Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ Why Do We Never Get The Whole Truth? Russia And Ukraine.

The western liberal-democracies and their economic wing, capitalism, which controls and owns the media, never tell us the whole truth about much. They will give us subjective accounts of world affairs which often borders on lies. They seldom give us the whole story but unlike their fascist extremities, seldom stoop to all out lies.

There are exceptions of course, such as the bullshit they fed us about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the pack of lies the British press fed us about the NUM during the 1984/85 British Coal Miner’s Strike. In Iraq such weapons of mass destruction did not exist, and the US and British intelligence services knew this. Nevertheless, British Prime minister Tony Blair, in order to increase his standing with US President, cowboy George W. Bush, told us all that such weapons existed. This was an acute falsification and a lie resulting in leading labour MP, Robin Cook, tendering his resignation. Bush needed some sort of credible excuse to bomb the shit out of Iraq, and Blair, thinking he was on a par with the US President - the pipe dream of a fool - wanted some of the spoils. He was told by Bush, any “contracts coming out of this will be going to US building companies” yet the poodle, as this is what Blair was, still insisted British forces would be involved. In reality Tony Blair was a Prime Minister representing “New Labour” who was, in reality, a conservative fifth columnist!

Today we are given the reports of Russia invading its neighbour Ukraine. This is not untrue, and Vladimir Putin has invaded the Ukraine. We are not given the full facts, many dating back to 1989 and the reunification of Germany in 1990. At the time, talk of unification of the East and West Germany was rife. James Baker, according to Vladimir Pozner in his lecture, How the United States Created Vladimir Putin (recommended), promised then Soviet President, Mikhail Gorbachev, in 1989 there would be no NATO expansion eastwards if the then USSR did not oppose German unification. Gorbachev, himself not opposed to this unification, agreed to this and, as we know the two Germany’s were unified. Ten years later, 1999, this agreement was long forgotten as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO. When Russia objected, as the USSR was no more, they were told, “ah, yes, but you are Russia and we agreed that with the Soviet Union, it does no longer apply.” The implication here was from the USA, you were a superpower, now you do not count for anything in our view so run along

The following year, Vladimir Putin now President of Russia, applied himself for Russia to join NATO. He was told by the USA, who in reality are NATO, to “take a walk”, again humiliating the Russians. Having refused Russia’s application to join, they, NATO, have not ruled out the strong possibility of their neighbour, the Ukraine, becoming a member of the alliance. Why could this be? Could it be NATO’s intentions, like those of Nazi Germany but perhaps for less sinister reasons, to get right up to Russia’s border thus threatening that countriy's security? All of these small details, the western media and so-called historians fail to tell us. And if they do mention it is never in depth, just passing comments.

NATO has thirty members of which the USA is the main, arguably only, voice. There are three “applicant countries” wishing to join the alliance, two of which are the Ukraine and Georgia, who, if accepted, would mean NATO troops would surround Western and Southern Russian borders. Remember Russia herself had applied and was refused membership but it is highly likely Ukraine and Georgia would be accepted by the USA, irrespective of what others may think! What does that tell us? It tells me that the Ukraine is of little military importance to NATO and, in particular the USA, but it would be a perfect conduit to get the United States right up to Russia’s borders. So, I can see Putin’s concerns, from his point of view Ukraine must never be allowed to join NATO. It is not a question of denying the Ukraine the right to apply for membership, but more a matter of the USA and NATO refusing that application, in much the same way they turned down Russia’s application! Of course, the western media, with a couple of half-hearted exceptions, are not giving us the full story about the situation. Those political academics who can see, to a point, the Russian position are not given the airtime pro US academics and reporters are given.

Another concern of Russia’s - and one given their history is valid to a certain extent - is the presence of what Putin sees as pro-Nazis in the Ukrainian parliament. He has already stated he will stop the Nazi threat, “de-Nazification” of the Ukraine, as Putin puts it! Now, I think this may be an exaggeration. Yes, it has been reported, and only reported, in the past that neo-Nazis are present in the Ukrainian parliament and if this is the case Putin’s concerns may not be wholly without substance, but does this make Ukraine a Nazi state? No, it does not. After all, the UK had a UKIP MP but did this make it a fascist country? It even had, arguably, a fascist Prime Minister in Thatcher but, once again, it does not make it a fascist country.

However, it must be remembered many Ukrainians did support Nazi Germany in the last war and some of their so-called policemen’s actions even managed to turn the stomach of some SS officers, which tells us a lot. Could, and this may sound a long shot bordering on ridiculous but worthy of mention no matter how unlikely, the Ukraine be after the elimination of Russia as a major power? Could they be hoping, as some of them did on the back of the Third Reich, NATO, with them as members, surround Russia making them redundant as a world power? I doubt it very much but it is not an impossible scenario. Looked at through these lenses Putin is perhaps not as unreasonable as first perceived. After all, if he is going to stop Ukraine joining NATO and Russia becoming surrounded this may be his last chance to do so. If he waits till they have joined the alliance then attacks he would be taking on thirty countries!

Of course, if the USA and NATO really want peace all they have to do is give Russia a guarantee any application from Ukraine to join NATO would be turned down, as was that of Russia! That is, of course if the USA really want a peaceful settlement, which I doubt very much. They have not had a good day or a bad one since the disastrous collapse of the USSR without trying to destabilise the security of Russia. From 1985, when Gorbachev took over in the Soviet Union, the USSR and then Russia did not, according to Vladimir Pozner, until 2007 do or say anything which might be offensive to the USA and NATO. Not one piece of Russian foreign policy was aimed against the US. On the contrary after the much-emphasised 9/11 Russia did not once object to US actions, sometimes overboard, in pursuit of its “war on terror”. They did not object to the positioning of US forces in strategic places, even sites which may threaten Russia. When the USA bombed Syria where there was a strong Russian presence did Russia retaliate on behalf of Assad? No, they did not.

The USA have consistently tried to undermine Russia since the fall of the USSR and the Ukraine, if they could only see it, are a tool in the armoury of the United States. That may sound cynical, it probably is, but we will never be told this by the pro-NATO - including supposedly neutral Ireland - media of all the facts. The United States appear to have lied and lied to Russia, taking a very superior position regarding the largest state of the former Soviet Union reminding them that they are not the USSR and therefore will not be afforded the respect of the former superpower. Perhaps Putin has had enough of this state of affairs!

All that said Russia’s claim to have gone initially into the eastern provinces of the Ukraine under the guise of protecting Russian speakers and separatists in these eastern states does sound remarkably like Adolf Hitler's rationale for demanding the Sudetenland in 1938. Are Putin’s intentions the same as were Hitler's? I doubt it, after all it was Russia who lost over twenty million at the hands of the Nazis! Nevertheless, it is easy to draw comparisons, which I am sure the USA are acutely aware of.

In 2018 the British Government accused Russia of poisoning two people in Salisbury using a deadly toxin, Novichok. The pair, Sergei and Yulia Skripal spent several weeks in hospital as the media, possibly manipulated by government, tried and sentenced Russian President Vladimir Putin for the crime. Sergei Skripal is a former Russian military intelligence officer who acted as a double agent for the UK intelligence services during the 1990s and 2000s. He was discovered by the Russians and sentenced to 13 years in prison. He was used in an agent swap, an exchange programme where the UK swap captured Russian agents for one or more of their own, which Skripal was one. Now, he had worked for both the Russian and British sides and had valuable information on both, so who was responsible? Considering the Russian’s had him in prison over there is it not more likely if they wanted him out of the way, permanently, they would have killed him while he was a prisoner in Russia, not wait till he was settled in England? This way a diplomatic row, resulting in Russian diplomats being expelled from the UK, with 28 other countries following Britain’s lead would have been avoided. The chemical itself, Novichok, is manufactured less than 20 miles from where the incident took place at a site called Porton Down. Is it not more likely the British intelligence services could have done the deed. He did after all hold as many British secrets as those of Russia? Why would the Russians send agents, at huge risk, to Salisbury to do a job they could have done while he was in their captivity? Why would they risk a diplomatic row? It makes no sense whatsoever. Nevertheless, the media reported this incident and without a scrap of proof the gullible public swallowed, without question, this story. Maybe the Russian’s did do it, but equally in the frame and perhaps more likely candidates for culpability are the British intelligence services!

The British media, along with the western press and TV as a whole including the United States are very biased in their reporting. It must be said in fairness they’re in all probability not alone. It is highly likely the Russian media are equally as biased in their pro-Russian, pro Putin, version of events but we do not get to see this Russian one sidedness in the west.

From where I am sitting, the Russian invasion of the Ukraine is morally wrong, as is the invasion of another country by any power morally wrong, as are all wars. To quote James Connolly:

War appears to me as the most fearful crime of the centuries. In it the working-class are to be sacrificed that a small clique of rulers and armament makers may state their lust for power.

This war will be no exception. Working-class people will fight it, and the rulers along with profiteers will benefit. That is a symptom of the capitalist and imperialist system we live within. Be under no illusions, never mind the huff and puff coming out of the mouths of heads of government about arms embargos and sanctions, the arms dealers will still make a mint. Big business is bigger than governments. They own governments within capitalism, it is their system governments govern on behalf of. And the arms dealers, transnational corporations, will sell arms to Russia. If governments have banned arms sales to Russia, no problem - they just clandestinely sell to Belarus who in turn sell on to the Russians. Failing that, another third country, China or India for example, and they will sell on perhaps at an inflated price, but that’s capitalism. Whatever government policies are, they are an irrelevance when it comes to business and profits.

If Vladimir Putin is citing “de-Nazifying” the Ukraine as his reasoning for the invasion he is wrong. As I pointed out above the Ukrainian Parliament has reportedly had some MPs with Nazi sympathies. If these reports, as that is all they are, are true it does not make the Ukraine a Nazi state. It is true, again as mentioned above, that many Ukrainians supported the Nazis during the Second World War and assisted their death squads in anti-Semitic, anti-communist, socialist and trade union officials' murders during the occupation of their country. It is equally true that a number of non-Nazis existed in the country and more important people who were vehemently anti-Nazi who fought with the Soviet Red Army against the Third Reich to liberate Ukraine. Among those who fought in the Red Army to liberate their country from the Nazi occupation was the President of the Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s grandfather whose memory the President is very proud of. Volodymyr is also of Jewish extraction therefore any assertions by Putin that the President is a Nazi are as wrong as they are an insult.

If, on the other hand Putin’s concerns and reasons for invading Ukraine are for Russia’s security, he may have a point. Under this shit system of global capitalism and imperialism morals go out of the window, unfortunately and wrongly, and the security of Russia, as is that of Joe Biden in the USA for their security, is Vladimir Putin’s main concern. The only reasonable justification, under the present set of sick rules, for Russia to invade the Ukraine is that of security. 

As I mentioned above, back in year 2000 Vladimir Putin applied for Russia to join NATO and he was aggressively refused. He wanted to be, if not friends, then perhaps partners with the West but was rebuffed. The United States did not want to know! Now, with Ukraine and Georgia both “applicant states” of NATO and looked, certainly in the case of Ukraine, likely to be accepted what was Putin to do? To do nothing would put NATO troops, primarily the USA, right on Russia’s western and southern borders. Could he afford to allow this to happen? The answer must be no! Of course, all this could have been avoided, and further bloodshed still could be, if the NATO leadership (the USA) gave a concrete guarantee to Russia any application from Ukraine and/or Georgia to join NATO would be refused. Perhaps a face-to-face meeting between Joe Biden, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin could have averted the action Putin took? Did anybody really want a way out? Nobody can tell the Ukraine they cannot apply, that is their democratic right as an independent state, but that application does not have to be accepted, Russia’s wasn’t. From where I am sitting the solution is simple, if the USA want one which I doubt. NATO to give an undertaking that any application from Ukraine for membership will be refused, the Russian troops withdraw back to Russia with an undertaking to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty. 

Ukraine is being used by the USA and NATO as a smokescreen to approach the borders of Russia, no question about that. Has Putin moved too early? Could more diplomatic talks have prevented the present sorry state of affairs? Perhaps a meeting suggested above may have been useful. I do not know, perhaps more could have been done, but the ball lies in the court of the White House as much as the Kremlin. What would President Biden do if Mexico was an “applicant state” wishing to make an alliance, including military, with Russia? Would he, as he expects Putin to do, sit back and have Russian troops right on his southern border? Or would he order an invasion of Mexico? I would love to hear answers to these questions, especially from sanctimonious TDs who, along with Taoiseach Micheal Martin, appear to be unreservedly against Russia. I would like to know, as custodians of our security, what they would do in Putin’s position?

There is the possibility if Russia fails, or is only partly successful in its quest, that this invasion may give Ukraine more impetus to apply for NATO membership! If this were to happen and such an application be successful what are the potentials then? Nuclear war? The unthinkable and for this reason, if no other, such an application must be rejected!

On the domestic front here in Ireland energy prices are sure to rocket, in fact they have already. The 26-county government will have us believe it is all the fault of Russia for invading the Ukraine. They will not once blame the energy companies for refusing, just for once, to take a hit on profits, no, that would never do. Instead, we, the public, and this applies to any country, will be expected to pick up the tab for the gas and electric company’s refusals to take a hit, by paying even higher prices for their commodities. Perhaps it is time to say enough is enough and demand government action legislating against huge price hikes. Is this too much to ask? You bet it is, we will bear the brunt as usual for all capitalist wars and conflicts!!

On 26th February the Irish Daily Mirror could inform us of Tanaiste, Leo Varadkar’s views on sanctions against Russia and how these will affect Ireland. I wonder if he was struggling to make ends meet if he would be so flippant about the situation? In acknowledging sanctions against Russia “would have economic implications for Ireland” then telling us; “those consequences needed to be accepted given the situation in Ukraine”. He does not think “we’re in that space where we can be concerned about the economic impact on Ireland when a democratic country in the European Union is being invaded.” 

Firstly, Ukraine is not “in the European Union” and secondly is this indignation really about concern for the Ukraine, or scoring brownie points with the USA? Perhaps a little bit of both. I wonder if the low paid, unemployed and single parents are taking such a cavalier attitude towards a much higher cost of living resulting from these sanctions our Tanaiste appears so flippant over? I doubt it very much as prices are already out of reach for many who are going cold because they cannot afford to put their heating on. Support for Ukraine is one thing, even if it is based on one sided ambiguous information, but expecting an already struggling population to struggle even further is something else. Perhaps the Tanaiste should have worded his statement in the Irish Daily Mirror on behalf of the Irish people’s willingness to undergo further hardships, without asking them, a little differently. Perhaps more honestly along the lines of; I am sure the Irish people will not mind going hungry and freezing to death in the noble cause of helping the USA and NATO get closer to Russia’s borders. Such a noble sacrifice we make for the great USA and NATO to surround Russia, using the Ukraine as a smokescreen we can never question! Should Leo have worded it in such a style? Remember Leo, we are, at least on paper a neutral country and are not members of NATO.

The above points of observation do not condone the invasion of one country by another, any country including the USA, Britain, who are occupying part of this country, and respects Ukraine’s right to sovereignty. I am merely trying to point out Russia’s concerns over its own security from NATO aggression. Any war crimes committed by either party in this conflict are condemned unreservedly.

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent 
Socialist Republican and Marxist

Russia Plus Ukraine Minus Truth

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ Why Do We Never Get The Whole Truth? Russia And Ukraine.

The western liberal-democracies and their economic wing, capitalism, which controls and owns the media, never tell us the whole truth about much. They will give us subjective accounts of world affairs which often borders on lies. They seldom give us the whole story but unlike their fascist extremities, seldom stoop to all out lies.

There are exceptions of course, such as the bullshit they fed us about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the pack of lies the British press fed us about the NUM during the 1984/85 British Coal Miner’s Strike. In Iraq such weapons of mass destruction did not exist, and the US and British intelligence services knew this. Nevertheless, British Prime minister Tony Blair, in order to increase his standing with US President, cowboy George W. Bush, told us all that such weapons existed. This was an acute falsification and a lie resulting in leading labour MP, Robin Cook, tendering his resignation. Bush needed some sort of credible excuse to bomb the shit out of Iraq, and Blair, thinking he was on a par with the US President - the pipe dream of a fool - wanted some of the spoils. He was told by Bush, any “contracts coming out of this will be going to US building companies” yet the poodle, as this is what Blair was, still insisted British forces would be involved. In reality Tony Blair was a Prime Minister representing “New Labour” who was, in reality, a conservative fifth columnist!

Today we are given the reports of Russia invading its neighbour Ukraine. This is not untrue, and Vladimir Putin has invaded the Ukraine. We are not given the full facts, many dating back to 1989 and the reunification of Germany in 1990. At the time, talk of unification of the East and West Germany was rife. James Baker, according to Vladimir Pozner in his lecture, How the United States Created Vladimir Putin (recommended), promised then Soviet President, Mikhail Gorbachev, in 1989 there would be no NATO expansion eastwards if the then USSR did not oppose German unification. Gorbachev, himself not opposed to this unification, agreed to this and, as we know the two Germany’s were unified. Ten years later, 1999, this agreement was long forgotten as Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO. When Russia objected, as the USSR was no more, they were told, “ah, yes, but you are Russia and we agreed that with the Soviet Union, it does no longer apply.” The implication here was from the USA, you were a superpower, now you do not count for anything in our view so run along

The following year, Vladimir Putin now President of Russia, applied himself for Russia to join NATO. He was told by the USA, who in reality are NATO, to “take a walk”, again humiliating the Russians. Having refused Russia’s application to join, they, NATO, have not ruled out the strong possibility of their neighbour, the Ukraine, becoming a member of the alliance. Why could this be? Could it be NATO’s intentions, like those of Nazi Germany but perhaps for less sinister reasons, to get right up to Russia’s border thus threatening that countriy's security? All of these small details, the western media and so-called historians fail to tell us. And if they do mention it is never in depth, just passing comments.

NATO has thirty members of which the USA is the main, arguably only, voice. There are three “applicant countries” wishing to join the alliance, two of which are the Ukraine and Georgia, who, if accepted, would mean NATO troops would surround Western and Southern Russian borders. Remember Russia herself had applied and was refused membership but it is highly likely Ukraine and Georgia would be accepted by the USA, irrespective of what others may think! What does that tell us? It tells me that the Ukraine is of little military importance to NATO and, in particular the USA, but it would be a perfect conduit to get the United States right up to Russia’s borders. So, I can see Putin’s concerns, from his point of view Ukraine must never be allowed to join NATO. It is not a question of denying the Ukraine the right to apply for membership, but more a matter of the USA and NATO refusing that application, in much the same way they turned down Russia’s application! Of course, the western media, with a couple of half-hearted exceptions, are not giving us the full story about the situation. Those political academics who can see, to a point, the Russian position are not given the airtime pro US academics and reporters are given.

Another concern of Russia’s - and one given their history is valid to a certain extent - is the presence of what Putin sees as pro-Nazis in the Ukrainian parliament. He has already stated he will stop the Nazi threat, “de-Nazification” of the Ukraine, as Putin puts it! Now, I think this may be an exaggeration. Yes, it has been reported, and only reported, in the past that neo-Nazis are present in the Ukrainian parliament and if this is the case Putin’s concerns may not be wholly without substance, but does this make Ukraine a Nazi state? No, it does not. After all, the UK had a UKIP MP but did this make it a fascist country? It even had, arguably, a fascist Prime Minister in Thatcher but, once again, it does not make it a fascist country.

However, it must be remembered many Ukrainians did support Nazi Germany in the last war and some of their so-called policemen’s actions even managed to turn the stomach of some SS officers, which tells us a lot. Could, and this may sound a long shot bordering on ridiculous but worthy of mention no matter how unlikely, the Ukraine be after the elimination of Russia as a major power? Could they be hoping, as some of them did on the back of the Third Reich, NATO, with them as members, surround Russia making them redundant as a world power? I doubt it very much but it is not an impossible scenario. Looked at through these lenses Putin is perhaps not as unreasonable as first perceived. After all, if he is going to stop Ukraine joining NATO and Russia becoming surrounded this may be his last chance to do so. If he waits till they have joined the alliance then attacks he would be taking on thirty countries!

Of course, if the USA and NATO really want peace all they have to do is give Russia a guarantee any application from Ukraine to join NATO would be turned down, as was that of Russia! That is, of course if the USA really want a peaceful settlement, which I doubt very much. They have not had a good day or a bad one since the disastrous collapse of the USSR without trying to destabilise the security of Russia. From 1985, when Gorbachev took over in the Soviet Union, the USSR and then Russia did not, according to Vladimir Pozner, until 2007 do or say anything which might be offensive to the USA and NATO. Not one piece of Russian foreign policy was aimed against the US. On the contrary after the much-emphasised 9/11 Russia did not once object to US actions, sometimes overboard, in pursuit of its “war on terror”. They did not object to the positioning of US forces in strategic places, even sites which may threaten Russia. When the USA bombed Syria where there was a strong Russian presence did Russia retaliate on behalf of Assad? No, they did not.

The USA have consistently tried to undermine Russia since the fall of the USSR and the Ukraine, if they could only see it, are a tool in the armoury of the United States. That may sound cynical, it probably is, but we will never be told this by the pro-NATO - including supposedly neutral Ireland - media of all the facts. The United States appear to have lied and lied to Russia, taking a very superior position regarding the largest state of the former Soviet Union reminding them that they are not the USSR and therefore will not be afforded the respect of the former superpower. Perhaps Putin has had enough of this state of affairs!

All that said Russia’s claim to have gone initially into the eastern provinces of the Ukraine under the guise of protecting Russian speakers and separatists in these eastern states does sound remarkably like Adolf Hitler's rationale for demanding the Sudetenland in 1938. Are Putin’s intentions the same as were Hitler's? I doubt it, after all it was Russia who lost over twenty million at the hands of the Nazis! Nevertheless, it is easy to draw comparisons, which I am sure the USA are acutely aware of.

In 2018 the British Government accused Russia of poisoning two people in Salisbury using a deadly toxin, Novichok. The pair, Sergei and Yulia Skripal spent several weeks in hospital as the media, possibly manipulated by government, tried and sentenced Russian President Vladimir Putin for the crime. Sergei Skripal is a former Russian military intelligence officer who acted as a double agent for the UK intelligence services during the 1990s and 2000s. He was discovered by the Russians and sentenced to 13 years in prison. He was used in an agent swap, an exchange programme where the UK swap captured Russian agents for one or more of their own, which Skripal was one. Now, he had worked for both the Russian and British sides and had valuable information on both, so who was responsible? Considering the Russian’s had him in prison over there is it not more likely if they wanted him out of the way, permanently, they would have killed him while he was a prisoner in Russia, not wait till he was settled in England? This way a diplomatic row, resulting in Russian diplomats being expelled from the UK, with 28 other countries following Britain’s lead would have been avoided. The chemical itself, Novichok, is manufactured less than 20 miles from where the incident took place at a site called Porton Down. Is it not more likely the British intelligence services could have done the deed. He did after all hold as many British secrets as those of Russia? Why would the Russians send agents, at huge risk, to Salisbury to do a job they could have done while he was in their captivity? Why would they risk a diplomatic row? It makes no sense whatsoever. Nevertheless, the media reported this incident and without a scrap of proof the gullible public swallowed, without question, this story. Maybe the Russian’s did do it, but equally in the frame and perhaps more likely candidates for culpability are the British intelligence services!

The British media, along with the western press and TV as a whole including the United States are very biased in their reporting. It must be said in fairness they’re in all probability not alone. It is highly likely the Russian media are equally as biased in their pro-Russian, pro Putin, version of events but we do not get to see this Russian one sidedness in the west.

From where I am sitting, the Russian invasion of the Ukraine is morally wrong, as is the invasion of another country by any power morally wrong, as are all wars. To quote James Connolly:

War appears to me as the most fearful crime of the centuries. In it the working-class are to be sacrificed that a small clique of rulers and armament makers may state their lust for power.

This war will be no exception. Working-class people will fight it, and the rulers along with profiteers will benefit. That is a symptom of the capitalist and imperialist system we live within. Be under no illusions, never mind the huff and puff coming out of the mouths of heads of government about arms embargos and sanctions, the arms dealers will still make a mint. Big business is bigger than governments. They own governments within capitalism, it is their system governments govern on behalf of. And the arms dealers, transnational corporations, will sell arms to Russia. If governments have banned arms sales to Russia, no problem - they just clandestinely sell to Belarus who in turn sell on to the Russians. Failing that, another third country, China or India for example, and they will sell on perhaps at an inflated price, but that’s capitalism. Whatever government policies are, they are an irrelevance when it comes to business and profits.

If Vladimir Putin is citing “de-Nazifying” the Ukraine as his reasoning for the invasion he is wrong. As I pointed out above the Ukrainian Parliament has reportedly had some MPs with Nazi sympathies. If these reports, as that is all they are, are true it does not make the Ukraine a Nazi state. It is true, again as mentioned above, that many Ukrainians supported the Nazis during the Second World War and assisted their death squads in anti-Semitic, anti-communist, socialist and trade union officials' murders during the occupation of their country. It is equally true that a number of non-Nazis existed in the country and more important people who were vehemently anti-Nazi who fought with the Soviet Red Army against the Third Reich to liberate Ukraine. Among those who fought in the Red Army to liberate their country from the Nazi occupation was the President of the Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s grandfather whose memory the President is very proud of. Volodymyr is also of Jewish extraction therefore any assertions by Putin that the President is a Nazi are as wrong as they are an insult.

If, on the other hand Putin’s concerns and reasons for invading Ukraine are for Russia’s security, he may have a point. Under this shit system of global capitalism and imperialism morals go out of the window, unfortunately and wrongly, and the security of Russia, as is that of Joe Biden in the USA for their security, is Vladimir Putin’s main concern. The only reasonable justification, under the present set of sick rules, for Russia to invade the Ukraine is that of security. 

As I mentioned above, back in year 2000 Vladimir Putin applied for Russia to join NATO and he was aggressively refused. He wanted to be, if not friends, then perhaps partners with the West but was rebuffed. The United States did not want to know! Now, with Ukraine and Georgia both “applicant states” of NATO and looked, certainly in the case of Ukraine, likely to be accepted what was Putin to do? To do nothing would put NATO troops, primarily the USA, right on Russia’s western and southern borders. Could he afford to allow this to happen? The answer must be no! Of course, all this could have been avoided, and further bloodshed still could be, if the NATO leadership (the USA) gave a concrete guarantee to Russia any application from Ukraine and/or Georgia to join NATO would be refused. Perhaps a face-to-face meeting between Joe Biden, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin could have averted the action Putin took? Did anybody really want a way out? Nobody can tell the Ukraine they cannot apply, that is their democratic right as an independent state, but that application does not have to be accepted, Russia’s wasn’t. From where I am sitting the solution is simple, if the USA want one which I doubt. NATO to give an undertaking that any application from Ukraine for membership will be refused, the Russian troops withdraw back to Russia with an undertaking to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty. 

Ukraine is being used by the USA and NATO as a smokescreen to approach the borders of Russia, no question about that. Has Putin moved too early? Could more diplomatic talks have prevented the present sorry state of affairs? Perhaps a meeting suggested above may have been useful. I do not know, perhaps more could have been done, but the ball lies in the court of the White House as much as the Kremlin. What would President Biden do if Mexico was an “applicant state” wishing to make an alliance, including military, with Russia? Would he, as he expects Putin to do, sit back and have Russian troops right on his southern border? Or would he order an invasion of Mexico? I would love to hear answers to these questions, especially from sanctimonious TDs who, along with Taoiseach Micheal Martin, appear to be unreservedly against Russia. I would like to know, as custodians of our security, what they would do in Putin’s position?

There is the possibility if Russia fails, or is only partly successful in its quest, that this invasion may give Ukraine more impetus to apply for NATO membership! If this were to happen and such an application be successful what are the potentials then? Nuclear war? The unthinkable and for this reason, if no other, such an application must be rejected!

On the domestic front here in Ireland energy prices are sure to rocket, in fact they have already. The 26-county government will have us believe it is all the fault of Russia for invading the Ukraine. They will not once blame the energy companies for refusing, just for once, to take a hit on profits, no, that would never do. Instead, we, the public, and this applies to any country, will be expected to pick up the tab for the gas and electric company’s refusals to take a hit, by paying even higher prices for their commodities. Perhaps it is time to say enough is enough and demand government action legislating against huge price hikes. Is this too much to ask? You bet it is, we will bear the brunt as usual for all capitalist wars and conflicts!!

On 26th February the Irish Daily Mirror could inform us of Tanaiste, Leo Varadkar’s views on sanctions against Russia and how these will affect Ireland. I wonder if he was struggling to make ends meet if he would be so flippant about the situation? In acknowledging sanctions against Russia “would have economic implications for Ireland” then telling us; “those consequences needed to be accepted given the situation in Ukraine”. He does not think “we’re in that space where we can be concerned about the economic impact on Ireland when a democratic country in the European Union is being invaded.” 

Firstly, Ukraine is not “in the European Union” and secondly is this indignation really about concern for the Ukraine, or scoring brownie points with the USA? Perhaps a little bit of both. I wonder if the low paid, unemployed and single parents are taking such a cavalier attitude towards a much higher cost of living resulting from these sanctions our Tanaiste appears so flippant over? I doubt it very much as prices are already out of reach for many who are going cold because they cannot afford to put their heating on. Support for Ukraine is one thing, even if it is based on one sided ambiguous information, but expecting an already struggling population to struggle even further is something else. Perhaps the Tanaiste should have worded his statement in the Irish Daily Mirror on behalf of the Irish people’s willingness to undergo further hardships, without asking them, a little differently. Perhaps more honestly along the lines of; I am sure the Irish people will not mind going hungry and freezing to death in the noble cause of helping the USA and NATO get closer to Russia’s borders. Such a noble sacrifice we make for the great USA and NATO to surround Russia, using the Ukraine as a smokescreen we can never question! Should Leo have worded it in such a style? Remember Leo, we are, at least on paper a neutral country and are not members of NATO.

The above points of observation do not condone the invasion of one country by another, any country including the USA, Britain, who are occupying part of this country, and respects Ukraine’s right to sovereignty. I am merely trying to point out Russia’s concerns over its own security from NATO aggression. Any war crimes committed by either party in this conflict are condemned unreservedly.

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent 
Socialist Republican and Marxist

13 comments:

  1. Putin invaded Ukraine for ultra-nationalist reasons. He does not believe that Ukraine has the right to be an independent and democratic nation-state. He believes that Ukraine should be tethered to the Russian yoke. He made this explicit in his essay last year. He therefore, in the words of President Zelensky, seeks the total elimination of Ukrainian nationhood and identity.

    Talk about threats to Russia's security from "NATO expansion" is absolute hokum. There was never an internationally binding treaty preventing "NATO expansion£" to the east. The people of the Baltic states - Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - sleep soundly in their beds every night knowing that their memberships of NATO guarantees against their occupation by its giant neighbour to the east.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There was a guarantee, I understand, in 1989 that NATO would not advance "one inch eastwards" if the then USSR did not opposse German unification. This was agreed between James Baker and Mikail Gorbechev and it was the US who broke it. They lied, in fact Ukraine are probably pawns in a game here between the Kremlin and White House. There must have been another way round this, as I suggested, a tripartate meeting. The more the, what passes for news, comes through taking out the emotive subject of women and children I cannot help thinking something more sinister is affoot.

    Your concern for Ukraine could easily be misconstrued as not caring less for Russias security. Evidence of this is in your claim "there was never an internationally binding treaty preventing NATO expansion to the east". So, you would support this war mongering organisation moving up to Russias borders? That is the way, rightly or wrongly, Putin views it. What would Joe Biden do in a similar situation? Hypothetical I know, but the hands of the USA has much blood on their hands. Iraq, Nicaragua, Vietnam to name a few. Not that this justifies what is happening in Ukraine. It seems to me, Russian aggression wrong, United States aggression alright.

    This situation should never have arose, simply because the conditions which spawned it, those being Ukraine and NATO membership should never have been an issue. Unfortunately these conditions, avoidable as they were and still are, do exist. NATO, since its inception in 1949 has been trublesome. They are not the collective security organisation they claim to be. The Warsaw Pact, equally as dangerous, now defunct, was formed as a response to the formation of NATO in the mid fifties.

    It is, and has been my view that the fall of the USSR, imperfect as it was and never socialist, woukd lead to trouble. I am surprised it has taken this long. Those who supported that breakup, the UK, USA, French etc must share the blame. They now cry crocodile tears.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's not kid ourselves here, if the Ukraine didn't believe Moscow's lies about non-aggression towards them when the handed over their nukes Vlad would never have made an overt move like this.

      Delete
    2. "There was a guarantee, I understand, in 1989 that NATO would not advance "one inch eastwards" if the then USSR did not opposse German unification. This was agreed between James Baker and Mikail Gorbechev and it was the US who broke it."

      That "guarantee" does not have any legal effects as it is not a binding international treaty or agreement. I support the rights of independent democratic nations to join whatever international organisations they wish in order to bed down their new won freedoms and democracy.

      "It seems to me, Russian aggression wrong, United States aggression alright"

      Putin's aggression is exactly the same as the imperialist Scramble for Africa in the 19th century, Hitler's Lebansraum in Eastern Europe in the 1940s and, yes, US foreign policy post-1945 in Latin America and South East Asia. So please, Caoimhin, address your charges of hypocrisy and whataboutery elsewhere.

      "It is, and has been my view that the fall of the USSR, imperfect as it was and never socialist, would lead to trouble. "

      The USSR collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions. It collapsed because its subject nations wanted freedom from the Soviet Empire and its peoples wanted freedom from the rotting hulk of Marxist-Leninist lies, tyranny and inefficiency. Yes, the reaction of the Western world may have been too triumphalist. Still does not justify Putin's neo-imperialist adventure.


      The post 1945 rules based international order requires a military body to guarantee collective peace and security. If not NATO, who?

      Delete
    3. Barry - it is impossible to deny with a straight face the hypocrisy that abounds. At the heel of the hunt the West did not tread cautiously after its victory in the Cold War: as you suggest it was much too triumphalist.

      I think it is an ideological myth that the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own inadequacies. It collapsed because the West outspent it in the Cold War. The Soviets simply could not compete. Nor was the West primarily concerned about the lack of democracy in the USSR - that much is demonstrated by the regimes the West sustained and then tried to draw up spurious distinctions between totalitarian states and authoritarian ones in a bid to legitimise its support for the latter.
      Russia has genuine security concerns. At the same time it would be foolish to promote the view that Putin is not a belligerent expansionist. His language and his lies about there being no such country as Ukraine and the need to de-Nazify it suggests there is far more at play here than mere security concerns.
      A military body is necessary to guarantee security but for it to work somewhere close to fairly it would need to be the instrument of a global authority not a Western one. In the international arena of power politics and regional balances of power, we inevitably end up with NATO becoming the armed expression of Western values over another. If it were not, how is Tony Blair not in jail? He waged a much more aggressive war than Putin.

      Delete
  3. So I take it you believe in nuclear bombs Steve? Has this world gone finally over the cliff? Has the asylum now opened its doors fully to admit an unending line of candidates? In wars, wrong as they are, it is the combatants who take the lions share of fatalities and wounded, unless it is a "war of annhialation" like the Nazi invasion of the USSR. If one of your "nukes" is used the whole lot of us go up! Maybe you dont mind being a sacrificial lamb, but please do not include the rest of the human race. Out of the pair, Ukraine or Russia, it is, in my opinion, the former who would be more likely to fire first. What then of the majority of countries peoples who are not nuclear so-called powers? Do they not count?

    It was understood also Ukraine would not join NATO, now, and as Russias application was refused, it looks like they will. Remember, Ukraine is an "applicant state" for membership of the alliance so what is Putin suppossed to think? Perhaps something along the lines of; a western bloc are trying, yet again, to threaten us! Could that be his thinking? I believe there was a way round this, perhaps Ukraine joining the EU, a non military, so far, bloc but not join NATO. Could that be a compromise, because something has to give? It is all very well spouting Ukraines right to do as she pleases, and, to a point, that is correct. However, there is a line to draw of how far down this avenue any country can go and potentially threatening another country is beyond the pale. Its called detente!!

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
  4. AM

    I actually do believe that military bodies should act under the authority under the United Nations as it did in when evicting Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1990-91. I would like to see military actions mandated by a two thirds majority of the UN General Assembly rather than the Security Council because of the veto power of the Permanent Members.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. unfortunately US unilateralism has undermined both that idea and the notion of a rules based system.

      Delete
  5. True and it led to the the failure to punish the Assad regime for its use of sarin gas on Eastern Gouta and its joint assault with Putin on the civilian infrastructure of Aleppo.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree, but in real terms there is no UN, the United States have proved this by going against everything they do not agree with passed by the UN. UN motions do not apply to Washington. NATO is essentially the US, with 29 client states. International law, vague as it is, apparently does not apply to China, ths USA, Russia and, as a US protectorate, the UK!

    Is there any independent evidence of the "use of sarin gas"? By independent, I mean info gathered not tainted by the US and UK whose evidence on Iraq regards WMD was a prefabricated pack of lies.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Caoimhin

      The investigative journalist body Bellingcat has proved through open source evidence that the missiles which delivered the lethal sarin gas that killed 1,400 civilians in Eastern Gouta in August 2013 were fired by Syrian Air Force facilities. Likewise the chemical weapons attack on Douma in 2018,

      The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has come to similar conclusions.

      Btw, Caoimhin what are your ideas for the upholding of international law which includes prevention of genocide and the carpet bombing of civilian areas and use of chemical and biological weapons?

      Delete
    2. Bellingcat has a strong reputation for reliability Caoimhin.

      Delete
  7. Thats as maybe, I am not doubting it. I was questioning the reliability of US and UK inteligence reports which in the past have been proved liars. Did "Bellingcat" investigate US illegally, under international law, using depleted uranium bombs in Iraq? Or their bombing of hospitals, calling it "collateral damage"?

    As for upholding international law it is very difficult. When large and powerful nations, like Russia, the USA, China and, as it likes to see itself, Britain breaking said laws irrespective of the International Court of Justice how can it be upheld. To uphold a law, any law, national or international, a police force is needed. The nearest we have is perhaps the UN, but the US,Russia and others just ignore their directives when it suits. Perhaps international law is more a myth than reality.

    Caoimhin O'Muraile

    ReplyDelete