A NEW DAWN IN EASTERN EUROPE

9 November 2024

A NEW DAWN IN EASTERN EUROPE - RUSSIA'S PATH TO LASTING PEACE AND PROSPERITY 

 In a remarkable turn of events, the landscape of Eastern Europe is poised for a transformative era. Progressive advance by Russian troops all along the 800 kms of front line suggest that the military defeat and surrender of Ukraine cannot be more than weeks away. Russia must therefore surely be planning an ambitious regional redevelopment to rebuild, rejuvenate and repopulate the Donbass, devastated by conflict. This would offer a beacon of hope for lasting peace. Such a scheme hinges on several pivotal factors: 

- Russia reponsible for Town Planning, providing realistic and inclusive Regional Concept and Design proposals, 

- the wholehearted participation of the local populace in the Build and Operation, and 

- an acceptance by the West that it has no role in the country east of, say, the Dnieper river. 

Could this herald a new chapter of stability and prosperity in Eastern Europe?

Rebuilding from the Ashes: Russia's Ambitious Vision 

Russia will unveil a comprehensive plan to reconstruct war-torn areas, focusing on revitalising infrastructure, boosting the economy, and improving the quality of life for its citizens. This is not only about bricks and mortar; it's about restoring hope and fostering a sense of community. The Russian government is prioritising local involvement in these projects, ensuring that the voices of the people are heard and their needs met. By engaging local talent and resources, Russia could expect to create buyin - job opportunities, stimulate economic growth, and nurture a sense of ownership among the inhabitants. 

This approach is reminiscent of the mythical phoenix rising from the ashes—a powerful symbol of renewal and rebirth. Investment will pour into sectors such as education, healthcare, and technology. New schools and hospitals will be built, and there'll be a concerted effort to modernise infrastructure with state-of-the-art facilities. 

The goal is clear: to create a vibrant, self-sustaining economy that can stand tall on the Eurasian stage. 

The Heart of the People: A Collective Choice for the Future 

Perhaps the most significant factor in this unfolding narrative is the sentiment of the people themselves. There is, I believe, a palpable sense of optimism and a collective desire to embrace the future that is possible as part of Russia. 

Communities are coming together, united by a shared vision of prosperity and stability. Surveys and local reports indicate this - a majority of the population in these regions prefer to align with Russia and the promise of tangible improvements to their daily lives. The cultural and historical ties that bind these Russian-speakers to the motherland play a role, but it's the prospect of a better future that truly resonates. The youth, in particular, are enthusiastic about the opportunities ahead. With new educational institutions and technological hubs being established, they see a pathway to personal and professional growth without the need to venture abroad. 

This generational shift could be the cornerstone of lasting peace, as young people invest their energies into building their homeland. 

A Changing Perception: The West's Waning Influence 

At the same time, there's a noticeable shift in how the local populace perceives the West. The allure of European integration appears to be fading amid concerns about economic instability and political fragmentation within the European Union. Reports of financial crises, social unrest, bureaucratic challenges, top-down democracy, the influence of American elite, have all combined to dampen the enthusiasm that once existed for joining The West.. 

The narrative that Europe is facing a period of decline is gaining traction. As people compare the immediate and practical benefits offered by Russia with the uncertain promises from the West, the change in American narrative from "do what it takes" to "do what we can", and now the arrival of Trump, many are concluding that their interests are better served by looking eastward. 

Moreover, the protracted debates and hesitations surrounding NATO and EU memberships have left some feeling disillusioned. The drawn-out processes and stringent requirements contrast sharply with Russia's immediate and action-oriented approach to rebuilding and development. 

The Promise of Lasting Peace 

With these three factors converging—the proactive efforts of Russia to rebuild, the genuine support of the people, and the diminishing appeal of Western alternatives—the stage is set for a durable peace in the region. 

This scenario reduces the likelihood of future conflicts, as the root causes of tension are addressed through development and mutual cooperation. 

Russia's strategy will refocus away from military dominance to winning hearts and minds through tangible improvements in people's lives. By fostering economic growth and social well-being, Russia will be able to build a foundation that could prevent the resurgence of hostilities. 

Implications for NATO and Global Dynamics 

This development also has significant implications for NATO and the broader geopolitical landscape. With the local population firmly aligned with Russia and less receptive to Western influence, the rationale for NATO's eastward expansion becomes less compelling. 

A peaceful and prosperous region reduces the need for military posturing and could lead to a de-escalation of tensions between Russia and the West and possibly a comprehensive security agreement from central Asia to central Europe. 

The door is open for dialogue and potential collaboration on global challenges such as precisely security, trade agreements, and environmental issues. 

A Model for Conflict Resolution? 

Russia's approach could serve as a model for resolving other protracted conflicts around the world. By focusing on reconstruction, inclusive development,  respecting the will of the people and competition in the domain of commerce rather than military, lasting solutions become attainable. 

It's a reminder that military might is not the onl, or even the most effectiv, tool in securing peace. Economic opportunity, social cohesion, and genuine engagement with local communities can be far more powerful in creating stable and prosperous societies. 

Looking Ahead: Cautious Optimism 

While challenges undoubtedly remain, there's a sense of cautious optimism about what the future holds. The success of this ambitious endeavor depends on sustained commitment, transparency, and the continued inclusion of the populace in decision-making processes. International observers will be watching closely to see how this situation unfolds. 

If Russia can deliver on its promises and foster a thriving region, it could reshape perceptions and relationships on the global stage. 

Conclusion 

 The potential for a new era of peace and prosperity in Eastern Europe is on the horizon. Russia's realistic and people-centric plans, combined with the local population's support and a changing view of the West, could break conflict that has long plagued the region, going back to the first Crimean war and British fears, as a maritime power, of Russia's interference, as a landpower, in the route to India and exploitation of that immense country. 

As the phoenix rises, so too does the hope that lasting peace is not just a dream but an achievable reality. This development challenges the conventional wisdom of Western elites and offers a perspective on how nations can move beyond conflict towards a safer cooperative future based in commerce. 

In the words of a resident of Donbass, "We are ready to build our future with our own hands, and we believe that together with Russia, we can create something truly remarkable." 

It's a sentiment that captures the spirit of this transformative moment—a collective aspiration for peace, prosperity, and a shared destiny.

Read More

WHY DOES THE UK LUST FOR WAR

22 September 2024

https://www.youtube.com/live/R66eeINWWlg?si=pcLfp04CnXic5M6i

 Why russophobia?

Why no brakes on the escalation given the risks?

What would it take to defeat Russia militarily?

Is this another Russian bluff?

Does direct US involvement risk nuclear war?

Who would win if Russia went toe-to-toe with NATO?

Is this the end game and why is it the most difficult part to conclude?

Read More

PROPAGANDA FIT FOR THE EDINBURGH FRINGE

15 September 2024

Some interesting points on developments in this war....or if you prefer, the propaganda that would go down better at the Edinburgh Fringe:

Well, firstly to restate : it is not a war in the sense of one people against another, it is an operation to prevent Ukraine joining NATO on grounds of national security, provoked by the continuing attacks on Russian people in the Donbas. And this means squashing the Ukrainian army and replacing the regime in Kiev ( which came to power as a result of a coup in 2014 and whose mandate under the Constitution of Ukraine ran out both president and Parliament earlier this year ) - so not a war against the Ukrainian people, just their leadership and now increasingly obvious that it is a war Russia against NATO.

Back onto some more specific points ...

I notice that Europe is saying it needs permission from America to send these long range missiles (up to 300 kilometers) into Russian territory because the missiles contain component parts made in America, but we know that this is not the reason at all. The reason is that America is controlling the strategy and providing the data from its satellites, and that specialist operators from Britain and France are needed to launch the missiles. So attention The Propaganda - this is not about use of proprietary components or getting software codes, this is about coordinating the direction of the war.

Plus, we should not lose sight of the American purpose which is to weaken Russia through escalation and eventually the Federation should explode into ethnic pieces, much like the Soviet Union collapsed. This is why there are gradual crossings of apparent American red lines. First it was tanks, then it was etc etc now it is F-16s and soon these long range missiles. The missiles available are too few to make any difference to the course of the war and is it worth the West risking its very existence (Putin has said striking the Russian Homeland would be an act of War) for this? The American strategy is escalation to weaken and eventually collapse Russia and I would add then to pillage its resources. Just talking...

Next point. European leaders are asking why they cannot attack Russian territory and why Poland cannot destroy incoming Russian missiles near its border, but without admitting that such behaviour would be to bring NATO and America into direct confrontation with Russia and thus (undeclared) war with a nuclear armed super power (though Putin said this week that this an act of war). Attention this kind of thinking which seems emotional, irrational and delusional ... does Europe really want to be at war with Russia? The UK too is not that far away and should be more cautious in its attempt to extinguish its neighbour.

Zielinsky is asking why it is that America can and Israel can launch missiles into Lebanon and conduct operations in Syria and assassinate leaders in Iran, while it, Ukraine, cannot; without acknowledging that Russia is a military superpower, armed with nuclear weapons; whilst of course the only nuclear power in the middle east is Israel. Again this is not strategic thinking, not taking account of realities, this is just emotional wishful thinking. Also, we need to recognise that even if nuclear is taken off the table, America and NATO still cannot defeat Russia, particularly as Russia is now supported by China (America is now accusing China not just of supplying components but of supplying entire lethal weapons to Russia, it seems).

The people asking these questions - journalists and European leaders - when I watch and listen to them, seem to be increasingly agitated. I get the impression that when they want to counter attack from Poland and want to invade Russia, it is because they feel that Ukraine is a slick of territory that is evaporating under Russian fire and they feel cornered, like wild animals trapped in a forest fire ... refusing to acknowledge that it was they who started the Fire!

 (Recap : U.S. Secretary of State James Baker's famous "not one inch east-ward" assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9 1990, declaration by President Clinton in 1994 that NATO would expand into the buffer zone left by the Soviet collapse, the declaration at the NATO summit in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would join NATO, the Maidan coup of 2014, the Minsk agreements of 2014 & 15 that were not implemented, the Rand strategy document RAND_RR3063.pdf of 2019, Putin's warning and peace proposal of 21 December 2021, the SMO of 24 February 2022 and Russia's immediate retreat from Kiev for negotiations which were initialed between the parties, but cancelled by Boris Johnson in April 2022.)

So if China is really now in the direct supply of finished equipment, it will suffer further sanctions beyond those of the commercial war between America and Russia. We can see that this is now taking the shape of a world war, though there is no direct military confrontation as yet and war has not been officially declared.

The Kursk incursion or invasion is described as a "bold initiative" which has "put heart into the Ukrainian army", but at some point The Propaganda will die down and it will be recognised that just as with Napoleon's and Hitler's armies (the two invasions we remember, out of 52), this incursion will be repelled. The Russians have killed thousands of Ukraine's best troops, troops Ukraine transferred off the important frontline in Donbas, speeding up its collapse, and it is a sorry and ragged crew that limps back over the border. Zelinsky is now making out that the purpose was so that Russia and its people should "feel the war" (a very Slavic instinct, I am told), but we know that it has only reinforced Russian feelings against Kiev and illustrated the reality of Ukraine's weakness. 

Perhaps the most daring (and amusing) of the propaganda stories is how certain defend the universal corruption for which Ukraine is famous, as being an inheritance from the days of Russian control when corruption - the line goes - "was a form of civil disobedience"... you've got to laugh! 

Another amusing recasting of reality is to claim that Zielinsky has created an effective war economy, never mind that it only survives thanks to monetary transfusion from the West.

And another recast (spin) is the explanation for the difference between the poor Ukrainians who are sent to the front line and the cafe-society that flourishes amongst the rich in Kiev. We are told that everyone plays their part - the poor die on the front line, while the rich knit bonnets and send food parcels ... you've really got to laugh at that one, if it wasn't so sad!! The flower of Ukraine's youth has been chopped down by at least half a million dead and wounded and many millions have left irrevocably this, the poorest of European countries.

As to the F-16s, the explanation for why they don't fly is not for fear of being shot down, no no, it is that they fly but they must keep hidden from the Russia Force, so no one sees them and especially they are never seen taking off or landing.

And Ukraine will build one million drones this year in the new factories on its territory.

Anyway, I could go on, but I'd be surprised if you have read this far ... just to say that the propaganda would go down better at the Edinburgh Fringe.

Read More

BRIEF HISTORY OF THE WAR IN UKRAINE

1 September 2024

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE WAR IN UKRAINE

1. The End of the Cold War, Initial Cooperation, The Birth of NATO Epansion (1989-1999)

- End of the Cold War: The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the end of the Cold War. This period was characterised by a brief optimism for a new era of cooperation between Russia and the West, with hopes for Russia’s integration into the global economy and security framework.

- Initial Cooperation: During the 1990s, under President Boris Yeltsin, Russia sought closer ties with the West, focusing on economic reforms and integration into global markets. The West, in turn, provided financial aid and assistance to support Russia’s transition to a market economy. Cooperation on nuclear disarmament and arms control was also significant during this time.

- NATO Expansion: However, tensions began to surface as NATO expanded eastward, incorporating former Warsaw Pact countries and even some former Soviet republics. The first idea was generated by President Clinton in 1994 and officialised in a document written by Brzezinski in 1997 for NATO expansion explicitly including Ukraine. 

Russia viewed this as a threat to its security and a violation of verbal assurances from Western leaders (notably James Baker, Secretary of State under President George H.W. Bush), "not one inch East") ie that NATO would not move eastward. This issue laid the groundwork for growing distrust between Russia and the West.

2. Growing Tensions and Russian Resurgence (2000-2014)

- Putin's Rise and Assertiveness: Vladimir Putin’s rise to power in 1999 marked a significant shift in Russian foreign policy. Putin sought to "make Russia great again", in today's parlance, ie restore order and pride after the chaos of the 1990s, to reassert Russia’s influence globally and to reverse the perceived decline of the 1990s. Under his leadership, Russia became increasingly critical of NATO’s expansion and the West’s influence in Russia’s neighbouring states.

- 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit: At the Bucharest Summit, U.S. President George W. Bush discussed the aspirations of Ukraine and Georgia to join the alliance. NATO did not extend a formal Membership Action Plan (MAP), but the summit's final declaration included a significant statement: "We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO." Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, observed that Russia would see this as a declaration of war.

Georgia War and the Rose Revolution: In 2008, Russia intervened militarily in Georgia to support the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia after Georgia attempted to reclaim these territories. The CIA and other government agencies had historically provided significant support to Georgia, especially after the Rose Revolution in 2003, which brought the pro-Western Mikheil Saakashvili to power. This support included military aid, training for Georgian forces, and intelligence-sharing, aimed at strengthening Georgia's defense forces and assisting its integration with Western institutions such as NATO. The West condemned Russia’s actions but took no direct military action.

- Ukraine and the Orange Revolution: Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, which brought a pro-Western government to power, was another significant point of contention. Russia viewed Ukraine as a key part of its sphere of influence, part of its "near abroad", and was deeply opposed to its potential integration into NATO and the European Union.

3. The 2014 Crisis, the Minsk Accords, and Escalation (2014-2021)

- 2014 Ukrainian Revolution: In 2014, Ukraine experienced a significant political upheaval when President Viktor Yanukovych, who was pro-Russian, was ousted following mass protests. The West supported this revolution, Victoria Nuland was present on the ground and is recorded in conversation 10 days before Maidan discussing who she would like to see as the new President. Maidan was triggered by Yanukovych’s decision to reject an EU association agreement in favour of closer ties with Russia. Russia, however, identified this as a Western-backed coup that installed a government in Kyiv hostile to Russian interests.

- Annexation of Crimea: In response, Russia swiftly annexed Crimea, citing the protection of ethnic Russians and strategic interests, particularly the naval base in Sevastopol. This move was condemned by the West and led to the imposition of economic sanctions on Russia.

- War in Donbas and the Minsk Accords: Following the annexation of Crimea, pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region declared independence, leading to a conflict with the Ukrainian government. The Minsk Accords of 2014 and 2015 were negotiated to end the fighting and establish a framework for peace, including a ceasefire and political reforms in Ukraine, such as greater autonomy for the Donbas. However, this accord was not fully implemented, Angela Merkel has recently stated on the record that there was never any intention to implement Minsk and it was merely it was merely there to provide time for the West to arm Ukraine. 

- Continued Tensions: Under the new President, laws were passed to outlaw the Russian language, Kiev began shelling the Donbas and Ukraine was able to build its first army.

So despite the Minsk Accords, fighting in the Donbas persisted, with over 14,000 deaths primarily among civilians. Russia continued to support the separatists, while the West imposed further sanctions on Russia and provided limited military aid to Ukraine. 

These sanctions, however, had unintended consequences: while they were intended to weaken the Russian economy, they instead led to economic resilience in Russia, which adapted by strengthening domestic industries and forging new trade partnerships, especially with China and other non-Western countries. Meanwhile, Europe, particularly Germany, faced economic challenges, including energy shortages and rising costs, due to its reliance on Russian energy.

4. The 2022 Incursion into Ukraine

On 21 December 2021, President Putin published a framework for resolving the dispute and invited the West to negotiate the west did not respond.

- Objectives of the Russian Incursion: On 24 February 2022, Russia launched a Special Military Operation into Ukraine, citing three primary objectives:

  1. Protection of Russian Speakers in Donbas: Russia claimed it was acting to protect the Russian-speaking population in the Donbas, who, according to Moscow, had endured eight years of shelling by Ukrainian forces, resulting in 14,000 deaths. Russia portrayed this as a humanitarian intervention.

  2. Insistence on Ukrainian Neutrality: Russia demanded that Ukraine remain a neutral state, explicitly rejecting its potential membership in NATO. Moscow viewed Ukraine’s possible alignment with NATO as an existential threat, given the proximity of Western military forces to Russian borders.

  3. Removal of the Kyiv Government: Russia sought to remove what it called a “fascist” government in Kyiv, which it argued had been installed by a Western-backed coup in 2014. According to Russia, this government posed a direct threat to Russian security and the ethnic Russian population in Ukraine.

It is called by Russia a "Special Military Operation" because it is not a war against the people of Ukraine who Russia considers to be its brothers and sisters but against the regime in Kiev and its arned forces.

- Istanbul Near-Accord (April 2022): Early in the incursion, peace talks between Russia and Ukraine were held in Istanbul. These negotiations nearly resulted in an agreement, with Ukraine reportedly willing to commit to neutrality in exchange for security guarantees. However, the talks ultimately broke down, with both sides accusing each other of bad faith. The breakdown of these negotiations led to the continuation and intensification of the conflict.

5. Conclusion

- Long-standing Grievances and Strategic Interests: Russia’s 2022 incursion into Ukraine is the culmination of years of deteriorating relations with the West, driven by grievances over NATO expansion, the perceived betrayal of post-Cold War agreements, and the West’s support for political movements in former Soviet states like Ukraine. The failure of the Minsk Accords and the breakdown of the Istanbul talks further deepened the conflict.

- Geopolitical Objectives: Russia’s actions are rooted in a desire to protect its strategic interests, ensure Ukraine’s neutrality, and reassert its influence in the post-Soviet space. The incursion reflects Russia’s broader challenge to the post-Cold War security order in Europe, which it views as dominated by the West and detrimental to its security.

- Sanctions and Economic Impact: The Western sanctions imposed on Russia after the annexation of Crimea and during the 2022 incursion were intended to cripple Russia’s economy. However, these sanctions backfired to some extent. Russia strengthened its economy by boosting domestic production and forming new trade partnerships. Conversely, Europe, particularly Germany, faced significant economic challenges due to its dependence on Russian energy, leading to rising energy costs and economic strain.

- Ongoing Conflict: The conflict in Ukraine remains unresolved, with significant implications for global security, the balance of power in Europe, and the future of international relations. The incursion has deepened the divide between Russia and the West, making any near-term reconciliation highly unlikely.

September 2024: fortunately Russia is winning on the battlefield otherwise we would be heading for nuclear exchange and World War 3.

Read More

PUTIN IS COMING FOR US

28 August 2024

"Make no mistake, Putin is coming for us. We must be prepared for the inevitable."

This article busts the myth that Putin is coming to get us. 

And in future myth-busters, we will undo the idea that Putin is in some way a dictator, that Russia is on the brink of economic collapse due to sanctions and internal mismanagement, that the Russian military is incompetent, poorly equipped and managed and its soldiers are ill-trained and cowardly, and that Russia is isolated on the global stage due to Western sanctions and its actions in Ukraine.

Everyone knows of these myths, some don't believe them at all, but what's interesting is the reasons, often little known, as to why they are untrue.

Russian troops picnicing in Westminster

- Is Russia intending to invade Europe?

The classic Western mainstream narrative is that Putin has imperial plans, although there is no evidence on the public record of this.

How could Russia conquer these vast additional territories - often in the subsidised media it is argued that Putin has ambitions stretching as far as London !

How could Russia realistically subdue hundreds of millions  of foreigners, in hostile populations? How could Putin break their governments and destroy their militaries - he's having trouble enough in just the east of Ukraine.

- What a ridiculous idea!

This is completely ridiculous and stretches  credulity much further than the WMD scare.

- However, what might happen ...

Consider the devastating impact of recent Russian airstrikes on Ukraine, which have targeted air defenses and critical infrastructure, leading to a significant degradation of living conditions.

As a result, many Ukrainians, particularly those with the means, have been fleeing the country, and the situation may become untenable this winter, prompting further mass migration to Europe of the remainder.

- Consequences of trying to shoehorn Ukraine into NATO

a) A large portion of Ukraine's western slavic population flees to Europe, where they are warmly received, especially by UK governments

b) Putin is in effect "cleansing" Ukraine of opposition through these severe measures

c) Ukraine will never join NATO, which was the cause of the conflict

d) Putin will stop at Ukraine's western border, given the hostile populations beyond

e) This will mark the end of this phase of the conflict.

- Conclusion

Russian troops visiting the Tower of London

We won't be seeing Russian troops marching down the streets of London any time soon, but we can expect and should prepare for, tens of millions of ordinary Ukrainian migrants this winter.

Ukrainian refugees camping near the London Eye

Read More