Connect with us

EUROPE

Ukraine: What Russia Wants, What the West Can Do

Ukraine: What Russia Wants, What the West Can Do
Kyiv resident Natalia Sevriukova reacts next to her house following a rocket attack on Kyiv, Ukraine. February 25, 2022. Emilio Morenatti/AP Photo

For those who understand Moscow’s establishment and view of their country’s vital interests, none of this should be a surprise.

The illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine has shocked the West and many ordinary Russians. But for those who understand the Russian establishment and its view of Russia’s vital interests, it should not have come as a complete surprise.

Since NATO expansion first began in the mid-1990s, Russian officials and other establishment figures have been warning that if the West tried to turn Ukraine into an ally against Russia, this would lead to confrontation and quite possibly war. As the great international relations scholar Hans Morgenthau taught, to craft a viable U.S. policy towards other major states, it is essential to understand from within how they see the world and their country’s place in it. Today, we need to do this if we are to craft a policy towards Russia that will bring about an end to this war, a Russian withdrawal from Ukraine, and a restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty.

The foreign and security establishments of all major states operate on the basis of what might be called doctrines concerning their countries’ vital interests and place in the world. The Russian establishment believes that Moscow must be one pole of a multipolar world. If you do not believe in that, you do not belong to the Russian establishment, just as if you do not believe in U.S. global primacy, you do not belong to the U.S. establishment.

Ukraine is critical to that vision. A Ukraine hostile to Russia and strongly linked to the West negates any possibility of Russia leading a reasonably strong regional bloc of states. From this point of view, most Western observers have not understood just how severe was the defeat suffered by Russia when Ukraine experienced the revolution of 2014 and rejected membership of the Eurasian Union. Seizing part of the Donbas, and even annexing Crimea, were very miserable consolation prizes by comparison.

Ukraine is by far the biggest former Soviet republic apart from Russia, with 44 million people to Kazakhstan’s 18 million and Belarus’ nine million. Ukraine has by far the largest Russian ethnic minority outside Russia. Without a largely Russian-speaking Ukraine, Russia loses most of its status as an international language. Without Ukrainian membership, the Eurasian Union is a pathetic shadow. At the very least, the Russian establishment — going back to Boris Yeltsin’s administration in the 1990s — has been absolutely determined that Ukraine should not join an anti-Russian alliance.

Russia’s interest in Ukraine however goes far beyond the economic and strategic. As emphasized in Putin’s articles and speeches, Russians see their own cultural and historical identity as closely bound up with that of Ukraine. This owes something to the origins of the Russian state and Orthodox religion in Kievan Rus, and something to the role of Ukrainians in modern Russian culture, as symbolized by Nikolai Gogol (Mykola Hohol in Ukrainian), a great Ukrainian writer who identified with the Russian Empire and wrote in Russian.

This factor imparts a strong element of historically-based nationalism to the Russian and Putin attitude towards Ukraine. There is some understanding in Russia of why Ukrainians would want their own state, but almost none of why Ukrainians would want to define that state against Russia. Hence the Russian demonology of “Nazism” and “U.S. manipulation.” In other words, while Russian officials use the term “Monroe Doctrine” to explain and justify their desire to prevent Ukraine joining a hostile alliance, their interest in that country has an emotional force wholly absent from U.S. attitudes to Mexico.

Whether Russia would have accepted a Western offer of compromise (if one had been made) involving a moratorium on NATO expansion and mutual arms limitation, we will probably never know, and this question is now academic. L’appetit vient en manger (“appetite grows with eating”) as the French say, and the more of Ukraine Russia now occupies, the more ambitious its goals in Ukraine are likely to be.

The point is, however, that these goals are now overwhelmingly focused on Ukraine. Nobody in Moscow now appears to believe that there is any possibility of an agreement with NATO on conventional arms limitation, or on some form of new European security architecture. The most that can be hoped for by Moscow is a Cold War-style treaty on nuclear arms reductions, and perhaps some agreement on cybersecurity. When the Russian government decided to invade Ukraine, it chose to accept that relations with the West would be basically hostile for a long time to come.

The Russian government aims to establish a Russian sphere of influence, not a new version of the Soviet Union. Putin has stated that “whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart, but whoever wants it back has no brain.” The Eurasian Union falls vastly far short of the USSR. Kazakhstan for example is a member, and has always sought good relations with Russia. But Kazakh officials have stated publicly and repeatedly that it is not some form of super-state; and Kazakhstan has repeatedly refused to follow Russia’s lead in international affairs — including most recently by refusing to recognize the independence of the Donbas republics. The Eurasian Union and Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) are loose partnerships.

As for Russian domination of Eastern Europe beyond the borders of the former USSR, this is vastly beyond Russia’s ambitions and capability. Not merely would it involve Russia in an attack on NATO, with all the hideous risks that this would entail (whereas the United States and NATO have declared explicitly that they will not fight to defend Ukraine); but it would require Russia to subjugate and hold down Poland. Russian officials and commentators with whom I have raised this possibility have simply burst out laughing at the absurdity of the idea.

Concerning Ukraine, there are two possible paths for Russia to take. Which one will be chosen will become apparent in the next days, or possibly hours. The first would be an agreement with the existing Ukrainian government (as publicly demanded by Russia immediately after the invasion) that would guarantee Ukrainian neutrality and the exclusion of Western armaments. Moscow will almost certainly also demand that the Donbas republics, and any other Russian-speaking areas occupied by the Russian army, receive fully autonomous status within a federal Ukraine. Moscow would likely present this to the West as an expanded version of the Minsk II agreement of 2015 on autonomy for the Donbas within Ukraine.

The second path would be for Russia to occupy Kiev itself, replace the Ukrainian government with Russian puppets, and draw up a new Ukrainian federal constitution by Russian diktat. At this point, Moscow might also try to force its Ukrainian client state to join the Eurasian Union and CSTO. This would be a vastly more dangerous project for Russia.

Unlike local governments in the Russian-speaking areas, which Moscow at least hopes could gain a measure of local legitimacy, a puppet government in Kiev and the Ukrainian ethnic heartland would only survive with the permanent presence of a Russian army. The government and army would face permanent mass unrest and violent resistance,which it only could quell through savage repression.

This would be atrocious for the people of Ukraine, and very dangerous for NATO. If the United States decided to arm a guerrilla war in Ukraine, such a force could only be supplied through Poland — which Russia then might directly target, which likely would expand and escalate the conflict dramatically. Furthermore, this guerrilla war would inevitably turn into an ethnic conflict of Ukrainian nationalists against the local Russian population, making any long-term unity of Ukraine next to impossible and probably lead to the eventual Russian annexation of the Russian-speaking areas of Ukraine.

The purpose of Western sanctions against Russia should be to press Russia to withdraw its army from Ukraine and restore Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity (minus Crimea). This however will inevitably now require some form of compromise with Russia on Ukrainian neutrality (but not membership of the Eurasian Union) and federalism. Short of the military defeat of the Russian army or the collapse of the Russian state, it appears impossible now to achieve unconditional Russian withdrawal from Ukraine.

The alternative is for the United States to use sanctions not to change Russian policy in Ukraine, but to overthrow the regime in Russia itself by crippling the Russian state and economy. This would be a vastly more ambitious and dangerous project, and probably futile. The U.S. use of sanctions to bring about regime change has been a universal and unmitigated failure – in Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

Russia is much stronger than those states, and will probably receive much greater help from China, whose economy has now overtaken that of the United States. Such a strategy would sooner or later also open up a gulf between the United States and its European allies, involving as it would the indefinite sponsorship of an armed struggle in Ukraine, with all the consequences of that for Europe.

Above all, Western sanctions should be intended to help the Ukrainian people. The latter strategy of guerilla warfare would instead instrumentalize Ukrainians as a weapon to weaken Russia and recall some of the worst U.S. actions of the Cold War, when Washington supported local insurgencies (sometimes led by evil figures like Jonas Savimbi and extremist ideologies like that of the Afghan Mujahedin), with no regard whatsoever for the interests of local peoples.

Outside Europe, the Cold War was waged over the corpses of innumerable Africans, Asians and Central Americans, and there was often no moral difference at all between the “pro-Western” and “pro-Soviet forces.” For America to go down this path would be a betrayal of those very Ukrainians whom the U.S. administration says that it wants to help.


Anatol Lieven

By Anatol Lieven is senior research fellow on Russia and Europe at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He was formerly a professor at Georgetown University in Qatar and in the War Studies Department of King’s College London. He is a member of the academic board of the Valdai discussion club in Russia, and a member of the advisory committee of the South Asia Department of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He holds a BA and PhD from Cambridge University in England.

From 1985 to 1998 his worked as a British journalist in South Asia, the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and covered the wars in Afghanistan, Chechnya and the southern Caucasus. From 2000 to 2007 he worked at think tanks in Washington DC.

This article was produced by Globetrotter in partnership with the American Committee for U.S.-Russia Accord to publish on Telegraf.

Advertisement
Click to comment

EUROPE

The Two Wars Taking Place in Ukraine

The Two Wars Taking Place in Ukraine
Cars are stopped at a roadblock set by civil defensemen at a road leading to central Kyiv, Ukraine, Monday, Feb. 28, 2022. Explosions and gunfire that have disrupted life since the invasion began last week appeared to subside around Kyiv overnight, as Ukrainian and Russian delegations met Monday on Ukraine’s border with Belarus. It's unclear what, if anything, those talks would yield. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti)

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been ongoing for a full three weeks now. That is already a military success in itself for Ukraine: Many analysts (and the Kremlin itself) expected that lightning Russian operations could score a victory within days. Ukraine’s dogged resistance, however, has changed the narrative. The war has been costly for Moscow with more than 1,300 pieces of Russian military hardware destroyed or captured. One US estimate placed the number of Russians killed in action between 6,000 and 8,000  a staggering number when compared to the 2,401 military deaths suffered by the US during 20 years in Afghanistan.

But this hardly means the war’s end. Russia still possesses almost nine-tenths of its deployed combat strength in Ukraine, with significant territorial gains to show for it. The war in Ukraine has come to resemble two parallel, largely divergent stories: The war in the cities, and the war in the countryside.

The fight for Ukraine’s cities has received most of the attention thus far, and for good reason. Unable to seize key cities by quick special forces actions, Russia’s army has instead turned to its old playbook: Level them. This is perhaps most apparent in Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, close to the Russian border in the northeast. After failed thunder runs into the city by Spetsnaz special forces and paratroopers in the opening days of the war, Russia has deployed artillery and multiple rocket launchers on Kharkiv’s northern and eastern outskirts. They are currently blasting entire apartment blocks into rubble, inflicting heavy civilian casualties while degrading Ukrainian defenders in the city.

A similar story is playing out in the western and eastern approaches to Kyiv, where Ukrainian forces have thus far managed to contain Russian attackers to the city’s edges. The most brutal urban combat is happening in Mariupol, the southeastern port city where Russian forces are slowly advancing amid massive bombardments that have reportedly killed thousands of civilians.

But there is another war playing out in Ukraine as well, one on which we have far less information: The war of maneuver in the Ukrainian countryside.

The primary axis of this fight is taking place in Ukraine’s east. There, the bulk of the Ukrainian army remains deployed along the front lines with the breakaway Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, arrayed against joint Russian-separatist forces. The Ukrainian high command has been loath to abandon this region, for good reason: It is the most fortified in the country, having remained a semi-active but static front for the past eight years, while to withdraw would mean ceding large areas of Ukraine’s east. Well-supplied and experienced Ukrainian forces here have done well to date, containing any direct Russian advance punching forward from the east.

Recent developments, however, indicate that this force is increasingly in danger. Russian forces have linked up in the southeast, with units advancing from Crimea connecting with troops pushing out from the Donetsk region in a move that has isolated Mariupol. They continue to push northwards, recently capturing the town of Volnovakha after heavy fighting. To the north, Russian units moving from the Russian border are making significant inroads, reaching the outskirts of Severodonetsk (the regional headquarters of a number of Ukrainian formations) and seizing the junction town of Izyum, through which runs one of the key Ukrainian supply lines to the Donbas region. Russian forces are punching into rear areas now, in open terrain where only mobile Ukrainian armored units can check their advance. With no cities to block their way in this area, if current trends continue, the Ukrainian high command will soon be forced to make a difficult decision: Withdraw its Donbas forces towards the Dnieper river, essentially ceding the region to Russian control, or fight on and risk a double encirclement of the cream of the Ukrainian army.

This same story is playing out on a smaller scale in other areas of the country. In the south, Russian forces moving northwards from Crimea are making progress on both sides of the Dnieper, closing on the city of Zaporizhye to the east and Kryvyi Rih, President Volodymyr Zelensky’s hometown, to the west. Further west, Russian forces appear to have halted outside the city of Mykolaiv, not attempting to push through it and onwards towards Odessa as envisioned. They are instead taking a similar approach as Kharkiv: Shred the city with fire from multiple rocket launchers at nighttime while bypassing it with their main units. In this case, that force is now moving northward into Ukraine’s soft underbelly, pushing not only towards Kryviy Rih but into the heartlands of central Ukraine as well.

It is yet unclear which of these two sides of the war will prove decisive. Russia’s advances deep into Ukrainian territory provide many opportunities for the defenders as well: Russia’s notoriously poor logistics have already been exposed and hampered further by repeated skillful raids by Ukrainian special forces and irregulars, capturing and destroying supply convoys and isolated units. Moscow also does not possess the manpower for a sustained presence deep in Ukraine’s rear areas, having struggled already to commit enough forces to occupation efforts. Either way, the next week in the Donbas region in particular will bear close watching, and will play a significant role in determining whether Russia can defeat enough of the Ukrainian army to force some sort of settlement, or whether Moscow’s increasingly battered forces will be ground down short of their goal.


By Neil Hauer is a security analyst currently in Kyiv, Ukraine. Usually based in Tbilisi, Georgia, his work focuses on, among other things, politics, minorities and violence in the Caucasus.

________________

Syndication Bureau

Continue Reading

EUROPE

Why Europe Needs to Take a Hard Look at Itself

Why Europe Needs to Take a Hard Look at Itself
The European Commission. AP

Europe needs to take a hard look at itself. Because it has proved to be incapable of dealing with the causes of the Ukraine crisis, Europe is now condemned to deal with its consequences.

Although the dust of this tragedy has not even begun to settle, we are forced to conclude that Europe’s leaders did not and do not have what it takes to deal with the situation at hand. They will go down in history as Europe’s most mediocre leaders since the end of the Second World War. They are now making sure that they do their best in terms of humanitarian assistance, and their efforts in that regard should not be questioned. But the reason they are doing it is to save face in the light of the biggest scandal of our time. Over the last seventy years they have ruled over populations who have been at the forefront in terms of organizing themselves and demonstrating against war wherever it happens to be waged. But it turns out that they were not able to defend those same populations from the war that had been brewing at home since at least as early as 2014. The European democracies have just shown that they have a government without the people. There are numerous reasons for coming to this conclusion.

Both Russia and the US have been preparing for this war for some time. In the case of Russia, there had been clear indications, in recent years, that the country was accumulating huge gold reserves and giving priority to a strategic partnership with China. This was especially noticeable in the financial sphere, where a bank merger and the creation of a new international currency are the ultimate goal, and in the sphere of trade, with its Belt and Road Initiative and the tremendous possibilities for expansion that it will open up throughout Eurasia. As regards relationships with its European partners, Russia has proved to be a credible partner, while making clear what its security concerns were. These were legitimate concerns, if we only stop to think that in the world of superpowers there is neither good nor bad, only strategic interests that need to be accommodated. That was the case with the 1962 missile crisis, when the US drew a red line in respect of the installation of medium-range missiles 70 km from its border. Let it not be thought that the Soviet Union was the only one to give in, because the US also removed its medium-range missiles from Turkey. Trade-off, accommodation, lasting agreement. Why wasn’t it possible in the case of Ukraine? Let us turn to the preparations on the US side.

Faced with the decline of the global dominance it has enjoyed since 1945, the US is trying at all costs to consolidate its zones of influence, so as to maintain its advantages in trade and access to raw materials for US companies.

What is written below has been gleaned from official and think tank documents:

The policy of regime change is not aimed at creating democracies, but rather at creating governments that are loyal to US interests. Not a single democratic State has emerged from the bloody interventions in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya. The promotion of democracy was not what led the US to actively support coups that deposed democratically elected presidents in Honduras (2009), Paraguay (2012), Brazil (2016) and Bolivia (2019), not to mention the 2014 coup in Ukraine. China has been the US’s main rival for some time now. In the case of Europe, the US strategy rests on two pillars: to provoke Russia and to neutralize Europe (and Germany in particular). In 2019, the Rand Corporation, a well-known organization dedicated to strategic studies, published a report entitled “Extending Russia,” produced at the request of the Pentagon.

The report details how to provoke countries in ways that can be exploited by the US. It has this to say about Russia: “We examine a range of nonviolent measures that could exploit Russia’s actual vulnerabilities and anxieties as a way of stressing Russia’s military and economy and the regime’s political standing at home and abroad. The steps we examine would not have either defense or deterrence as their prime purpose, although they might contribute to both. Rather, these steps are conceived of as elements in a campaign designed to unbalance the adversary, leading Russia to compete in domains or regions where the United States has a competitive advantage, and causing Russia to overextend itself militarily or economically or causing the regime to lose domestic and/or international prestige and influence.

“Do we need to hear more in order to understand what is happening in Ukraine? Provoke Russia into expanding and then criticize it for doing so. NATO’s eastward expansion – against what was agreed with Gorbachev in 1990 – was key in triggering the provocation. Another important step was the violation of the Minsk accords. It should be pointed out that when the Donetsk and Luhansk regions first claimed independence, following the 2014 coup, Russia did not support the claim. It favored autonomy within Ukraine, as provided for in the Minsk accords. It was Ukraine – with US support – that tore up the agreements, not Russia.

As for Europe, its number one concern is to consolidate its status as a minor partner that does not dare interfere with the zones of influence policy. Europe has to be a reliable partner, but it cannot expect reciprocal treatment. That is why the EU – to the clueless surprise of its leaders – found itself excluded from AUKUS, the security pact between the US, Australia and the UK for the Indo-Pacific region. The minor partner strategy requires that Europe become more dependent, not only in military terms (something that NATO can always be relied on to ensure) but also with regard to the economy and the area of energy in particular.

US foreign policy (and democracy) is dominated by three oligarchies (for oligarchs are not the monopoly of Russia and Ukraine): the military-industrial complex; the gas, oil and mining complex; and the banking and real estate complex. These complexes yield fabulous profits thanks to so-called monopoly rents, i.e., privileged market positions that allow them to inflate prices. Their goal consists in keeping the world at war and increasingly dependent on US arms supplies. Europe’s energy dependence on Russia was thus something unacceptable. And yet, in Europe’s eyes, it was not a question of dependence, but rather of economic rationality and a diversification of partners. With the invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing sanctions, everything fell into place as planned.

The stocks of the three complexes rose immediately, and the champagne began to flow. A mediocre, ignorant Europe, totally lacking in strategic vision, falls helplessly in the hands of these complexes, which will soon let Europe know what prices it will have to pay. Europe will be impoverished and destabilized because its leaders failed to rise to the moment. Worse than that, it can’t wait to arm Nazis. Nor does it seem to remember that, in December 2021, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution – proposed by Russia – aimed at “combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”. Two countries, the US and Ukraine, voted against it.

The current peace negotiations are misconceived. It makes no sense that negotiations should be solely between Russia and Ukraine. They should be between Russia and the US/NATO/EU. The 1962 missile crisis was resolved between the USSR and the US. Did anyone think of inviting Fidel Castro to the negotiation table? It is a cruel delusion to believe that there can be lasting peace in Europe without any concessions from the Western side. Ukraine, whose independence we all advocate, must not join NATO.

Have Finland, Sweden, Switzerland or Austria ever needed NATO in order to feel safe and to get ahead? The truth is that NATO should have been dismantled as soon as the Warsaw Pact came to an end. Only then would the EU have been able to establish a defense policy and military defense capabilities suited to its own interests rather than those of the US. What threats were there to Europe’s security to justify NATO’s interventions in Serbia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2004) or Libya (2011)? Will it be possible, after all this, to go on calling NATO a defensive organization?


By Boaventura de Sousa Santos is the Emeritus Professor of Sociology, University of Coimbra (Portugal). His most recent book is Decolonising the University: The Challenge of Deep Cognitive Justice. (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2021).

__________________

Independent Media Institute

Continue Reading

EUROPE

Zelensky Visits Wounded Soldiers at Hospital

Zelensky Visits Wounded Soldiers at Hospital
In this photo provided by the Ukrainian Presidential Press Office on Sunday, March 13, 2022, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, center, shakes hands with a wounded soldier during his visit to a hospital in Kyiv, Ukraine. (Ukrainian Presidential Press Office via AP)

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited wounded Ukrainian soldiers in a hospital Sunday.

What they’re saying: Zelensky awarded the “defenders of Ukraine” with medals for their courage and wished them a speedy recovery, per the country’s government. The soldiers had been fighting in the Kyiv region before they were wounded.

https://twitter.com/DefenceU/status/1503026814444310532?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1503026814444310532%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.axios.com%2Fzelensky-ukraine-hospital-visit-ce93bdc2-356b-453c-baa7-a70764eaa652.html

The big picture: Zelensky’s visit came on the 18th day of Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

  • Ukrainian officials earlier Sunday announced that a barrage of Russian airstrikes on a military facility in western Ukraine had killed at least 35 people and injured 134. It was the westernmost point of attack in the war thus far.
  • Russian forces have also continued their siege on the port city of Mariupol and have come within roughly 15 miles of the capital, Kyiv.

What they’re saying: “The Russian invaders cannot conquer us. They do not have such strength. They do not have such spirit,” Zelensky said in a late-night video address on Saturday.

  • By invading Ukraine, Russia has turned itself into a “large area isolated from the rest of the world. Where poverty will reign. Where everything will be determined only by violence.”

_____________

AXIOS

Continue Reading

EUROPE

Putin Agrees to Idea of Sending Foreign Volunteers to Ukraine

Putin Agrees to Idea of Sending Foreign Volunteers to Ukraine
Russian President Vladimir Putin. SPUTNIK/Sergey Guneev

Russian forces, as well as the militias of Donbass continue to advance amid the special military operation in Ukraine. President Putin stated that the goal of the operation is to ensure the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine.

The Russian president stated that volunteers who want to help Russia in Ukraine should be assisted in reaching the area of combat operations.

“If you see people who want – on a voluntary basis, especially not for money – to come and help people living in the Donbass – well, you need to cooperate with them and help them move to the war zone”, Putin stated during a National Security Council meeting.

Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu noted that there is a vast number of people who want to help the DPR and LPR in the special operation – over 16,000, with many of them coming from the Middle East.

Commenting on the statement, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov underlined that the minister specifically meant foreign volunteers, and that he has no information about any plans to attract Russian citizens.

At the same time, Putin stressed that the Kiev regime’s “western sponsors” are actively gathering mercenaries and do not even try to conceal their activity, blatantly neglecting the norms of international law.

Armoured vehicles drive along a road in Armyansk in the northern part of Crimea, Russia. © Sputnik / Konstantin Mikhalchevsky

Armoured vehicles drive along a road in Armyansk in the northern part of Crimea, Russia.
© Sputnik / Konstantin Mikhalchevsky

The preisdent also approved an idea put forward by Shoigu, suggesting that western-made weapons (small arms, tanks, anti-tank guided missiles and man-portable air-defence systems) seized in Ukraine should be transferred to the troops of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.

Meanwhile, Shoigu noted that the West is boosting its military presence near Russian territory.

“The General Staff is developing and has practically completed a plan to strengthen our western borders, including, of course, those new, modern complexes, and to move combat units there to protect our western borders”, Shoigu said.

The news comes as Russian forces and the Donbass militias are advancing in Ukraine amid the special military operation, launched on 24 February. Moscow noted that the operation was started in order to protect the people of Donbass, who were suffering from attacks by Kiev’s forces, and noted that the goal of the operation is the demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine.

The Russian forces have been targeting Ukrainian military infrastructure with precision weapons: the MoD stated that a total of 3,213 Ukrainian military objects have been eliminated since the beginning of the operation.

The list of destroyed Ukrainian vehicles includes “98 aircraft, 118 unmanned aerial vehicles, 1,041 tanks and other armoured combat vehicles, 113 multiple launch rocket systems, 389 field artillery guns and mortars, as well as 843 units of special military vehicles”, according to an official statement.

________________

SPUTNIK

Continue Reading

EUROPE

Russia Asks for UN Security Council Meeting Over Ukraine’s ‘Biolabs’

Russia Asks for UN Security Council Meeting Over Ukraine’s ‘Biolabs’
CC BY 2.0 / BIOHAZARD. SPUTNIK/Tony Webster

Moscow claims Washington has funded and curated alleged bioweapons programs in Ukraine

Russia has called for a UN Security Council meeting to discuss purported US-backed biological weapons programs in Ukraine. Washington has denied that it owns or operates any such biolabs in the country, while Kiev insisted that the facilities were engaged only in civilian research.

Moscow’s deputy UN envoy Dmitry Polyanskiy announced the move early on Friday, saying the mission had requested a Security Council summit for March 11, while citing a Defense Ministry briefing claiming that the United States and NATO allies ran “military biological programs” in Ukraine.

The military briefing went on to claim that the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency is “financing and conducting military biological research on the territory of Ukraine,” citing documents it said it captured at several facilities during Russia’s ongoing attack on the country. Among other activities, the ministry said research was carried out at laboratories in Kiev, Kharkov and Odessa to “study the possibility of the spread of particularly dangerous infections through migrating birds.”

Washington, however, has rejected those charges, with State Department spokesperson Ned Price telling reporters on Wednesday that the US is “in full compliance with its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and Biological Weapons Convention, and it does not develop or possess such weapons anywhere.”

Instead, Price argued it was Russia that has been operating “active chemical and biological weapons programs,” though he did not elaborate or provide evidence for the counter-accusation.

Other US officials have offered varying responses to Russia’s claims. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, for example, told lawmakers on Tuesday that Ukraine does, in fact, have “biological research facilities,” voicing concerns that “Russian forces may be seeking to gain control of” hazardous materials from those labs. She stopped short of confirming any American role at the facilities, however, and did not go into details about what kind of work had been done.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has also weighed in on the issue, saying that any biolabs in his country have no military dimension and are “focused on civilian science.” He claimed that most of the facilities have been around since the Soviet era.

“Neither chemical weapons nor other weapons of mass destruction are being developed on our soil,” he said on Friday.

_________

RT

Continue Reading

EUROPE

EU Leaders Rule on Fast-Tracked Membership for Ukraine

EU Leaders Rule on Fast-Tracked Membership for Ukraine
A staff member sets up EU flags ahead of a European Union leaders summit after European Parliament elections to discuss who should run the EU executive for the next five years, in Brussels, Belgium May 28, 2019. REUTERS/Piroschka Van de Wouw

Assessment of Kiev’s bid to join the bloc will take “months, maybe years,” the Dutch prime minister says

The EU has condemned the Russian offensive and pledged its support to Ukraine on its path to European Union membership, but stopped short of fast-tracking its application to join the bloc.

Kiev submitted its EU application in late February, with President Volodymyr Zelensky asking Brussels to accelerate its assessment of the bid in view of the ongoing fighting in his country.

The bloc’s leaders debated the issue for hours on the first day of the European Council summit, convened at the Palace of Versailles, outside Paris, issuing a joint statement late on Friday.

They condemned what they described as Russia’s “unprovoked and unjustified military aggression” against its neighbor, and demanded Moscow “immediately and unconditionally” withdraw its forces from Ukrainian territory.

Council members pledged to “continue to provide coordinated political, financial, material, and humanitarian support” to Kiev.

As for fast-tracked EU membership, they “acknowledged the European aspirations and the European choice of Ukraine,” and said the European Council had acted “swiftly” in passing Kiev’s bid to the European Commission to elicit its opinion.

However, this is just the first step in what is a lengthy bureaucratic process to join the EU, with the statement containing no hints that Ukraine would be allowed to take any shortcuts along the route.

In a press briefing after the summit, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte clarified that the assessment of Kiev’s bid by the commission would take time – “months, maybe years.” Brussels had nonetheless been treating the application with unprecedented speed, he said.

Despite calling the Ukrainian people “heroic,” Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda acknowledged that it was “impossible to grant EU candidate status to Ukraine today.”

“We were divided,” Slovenian Prime Minister Janez Jansa said of the summit. The majority of the bloc’s leaders agreed that the Ukrainians needed a “strong political message that they belong to our European family,” but there were also many among the delegates who were “still debating the procedures” by which that might be enacted, he added.

Moscow attacked its neighbor in late February, following a seven-year standoff over Ukraine’s failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements, and Russia’s eventual recognition of the Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. German- and French-brokered proposals had attempted to regularize the status of those regions within the Ukrainian state.

Russia has demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join the US-led NATO military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked and has denied claims it was planning to retake the two republics by force.

________

RT

Continue Reading

Other Articles

close