign threats. US troops are already present in many of these countries—and more will likely be deployed soon. Since the invasion, multiple Eastern European NATO allies have invoked Article IV of the NATO charter, indicating an immediate concern that Russia’s war could spill into NATO member countries—which, if it happened, could theoretically trigger a much larger war drawing in Western Europe and the US. It’s no doubt in anticipation of this that Putin, in his speech last night, threatened that any countries that intervened in Ukraine would trigger “consequences greater than any you have faced in history”—a reminder that Russia possesses a large nuclear arsenal.

The economic fallout for the West could also be severe given Russia’s vast energy resources, which supply a large share of the power in Western Europe. A rise in global gas prices would pose a major political problem for Biden ahead of November’s midterms—which explains why he tried to assure the public in his remarks today that such a surge could be avoided. The impact could be even more severe in countries like Germany that have closer economic ties to Russia. There’s also a wider geopolitical risk that Russia could end up embracing closer financial and military ties with its historical rival China as it becomes more isolated from the West—a prospect that many in Washington find concerning. The tough multilateral sanctions Biden announced today will also impact Russia’s political system—and its citizens, both ordinary and elite—in ways forecasters can’t yet predict.

How are progressive lawmakers responding to the invasion?

Progressive lawmakers like Bernie Sanders and members of “the Squad” have already begun to weigh in on the US response. So far, these legislators have struck a balance in their public statements between calling for accountability for Russia and urging against further military escalation (for instance, in the form of directly arming Ukrainians). The cornerstone of the Western response is likely to consist of sanctions; the Biden administration has pledged to target the so-called “oligarchs” in Putin’s inner circle and the assets they have stored in Western financial institutions and real estate, policies that lawmakers like Sanders have recommended for several years now. Some foreign policy wonks are additionally suggesting broad-based sanctions that could block the ability of ordinary Russians to engage in basic financial transactions, but such policies have a history of causing mass misery in countries like Iran and Venezuela without succeeding in toppling the governments in question. In a statement released today, Rep. llhan Omar expressed support for sanctions “that are targeted at Putin, his oligarchs, and the Russian military, including and especially targeted at their offshore assets.” But, she added, she will “continue to oppose broad-based sanctions that would amount to collective punishment of a Russian population that did not choose this.”

Even absent such sanctions, Russians are already likely to experience economic pain: the ruble and the country’s stock market plummeted overnight, and protests against the war have already begun in multiple Russian cities, where police have moved quickly to arrest demonstrators. Ultimately, it is ordinary Russians and Ukrainians who will take the lead to end this catastrophe, but progressives around the world can play a role in supporting them. Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna is among the many members of Congress calling for mobilization to support the refugees this war is already producing, who will likely number in the millions (organizations like HIAS are partnering with Jewish community organizations and with neighboring countries like Poland and Moldova to assist Ukrainians displaced by the war). It’s worth noting that previously, the Biden administration’s own approach toward refugees has been slammed by progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for continuing the xenophobic policies of the Trump administration and that as she and other lawmakers call for aid to Ukrainian refugees now, there is also an opportunity for grassroots efforts to push Biden to reconsider immigration caps imposed on other countries.

 País de miedo

Pascal Beltrán del Río

https://www.excelsior.com.mx/opinion/pascal-beltran-del-rio/pais-de-miedo/1499685

Claudia Sheinbaum se ha convertido en el eco de la voz del presidente Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Cosa que dice él no tarda ella en repetirla, casi ad lítteram. Tan lo sabe, que antes de hacerlo, se cura en salud: “Otra vez me van a decir regenta, pero…”.

Con ello, se vuelve, como dice la expresión popular, más papista que el Papa.

El jueves pasado, la jefa de Gobierno respaldó el dicho presidencial de que el Inai debe investigar los bienes e ingresos de periodistas. Luego se fue de un hilo diciendo que hay una “campaña negra” en contra suya y del Presidente, cuyo financiamiento, exigió, debe ser revelado. Y terminó por preguntar si los mexicanos queríamos vivir en un país de miedo o de esperanza.

¿Que que, qué?

Tal vez a Sheinbaum se le olvide o le interese que no se diga, pero ya vivimos en un país de miedo.

¿O en qué otro país que se dice democrático y respetuoso del Estado de derecho entra una caravana de 20 vehículos con delincuentes fuertemente armados en una ciudad de 60 mil habitantes, aterrorizando a la población, ametrallando fachadas de casas, penetrando en algunas de ellas para matar y secuestrar?

Eso pasó la noche del martes y madrugada del miércoles en Caborca, Sonora, el estado gobernado por quien fue, durante casi dos años, secretario de Seguridad y Protección Ciudadana del gobierno federal. ¿A qué ciudadano se le dio allí protección durante esas seis horas de terror? ¿Qué autoridad federal o local acudió a tiempo, cuando se requería, para ayudar a los caborquenses?

Quienes hablan de un país de esperanza quizá no registren que salir a divertirse por la noche es una actividad de alto riesgo en México.

Ahí está el caso de los cinco jóvenes zacatecanos que fueron secuestrados al salir de un bar la noche del sábado 12 de febrero en la capital estatal. A cuatro de ellos los hallaron muertos al día siguiente. Sus cadáveres, envueltos en bolsas negras, aparecieron en una camioneta abandonada sobre una carretera estatal, en el municipio de Genaro Codina. Luego de una intensa búsqueda, el cuerpo de la quinta víctima apareció el viernes pasado, junto con el de un hombre de identidad desconocida, en una casa ubicada en el municipio de Guadalupe.

Miedo, el que se siente al usar el transporte público en muchas zonas urbanas del país, donde se han vuelto frecuentes los asaltos a choferes y pasajeros, quienes corren el riesgo de recibir un balazo en caso de resistirse a entregar sus pertenencias. Miedo, también, por viajar por carretera, pues los robos al transporte de carga e, incluso, al de pasajeros van al alza.

La semana pasada, un autobús de la compañía ADO que iba hacia Veracruz, fue obligado a detenerse sobre la autopista Puebla-Orizaba, que se ha vuelto una de las más peligrosas del país, para luego ser abordado por hombres armados, quienes despojaron a los pasajeros de sus pertenencias. Y, apenas la madrugada de ayer, otro autobús de la misma línea, que iba de Tierra Blanca a Oaxaca, debió pararse al toparse con un tronco atravesado en el camino. Además de robar a los viajeros, los delincuentes violaron a varias mujeres.

Miedo, que un supuesto grupo de autodefensa haya secuestrado a 21 personas de Pantelhó, Chiapas, hace casi siete meses, y que el líder de la organización rete a los integrantes de la Comisión Nacional de Búsqueda, que hace poco llegaron al municipio, a que escudriñen “hasta debajo de las piedras”.

Miedo, que criminales quemen negocios que se resistan a ser extorsionados, como ocurrió, nuevamente, la noche del viernes en Acapulco.

En el país que lleva más de 112 mil homicidios dolosos en 38 meses –entre ellos, los de 28 periodistas– y, hasta julio pasado, 21 mil desapariciones de personas en lo que va del sexenio, amenazar con que corremos el riesgo de vivir con miedo es una bofetada. ¿O de qué esperanza nos están hablando?