The world at a crossroads

Vol 2 No 31 | Sept 2022

Your Editor, Jamari Mohtar, is very concerned the escalation of the Ukraine war with Russia announcing its partial mobilisation of its military reserves would inflict not only the spectre of a nuclear war but also more economic hardship to the world especially emerging Asian countries which are doing relatively well now despite the war.

On Sept 21, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a partial military mobilisation during an address to the nation, saying the Defense Ministry had recommended drawing military reservists into active service as the country faces a protracted conflict in Ukraine and Donbas.
This is considered a sensible and necessary measure, Putin said, considering Russia is fighting “the entire Western military machine” in Ukraine. He has already signed an order for the call-up to start immediately.
The move will see the armed forces draw on military reservists only, and those who have completed national service, the president added.
He promised they would be provided with additional training, along with all the benefits due to people involved in active duty.
On the same day, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu revealed the ministry wanted to mobilise some 300,000 reservists, or just over 1% of Russia’s full mobilisation potential.
Putin has accused Kiev of backing away from peace talks with Moscow, which he said it had done on the instructions of its Western backers.
Instead, the Ukrainian government has doubled down on military action, he said.
“After certain compromises (with Moscow) were reached, Kiev received a de facto direct order to derail all agreements. More weapons were pumped into Ukraine.
“The Kiev regime deployed more gangs of international mercenaries and nationalists, military units trained to NATO standards and under de facto command of Western advisers,” Putin said.
Russian forces sent to Ukraine in February have secured a large portion of territory claimed by the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, as well as parts of Ukraine, he said. The resulting front line stretches over 1,000km, the president pointed out.
He warned the US and its allies against ramping up pressure on Moscow. Western nations are openly pursuing a military defeat of Russia, seeking to push the country into insignificance and to loot its natural wealth, he stated.
“Parts of Western elites use every effort to preserve their dominance. That is why they try to block and suppress any sovereign centres of development, so that they can continue to brutally force their will on other nations and peoples, to impose their pseudo-values,” he explained. “Their goal is to weaken, disunite and ultimately destroy our nation.”
Some senior officials in NATO states have even suggested that using tactical nuclear weapons against Russian troops would be justified, according to Putin. The president stressed that Moscow would not hesitate to retaliate to such an attack with its own nuclear weapons.

Putin also commented on the upcoming referendums in the two Donbas republics and two regions of Ukraine currently controlled to a large extent by Russian troops.
The four entities are putting to a general vote a proposal to ask Moscow to accept them as new parts of the Russian Federation, with polling scheduled to start on Sept 23.
The Russian leader pledged to support the plebiscites in terms of security and said his government would respect whatever outcomes they produce.
Russia’s goal is to protect civilians from the Ukrainian government, which had escalated the persecution of its opponents at home and had been using terrorist tactics against people living in Russia-controlled lands, Putin said.
In an interview with Newsweek published on the same day that Putin announced the partial mobilisation, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Washington is perilously close to being openly involved in the conflict in Ukraine.
He said this in response to a question about a possible confrontation between nuclear-armed world powers.
The US and its allies aren’t seeking peace in Ukraine, but to use the country to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, said Lavrov, who was in New York for the 77th UN General Assembly
“Today, Western states funnel weapons and military hardware into the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, and train Ukraine’s armed forces. NATO and US weapons are used to fire at Russian territory bordering Ukraine, killing civilians there.
“The Pentagon does not hide that it’s providing Kiev with intelligence and target designations for strikes. We’ve recorded the presence of American mercenaries and advisers on the battlefield,” Lavrov told the US magazine.
Expanding further on Putin’s point, Lavrov said the US and its allies are openly seeking to defeat Russia on the battlefield and are ready to sacrifice Ukraine to achieve their geopolitical goals.
When Moscow and Kiev almost reached an agreement in March, this turn of events “obviously frightened the Americans and the British, so they actually forbade Ukraine to conduct further dialogue with Russia,” the Russian diplomat said.
This was presumably a reference to revelations by pro-government media in Kiev that then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson had brought such a message to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
“It is objectively not possible to maintain normal communication with Washington” after the US declared “the strategic defeat of Russia” as its policy goal, Lavrov told the outlet.
The West left Moscow with no choice but to launch a special military operation, after it created and nurtured “a Russophobic neo-Nazi regime” in Kiev and sent weapons into Ukraine in order to turn it into a “springboard for containing Russia,” the foreign minister explained.
The goals of the operation are to protect the population of Donbas, eliminate threats to Russia’s security, and the “demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine,” Lavrov said.
“All of them remain relevant and will be achieved, no matter how long it takes.”

Meanwhile Washington has slammed as “irresponsible” the warning by Putin that Russia is prepared to use any means necessary to protect its territorial integrity.
Speaking to ABC News on Sep 21, White House spokesman John Kirby said: “We always have to take this kind of rhetoric seriously,” but condemned Putin’s reference to the use of nuclear weapons, adding that “it’s irresponsible rhetoric for a nuclear power to talk that way.”
Kirby said Washington was monitoring the situation “as best we can” but noted there has been no indication Russia has shifted its strategic posture and the US currently sees no need to adjust its own.
In the event Russia does decide to deploy nuclear weapons, Kirby warned there would be “severe consequences” for Moscow, referring to a previous statement by US President Joe Biden, in which he urged Russia to avoid using nukes, saying it would “change the face of war unlike anything since WWII.”
This belligerent response was also made by a former commander of the US Army in Europe, Ben Hodg who said the US could destroy Russia’s Crimea-based Black Sea Fleet or its bases on the peninsula if Moscow resorts to using nuclear weapons in Ukraine.
In an interview with the Daily Mail, Hodges described the possibility of Putin ordering the deployment of nukes as “very unlikely.” He will not do so because “he knows the US will have to respond if Russia uses a nuclear weapon,” he claimed.
“The US response may not be nuclear… but could very well be a devastating strike that could, for example, destroy the Black Sea Fleet or destroy Russian bases in Crimea,” Hodges, who was in charge of the US forces in Europe between 2014 and 2018, said. “So, I think President Putin and those around him will be reluctant to draw the US into the conflict directly.”

British ambassador to Ukraine Melinda Simmons claimed Putin “still refuses to understand Ukraine. Partial mobilisation and sham referenda don’t change that essential weakness.”
Robert Habeck, who is both vice chancellor and economy minister of Germany, described Moscow’s partial mobilisation as “another bad and misguided step” by the country. He also vowed Berlin will continue to support Kiev in its conflict with Moscow.
The US, EU, and the UK and some other countries have been actively supporting Ukraine during the fighting, providing Kiev with weapons, including multiple rocket launch systems, armoured vehicles and drones, as well as sharing intelligence and sending billions of dollars in financial aid to the government of Zelensky.
Several thousand foreign mercenaries have also been involved in the conflict on Kiev’s side. According to Shoigu more than 2,000 of them have been killed, with another 1,000 soldiers of fortune remaining in the ranks of the Ukrainian military.
Only French President Emmanuel Macron stressed on the importance of a negotiated peace as the only solution to the crisis.
Saying the conflict between Russia and Ukraine “will only end at the negotiating table,” Macron called for a “negotiated peace” between the neighbours during an interview on Sep 22 with French TV station BFM aboard his plane returning from the UN General Assembly session in New York.
Earlier this month, Lavrov said Moscow “didn’t reject” the idea of talks with Kiev, but warned the longer the Ukrainian side delayed them, the harder it would be for common ground to be found.
Speaking about the Western role in the conflict in Ukraine, Macron insisted “our duty is to hold our line.” And that line, according to him, is “helping Kiev to protect its territory and never to attack Russia.”
“We are not at war with Russia,” the French president assured.
Echoing the same assurance was a senior official of EU. Its foreign policy spokesman Peter Stano said the EU is not in a state of war with Russia, given that earlier Putin had claimed Russia is facing “the entire Western military machine” in Ukraine.
His statement came hours after Putin announced a partial mobilisation of troops.
Stano also stressed: “Of course we are not at war with Russia. We are supporting Ukraine’s legitimate, justified fight to defend its people and its territory,” he said, adding that Kiev is protecting not only itself, but also European democratic values.
Stano also denounced the mobilisation announcement calling it “just another proof” that Putin is not interested in peace and seeks to “escalate his war of aggression. This is also yet another sign of his desperation,” Stano added.
But many analysts who had watched the full broadcast of Putin’s speech said the Russian leader’s demeanour and body language showed a person who is far from being desperate.
Rather, it showed a person who is very determined to stop the aggression he perceived from the US and EU on Russia.
While Stano vowed that the EU would impose “consequences” on Russia over its latest moves in Ukraine, he didn’t announce any new sanctions.
Very often, we heard the US and EU claiming the Russian invasion of Ukraine was an unprovoked war of aggression. Is this true?

To begin with, what was the Ukraine war all about? One thing to remember is that the war didn’t start last February as many thought.
It would be really short sighted if we believe the war started in February 2022.
It started eight years ago in February 2014 in the aftermath of the Maidan Revolution in which a democratically elected president of Ukraine was deposed with US interference.
The deposed president managed to escape to Moscow and asked for Russian assistance.
The root of the present crisis actually went back to the late 2013 when the then government of Ukraine under President Viktor Yanukovych was caught between a rock and hard place.
There was a tussle for influence between Russia and the EU when then Ukrainian PM Mykola Azarov had asked for €20 billion (US$27 billion) in loans and aid.
The EU was willing to offer €610 million (US$838 million) in loans, but Russia was willing to offer more i.e. US$15 billion, as well as cheaper gas prices.
In addition, the EU demanded major changes to Ukraine’s regulations and laws, but Russia did not.
President Yanukovych then refused to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the EU at a meeting of the Eastern Partnership in Vilnius, Lithuania on November 2013, choosing closer ties with Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union
This led to a wave of large-scale protests known as Euromaidan, which went on for months as a prelude to the Maidan Revolution in February 2014 where clashes between the protestors and the special riot police became violent, and resulted in the deaths of nearly 130 people, including 18 police officers.
Basically the people in western Ukraine favoured an agreement with the EU, while those in the east and south favoured closer ties with Russia.
On February 21, President Yanukovych and the leaders of the parliamentary opposition signed a settlement agreement that called for early elections.
The following day, Yanukovych fled from the capital ahead of an impeachment vote that stripped him of his powers as president.
And to make matters worse, shortly after Yanukovych’s overthrow and exile to Russia, Ukraine’s eastern and southern regions erupted with pro-Russia unrest, with leaders of Russian-speaking eastern regions of Ukraine declaring their continued loyalty to Yanukovych.

On February 23, the parliament adopted a bill to repeal the 2012 law, which gave Russian language an official status.
Though the bill was not enacted, however, the proposal provoked negative reactions in the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine, intensified by Russian media saying that the ethnic Russian population was in imminent danger.
On February 27, an interim government was established and early presidential elections were scheduled.
The following day, Yanukovych resurfaced in Russia and in a press conference declared that he remained the acting president of Ukraine, just as Russia was beginning its overt military campaign in Crimea.
Russia considered the overthrow of Yanukovych to be an illegal coup and did not recognise the interim government.
On March 1, Russia’s parliament approved a request from Putin to deploy Russian troops to Ukraine.
On March 24 Putin stated, referring to the 2014 Ukrainian presidential election, “We will respect the choice of the Ukrainian people and will be working with the authorities formed on the basis of this election.”
But where were the US interference in all these events?
It’s colour revolution – a term used since around 2004 by the media worldwide to describe various anti-regime protest movements and accompanying (attempted or successful) changes of government that took place in post-Soviet Eurasia during the early 21st century – namely countries of the former Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia, and People’s Republic of China.
The term has also been more widely applied to several other revolutions elsewhere, including in the Middle East, the Asia-Pacific region, and South America, dating from the late 1980s to the 2020s.
The first successful attempt of colour revolution (which wasn’t called by that name then) was the CIA-engineered anti-regime protests in Iran that led to the downfall of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the unpopular monarchical rule of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on August 19, 1953.

If you are puzzled over the continued Iranian animosity towards the US today, it is because this 1953 incident remains etched in the collective psyche and memory of the Iranians.
In the case of Ukraine, the colour revolution started in Dec 2013 with the appearance of Republican Senator John McCain in company with Democratic senator Chris Murphy working out the crowds in Ukraine, with the former saying:
“Ukraine will make Europe better and Europe will make Ukraine better, we are here to support your just cause, the sovereign right of Ukraine to determine its own destiny freely and independently. And the destiny you seek lies in Europe.”
Then there was a recorded phone conversation leaked on Feb 4 2014, between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing their wishes for a Ukraine transition to an interim government, and specifically, the roles in which they hoped to see the prominent opposition leaders played.
These were clearly meddling in the internal affairs of a country even if the aim is to protect the democratic values of the West.
All attempts of the past to impose democratic values on a country by the US had turned the country concerned into a failed state.
Look at Iraq, where the US went to war to establish democratic values there under the pretext of finding Saddam Hussain’s weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam was overthrown, weapons of mass destruction were not found, democratic institutions flourished but Iraq remains no better today than it was under Saddam.
Ditto with Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, and the colour revolutions that gave rise to the Arab Spring. All the countries involved remained worse off today than before the Arab Spring occurred.

In the case of Ukraine, the colour revolution enunciated by the US in the late 2013 was indeed successful in causing a regime change but before the change can be consolidated, Russia preempted it.
It sent its army to eastern Ukraine to bolster the pro-Russian separatists who had by then formed the People’s Republic of Donetsk and the People’s Republic of Lugansk in eastern Ukraine, collectively known as Donbas.
This was actually the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war, which lasted for a few months before ceasefires were implemented under the Minsk agreements brokered by Germany and France in May 2014.
After eight years of the Minsk agreements whose ceasefire was continuously violated by both parties, Russia sent troops into Ukraine again on February 24 this year, citing Kiev’s failure to implement the Minsk agreements, designed to give the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk special status within the Ukrainian state.
Former Ukrainian president Pyotr Poroshenko has since admitted that Kiev’s main goal was to use the ceasefire to buy time and “create powerful armed forces.”
It is in this context one can understand what Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in an interview with the PBS news outlet on Sep 20.
Erdogan said a settlement in the Ukrainian conflict would require Russia to return all “invaded” lands to Ukraine.
“If a peace is going to be established in Ukraine, of course, the returning of the land that was invaded will become really important. This is what is expected. This is what is wanted,” he said.
Erdogan said that “no invasion can be justified,” but acknowledged that at the same time, “prior to the breaking out of this conflict, many things had happened.”
A solution therefore won’t be found in “person to the one side entirely and defending the other,” he said.
Erdogan has maintained a largely neutral position on the Ukrainian conflict and emphasized to PBS that the UN should conduct investigations into alleged war crimes and play the role of arbitrator between the sides.
“We are not going to defend a single leader. But, instead, we have to be looking for a conclusion that will satisfy all parties involved,” he stressed.

Read more on the partial mobilisation of Russia’s military reserves, and the past and present causes of the Ukraine war:

World reacts to Putin’s partial mobilisation plans in Ukraine war

Three EU leaders urge calm over Putin’s nuclear rhetoric

Exclusive: Russia’s Sergey Lavrov Warns U.S. It Risks Becoming Combatant in Ukraine War

America WILL retaliate with ‘a devastating strike’ against Russia’s Black Sea Fleet or bases in Crimea if Putin follows through on threat to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, US Army’s former European commander warns

French President Macron: goal is to obtain negotiated peace on Russia/Ukraine conflict

Macron suggests how Ukraine conflict should end

EU not at war with Russia – senior official

Russia calls out Western elites at UN

Russia, Ukraine ‘close to agreement’ in negotiations, says Turkey

Ukraine-Russia talks stir optimism, but West urges caution

Why do peace talks fail? A negotiation expert answers 5 questions about the slim chances for a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine

Russia and Ukraine blame each other after peace talks stall

Russians in Ukraine: Before and after Euromaidan

Azarov: Ukraine requesting €20 billion from EU as financial aid

EU suspends Ukraine trade talks amid protests in Kiev

How the West paved the way for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

Russia Offers Cash Infusion for Ukraine

Ukraine accepts US$15b Russian bailout

John McCain tells Ukraine protesters: ‘We are here to support your just cause’

Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call

GT Investigates: US wages global color revolutions to topple govts for the sake of American control

Vladimir Putin vows to stop ‘colour revolutions’ after sending troops to Kazakhstan

How The CIA Overthrew Iran’s Democracy In 4 Days

When Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a partial mobilisation of military reserves, he also said some senior officials in NATO states have even suggested that using tactical nuclear weapons against Russian troops would be justified.
The president stressed that Moscow would not hesitate to retaliate to such an attack with its own nuclear weapons.
Suddenly this is seen by the west as Russia wanting to be the first to launch a nuclear attack.
The key word here is “retaliate” which means a response. But a response to what? The answer is there i.e. “using tactical nuclear weapons against Russian troops”.
It is amazing that NATO and EU politicians from countries where English is the mother tongue interpreted this to mean Russia is the one who would initiate the first nuclear attack.
It is understandable if EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Josep Borrell thought so because English is not his mother tongue.
This is an example of a Russo-phobic atmosphere in the West that Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is referring to in his speech at the UN.
When Putin made the statement he could be referring to Poland’s ruling party leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski who said way back in April that Poland would be open to having nuclear weapons stationed in the country and welcome a 50% increase in the number of US troops in Europe.
In fact, according to former Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, one of the reasons for the special operation in Ukraine was a statement by Ukrainian President Zelensky, who said at one point that Kiev does not rule out restoring its nuclear potential.
“Apparently, he wanted to scare us, but in the end he created an even heavier atmosphere, which ultimately forced the Russian Federation to launch a special military operation,” he said.
And Zelensky was among the first to say that he didn’t think Putin will be using nukes first but he is now making a U-turn by saying he now thinks Putin is serious in using it.
Apparently the former comedian realises the value of the war propaganda on Russia is serious in using its nuclear weapon first after seeing the US and almost all EU leaders believing in it.
Way back in August, Ivan Nechaev, deputy press secretary of the Russian Foreign Ministry, stated that Moscow has no need to use a nuclear option in Ukraine, and that Russia is a responsible nuclear power, which will only use its atomic arsenal if its very existence is under threat.
This is exactly the simple meaning of Putin’s recent statement on the use of nuclear weapons.
There are some who opined the referendum conducted by Russia in Donetsk and Lugansk republics, Zaporozhye Region, and Kherson is a move to annex these regions, which will allow the Kremlin to claim that Ukraine is attacking “Russian territory”.

That, in turn, will activate Russian defence doctrine, which allows the use of nuclear weapons.
The logic in this argument is right but the conclusion is wrong. Russia will not activate the use of its nuclear weapon if no one uses such weapon in attacking the four regions.
It is interesting to note that in an interview with the French media in August, Medvedev, when asked on the possible use of tactical atomic weapons, or arms containing depleted uranium, said Russia has never put those into action, unlike some Western countries.
“Over the past 20-30 years, the NATO states have used them quite actively both in Yugoslavia and Iraq. There is some uncertainty around this topic, with very tragic consequences. So, in this sense, we must first look at what Western countries have done in certain situations,” the former president said.
In fact the US has no moral standing to talk about the use of nuclear weapon when it still holds the record of being the only country in the world to use it on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Thus, the only conclusion we can draw with this partial mobilisation by Russia is either the Ukraine war will relatively end speedily as winter sets in with a Russian victory that will force Ukraine to the negotiating table, or the world will have to come to terms with a long and protracted war that will cause severe hardships to all countries in the world.
This war can never end with a Ukraine victory because Ukraine can never win this war on its own. It has to rely on the US and the EU to win.
So the onus is on the US and EU to convince Zelensky to negotiate for an end to the war on terms that will be less humiliating for Ukraine.

Read more on the implications of Russia’s partial mobilisation:

Putin isn’t bluffing about nuclear weapons – EU

Poland ‘open’ to nukes stationed in country amid Russia-Ukraine war – party head

Ex-Russian president names condition for using nukes

Early turnout numbers for referendums on joining Russia revealed

Putin’s suicidal gamble

On Sept 21, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a partial military mobilisation during an address to the nation, saying the Defense Ministry had recommended drawing military reservists into active service as the country faces a protracted conflict in Ukraine and Donbas.

This is considered a sensible and necessary measure, Putin said, considering Russia is fighting “the entire Western military machine” in Ukraine. He has already signed an order for the call-up to start immediately.

Putin has accused Kiev of backing away from peace talks with Moscow, which he said it had done on the instructions of its Western backers. Instead, the Ukrainian government has doubled down on military action.

“After certain compromises (with Moscow) were reached, Kiev received a de facto direct order to derail all agreements. More weapons were pumped into Ukraine. The Kiev regime deployed more gangs of international mercenaries and nationalists, military units trained to NATO standards and under de facto command of Western advisers,” Putin said.

Russian forces sent to Ukraine in February have secured a large portion of territory claimed by the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, as well as parts of Ukraine. The resulting front line stretches over 1,000km, the president pointed out.

He warned the US and its allies against ramping up pressure on Moscow. Western nations are openly pursuing a military defeat of Russia, seeking to push the country into insignificance and to loot its natural wealth, he stated.

“Parts of Western elites use every effort to preserve their dominance. That is why they try to block and suppress any sovereign centres of development, so that they can continue to brutally force their will on other nations and peoples, to impose their pseudo-values,” he explained. “Their goal is to weaken, disunite and ultimately destroy our nation.”

Some senior officials in NATO states have even suggested that using tactical nuclear weapons against Russian troops would be justified, according to Putin. The president stressed that Moscow would not hesitate to retaliate to such an attack with its own nuclear weapons.

In an interview with Newsweek published on the same day that Putin announced the partial mobilisation, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Washington is perilously close to being openly involved in the conflict in Ukraine.

The US and its allies aren’t seeking peace in Ukraine, but to use the country to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, said Lavrov, who was in New York for the 77th UN General Assembly session.

“Today, Western states funnel weapons and military hardware into the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev, and train Ukraine’s armed forces. NATO and US weapons are used to fire at Russian territory bordering Ukraine, killing civilians there.

“The Pentagon does not hide that it’s providing Kiev with intelligence and target designations for strikes. We’ve recorded the presence of American mercenaries and advisers on the battlefield,” Lavrov told the US magazine.

Expanding further on Putin’s point, Lavrov said the US and its allies are openly seeking to defeat Russia on the battlefield and are ready to sacrifice Ukraine to achieve their geopolitical goals.

When Moscow and Kiev almost reached an agreement in March, this turn of events “obviously frightened the Americans and the British, so they actually forbade Ukraine to conduct further dialogue with Russia,” the Russian diplomat said.

This was presumably a reference to revelations by pro-government media in Kiev that then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson had brought such a message to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“It is objectively not possible to maintain normal communication with Washington” after the US declared “the strategic defeat of Russia” as its policy goal, Lavrov told the outlet.

Meanwhile Washington has slammed as “irresponsible” the warning by Putin that Russia is prepared to use any means necessary to protect its territorial integrity.

Speaking to ABC News on Sep 21, White House spokesman John Kirby said: “We always have to take this kind of rhetoric seriously,” but condemned Putin’s reference to the use of nuclear weapons, adding that “it’s irresponsible rhetoric for a nuclear power to talk that way.”

Kirby said Washington was monitoring the situation “as best we can” but noted there has been no indication Russia has shifted its strategic posture and the US currently sees no need to adjust its own. In the event Russia does decide to deploy nuclear weapons, Kirby warned there would be “severe consequences” for Moscow.

This belligerent response was also made by a former commander of the US Army in Europe, Ben Hodg who said the US could destroy Russia’s Crimea-based Black Sea Fleet or its bases on the peninsula if Moscow resorts to using nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

“The US response may not be nuclear… but could very well be a devastating strike that could, for example, destroy the Black Sea Fleet or destroy Russian bases in Crimea,” Hodges, who was in charge of the US forces in Europe between 2014 and 2018, said. “So, I think President Putin and those around him will be reluctant to draw the US into the conflict directly.”

British ambassador to Ukraine Melinda Simmons claimed Putin “still refuses to understand Ukraine. Partial mobilisation and sham referenda don’t change that essential weakness.”

Robert Habeck, who is both vice chancellor and economy minister of Germany, described Moscow’s partial mobilisation as “another bad and misguided step” by the country. He also vowed Berlin will continue to support Kiev in its conflict with Moscow.

The US, EU, and the UK and some other countries have been actively supporting Ukraine during the fighting, providing Kiev with weapons, including multiple rocket launch systems, armoured vehicles and drones, as well as sharing intelligence and sending billions of dollars in financial aid to the government of Zelensky.

Only French President Emmanuel Macron stressed on the importance of a negotiated peace as the only solution to the crisis.

Saying the conflict between Russia and Ukraine “will only end at the negotiating table,” Macron called for a “negotiated peace” between the neighbours during an interview on Sep 22 with French TV station BFM aboard his plane returning from the UN General Assembly session in New York.

Speaking about the Western role in the conflict in Ukraine, Macron insisted “our duty is to hold our line.” And that line, according to him, is “helping Kiev to protect its territory and never to attack Russia. We are not at war with Russia,” the French president assured.

Echoing the same assurance was a senior official of EU. Its foreign policy spokesman Peter Stano said the EU is not in a state of war with Russia, given that earlier Putin had claimed Russia is facing “the entire Western military machine” in Ukraine.

Stano also stressed: “Of course we are not at war with Russia. We are supporting Ukraine’s legitimate, justified fight to defend its people and its territory,” he said, adding that Kiev is protecting not only itself, but also European democratic values.

He denounced the mobilisation announcement calling it “just another proof” that Putin is not interested in peace and seeks to “escalate his war of aggression. This is also yet another sign of his desperation,” Stano added.

But many analysts who had watched the full broadcast of Putin’s speech said the Russian leader’s demeanour and body language showed a person who is far from being desperate. Rather, it showed a person who is very determined to stop the aggression he perceived from the US and EU on Russia.

While Stano vowed that the EU would impose “consequences” on Russia over its latest moves in Ukraine, he didn’t announce any new sanctions.

To begin with, what was the Ukraine war all about? One thing to remember is that the war didn’t start last February as many thought. It would be really short sighted if we believe the war started in February 2022.

It started eight years ago in February 2014 in the aftermath of the Maidan Revolution in which a democratically elected president of Ukraine was deposed with US interference. The deposed president managed to escape to Moscow and asked for Russian assistance.

The root of the present crisis actually went back to the late 2013 when the then government of Ukraine under President Viktor Yanukovych was caught between a rock and hard place.

There was a tussle for influence between Russia and the EU when then Ukrainian PM Mykola Azarov had asked for €20 billion (US$27 billion) in loans and aid. The EU was willing to offer €610 million (US$838 million) in loans, but Russia was willing to offer more i.e. US$15 billion, as well as cheaper gas prices. In addition, the EU demanded major changes to Ukraine’s regulations and laws, but Russia did not.

President Yanukovych then refused to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the EU at a meeting of the Eastern Partnership in Vilnius, Lithuania on November 2013, choosing closer ties with Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union instead.

This led to a wave of large-scale protests known as Euromaidan, which went on for months as a prelude to the Maidan Revolution in February 2014 where clashes between the protestors and the special riot police became violent, and resulted in the deaths of nearly 130 people, including 18 police officers.

Basically the people in western Ukraine favoured an agreement with the EU, while those in the east and south favoured closer ties with Russia.

On February 21, President Yanukovych and the leaders of the parliamentary opposition signed a settlement agreement that called for early elections. The following day, Yanukovych fled from the capital ahead of an impeachment vote that stripped him of his powers as president.

And to make matters worse, shortly after Yanukovych’s overthrow and exile to Russia, Ukraine’s eastern and southern regions erupted with pro-Russia unrest, with leaders of Russian-speaking eastern regions of Ukraine declaring their continued loyalty to Yanukovych.

On February 23, the parliament adopted a bill to repeal the 2012 law, which gave Russian language an official status. Though the bill was not enacted, however, the proposal provoked negative reactions in the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine, intensified by Russian media saying that the ethnic Russian population was in imminent danger.

On February 27, an interim government was established and early presidential elections were scheduled. The following day, Yanukovych resurfaced in Russia and in a press conference declared that he remained the acting president of Ukraine, just as Russia was beginning its overt military campaign in Crimea.

But where were the US interference in all these events?

It’s colour revolution – a term used since around 2004 by the media worldwide to describe various anti-regime protest movements and accompanying (attempted or successful) changes of government that took place in post-Soviet Eurasia during the early 21st century – namely countries of the former Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia, and People’s Republic of China.

The term has also been more widely applied to several other revolutions elsewhere, including in the Middle East, the Asia-Pacific region, and South America, dating from the late 1980s to the 2020s.

The first successful attempt of colour revolution (which wasn’t called by that name then) was the CIA-engineered anti-regime protests in Iran that led to the downfall of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the unpopular monarchical rule of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on August 19, 1953.

If you are puzzled over the continued Iranian animosity towards the US today, it is because this 1953 incident remains etched in the collective psyche and memory of the Iranians.

In the case of Ukraine, the colour revolution started in Dec 2013 with the appearance of Republican Senator John McCain in company with Democratic senator Chris Murphy working out the crowds in Ukraine.

Then there was a recorded phone conversation leaked on Feb 4 2014, between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing their wishes for a Ukraine transition to an interim government, and specifically, the roles in which they hoped to see the prominent opposition leaders played.

These were clearly meddling in the internal affairs of a country even if the aim is to protect the democratic values of the West.

All attempts of the past to impose democratic values on a country by the US had turned the country concerned into a failed state.

Look at Iraq, where the US went to war to establish democratic values there under the pretext of finding Saddam Hussain’s weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam was overthrown, weapons of mass destruction were not found, democratic institutions flourished but Iraq remains no better today than it was under Saddam.

Ditto with Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, and the colour revolutions that gave rise to the Arab Spring. All the countries involved remained worse off today than before the Arab Spring occurred.

In the case of Ukraine, the colour revolution enunciated by the US in the late 2013 was indeed successful in causing a regime change but before the change can be consolidated, Russia preempted it.

It sent its army to eastern Ukraine to bolster the pro-Russian separatists who had by then formed the People’s Republic of Donetsk and the People’s Republic of Lugansk in eastern Ukraine, collectively known as Donbas.

This was actually the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war, which lasted for a few months before ceasefires were implemented under the Minsk agreements brokered by Germany and France in May 2014.

After eight years of the Minsk agreements whose ceasefire was continuously violated by both parties, Russia sent troops into Ukraine again on February 24 this year, citing Kiev’s failure to implement the Minsk agreements, designed to give the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk special status within the Ukrainian state.

Former Ukrainian president Pyotr Poroshenko has since admitted that Kiev’s main goal was to use the ceasefire to buy time and “create powerful armed forces.”

It is in this context one can understand what Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in an interview with the PBS news outlet on Sep 20.

Erdogan said a settlement in the Ukrainian conflict would require Russia to return all “invaded” lands to Ukraine.

“If a peace is going to be established in Ukraine, of course, the returning of the land that was invaded will become really important. This is what is expected. This is what is wanted,” he said.

Erdogan said that “no invasion can be justified,” but acknowledged that at the same time, “prior to the breaking out of this conflict, many things had happened.”

A solution therefore won’t be found in “person to the one side entirely and defending the other,” he said. Erdogan has maintained a largely neutral position on the Ukrainian conflict and emphasized to PBS that the UN should conduct investigations into alleged war crimes and play the role of arbitrator between the sides.

“We are not going to defend a single leader. But, instead, we have to be looking for a conclusion that will satisfy all parties involved,” he stressed.

Regards,

Jamari Mohtar

Editor, Let’s Talk!

Recent Posts

Like this: