Natylie Baldwin's Blog, page 142
May 19, 2023
FAIR: Ukraine’s ‘Press Freedom’ Score Increases Despite Martial Law, Banned Media
Photo by Nati on Pexels.comBy Bryce Greene, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), 5/9/23
France-based press watchdog Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontières, or RSF) recently released its scores and rankings for international press freedom. In 2022, RSF gave Ukraine a score of 55.76 out of 100, placing it 106th out of 180 countries surveyed. In the most recent report, issued after over a year of war, Ukraine shot to 79th out of 180, with a new score of 61.19. This despite wartime measures that banned opposition parties, consolidated media under state control, and saw journalists’ speech chilled by unprecedented intimidation.
Wartime measures in any country often result in a loss of press freedom. To say that such restrictions are typical, however, does not mean that they are therefore not really happening. For RSF to change the standards it applies to Ukraine, as it apparently has, because the country has been invaded is to endorse the idea that freedom of the press ought to be limited in times of danger—an odd position, to say the least, for a group dedicated to protecting the rights of journalists to take.
Deteriorating democracy
By ordinary standards, the position of the press in Ukraine has not improved in the past year, but dramatically worsened. In an exhaustive article, Branko Marcetic (Jacobin, 2/25/23) thoroughly outlined how democratic institutions have deteriorated in Ukraine as a result of the war. Ivan Katchanovski, a Ukrainian political scientist at the University of Ottawa, told Marcetic:
“[President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy used the Russian invasion and the war as a pretext to eliminate most of the political opposition and potential rivals for power, and to consolidate his largely undemocratic rule.”
This continues a trend since before the war. In 2021, Zelenskyy had banned the most popular news website in the country, then banned media outlets affiliated with one of the most popular parties in the country. In a case that elicited international condemnation, Vasyl Muravitsky was forced to flee to Finland after being accused of “treason” and allegedly disseminating “anti-Ukrainian” materials. His prosecution began before the war, but has continued in absentia during the invasion.
The trial is happening against a backdrop of wider political repression. Among other wartime measures, Zelenskyy suspended, then banned, 11 opposition parties due to their alleged links with Russia. One of these parties had even held 10% of the seats in the Ukrainian parliament before the move. Journalists and anyone else with a political opinion are well aware of the consequences of speaking out, and the pressures have only intensified.
One Ukrainian scholar told Marcetic:
“All Ukrainian journalists and bloggers who did not want to promote Zelenskyy’s version of “truth” had to either shut up (voluntarily or under duress) or, if possible, emigrate.”
Consolidated TV
International Federation of Journalists president Dominique Pradalié Media (1/17/23): “Freedom and pluralism are in danger in Ukraine under the new media law.”
In July, Zelenskyy consolidated television organizations into a single, government-controlled channel. In a widely criticized move, Zelenskyy signed a law that expanded the ability of the state regulator, controlled by Zelenskyy and his party, to issue fines, revoke licenses and prevent publication for media organizations.
The top Ukrainian journalists’ unions opposed the law. The head of one union warned that
“government officials will declare those who disagree with their vision to be enemies of the country or foreign agents. This perspective of state and political regulation of the media is in total contradiction with the desire of Ukrainian civil society for European integration.”
The International Federation of Journalists called on the European Commission and Council of Europe to review the measure. The Committee to Protect Journalists repeatedly called on the Ukrainian government to drop the bill, warning that it “imperils press freedom in the country by tightening government control over information.”
Unlike other international journalism-centered NGOs, Reporters Without Borders offered praise for the bill. In a blog post titled “RSF Hails Ukraine’s Adoption of New Media Law, Despite War with Russia” (1/11/23), it wrote that the law was “generally welcomed by Ukrainian journalists.” This praise was based on minor provisions that were required for Ukrainian admission to the European Union, as it “harmonize[d] Ukrainian legislation with European law.”
This was acknowledged as a positive move by the National Union of Journalists of Ukraine (NUJU), one of the unions opposed to the bill. But as NUJU made clear, journalists objected to the enormous control given to the state media regulators, not these less important provisions.
RSF acknowledged these measures, but euphemistically described them as “co-regulatory mechanisms that facilitate a dialogue between the media regulator and the media”; it wrote that the provisions “expand[ed] the media regulator’s powers,” but offered only muted criticism, suggesting that “to guarantee the regulator’s full independence…the process for its appointing members needs to be changed.” While it noted that this could be done by “amend[ing] the constitution,” it tellingly acknowledged that these changes were “impossible as long as martial law…is still in effect.”
Banning media—with improvement
RSF’s obfuscation and whitewashing of the law carried into its 2023 Press Freedom Index report for Ukraine, which merely says of the law, “A new media law that was adopted in late 2022 after years of preparation is designed to bring Ukraine in line with European media legislation.”
In the report, RSF acknowledged some repression:
“Media regarded as pro-Kremlin were banned by presidential decree, and access to Russian social media was restricted. This has intensified since the start of Russia’s invasion. Media carrying Russian propaganda have been blocked.”
RSF even acknowledged that “the application of martial law sometimes results in reporting restrictions for journalists.” To RSF, however, this increase in censorship does not overshadow the improvements in Ukraine’s media environment, as embodied by the EU-compliant regulations, so it gave the country a higher score than last year.
Looking at previous years of RSF index reports, the language hasn’t changed much since the 2021 index, which reads:
“Ukraine has a diversified media landscape…. Much more is needed to loosen the oligarchs’ tight grip on the media, encourage editorial independence and combat impunity for crimes of violence against journalists.”
In the 2022 report, this changed to “Ukraine’s media landscape is diverse, but remains largely in the grip of oligarchs who own all of the national TV channels.” The report criticized the Russian invasion for replacing the media in occupied areas with Kremlin propaganda. There was no criticism of the government’s consolidation of control, or the deteriorating political situation.
‘Front line of resistance’
The latest RSF report downgraded Russia’s already low standing, from 155th to 164th place (38.82 to 34.77). Its report on Russia began, appropriately, by noting what the Russian government had done to the press:
“Since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, almost all independent media have been banned, blocked and/or declared “foreign agents” or “undesirable organizations.”
The report on Ukraine, by contrast, began by talking about Russia:
The war launched by Russia on 24 February 2022 threatens the survival of the Ukrainian media. In this “information war,” Ukraine stands at the front line of resistance against the expansion of the Kremlin’s propaganda system.
This framing allows RSF to present the banning of “media regarded as pro-Kremlin” as an act of “resistance” rather than repression.
Rising score ‘a joke’
Political scientist Gerald Sussman called Ukraine’s rising score “a joke,” especially when the “US ranking dropped to No. 45 (from 42).” (RSF cited states’ efforts to restrict reporters’ access to public spaces, among other issues.) Sussman has extensively studied the role of seemingly independent international NGOs in pushing US-centric, market-oriented values around the world. He connected RSF’s Press Freedom score to other “Freedom” indexes, like Freedom House’s “democracy score,” which often judges “democracy” according to market standards. “Groups with the name ‘freedom’ in their title are almost always conservative,” Sussman stated in a statement to FAIR.
Freedom House has yet to release its 2023 democracy scores, though its 2022 report criticized Ukraine for pre-war repression, citing “imposition of sanctions on several domestic journalists and outlets on national security grounds, leading to three TV channels being taken off the air.” As we noted, RSF had no such critique.
Reporters Without Borders is a prestigious international institution, respected by many in the world of media and human rights. Unfortunately, like many in the media, it appears to have taken on the role of cheerleader for Ukraine in the proxy war, abandoning the pretense of being an objective monitor.
In Ukraine, the past year has been devastating for a country already struggling with media repression. RSF’s denial of reality does nothing to actually help Ukraine, but downplaying these problems will only further imperil press freedoms.
May 18, 2023
Ben Aris: Russia to pull out of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe treaty, heightening military tensions further
By Ben Aris, Intellinews, 5/11/23
Russian President Vladimir Putin has introduced a bill to the Russian parliament that will pull Russia out of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), a key Cold War security deal that will heighten military tensions with the West further.
The document was made publicly available in the Duma’s database on May 10 and is the latest in a string of security deals to collapse. In December Putin suspended the new START missile treaty that he renewed in January 2021 in the first week of US President Joe Biden’s presidency. Last month Putin released a more aggressive foreign policy concept that does away with the idea of “co-operation” with the West and replaced it with a focus on Russia’s “national interests” and building tighter relationships with the non-aligned countries of Eurasia and the Global South.
The signing of the new START agreement was taken as a breakthrough at the time and a reversal of decades of the US policy of unilaterally withdrawing from the Cold War-era security deals. The process began under former President George W Bush, who unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) in 2002. Subsequently the US withdrew from several other key missile control and mutual inspection treaties that contributed to Putin’s paranoia that Nato was preparing to attack Russia.
As a senator at the time, Biden was opposed to the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty, which he said would be “destabilising.” His decision to renew the START deal reversed the US policy of withdrawing from these deals and was warmly welcomed by the Kremlin, who immediately suggested that work begin on restarting the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INS) that prevents the placement of nuclear capable missiles near the mutual borders.
The CFE treaty is arguably the most important treaty of all, as while most of the other Cold War treaties govern the placement and use of missiles, the CFE treaty prevents the build-up of conventional forces at or near mutual borders. Russia already has hundreds of thousands of troops in Ukraine, which shares a border with EU and Nato members Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.
“Europe” is defined as including all the Russian territory up to the Ural mountains, which lie some 400 km to the east of Moscow. The treaty prevents Russia from building up conventional forces in the European part of Russia, but withdrawing from it would in theory allow Russia to amass large forces in its military bases in places like Rostov-on-Don in the south right on the Ukrainian border and in the Northern Military District that faces Poland and the Baltic States or the Crimea peninsula.
Sergey Ryabkov, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, was previously appointed as Putin’s official representative for the consideration of the CFE treaty denunciation in Parliament. Ryabkov also played the lead role in the negotiations with the US in January 2021, together with his boss, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in insisting on a “legally binding guarantee” from the West that Ukraine would not be allowed to join Nato. When those talks failed at the end of February Russia immediately invaded Ukraine.
According to the bill’s explanatory note, the treaty “was a sufficiently efficient and effective tool for the early 1990s to strengthen European security.” However, it has since become “largely outdated and out of touch with reality,” due to significant military-political changes, particularly those associated with Nato’s enlargement, Tass reports.
The note also highlights that the treaty has been suspended to “encourage a change in attitude from Western countries towards European security.”
The explanatory note claims that the situation surrounding conventional arms in Europe has deteriorated since 2007, when Putin made his famous speech at the Munich Security Conference warning Russia would “push back” if Nato’s eastward expansion was not curtailed. The note also accuses the United States and its allies of pursuing a policy of military confrontation with Russia, which “could have disastrous repercussions.”
Since its start over a year ago, the clash between Ukraine and Russia has steadily escalated, with Ukraine’s Nato allies providing increasingly powerful weapons. Initially reluctant to send any offensive weapons that could be constituted by the Kremlin as an attack on Russia via the proxy of Ukraine, those foibles have been steadily eroded. Earlier this year the West collectively agreed to send some 400 modern German-made Leopard II tanks to Ukraine; these are ostentatiously offensive weapons that can outgun any tanks Russia has.
Most recently, the UK crossed another line by announcing this week that it would provide Ukraine with long-range missiles with a range of some 300 km – an offensive weapon that can reach into Russia proper and take out targets like airfields and fuel and ammo dumps deep inside Russian territory.
The US has noticeably refrained from providing Ukraine with this type of missile so far and repeated this week that it has no plans to supply them. The highly accurate and deadly HIMARS missile system the US has provided to date includes rockets with a maximum range of 80 km, but the US has refrained from providing Kyiv with a more advanced version of the rockets with a range of more than 300 km.
In addition to nixing the CFE treaty, the bill states that Russia will terminate any related international agreements immediately. These include agreements on maximum conventional arms levels, signed in Budapest in 1990, and the document agreed among the State Parties to the CFE Treaty of November 19, 1990, in relation to the final document of the First Conference to Review the Operation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.
The CFE Treaty was signed in 1990 in the dying days of the Soviet Union and as part of the rapprochement between the USSR under Mikhail Gorbachev and his counterpart George Bush senior. It was further adapted in 1997 by Boris Yeltsin as relations continued to improve.
However, Nato countries did not ratify the adapted version and continued to abide by the 1990 provisions, resulting in Russia declaring a moratorium on implementing the terms of the treaty in 2007. On March 11, 2015, Russia suspended its participation in meetings of the Joint Consultative Group on the CFE Treaty, effectively ending its membership, with Belarus representing Russia’s interests since then, Tass reports.
May 17, 2023
Lt. Col. Daniel Davis: Ukraine’s Long-Expected Offensive: Why It Won’t Beat Putin
Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, 1945, 5/11/23
Ukraine has a complex reality it must face: U.S., UK, and EU senior leaders have voiced over the past few days strong support for Ukraine and their widely reported upcoming offensive. Reading some of the off-headline comments they’ve made, however, exposes the growing realization in the West that the hope of Zelensky accomplishing his stated objectives of driving Russia entirely out of Ukraine has a low probability of success.
A change in Western policy, therefore, is urgently needed – before Kyiv suffers more combat losses that are unlikely to alter the fact that the war will most likely end with a negotiated settlement.
Recent Developments in Ukraine War
In just the past few days, a bevy of senior Western political leaders have made strong declarations of support for Ukraine and the embattled country’s looming offensive. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, UK Foreign Secretary James Cleaverly, and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg have all issued strongly worded statements of support for Ukraine. The question, however, is whether the West can make good on its claims.
There is growing evidence that for the remainder of 2023, the West in general and the U.S. in particular likely do not have sufficient on-hand stocks of key weapons and ammunition to match what has been provided to Ukraine over the first 14 months of the war. On Tuesday, the United States announced yet another tranche of military support to Ukraine, this time in the form of a $1.2 billion package.
What is key about this promised support is that it was not given under the Presidential Drawdown Authority, but the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. The difference in the two programs is significant and has ominous implications for Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) operations through the rest of this year, especially following the outcome – win, lose, or draw – of the upcoming Ukrainian offensive.
Policy and Timing
The drawdown authority means Biden can order the immediate delivery of existing U.S. weapons and ammunition, meaning they can, in theory, be delivered to the battlefield within weeks. The security assistance initiative, on the other hand, means contracts must be written, publicized, undergo a bidding process, and then defense contracting companies that win bids must produce the ammunition or military gear, sometimes taking years to complete. This means Ukraine will not see the primary benefits of this latest round of U.S. support until at least 2024.
In an interview on May 5 with Euronews, EU Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell admitted “If I stop supporting Ukraine, certainly the war will finish soon,” because Ukraine would be “unable to defend itself” and would “fall in a matter of days.”
Cleaverly optimistically added that since the war’s start, the Ukrainian Armed Forces have “outperformed expectations.” However, he concluded in a sober word of caution, “We have to be realistic. This is the real world. This is not a Hollywood movie.” And it is here that Western leaders would be wise to consider the ramifications of this accurate statement.
It is clear and understandable that those in the West would be against Russia’s violent invasion of Ukraine and would desire to see Kyiv recover all its territories. If we were writing the script of a movie, that’s exactly how this story would end. But, as the British Foreign Secretary points out with painful accuracy, we have to make policy based on the most accurate, realistic, and sober recognition of ground truth and a lot less on our emotionally-charged preferences.
First, we must understand the enormity of the task facing the UAF on the eve of launching its offensive. As one who has fought in a large-scale offensive tank battle and trained over many years to conduct defensive operations in armored units, I can conclusively state that the defensive is the far less challenging and difficult form of war, and a combined arms offensive is the most difficult and complex.
Ukraine Strategy Evolves
Ukraine has suffered massive casualties over the first 14 months of this war. It is currently staffed with soldiers and leaders who have limited experience in war and only surface-level training in combined arms operations. One must not underestimate the challenge facing the UAF troops in a theater-level offensive that requires tight coordination of every unit over hundreds of kilometers, especially when no soldier, officer, or general in Ukraine has performed such a task of this magnitude.
Second, Russia has been preparing extensive defensive positions for more than half a year almost across the entire 1,000km front. According to some U.S. analysts, the Russians have designed and built an impressive series of defensive belts that would be difficult to breach even for fully-trained Western armies. To succeed, Zelensky’s troops will have to attack this elaborate defense with limited offensive air power, limited air defense, insufficient quantities of artillery shells, and a force that is equipped with a hodge-podge of modern and antiquated armor – staffed by a mix of conscripts with no combat experience and some officers and men with basic training by NATO instructors.
Some Ukrainian leaders are aware of the magnitude of the challenge. Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov told the Washington Post last week that he was concerned that the “expectation from our counteroffensive campaign is overestimated in the world,” which he fears may lead to “emotional disappointment.” The level of success, he warned, could be as few as “ten kilometers.” What the Defense Minister didn’t address, however, is what would come next.
Even if Ukraine again exceeded Western expectations and captured 50 or 100km of territory, the number of casualties they will have suffered would be high under any scenario, leaving the Ukrainian Armed Forces weaker then than they are today. As described above, it is very unlikely the West could replace lost equipment or provide enough ammunition to sustain the Ukrainians for the rest of this year, and according to the Washington Post, in addition to the 300,000 troops Russia presently has in Ukraine, there are another 200,000 poised just across the border.
Once the Ukrainian offensive has played out – regardless of how successful they may or may not have been – a Russian counterattack would almost certainly follow. Ukraine would then be vulnerable, for many months, to such an attack as they would have even fewer artillery shells, air defense missiles, and troops. As this sober analysis makes plain, these are towering challenges that stand in the way of a victorious and decisive Ukrainian spring offensive.
If that is the case, then the chances of Zelensky ever accomplishing his objectives of forcing Russia out of Ukraine are highly improbable. The most likely outcome is that the war will continue on regardless of this offensive, but over time the conditions will continue tilting in Russia’s direction. Eventually, Kyiv will likely be compelled to seek a negotiated end to the fighting. The West should recognize this probability – now – and begin privately supporting such an outcome with Ukrainian officials. Refusing to take such actions in the hope that Ukraine produces a major battlefield victory could condemn Kyiv to a much worse deal later.
May 16, 2023
Sputnik: Tallinn Security Conference ‘Pours Gasoline on Fire’ of Russia-NATO Proxy War in Ukraine
Sputnik, 5/14/23
Over 100 senior Western defense and foreign policy officials and experts gathered in Tallinn, Estonia May 12-14 to discuss the crisis in Ukraine. Giving Sputnik an exclusive inside look at the event, academic Joseph Siracusa said that with few exceptions, decision makers expressed support for a further dangerous escalation of tensions with Russia.
The Lennart Meri Conference in Tallinn wrapped up Sunday after three days of discussions on NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine, maritime security, cyber threats, the push to continue the expansion of NATO and the EU, sanctions, and the threat of a nuclear war.
The conference featured multiple big names, including US European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Christopher Cavoli, David Cattler, NATO’s assistant secretary general for intelligence and security, former US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun, European Council on Foreign Relations Co-Chairman Carl Bildt, former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, French presidential advisor Xavier Chatel, and the prime ministers of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. A keynote lecture was provided by former US National Security Council director and presidential advisor Fiona Hill, a prominent Russia hawk in the Trump administration.
The event was also attended by Dr. Joseph M. Siracusa, a renowned US professor of history and international diplomacy who serves as dean of Global Futures at Curtin University, and is the author of more than 30 books on diplomacy and international security. Dr. Siracusa provided Sputnik with detailed impressions on the event, saying that from his vantage point, it consisted mostly of “hardline anti-Russian types” not in the mood for any sort of dialogue with Moscow or any desire to put a stop to the bleeding wound that is modern-day Ukraine.
“I was hoping that when I came here, there would be a number of sessions on how peace might be achieved – that is, how a ceasefire might be achieved and what can be done about it,” the scholar said.
Unfortunately, the academic, who spoke at the conference’s session on nuclear risks, said the event proved unforgivingly and unrelentingly anti-Russia, with most speakers operating under a “Ukraine can do no bad, Russia can do no good,” “Russia is…the total aggressor” principle, and “pouring gasoline” on the conflict by cheerleading its continuation and calling for an expansion of the US military footprint in Eastern Europe.
“They have intellectuals here from Oxford University, [Professor of European Studies] Timothy Ash, who is for retribution. He said that Russia must be defeated, Putin must be taken down, and the Russian nation should be subjected to the same kind of treatment as Nazi Germany after World War Two ‘so that it could never conduct aggression again,’” Siracusa said. “No one is interested in dialogue with Russia. No one is interested in a peaceful solution…They all endorse Zelensky’s 10-point ‘peace program,’ which includes the removal of Russian troops from Crimea and the Donbass. And of course, that is just a fantasy, that’s never going to happen.”
“If they adhere to Zelensky’s ceasefire, the war in Ukraine will go on for years,” the scholar warned. Even if the conflict continues for just six more months, that’s going to mean thousands more dead, the academic said. “I regard the loss of Russian lives as equal to the loss of Ukrainian lives. When you start losing lives over something that could have been solved diplomatically, what we have here is criminal negligence,” he added.
Drang nach Osten 2.0?
“There are very few people here who are looking to the future. They have entire sessions on expanding NATO. They see the next expansion of NATO to include Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, and they believe that it’s very necessary. And as I say, no one’s looking for the way out of this,” Siracusa said.
The academic agreed with Sputnik’s assessment of the Tallinn conference being a kind of preview of the upcoming NATO Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania scheduled for July, and said that unfortunately, there is “unanimity” of support for the alliance’s expansion, “of bringing in more American troops in this part of the world,” and for bringing Ukraine in as a formal member after years of de facto, “invisible member” status.
The alliance’s attitude is very dangerous, Siracusa said, since the conflict in Ukraine started in the first place “because of the failure of the United States and the Russian Federation to have a serious discussion about the expansion of NATO.”
“I think it was a failure in diplomacy which caused the crisis. It’s a failure in diplomacy that’s prolonging the crisis. And nobody’s really looking for a way out here. They see Ukrainian victory as very important and inevitable. Now, that’s not going to happen. So they have sort of an unrealistic expectation about what Ukraine could do,” the academic believes.
Pointing to “delusional” notions expressed at the Tallinn conference about Kiev being “on the cusp of victory,” Siracusa warned that Kiev today is not in such a position, and that the only thing a continuation of the conflict will do is result in more death and destruction.
“Zelensky’s policy – and I regard him as a failed politician – the idea that they’re ‘holding out for a victory’ just means more deaths both on the Ukrainian side and on the Russian side. And I decry all these people who are dying for things that could have been solved last year [through diplomacy, ed.]. It seems to me that this is a profound, unnecessary waste of lives. I do not like the idea that people are more interested in further conflict than in resolving the problem. They live in a world of make-believe. They don’t know when it’s going to end or how it’s going to end. But what they’re dreaming about is a Russian defeat and a regime change and crushing rearrangement of Russian society,” the scholar said.
Conflict Rooted in Anachronism
Siracusa, a veteran historian who has studied the Cold War of the 20th century extensively, says the Ukraine crisis is tragic and nonsensical because the US failed to learn the lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 – a textbook case of how a conflict between nuclear superpowers can be resolved without going to war.
“The Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved by President John F. Kennedy and General Secretary [Nikita] Khrushchev. Khrushchev decided to withdraw the missiles and the United States pledged not to invade Cuba. My argument to these people is that President Biden never had an important discussion with President Putin before these hostilities began,” he said. “This war could have been avoided if Joe Biden had told [the Russian] president that NATO was not going into Ukraine, that there would be no advanced weapons systems on [Russia’s] borders,” Siracusa said.
From the academic’s perspective, the tensions between Washington and Moscow over NATO are tensions over an anachronism, because the alliance should have dissolved after the Cold War ended and the USSR and the Warsaw Pact alliance disappeared as potential threats to the West.
Siracusa was also struck by the willful ignorance of conference attendees regarding the Russia-Ukraine crisis and Russia’s role in the history of Eastern Europe in general.
“I would like to point out to these people that one of [the] greatest [Soviet] general secretaries, Leonid Brezhnev, was Ukrainian. It’s not as if these people discovered what it means to be in the Russian orbit. I believe that Russia has a right to friendly borders, because it is a large power and is entitled to neutrality on its borders, the same way the United States insists that Mexico and Canada have no major relationships with China or Russia today,” the academic said.
Russia and Ukraine have a shared heritage, Siracusa stressed, “but these people act like Russia came, you know, came from the dark side of the Moon. Like there’s no connection between Eastern Europe, Ukraine and Russia, when in fact, you’re all part of a shared history.”
The academic laments that Western policymakers and experts have made almost no attempt “to understand the motivation or the psychology of the Russian side of this conflict,” with Washington’s regional allies more concerned about the 2024 presidential elections and hoping that “America is going to come to the rescue.”
Siracusa could recall only one panel member at the Tallinn conference, President Emmanuel Macron’s military advisor Xavier Chatel, who seemed to share any recognition that Russia’s security interests should be taken into consideration. Chatel “thinks that Russia should not be humiliated, it should be invited back into Europe, etc. But he was kind of the odd man out. I think France is trying to take an equal view of what’s going on. But he is kind of an outsider here,” the scholar said.
Orwellian Language
Another detail of the conference that Siracusa found interesting was the use of the term “proxy war” in reference to the Ukrainian crisis – a term used extensively by Russian officials, including Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and increasingly by some Western media. The term was used in Tallinn, but its meaning flipped on its head, according to the observer.
“What they[have said] here, what their lead speakers [have said] here is that Putin is using the war in Ukraine as a proxy war against NATO – that the war in Ukraine is designed to reshuffle the architecture of Europe and to drive a wedge between the Americans and the Europeans. So they turned the proxy war from the American proxy war in Russia to the Russian proxy war against Ukraine. This takes a great deal of imagination. And it’s also dead wrong,” Siracusa said.
Nuclear Bombshell
The most significant thing that stood out to Siracusa at the event in Tallinn was the casual way in which the potential use of nuclear weapons was discussed. In one of the talks, featuring Chatham House Rules (which prevent Siracusa from explicitly naming or identifying the speaker), a senior former US official was asked how the US might respond if Russia used a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine.
“He said, and I think he didn’t mean to say this, [that] ‘the American response, which has been delivered to Russia through back channels, is that there would be a major conventional attack on Crimea and the Russian Fleet,” Siracusa said.
“That would be to me not only a major escalation, but it would be one that cannot be called back. It would create far more problems and prepare the road to World War III,” Siracusa summed up.
CNN: Biden administration hunts for high-value Russians for potential prisoner swap
By Kylie Atwood & Michael Chance, CNN, 5/11/23
The Biden administration is scouring the globe for offers that could entice Russia to release two wrongfully detained Americans, Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan, according to three sources familiar with the matter.
The US does not currently have any high-level Russian spies in its custody, current and former US officials say, driving the need to turn to allies for help.
The Biden administration is casting a wide net, approaching allied countries who have Russian spies in custody to gauge whether they would be willing to make a trade as part of a larger prisoner swap package. But US officials have also been surveying allies without Russians in their custody, officials said, for ideas on what might entice Moscow to release US prisoners.
The White House is also exploring narrow sanctions relief, senior administration officials said.
The goal is to bring home Whelan and Gershkovich as part of the same deal, US officials have said privately, with two US officials telling CNN the administration wants to see what creative offers could gin up Russian interest.
US officials’ outreach extends to some countries that have recently arrested alleged Russian spies, including Brazil, Norway and Germany, as well as a former Soviet bloc country, to discuss the possibility of including them in any potential prisoner swaps. Germany has in its custody a former colonel from Russia’s domestic spy agency named Vadim Krasikov, who is widely seen as being atop Russia’s list of prisoners it wants back.
While some of these efforts predate Gershkovich’s detention, they have continued to intensify since The Wall Street Journal reporter was arrested in March, with White House officials directly engaged on the matter, officials said.
“Efforts to reach out to allies and partners have been intense for many months and intensified even further once it became clear that there was no way to bring Whelan home at the same time as Brittney Griner, given Russian refusal to release Whelan,” said a senior administration official. “That recognition led the US government to redouble efforts with new creativity to find a way to bring Whelan home, too.”
‘A like for a like’
In March, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the US had put forward a “serious proposal” to secure Whelan but that Russia had not engaged on it.
Last April, the Biden administration secured the release of American Trevor Reed, who’d been detained in Russia since 2019, in exchange for convicted Russian drug smuggler Konstantin Yaroshenko.
In December, when Russia agreed to release American basketball star Griner in exchange for the infamous arms trafficker Viktor Bout, it refused to release Whelan, who’s been wrongfully detained in Russia since his 2018 arrest on espionage charges. Releasing Bout was viewed as a major move for the US, though it was not enough to prompt Whelan’s release.
Unlike Griner and Reed, Russia is treating both Whelan and Gershkovich as spies. Over the course of years of conversations Russian officials have indicated that in return for Whelan, they expect someone who is connected to Russia’s intelligence apparatus, current and former US officials said. And US officials expect Russia is likely to make similar demands for Gershkovich.
While the US has multiple Russian cyber criminals in custody, Russia will not entertain them as part of a deal for Americans charged with espionage, according to current and former US officials involved in past proposals put on the table with Russia.
“Russia wouldn’t trade cyber criminals for Reed or Griner, and they are definitely not going to accept them in a trade for an American who has been convicted of espionage or an American who’s been charged with espionage,” said a former senior administration official involved in previous prisoner swaps between Russia and the US. “Russia treats espionage as a different crime, as something much more serious than anything else and they have made clear that they expect something more significant in return. They want a like for a like.”
‘Special channels’
As US officials work with allies to come up with potential tradeable assets, a person with knowledge of the discussions told CNN that an exhaustive list of who may be swapped has not yet been finalized, adding that there is “fierce competition for who gets into the package.” The source spoke with CNN on the condition of anonymity as they are not authorized to speak about the details of discussions.
Russian officials confirmed to CNN that “special channels” are active between the US and Russia, but refused to specify who they want as part of an exchange. Gershkovich and Whelan are the only two Americans who have been publicly declared as wrongfully detained in Russia.
The source told CNN that Moscow is “most interested” in the extradition of Krasikov, the former Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) colonel jailed in Germany for the assassination in a Berlin park of a Georgian citizen in 2019.
It is unclear under what conditions – if any – Germany would agree to participate in a swap involving Krasikov in exchange for US citizens. Russian government officials requested the former colonel from the country’s domestic spy agency be included in a prisoner swap last year, CNN reported. US officials did make quiet inquiries to the Germans about whether they might be willing to include Krasikov in the trade, a senior German government source told CNN last year.
Last month, the Russian foreign minister told CNN there are “about 60” Russian citizens in US jails “many abducted under dubious circumstances,” indicating Moscow may want some, or all, or them returned as part of any deal.
A State Department spokesperson declined to offer specific details on the negotiation process involved with securing the release of Gershkovich or Whelan, telling CNN, “We regularly engage partners around the world to discuss wrongful detention cases and in some cases to seek assistance in effecting a release. We continue to work aggressively – using every available means – to bring home all US nationals wrongfully detained or held hostage abroad. Russia should release Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan immediately.”
Russian spies in custody
On top of Krasikov, a number of other suspected Russian spies have recently been arrested by US allied countries.
Late last year Norway arrested a suspected Russian spy posing as an academic who was in the country after spending years studying in Canada, according to Norway’s domestic security agency.
A similar case arose with a Russian spy in Brazil late last year. Sergey Cherkasov, who attended the prestigious Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies, the elite foreign policy school at John Hopkins in Washington DC. After posing as a student from Brazil, Cherkasov was arrested for identity fraud last fall. The DOJ accused Cherkasov of working for Russia’s military intelligence service, and asked Brazil to extradite him last month.
Estonia also arrested a Russian national last year who the Justice Department believes is an officer for the FSB. Vadim Konoshchenok allegedly attempted to send thousands of US-made bullets, semiconductors and other electronic components into Russia. The US has requested Konoshchenok’s extradition, though it is unclear if there are simultaneous conversations about including him in any possible prisoner swap.
When the US requests a Russian criminal to be extradited it doesn’t necessarily mean they would be involved in any swap, but it does prompt conversations between the two countries on the prisoner which could give US intelligence officials top cover engage the country on the matter, one US official said.
Other countries have also arrested alleged Russian spies recently, including Poland, Sweden and Slovenia.
Other options
US officials cautioned that it could take time for ideas to come together, especially possibilities considered more “think outside the box,” said one US official.
But identifying Russian spies in the custody of US allies remains central to the efforts underway because the US knows that Russia puts a high value on their intelligence operations.
It is the long-held position of DOJ to oppose prisoner swaps. Many Justice officials believe swaps incentivize the detention of Americans and undermine the effort to extradite foreign criminals so they can be convicted of crimes in the US.
Another tool that the US has at its disposal is dangling sanctions relief for Russian groups accused of being involved in taking Americans hostage. Russia’s Federal Security Service was sanctioned last month after being repeatedly been involved in the arrest, investigation, and detention of US nationals wrongfully detained in Russia, the State Department said.
When those sanctions were put into place administration officials said it was possible to lift them if Americans held in Russia were released. But current and former officials recognize that rolling back those sanctions alone – particularly because the FSB is already sanctioned under other authorities – won’t suffice.
“The Russians are so widely sanctioned already, so sanctions relief is unlikely to move the Russians,” said a second former US official.
May 15, 2023
Putin Says the West Has Unleashed a ‘Real War’ on Russia in Victory Day Speech
Kremlin Wall, Red Square, Moscow; photo by Natylie S. BaldwinBy Connor Freeman & Will Porter, The Libertarian Institute, 5/10/23
President Vladimir Putin declared that all of Russia is united in support of its troops, claiming they face a “real war” intended to “destroy” their country during his annual Victory Day speech in Moscow’s Red Square on Tuesday.
Celebrated on May 9 in Russia, Victory Day is the country’s yearly commemoration to honor the Soviet troops who defeated the forces of Nazi Germany during World War II. The ceremonies and military parade were notably pared back relative to previous years, however, as Russia’s war in Ukraine grinds into its fifteenth month.
“Today, our civilization is at a crucial turning point. A real war is being waged against our country again but we have countered international terrorism and will defend the people of Donbass and safeguard our security,” Putin said.
The Russian leader declaimed that Moscow seeks peace and stability, while railing against American exceptionalism and the “Western globalist elites.” He said these forces pit countries against one another with coup plots and proxy conflicts, such as the 2014 US-backed coup in Kiev and Ukraine’s subsequent war on Russian-speaking separatists in the eastern Donbass region. These actions preceded Putin’s invasion, and the president has repeatedly cited the need to “defend the people” of the Donbass as a justification for his “special military operation.”
“For us, for Russia, there are no unfriendly or hostile nations either in the west or in the east. Just like the vast majority of people on the planet, we want to see a peaceful, free and stable future,” Putin claimed.
“[Russians] believe that any ideology of superiority is abhorrent, criminal and deadly by its nature. However, the Western globalist elites keep speaking about their exceptionalism, pit nations against each other and split societies, provoke bloody conflicts and coups, sow hatred, Russophobia, aggressive nationalism, destroy family and traditional values which make us human,” he continued. “They do all that so as to keep dictating and imposing their will, their rights and rules on peoples, which in reality is a system of plundering, violence and suppression.”
The Russian leader went on to claim that the war in Ukraine is a defensive action against a collective West which seeks to subvert and balkanize Russia, ultimately hoping to wipe the country off the map. “Their goal – and there is nothing new about it – is to break apart and destroy our country, to make null and void the outcomes of World War II, to completely break down the system of global security and international law, to choke off any sovereign centers of development,” he said.
Putin blamed the same forces for provoking the disaster in Ukraine and NATO’s ongoing proxy war against Russia, pointing to the massive casualties resulting from callous and “self-serving” Western policies. “Boundless ambition, arrogance and impunity inevitably lead to tragedies. This is the reason for the catastrophe the Ukrainian people are going through. They have become hostage to the coup d’état and the resulting criminal regime of its Western masters, collateral damage in the implementation of their cruel and self-serving plans,” he asserted.
Putin also hailed the emergence of the new “multipolar world,” saying that an “unstoppable movement is gaining momentum” towards “a world based on the principles of trust and indivisible security, of equal opportunities for a genuine and free development of all nations and peoples.”
He praised the Russian forces fighting in Ukraine as “heroes,” saying they are up against a West which has “forgotten what the Nazis’ insane claims of global dominance led to. They forgot who destroyed that monstrous, total evil, who stood up for their native land and did not spare their lives to liberate the peoples of Europe.”
Tuesday’s Victory Day ceremony and military parade were significantly smaller compared to previous years, likely due to concerns over a recent uptick in drone strikes on Russian territory – including one which targeted the Kremlin last week. Moscow claimed the strike was a failed assassination attempt against Putin, pinning blame on Ukraine. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also accused the United States of involvement in the attack, saying “[Russia knows] very well that the decisions to carry out such actions, such terrorist attacks, are made not in Kiev. Rather, it is precisely in Washington.”
While some attendees complained about the scaled-down ceremony – namely the lack of tanks – the Kremlin said the parade’s motorized column was headed up by the WW2-era “legendary ‘Victory tank’ T-34–85” and featured a wide array of military hardware. That included Tigr-M and BTR-82A armored personnel carriers, Bumerang fighting vehicles, Iskander-M tactical missile systems, S-400 air defense platforms and Yars mobile missile systems, according to the Kremlin. It added that “The newest Spartak and 3-STS Akhmat armored vehicles were presented at the parade for the first time.”
The marching column consisted of 30 ceremonial regiments with more than 8,000 troops, including 530 personnel taking part in Russia’s so-called “special military operation.” According to the AP, this is the lowest such turnout since 2008. There was reportedly no fly-over of military jets and the ceremony lasted less than one hour.
Several cities also scrapped their traditional ‘Immortal Regiment’ processions, in which crowds hold up pictures of relatives who fought or died during the war against Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union lost 27 million people in the conflict, giving Victory Day deep symbolic meaning in Russia. According to local media reports, 24 different cities also canceled plans for their own military parades. Regional officials cited by the AP blamed “security concerns” and the “current situation” as the reason for the cancellations.
Alongside Putin on the stand during his speech were the President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan, President of Kyrgyzstan Sadyr Japarov, President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, President of Turkmenistan Serdar Berdimuhamedov, President of Tajikistan Emomali Rahmon, and the President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev.
Read full transcript of Putin’s speech here.
May 14, 2023
Scott Ritter’s Talk in St. Petersburg, Russia on May 5th
Link here.
This is a talk that former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter gave to an overflow audience in St. Petersburg, Russia on May 5th. His talk was about his latest book, Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika: Arms Control and the End of the Soviet Union.
May 13, 2023
The War Game (1966)
Link here.
“We link to Peter Watkins’ award-winning 1966 film The War Game, a docudrama about the impact of a hypothetical nuclear war. The parallels with today are chilling. The film won the Academy Award for Best Documentary (Feature) and the BAFTA Award for Best Short Film.” – American Committee for US-Russia Accord (ACURA)
