Natylie Baldwin's Blog, page 51

Russia Matters: Trump Team’s Ukraine Peace Plan: Territorial Concessions, No NATO Membership

Russia Matters, 12/6/24

5 Things to KnowAdvisers to Donald Trump are floating proposals to end the Ukraine war that would cede large parts of the country to Russia for the foreseeable future and take NATO membership for Ukraine off the table, according to a Reuters analysis of statements and interviews with several people close to the U.S. president-elect, including his incoming Russia-Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg. Meanwhile, Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said Ukraine must find diplomatic solutions to regaining occupied territories and suggested he may be open to negotiations by sending his chief of staff Andrei Yermak to Washington to meet with members of Trump’s team such as JD Vance, Mike Waltz and a representative for Kellogg. While Yermak has so far made no public comments on the outcome of these meetings, Ukraine’s foreign minister repeated his government’s stance that Kyiv would reject any security guarantees other than NATO membership. Just as Ukraine’s territorial losses and manpower shortages may make Zelenskyy more amenable to negotiating a deal with Putin, the latter’s knowledge of these losses and shortages may make him less willing to pursue such a deal for as long as his forces keep capturing land in Ukraine and retaking land in Russia’s Kursk region. It is also difficult to imagine how any mediator of talks between Ukraine and Russia can accommodate Ukraine’s demands for NATO membership given the persistent opposition of some of the alliance’s members, such as Hungary.*In the past month (Nov. 1–Dec. 4), the Russian forces made a net gain of 354 square miles in Ukraine, which is about the size of the city of Dallas, Texas. This gain includes 95 square miles Russia gained in the past week, which is slightly larger than the size of Boston, Mass., according RM staff’s Dec. 4, 2024, estimate based on data provided for that period by the Institute for the Study of War. ISW itself has calculated that Russia captured 1,042 square miles (2,700 square kilometers) in 2024, about the size of Rhode Island, compared with just 180 square miles (465 square kilometers) last year, according to FT. In the latest developments reported on Dec. 6, the Russian military claimed to have captured the Donetsk region settlements of Sukhi Yaly and Pustynka, with the latter about 30 kilometers away from the embattled supply hub of Pokrovsk and about 35 kilometers away from the industrial town of Kurakhove. Ukrainian military analyst DeepState said Russian troops were less than 7 kilometers from the outskirts of Pokrovsk, which is a major logistics base and transport hub for Ukraine’s armed forces, where multiple roads and rail lines intersect. Given how precarious the situation has become in eastern Ukraine, Zelenskyy announced that he was replacing the commander of Ukraine’s ground forces, appointing Maj. Gen. Mykhailo Drapaty to succeed Lt. Gen. Oleksandr Pavliuk, accordiung to NYT.The U.S. has pressed Ukraine to lower its military recruitment age to 18 to address a severe shortage of manpower that has weakened its position on the battlefield and led to the fastest Russian gains in two years, according to FT. In addition to casualties, the personnel strength of the Ukrainian armed forces has been diminished by desertions. More Ukrainian soldiers have deserted in the first 10 months of this year than in the previous two years of the war, according to FT. Since 2022, Ukraine has opened nearly 96,000 criminal cases against servicemen who abandoned their positions in what represents a sixfold increase over the past two years, and most of the cases were opened this year, according to Bloomberg.Gen. Valery Gerasimov, chief of the Russian General Staff, and Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, have spoken by phone on how to manage escalation concerns between the two countries, defense and military officials told NYT. The rare phone call took place on Nov. 27, just six days after Russia launched a new nuclear-capable MRBM, “Oreshnik,” at Ukraine and nine days before Vladimir Putin said he would heed Belarus’ request to deploy this missile on Belarus’s territory. The past week has seen Putin continue to talk up the Oreshnik, describing its impact as being “comparable in power to that of a nuclear weapon.” In remarks made on Nov. 28, Putin also said Russia will use any means it has at its disposal to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Ukraine. The Russian Defense Ministry is  yet  to confirm Gerasimov’s conversation with Brown. Previously, the Kremlin denied reports in the U.S. media that Putin spoke to Donald Trump upon the latter’s victory in the U.S. presidential election.Three-quarters of Americans (76%) worry Russia might use nuclear weapons in the war in Ukraine, and 70% are concerned about Russia launching a thermonuclear attack against the U.S., up 10 points since 2021, according to the 2024 Reagan National Defense Survey, conducted in November 2024. In contrast, only 39% of Russians think Russia would be definitely or probably justified in using nuclear weapons in this war, while 45% do not find such actions justifiable, according to the Levada Center’s November poll. The gap between nuclear hawks and doves in Russia was wider than in the previous poll: in April 2023, some 29% of Russians said they’d justify the use of nukes in Ukraine, while 56% held the opposite view.

Le Monde Diplomatique: Nord Stream: hide-and-seek deep under the Baltic sea

By Fabian Scheidler, Le Monde Diplomatique, November 2024

n 26 September 2022 four explosions shook the seabed near the Danish island of Bornholm. For several days, huge quantities of methane pumped into the Baltic from three damaged sections of the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines, which connected Russia to Germany. Europe quickly felt the impact, with energy prices rising sharply, particularly in Germany. Nord Stream, which cost more than €10bn to build, was not exclusively owned by Russia’s Gazprom; it also had shareholders in Germany (E.ON and Wintershall), the Netherlands (Gasunie) and France (Engie), all entitled to seek compensation.

The pipeline attack was the largest act of sabotage in recent European history as well as an environmental disaster. But in spite of its scope and significance, two years on, official investigations have been marked by a notable lack of urgency. To date, there have been no arrests, and no interrogations of, or charges against, suspects.

In early June, German prosecutors issued a European arrest warrant for Volodymyr Zhuravlov, a Ukrainian citizen resident in Poland. But Warsaw’s unwillingness to provide administrative assistance enabled Zhuravlov to escape without even being interviewed (1). Showing uncharacteristic casualness about counterterrorism, Poland’s prime minister Donald Tusk, darling of European liberals, took the German authorities to task on 17 August on X: ‘To all the initiators and patrons of Nord Stream 1 and 2. The only thing you should do today about it is apologise and keep quiet.’

Soon after the explosions, the Swedish and Danish authorities took the view that only a state actor could have pulled off such an attack, but later they unexpectedly closed their investigations without publishing any results. Immediately after the attack, the US also announced it was launching investigations, which seemed particularly promising as their intelligence services have comprehensive oversight of the Baltic. Yet they too have divulged no findings.

At the same time, Western countries have systematically declined Russia’s repeated offers to participate in the investigation. Germany’s investigations are ongoing, but in response to parliamentary questions, the government has said any disclosure of information would be detrimental to the ‘wellbeing of the state’ (Staatswohl) – a coded way of intimating that friendly countries or intelligence services might be implicated.

A wall of silence

Investigative journalists and members of the German parliament have said that their inquiries have encountered a wall of silence. Holger Stark, from the weekly Die Zeit, spoke of ‘brutal pressure on all authorities not to talk to any journalists’ (2). In an interview with Le Monde diplomatique, Social Democratic deputy Ralf Stegner expressed surprise that two years on from such a serious crime, committed in one of the world’s most closely monitored seas, investigations have produced so little information. And Andrej Hunko of the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) has spoken of a ‘provocative disinterest in shedding light on’ what happened.

There are three theories about who carried out the attack. In the immediate aftermath, some government politicians and leading Western media blamed Russia. ‘They’re the only ones with a motive who’re capable of doing it,’ France Inter’s geopolitics specialist Pierre Haski said on the country’s most-listened-to radio station (28 September 2022). However, the German and Swedish authorities have repeatedly stated that they have no evidence corroborating Russian involvement. CIA director William Burns, who is unlikely to give Moscow the benefit of the doubt, agrees, as did the Washington Post after a lengthy investigation (3). Among the obscure motives that might have driven Russia to destroy a costly infrastructure project in which it holds a 51% stake, the suggestion that Moscow might have been trying to avoid penalties for suspended deliveries is unconvincing: given the sanctions and seized Russian assets, it’s unlikely to have paid up.

If Russia invades again, then there will no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it. I promise we canJoe Biden

A second theory was put forward on 8 February last year by journalist Seymour Hersh, known for his revelations about US war crimes in Vietnam and Iraq. Hersh posted a detailed article on Substack blaming the US and Norway; according to his single source, the Biden administration commissioned the attack (4).

A month later, on 7 March, the New York Times presented a third theory, based on anonymous testimony from ‘US officials who have been briefed on … classified intelligence and matters of sensitive diplomacy’ (5): the sabotage was the work not of the US but of a ‘pro-Ukrainian group’. Simultaneously, a consortium of German media led by Die Zeit dug deeper, taking as their starting point information from Germany’s federal prosecutor among others. Their investigation identified a yacht allegedly chartered by the saboteurs. Since then, major Western media publications have almost exclusively focused on this narrative: the 15-metre Andromeda supposedly set sail from the German port of Rostock in September 2022 with five men and one woman on board, heading towards Bornholm. There, the divers supposedly mined the pipelines at a depth of 80 metres. German investigators reported that in January 2023 they had detected residues of the explosive HMX – a substance also found at the site of the explosion – on the yacht’s table, which the crew had failed to clean.

When this story broke, it immediately raised questions: could such a small vessel have carried out an operation on this scale and transported the tonnes of explosives that initial expert reports said would have been needed? Wouldn’t diving so deep have required a decompression chamber, which the Andromeda could not accommodate? Since then, a private expedition to the scene of the attack by Swedish engineer Erik Andersson and journalist Jeffrey Brodsky (6) has answered some of these questions.

Answers… and still more questions

First, analysis of detailed underwater photographs shows it might have needed less than 50 kilos of explosive to destroy the pipeline. Second, highly trained professionals could undertake such dives without a decompression chamber, though this would make it a riskier and lengthier operation. But why, Brodsky wondered, would divers without a decompression chamber choose to mine the pipes at a depth of 80 metres when a nearby section of Nord Stream lies at less than 40 metres? And why was one of the explosive devices placed 75km from the other three (7)? Despite many remaining unanswered questions, the Andromeda cannot be ruled out of involvement in the operation.

But whether due to diabolical ingenuity on the part of the culprits or a European desire not to know, traces of the presumed saboteurs are still lost in the fog. False passports used to rent the Andromeda led to a Ukrainian soldier and a Polish shell company funded by a Ukrainian entrepreneur known as Rustem A. Other leads point to Ukrainian diving instructor Volodymyr Zhuravlov and other suspects. But none have been questioned, and German investigators have not requested judicial cooperation from Ukraine.

Worse still, the German authorities even indirectly facilitated the suspect’s escape by failing to add his name to the Schengen register, which lists individuals subject to European arrest warrants. ‘Polish border guards neither had the information nor the reason to arrest him since he was not listed as wanted,’ a spokesperson for the Polish prosecutor’s office said (8).

According to a CIA report quoted in the Washington Post (11 November 2023), the pipeline attack was masterminded by Ukrainian special operations officer Roman Chervinsky and former commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces Valerii Zaluzhnyi, currently Ukraine’s ambassador to the UK. This document emphasised that President Zelensky was unaware of the project. However, this August the Wall Street Journal, using anonymous Ukrainian sources, reported that Zelensky had given his approval before attempting – unsuccessfully – to stop the operation in response to US pressure (9).

The West’s lack of concern over whether Ukraine, armed and financed by the US and Europe, might have launched a terrorist attack against one of its own allies raises questions: are political forces stalling the investigations for fear they might reach geopolitically unpalatable conclusions that could weaken support for Ukraine?

One step further

James Bamford, a renowned American investigative reporter and intelligence specialist, has taken this line of reasoning one step further. He believes it’s almost inconceivable that such a complex operation could be carried out without the knowledge of the US intelligence services (10). First, because the US and Ukrainian services are just as closely intertwined as their military structures. And second, because the US maintains comprehensive surveillance of the Baltic Sea through the Integrated Undersea Surveillance System (IUSS), set up in tandem with Sweden. The National Security Agency’s signals intelligence system (SIGINT) closely monitors Ukrainian military and government communications. Despite announcing its own investigation, Washington has so far provided no data.

According to Die Welt (14 December 2023), US citizens – presumably working for the intelligence services – took part in the inspection of the Andromeda by local border guards during a stopover in Kòlbrzég, Poland, on 19 September 2022. The Polish authorities have refused to say more and claim that surveillance footage from the port no longer exists. The lack of cooperation from Poland, a staunch opponent of Nord Stream, raises questions about whether it’s actively involved in a cover-up or even took part in operation planning.

According to the Washington Post (6 June 2023), the CIA knew about Ukraine’s plan to blow up the pipelines as early as June 2022 and informed some of its European partners, including Germany. If these sources are reliable, Western governments knowingly concealed from the public that their ally was the prime suspect in the largest act of industrial sabotage in recent history. The Wall Street Journal (14 June 2023) cites anonymous US officials alleging the CIA tried at the time to dissuade Ukraine.

No independent source supports this claim. Andersson sees it as an attempt by Washington to establish so-called ‘plausible deniability’. He and Brodsky believe that if the Andromeda was indeed involved in the crime, the US gave the green light for the operation at very least; otherwise, the Ukrainian saboteurs would have run too great a risk of being detected by US surveillance – with potentially disastrous consequences for relations with the West. Andersson and Brodsky do not rule out active US participation in the planning. Previous plots to blow up the pipelines, dating back to 2014 and allegedly involving ‘Western experts’, according to the Wall Street Journal (14 August 2024), seem to support their view.

The question of the role the US might have played brings us back to the second theory, put forward by Hersh. In December 2021, he claims, US president Joe Biden tasked the CIA with developing a plan to destroy the pipelines in the event of Russia invading Ukraine. In June 2022, his theory goes, specialist US Navy divers placed explosives, using the annual NATO manoeuvres in the Baltic (Baltops) as cover. In September, Biden allegedly gave the order to detonate the devices remotely by acoustic signal.

After its publication in February 2023, Hersh’s article was either ignored or dismissed as a conspiracy theory by the Western press. The main criticism levelled by the few journalists who bothered to assess it was that it relied on a single anonymous source – like most of his major revelations. In the case of Nord Stream, he was even able to present a key piece of testimony: on 7 February 2022 President Biden told a joint White House press conference with Germany’s chancellor Olaf Scholz that ‘if Russia invades again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.’ He added with a smile, ‘I promise you we will be able to do it.’ And after the attacks, US Under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland told a Senate hearing, ‘The US government is very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now … a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea’ (11).

US interest in disabling the pipelines

Both geopolitically and economically, it’s beyond doubt that Washington had an interest in putting these pipelines out of action. The US disapproved of increasing Eurasian integration, especially the liaison between Germany’s high-tech industries and Russia’s vast resources. Furthermore, according to Hersh, Washington was concerned that Russia could use the natural gas as leverage to restrict German support for Ukraine. The sabotage was intended to remove that option. On the economic front, the US had long been pressuring the Europeans to buy liquefied US gas instead of Russian gas.

Some politicians and Western media blamed Russia for the attack. ‘They’re the only ones with a motive for doing it,’ says Pierre Haski

But is there any evidence supporting Hersh’s narrative? It was specifically to answer this question that Andersson undertook his expedition. While he at first subscribed to Hersh’s theory, he now finds the Andromeda hypothesis equally plausible, though he has not ruled out that Hersh may ultimately be proved right. Andersson’s detailed analysis of open-source intelligence (OSINT), for example, discovered that the positions of US warships and aircraft were consistent with Hersh’s account (12), contrary to earlier OSINT analyses. Andersson also rejects the accusation that Hersh was wrong about the type of explosive. The C-4 explosive mentioned by Hersh can actually contain the chemical derivative HMX in addition to the main component RDX. Hersh’s theory that two bombs were placed on each tube – a total of eight – might also be confirmed: in their legal dispute with the Nord Stream AG consortium, the insurers Lloyd’s and Arch argue that a fifth explosion took place in addition to the four previously known blasts (13). This could indicate that there were actually two bombs on each tube, contrary to previous assumptions, but only five of them went off (14).

Even though Hersh’s theory has not been disproved, Holger Stark, who heads Die Zeit’s investigation team, believes he is wrong, as no investigation results have so far corroborated his claims. Investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill, co-founder of news platforms The Intercept and Drop Site News, has suggested two possible links between Hersh’s scenario and the Andromeda one. First, Hersh’s source may have known of a plan that was ultimately abandoned and replaced by another – a theory that Andersson also considers plausible. Another possibility: the Andromeda’s journey was part of a complex diversion operation. Steven Aftergood, who led the Federation of American Scientists’ research programme on covert US government operations from 1991 to 2021, calls the dissemination of false narratives to mask an operation an ‘established practice in military operations and intelligence activities, where it is often known as “cover and deception” ’ (15).

The intent to deceive?

Scahill notes that leaving explosive residue on the table is ‘either unbelievably sloppy tradecraft, evidence of total amateurism, or an intentional “clue” left with the intent to deceive’. That the perpetrators of the attack didn’t have time to erase their traces from the boat, as Stark supposed, seems unlikely given that its voyage lasted several weeks. And the Andromeda had not been used for four months before it was examined by investigators, long enough to erase clues – or plant them. But at this stage, there’s no tangible evidence supporting the ‘cover and deception’ hypothesis, which is also defended by Hersh.

The Nord Stream attack thus remains an unsolved crime. This being so, German parliamentarians from Die Linke and other parties are demanding an independent commission of inquiry, which could operate under the auspices of the UN Security Council. However, a resolution calling for this, presented by Russia with backing from China and Brazil, failed to gain the support of the US and its partners. Germany and Sweden have consistently rejected the idea of such a commission, purportedly so as not to interfere with ongoing investigations. Their desire to avoid disclosure is understandable: if evidence established that the Ukrainian president or even the US government was responsible for the attack, the geopolitical consequences would be unpredictable and potentially disastrous, including for NATO. And so the game of hide-and-seek around the most explosive criminal act of our time goes on.

Fabian Scheidler

Fabian Scheidler is a journalist and the author of The End of the Megamachine: a Brief History of a Failing Civilization, Zer0 Books, 2020.

Translated by George Miller

My Proposal for Ending the Ukraine War

This proposal is building on the proposal outlined in the piece cross-posted earlier today by Keith Kellogg, Trump’s new envoy to Ukraine.

Russia is allowed to keep the territory it now occupies,Ukraine is allowed to join NATO in 20 years – along with Russia. It’s neither or both.

a. This is the only possible way that Russia would consider allowing Ukraine to join NATO – if it joins simultaneously.

b. NATO would likely crumble in the interim and an outdated swamp bureaucracy goes away.

c. Without big daddy Washington in the form of NATO, Europe would be forced to figure out its own defense and, in turn, a more rational relationship with Russia

d. Washington no longer has the financial burden of the defense of Europe

e. In the event that NATO doesn’t crumble, then either Ukraine continues to not be allowed to join NATO due to fear of letting Russia in or both Ukraine and Russia are allowed to join and the Euro-Atlantic security architecture rebalances.

I know this will never happen, but I like it.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Natylie

The Times (UK): How Zelensky’s popularity has sunk after nearly three years of war

By Marc Bennetts, The Times (UK), 11/29/24

In the early days of Russia’s all-out invasion of Ukraine, with the Kremlin’s forces on the outskirts of Kyiv, President Zelensky delivered a defiant message.

“We are all here,” Zelensky said from outside the presidential office, as his closest political allies stood behind him. “We are all here defending our independence and our state.”

His words boosted the morale of his besieged nation and sent his popularity soaring, both at home and abroad. On visits to the West to rally support for Ukraine, the former comedian was greeted with standing ovations by parliaments in Europe and the US Congress.

Yet almost three years on, with Ukraine’s frontline defences in danger of crumbling, Zelensky’s popularity is fading and very few Ukrainians envision him as their next president.

A potential rival

Just 16 per cent would vote to re-elect him for a second term, according to an opinion poll of 1,200 Ukrainians published this week by the Social Monitoring Centre in Kyiv. The poll, the most comprehensive study of electoral preferences since the invasion began in 2022, also found that about 60 per cent would prefer Zelensky not to even stand for re-election.

“It’s very difficult to be a popular president when you have had a full-scale war for three years,” Oleksandra Ustinova, a Ukrainian MP, said. “People are tired and almost everyone has someone who they have lost. That’s a huge challenge for Zelensky.”

Top of the poll, ahead of Zelensky, with 27 per cent was Valery Zaluzhny, the former commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian armed forces who has served as the ambassador to Britain since July.

Zaluzhny, who was dismissed by Zelensky in February after a rumoured disagreement over the handling of the war, is also Ukraine’s most trusted figure, the poll showed. Although he has yet to openly declare any political ambitions, his appointment to a diplomatic post in London was seen by many analysts as an attempt by Zelensky to sideline him.

It remains unclear when Ukrainians will be able to choose their next president. Zelensky’s term of office ended in May but new elections have been suspended indefinitely under martial law that was introduced at the start of the Russian invasion in 2022. The vast majority of Ukrainians support the move, citing the dangers and logistical problems of staging a nationwide vote during wartime.

That has not stopped talk in Kyiv that the policy could be reversed next year, although no one knows quite how or when a vote would take place. A significant factor driving the rumours is the need to counter Russia’s narrative that Zelensky is an illegitimate leader.

While the Ukrainian presidential office would ordinarily pay little attention to Kremlin propaganda, the issue has taken on a new importance before Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

“The Ukrainians have been planning for the possibility of Trump coming back for a while,” said Andrew Wilson, professor in Ukrainian studies at University College London and the author of several books about the country. “Russian propaganda about Zelensky’s illegitimacy is getting some traction in Republican circles and that’s one big reason why a new election is being talked about.”

Although Zelensky said before his landslide victory in 2019 that he would not run for a second term, he has since stated that he would take part in elections, if they are held in wartime.

“A lot of the talk about early elections is predicated on the assumption that it’s best to hold them before Zelensky’s popularity slides further,” Wilson said. “The presidential office is perfectly capable of cutting rivals down to size.”

The American dilemma

Keith Kellogg, a retired US general who is Trump’s pick for his Ukraine envoy, indicated that Washington could cut arms supplies to Kyiv if Zelensky refused to enter ceasefire negotiations with Moscow. President Putin has said that Russia would only halt its attacks if Ukraine agreed to surrender territory and renounce its ambitions to join Nato, which Kyiv has described as equivalent to capitulation.

“I don’t believe Zelensky’s support is so low that he lacks a societal mandate on issues of war and peace,” said Illia Ponomarenko, a Ukrainian journalist and the author of I Will Show You How It Was: The Story of Wartime Kyiv. “The problem lies beyond that. Three years of a gruelling war have undeniably created a demand to escape its horrors, even at a very steep price, such as territorial concessions.

“However, Donald Trump’s populist promise to stop the war within 24 hours may potentially lead to scenarios that align with the Kremlin’s demands — scenarios that would be inherently unacceptable and rejected even by a war-weary society.”

Zelensky’s critics have accused him of failing to react quickly and efficiently enough to wartime challenges, while also surrounding himself with people from Kvartal 95, the comedy studio that he co-founded more than 20 years ago. Corruption scandals in the armed forces have also tarnished his image, although there is no evidence that he himself has been guilty of any illicit dealings.

Enlistment

There is also a danger that Zelensky’s popularity could plummet even further if he goes ahead with Washington’s suggestion that Ukraine should begin sending younger men to the front. A senior official in President Biden’s administration said this week that Ukraine should lower the minimum age at which men could be mobilised for the war from 25 to 18.

“The simple truth is that Ukraine is not mobilising or training enough soldiers to replace their battlefield losses while keeping pace with Russia’s growing military,” the unnamed official said.

Ukraine’s parliament would need to first vote for the change in mobilisation, after which Zelensky would be required to approve it. MPs ruled last year to lower the minimum age from 27 to 25 but the decision was so sensitive that Zelensky waited almost a year before giving his approval.

Ustinova, who leads the Ukrainian parliamentary commission on arms and munitions, said she often had conversations in Washington about the issue. However, she argued that Ukraine’s demographic problems meant the move would spell disaster for the future of the country. “This would also be a clear signal for people to get their children out [of Ukraine] before they turn 18,” she said.

Disenchantment

It was perhaps inevitable that Zelensky’s leadership would lose its shine. No Ukrainian president apart from Leonid Kuchma, whose 1999 re-election was marred by suspicions of vote fraud, has secured a second term since the country gained independence from the Soviet Union.

“Maintaining popularity in this country is incredibly challenging, particularly during a difficult war,” Ponomarenko said. “It is a pattern we’ve seen before. We elect a new ‘saviour of the nation’ as president with sky-high approval ratings, quickly grow disillusioned and, in the best case, ensure their landslide defeat in the next election.”

Despite growing dissatisfaction with Zelensky and uncertainty over the future of the war, the country’s youngest president is likely to go down in history as the man who stood up to Putin and inspired Ukraine to resist.

“[He] found the strength not to break, succumb to cowardice, or temptation and instead rallied the nation in its darkest hour,” Ponomarenko said. “I sincerely hope Zelensky has the wisdom and self-control to retire with historic honour once circumstances allow for elections.”

Kit Klarenberg: Britain’s Kursk Invasion Backfires

By Kit Klarenberg, Substack, 11/24/24

All my investigations are free to access, thanks to the generosity of my readers. Independent journalism nonetheless requires investment, so if you took value from this article or any others, please consider sharing, or even becoming a paid subscriber. Your support is always gratefully received, and will never be forgotten. To buy me a coffee or two, please  click this link .

British Challenger 2 tanks reached Ukraine with enormous fanfare, ahead of Kiev’s long-delayed, ultimately catastrophic 2023 “counteroffensive”. On top of encouraging other proxy war sponsors to provide Ukraine with armoured fighting vehicles, Western audiences were widely told the tank – hitherto marketed to international buyers as “indestructible” – made Kiev’s ultimate victory a fait accompli. As it was, Challenger 2 tanks deployed to Robotnye in September were almost instantly incinerated by Russian fire, then very quietly withdrawn from combat altogether.

Hence, many online commentators were surprised when footage of the Challenger 2 in action in Kursk began to circulate widely on August 13th. Furthermore, numerous mainstream outlets dramatically drew attention to the tank’s deployment. Several were explicitly briefed by British military sources that it marked the first time in history London’s tanks “have been used in combat on Russian territory.” Disquietingly, The Times now reveals this was a deliberate propaganda and lobbying strategy, spearheaded by Prime Minister Keir Starmer. 

Prior to the Challenger 2’s presence in Kursk breaking, Starmer and Defence Secretary John Healey had reportedly “been in talks about how far to go to confirm growing British involvement in the incursion towards Kursk.” Ultimately, they decided “to be more open about Britain’s role in a bid to persuade key allies to do more to help – and convince the public that Britain’s security and economic prosperity is affected by events on the fields of Ukraine.” A “senior Whitehall source” added: 

“There won’t be shying away from the idea of British weapons being used in Russia as part of Ukraine’s defence. We don’t want any uncertainty or nervousness over Britain’s support at this critical moment and a half-hearted or uncertain response might have indicated that.”

In other words, London is taking the lead in marking itself out as a formal belligerent in the proxy war, in the hope other Western countries – particularly the US – will follow suit. What’s more, The Times strongly hints that Kursk is to all intents and purposes a British invasion. The outlet records:

“Unseen by the world, British equipment, including drones, have played a central role in Ukraine’s new offensive and British personnel have been closely advising the Ukrainian military…on a scale matched by no other country.”

Britain’s grand plans don’t stop there. Healey and Foreign Secretary David Lammy “have set up a joint Ukraine unit,” divided between the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence. The pair “held a joint briefing, with officials, for a cross-party group of 60 MPs on Ukraine,” while “Starmer has also asked the National Security Council to draw up plans to provide Ukraine with a broader range of support.” On top of military assistance, “industrial, economic, and diplomatic support” are also being explored.

The Times adds that in coming weeks, “Healey will attend a new meeting of the Ukraine Defence Coordination Group,” an international alliance of 57 countries overseeing the Western weaponry flooding into Kiev. There, “Britain will press European allies to send more equipment and give Kyiv more leeway to use them in Russia.” The British Defence Ministry also reportedly “spoke last week to Lloyd Austin, the US defence secretary, and has been wooing Boris Pistorius, his German opposite number.”

Evidently, the new Labour government has an ambitious vision for the proxy war’s continuation. Yet, if the “counterinvasion” is anything to go by, it’s already dead in the water. As The Times notes, the imbroglio is primarily “designed to boost morale at home and shore up Zelensky’s position,” while relieving pressure on the collapsing Donbass frontline by forcing Russia to redirect forces to Kursk. Instead, Moscow “has capitalised on the absence of four crack Ukrainian regiments to press their attacks around Pokrovsk and Chasiv Yar.”

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embe...

Similarly, commenting on Starmer’s wideranging efforts to compel overt Western action against Russia, a “defence expert” told The Times: “if it looks as if the Brits [are] too far ahead of their NATO allies, it might be counterproductive.” This analysis is prescient, for there are ample indications London’s latest attempt to ratchet tensions and drag the US and Europe ever-deeper into the proxy war quagmire has already been highly “counterproductive”, and boomeranged quite spectacularly. Indeed, it appears Washington has finally had enough of London’s escalatory connivances.

In repeated press conferences and media briefings since August 6th, US officials have firmly distanced themselves from the Kursk incursion, denying any involvement in its planning or execution, or even being forewarned by Kiev. Empire house journal Foreign Policy has reported that Ukraine’s swoop caught the Pentagon, State Department, and White House off-guard. The Biden administration is purportedly not only enormously unhappy “to have been kept out of the loop,” but “skeptical of the military logic” behind the “counterinvasion”. 

On top being a clear suicide mission, the eagerly advertised presence of Western weapons and vehicles on Russian soil “has put the Biden administration in an extremely awkward position.” Washington has since the proxy war erupted been wary of provoking retaliations against Western countries and their overseas assets, and the conflict spilling outside Ukraine’s borders. Adding to US irritations, the British-directed Kursk misadventure also torpedoed ongoing efforts to secure an agreement to halt “strikes on energy and power infrastructure on both sides.”

This comes as Kiev prepares for a harrowing winter without heat or light, due to devastating Russian attacks on its national energy grid. Putin has moreover made clear that Ukrainian actions in Kursk mean there is no longer scope for a wider negotiated settlement at all. Which is to say Moscow will now only accept unconditional surrender. The US has also seemingly changed course as a result of the “counterinvasion”.

On August 16th, it was reported that Washington had prohibited Ukraine’s use of British-made, long-range Storm Shadow missiles against Russian territory. Given securing wider Western acquiescence to such strikes is, per The Times, a core objective for Starmer, this can only be considered a harsh rebuke, before the Labour government’s escalatory lobbying efforts have even properly taken off. The Biden administration had in May granted permission for Kiev to conduct limited strikes in Russia, using guided munitions up to a 40-mile range.

Even that mild authorisation may be rescinded in due course. Berlin, which like Britain had initially proudly promoted the presence of its tanks in Kursk, is now decisively shifting away from the proxy war. On August 17th, German Finance Minister Christian Lindner announced a halt to any and all new military aid to Ukraine as part of a wider bid to slash federal government spending. The Wall Street Journal reporting three days earlier that Kiev was responsible for Nord Stream II’s destruction may be no coincidence.

Germany’s  Bild  newspaper: “In Russia, Ukraine advances with German tanks!”

The narrative of the Russo-German pipeline’s bombing detailed by the outlet was absurd in the extreme. Conveniently too, the WSJ acknowledged that admissions of “Ukrainian officials who participated in or are familiar with the plot” aside, “all arrangements” to strike Nord Stream “were made verbally, leaving no paper trail.” As such, the paper’s sources “believe it would be impossible to put any of the commanding officers on trial, because no evidence exists beyond conversations among top officials.”

Such an evidentiary deficit provides Berlin with an ideal pretext to step away from the proxy war, while insulating Kiev from any legal repercussions. The narrative of Ukraine’s unilateral culpability for the Nord Stream bombings also helpfully distracts from the attack’s most likely perpetrators. This journalist has exposed how a shadowy cabal of British intelligence operatives were the masterminds, and potential executors, of the October 2022 Kerch Bridge bombing.

Kerch Bridge in flames following its British-planned bombing

That escalatory incident, like Nord Stream’s destruction, was known about in advance, and apparently opposed, by the CIA. Chris Donnelly, the British military intelligence veteran who orchestrated the Kerch Bridge attack, has privately condemned Washington’s reluctance to embroil itself further in the proxy war, declaring “this US position must be challenged, firmly and at once.” In December that year, the BBC confirmed that British officials were worried about the Biden administration’s “innate caution”, and had “stiffened the US resolve at all levels”, via “pressure.”

The determination of Washington’s self-appointed “junior partner” to escalate the proxy conflict into all-out hot war between Russia and the West has only intensified under Starmer’s new Labour government. Yet, the Empire gives every appearance of refusing to take the bait, while seeking to curb London’s belligerent fantasies. This may be an encouraging sign that the proxy war is at last reaching its end. But we must remain vigilant. British intelligence is unlikely to allow the US to withdraw without a fight.

Exclusive: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov Describes the War With the US and How to End It – Interview with Tucker Carlson

YouTube link here.

AP: Desertion threatens to starve Ukraine’s forces at a crucial time in its war with Russia

By SAMYA KULLAB and VOLODYMYR YURCHUK, AP, 11/29/24

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Desertion is starving the Ukrainian army of desperately needed manpower and crippling its battle plans at a crucial time in its war with Russia, which could put Kyiv at a clear disadvantage in future ceasefire talks.

Facing every imaginable shortage, tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops, tired and bereft, have walked away from combat and front-line positions to slide into anonymity, according to soldiers, lawyers and Ukrainian officials. Entire units have abandoned their posts, leaving defensive lines vulnerable and accelerating territorial losses, according to military commanders and soldiers.

Some take medical leave and never return, haunted by the traumas of war and demoralized by bleak prospects for victory. Others clash with commanders and refuse to carry out orders, sometimes in the middle of firefights.

“This problem is critical,” said Oleksandr Kovalenko, a Kyiv-based military analyst. “This is the third year of war, and this problem will only grow.”

Although Moscow has also been dealing with desertions, Ukrainians going AWOL have laid bare deeply rooted problems bedeviling their military and how Kyiv is managing the war, from the flawed mobilization drive to the overstretching and hollowing out of front-line units. It comes as the U.S. urges Ukraine to draft more troops, and allow for the conscription of those as young as 18.

The Associated Press spoke to two deserters, three lawyers, and a dozen Ukrainian officials and military commanders. Officials and commanders spoke on condition of anonymity to divulge classified information, while one deserter did so because he feared prosecution.

“It is clear that now, frankly speaking, we have already squeezed the maximum out of our people,” said an officer with the 72nd Brigade, who noted that desertion was one of the main reasons Ukraine lost the town of Vuhledar in October.

The troops who walk away

More than 100,000 soldiers have been charged under Ukraine’s desertion laws since Russia invaded in February 2022, according to the country’s General Prosecutor’s Office.

Nearly half have gone AWOL in the last year alone, after Kyiv launched an aggressive and controversial mobilization drive that government officials and military commanders concede has largely failed.

It’s a staggeringly high number by any measure, as there were an estimated 300,000 Ukrainian soldiers engaged in combat before the mobilization drive began. And the actual number of deserters may be much higher. One lawmaker with knowledge of military matters estimated it could be as high as 200,000.

Many deserters don’t return after being granted medical leave. Bone-tired by the constancy of war, they are psychologically and emotionally scarred. They feel guilt about being unable to summon the will to fight, anger over how the war effort is being led, and frustration that it seems unwinnable.

“Being quiet about a huge problem only harms our country,” said Serhii Hnezdilov, one of few soldiers to speak publicly about his choice to desert. He was charged shortly after the AP interviewed him in September.

Another deserter said he initially left his infantry unit with permission because he needed surgery. By the time his leave was up, he couldn’t bring himself to return.

He still has nightmares about the comrades he saw get killed.

“The best way to explain it is imagining you are sitting under incoming fire and from their (Russian) side, it’s 50 shells coming toward you, while from our side, it’s just one. Then you see how your friends are getting torn to pieces, and you realize that any second, it can happen to you,” he said.

“Meanwhile guys (Ukrainian soldiers) 10 kilometers (6 miles) away order you on the radio: ‘Go on, brace yourselves. Everything will be fine,’” he said.

Hnezdilov also left to seek medical help. Before undergoing surgery, he announced he was deserting. He said after five years of military service, he saw no hope of ever being demobilized, despite earlier promises by the country’s leadership.

“If there’s no end term (to military service), it turns into a prison – it becomes psychologically hard to find reasons to defend this country,” Hnezdilov said.

A growing problem for Kyiv

Desertion has turned battle plans into sand that slips through military commanders’ fingertips.

The AP learned of cases in which defensive lines were severely compromised because entire units defied orders and abandoned their positions.

“Because of a lack of political will and poor management of troops, especially in the infantry, we certainly are not moving in a direction to properly defend the territories that we control now,” Hnezdilov said.

Ukraine’s military recorded a deficit of 4,000 troops on the front in September owing largely to deaths, injuries and desertions, according to a lawmaker. Most deserters were among recent recruits.

The head of one brigade’s legal service who is in charge of processing desertion cases and forwarding them to law enforcement said he’s had many of them.

“The main thing is that they leave combat positions during hostilities and their comrades die because of it. We had several situations when units fled, small or large. They exposed their flanks, and the enemy came to these flanks and killed their brothers in arms, because those who stood on the positions did not know that there was no one else around,” the official said.

That is how Vuhledar, a hilltop town that Ukraine defended for two years, was lost in a matter of weeks in October, said the 72nd Brigade officer, who was among the very last to withdraw.

The 72nd was already stretched thin in the weeks before Vuhledar fell. Only one line battalion and two rifle battalions held the town near the end, and military leaders even began pulling units from them to support the flanks, the officer said. There should have been 120 men in each of the battalion’s companies, but some companies’ ranks dropped to only 10 due to deaths, injuries and desertions, he said. About 20% of the soldiers missing from those companies had gone AWOL.

“The percentage has grown exponentially every month,” he added.

Reinforcements were sent once Russia wised up to Ukraine’s weakened position and attacked. But then the reinforcements also left, the officer said. Because of this, when one of the 72nd Brigade battalions withdrew, its members were gunned down because they didn’t know no one was covering them, he said.

Still, the officer harbors no ill will toward deserters.

“At this stage, I do not condemn any of the soldiers from my battalion and others. … Because everyone is just really tired,” he said.

Charging deserters

Prosecutors and the military would rather not press charges against AWOL soldiers and do so only if they fail to persuade them to return, according to three military officers and a spokesperson for Ukraine’s State Investigative Bureau. Some deserters return, only to leave again.

Ukraine’s General Staff said soldiers are given psychological support, but it didn’t respond to emailed questions about the toll desertions are having on the battlefield.

Once soldiers are charged, defending them is tricky, said two lawyers who take such cases. They focus on their clients’ psychological state when they left.

“People cannot psychologically cope with the situation they are in, and they are not provided with psychological help,” said attorney Tetyana Ivanova.

Soldiers acquitted of desertion due to psychological reasons set a dangerous precedent because “then almost everyone is justified (to leave), because there are almost no healthy people left (in the infantry),” she said.

Soldiers considering deserting have sought her advice. Several were being sent to fight near Vuhledar.

“They would not have taken the territory, they would not have conquered anything, but no one would have returned,” she said.

Jeffrey Sachs on the background to the Ukraine war

YouTube link here.

Relevant discussion starts at around the 1 hour and 5 minute mark. Video should start there.

Tucker Carlson: We are in a hot war with Russia right now | Redacted w Clayton Morris

YouTube link here.

Merkel memoir reveals fears about Ukraine joining NATO

RT, 11/21/24

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel has defended her decision to block Ukraine’s path to NATO membership during her tenure, warning that she knew inviting Kiev into the US-led bloc would provoke Russia and endanger European security.

In excerpts from her book ‘Freedom: Memories 1954-2021’ published by Die Zeit on Thursday, Merkel writes about the pivotal 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, where Ukraine and Georgia’s applications for Membership Action Plans (MAPs) were debated.

Merkel, then in her second term as Germany’s chancellor, opposed the move, arguing that it would antagonize Moscow without providing adequate security guarantees for the would-be applicants.

“I thought it was an illusion to assume that MAP status would have protected Ukraine or Georgia,” she explains. “Would NATO member states have responded militarily, with troops and material, if Russia attacked? Would I have received a mandate from the Bundestag to send German forces? I don’t think so.”

Merkel recounts an exchange with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who reportedly told her: “You won’t be chancellor forever. And then they’ll become members of NATO. And I want to prevent that.” She adds, “I thought: You won’t be president forever either. Nevertheless, my concerns about tensions with Russia at Bucharest remained unchanged.”

Critics argue that Merkel’s cautious approach emboldened Putin. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky has been among her harshest detractors, accusing Germany of prioritizing its energy ties with Russia over Kiev’s security.

Merkel acknowledges that the summit’s ambiguous promise that Ukraine and Georgia “will become NATO members” was a provocation directed at Moscow. She describes it as a “battle cry,” adding that her hesitation was driven by the need to protect NATO’s collective security.

“New members must strengthen the alliance as a whole,” she writes, pointing out that only a minority of Ukrainians supported NATO membership at the time.

Despite stepping back from public life, Merkel has faced continued criticism for her Russia policies, including Berlin’s reliance on cheap Russian gas. In 2022, she rejected calls to apologize, insisting that her decisions were grounded in the realities of the time.

Ukraine’s accession to NATO has been a point of debate among the bloc’s current members. Many states have spoken in favor of Kiev eventually joining the organization; Estonia has argued that the move would provide the best security guarantee for Ukraine. 

However, several member states, led by the US and Germany, have reportedly been reluctant to formally extend an invitation to Kiev. Washington’s ambassador to the bloc, Julianne Smith, told Politico last month that it has not yet reached a point where it is ready to offer Ukraine membership. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has also expressed concern that such a move could lead to a full-scale war between Russia and NATO.