|
The Buildup To War In Ukraine – Monday, February 21, 2022
Around noon of Monday, February 21 2022, the Donetsk News Agency reported of unprecedented artillery attacks on the Donbas republics:
The tensions along the line of contact in Donbass heightened over the last 24 hours, both DPR and LPR Missions to the JCCC report.
In the DPR, 730 explosions of Ukrainian projectiles were recorded, the enemy is using large caliber mortars and artillery cannons. A similar situation is obsereved in the LPR, where 674 explosions of Ukrainian shells were reported over 24 hours.
The Republics have suffered military and civilian casualties.
Key infrastructure objects have sustained damage. More than 1,000 customers are without power, a major ventilator was off in the Skochinskogo coal mine, prompting staff evacuation.
At around 18:50 local time the DNA reported that the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic had asked the president of Russia Vladimir Putin to recognize the republics as independent states:
"On behalf of our people we ask you to recognize the DPR as an independent, democratic, social state under the rule of law," the DPR Head Denis Pushilin said.
"I ask you to recognise the sovereignty and independence of the Lugansk People's Republic", the LPR Head Leonid Pasechnik said.
They both asked to consider the possibility of signing an agreement of friendship and cooperation between Russia and the LPR, including the cooperation in the sphere of defence.
Putin has a degree in law and is generally unwilling to bend or break it. The request by the Donbas republics are part of a process that will make a Russian intervention on their side legally consistent with the Charter of the United Nations and international law.
The Russian president held a Security Council meeting. It opened with his summary of previous events that had led to the situation:
A peace plan was drafted during the negotiating process called the Minsk Package of Measures because, as you recall, we met in the city of Minsk. But subsequent developments show that the Kiev authorities are not planning to implement it, and they have publicly said so many times at the top state level and at the level of Foreign Minister and Security Council Secretary. Overall, everyone understands that they are not planning to do anything with regard to this Minsk Package of Measures.
Nevertheless, Russia has exerted efforts and still continues to make efforts to resolve all the complicated aspects and tragic developments by peaceful means, but we have what we have.
Our goal, the goal of today’s meeting is to listen to our colleagues and to outline future steps in this direction, considering the appeals by the leaders of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic on recognising their sovereignty, as well as a resolution by the State Duma of the Russian Federation on the same subject. The latter document urges the President to recognise the independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic.
After the Security Council meeting Putin had a phone call with the German chancellor Scholz and the French president Macron to inform them of the results:
Vladimir Putin informed the leaders of the outcomes of the expanded meeting of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, which reviewed the current situation around Donbass in the context of the State Duma’s resolution on recognising the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. Today the leaders of the DPR and the LPR also requested the recognition of their sovereignty in connection with the military aggression of the Ukrainian authorities and massive shelling of the territory of Donbass, and the resulting civilian suffering.
In view of this, the President of Russia said he intended to sign a corresponding executive order soon.
The President of France and the Federal Chancellor of Germany expressed disappointment over the developments, while also indicating readiness to continue contacts.
At around 22:30 local time Putin held an address to the nation which was televised on public TV. It notices that large parts of today's east and south Ukraine as well as Crimea were previously parts of Russia that had been attached to Ukraine by Lenin (1922) and Khrushchev (1954). Additionally Stalin had attached Polish areas that to Ukraine after the Second World War.
He then review the plundering of Ukraine's richness after its independence, the rise of its 'nationalists' and the terror campaign they unleashed after the U.S. financed Maidan coup.
He noticed the build up of the Ukraine army, trained and armed by a continuous stream of NATO forces. Meanwhile NATO created new infrastructure that threatened Russia while the U.S. withdrew from several Arms Control treaties:
Today, one glance at the map is enough to see to what extent Western countries have kept their promise to refrain from NATO’s eastward expansion. They just cheated. We have seen five waves of NATO expansion, one after another – Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were admitted in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004; Albania and Croatia in 2009; Montenegro in 2017; and North Macedonia in 2020.
As a result, the Alliance, its military infrastructure has reached Russia’s borders. This is one of the key causes of the European security crisis; it has had the most negative impact on the entire system of international relations and led to the loss of mutual trust.
He describes the situation in Donbas under steady shelling and concludes:
Russia has done everything to preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity. All these years, it has persistently and patiently pushed for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2202 of February 17, 2015, which consolidated the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, to settle the situation in Donbass.
Everything was in vain. Presidents and Rada deputies come and go, but deep down the aggressive and nationalistic regime that seized power in Kiev remains unchanged. It is entirely a product of the 2014 coup, and those who then embarked on the path of violence, bloodshed and lawlessness did not recognise then and do not recognise now any solution to the Donbass issue other than a military one.
In this regard, I consider it necessary to take a long overdue decision and to immediately recognise the independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic.
I would like to ask the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to support this decision and then ratify the Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Assistance with both republics. These two documents will be prepared and signed shortly.
After the speech Putin signed documents recognizing the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk republics:
The President of Russia signed the Executive Order On the Recognition of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Executive Order On the Recognition of the Lugansk People’s Republic.
Vladimir Putin and Head of the DPR Denis Pushilin signed a Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the Russian Federation and the Donetsk People’s Republic.
The President of Russia and Head of the LPR Leonid Pasechnik signed a Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the Russian Federation and the Lugansk People’s Republic.
The treaties of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance included mutual defense agreements.
While the 'West' calls Russia's action in Ukraine 'unprovoked' the long list of NATO actions that Putin included in his speech prove that Russia's action was certainly provoked.
The 'West' also likes to call the Russian intervention in Ukraine 'illegal'. However, Russia recognized the two republics just like the 'West' recognized Bosnia and a part of sovereign Serbia as an independent Kosovo. Unlike in the Donbas republics there had never been a referendum in Kosovo that supported such a step. But the 'West' had even found an international court that (barely) legalized the Kosovo case. There can thus be no argument that the steps Russia took in recognizing the republics were in any way illegal.
The common self-defense treaties Russia and the republics signed are not fully consistent with Article 51 of the UN Charter as those republics were not (yet) UN members. But they closely followed that articles spirit:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
The case of Russian support for the Donbas republics was thereby made as legal as they possibly could be made.
The OSCE Special Observer Mission at the ceasefire line in southeast-Ukraine reported of Monday, February 21 2022.
It was the worst day ever.
In Donetsk region, the SMM recorded 703 ceasefire violations, including 332 explosions. In the previous 24 hours, it recorded 579 ceasefire violations in the region.
In Luhansk region, the Mission recorded 1,224 ceasefire violations, including 1,149 explosions. In the previous 24 hours, it recorded 333 ceasefire violations in the region.
After a high number of ceasefire violations and explosions on Saturday, February 19 2022, the following Sunday had seen a reduction of incidents. Monday however proved that this was not a trend. While the numbers of ceasefire violations were 10% less than on the previous Saturday the number of observed explosion increased by 20% over Saturday.
bigger
The map shows ceasefire violations in yellow, orange to red colors. By far the most now appear on the side of the Donbas republics. The source of most of the ceasefire violations, like noise of shooting or explosions recorded by cameras, drones or heard by the observers, is listed as 'undetermined'.
The map shows explosions, as small black dots, on both sides of the ceasefire line. While only a part of the hundreds of explosions were located and marked on the map a count of the black dots shows that a great majority of those happened on the side of the Donbas republics. I count 92 impacts marked on the Donbas side and only 16 on the government controlled side of the ceasefire line.
This was no longer an artillery duel or exchange of harassment. From a military standpoint this now clearly looked like artillery preparations for an attack along roads that could then be used as future lines of attack for a mechanized force.
bigger
Statement by the Russian Foreign Ministry in connection with the suspension by the Russian Federation of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START)
In the statement of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the situation around the START, published on February 8, 2023, as well as in the relevant comments of the leadership of the Ministry, a detailed assessment was given of the unfavorable state of affairs with the implementation of the Treaty, which has developed as a result of the destructive actions of the United States in the context of this agreement, as well as in general for the line they are pursuing towards a comprehensive weakening of the security of the Russian Federation and the political and economic “suffocation” of our country.
In the development of the previously outlined approaches, we note the following negative factors that undercut the full functioning of the New START through the fault of the United States.
Washington’s extreme hostility, the confrontation it escalates, and its overt course of malicious escalation of the conflict in and around Ukraine have created a fundamentally different security environment for us.
At the same time, we remind you again that the START preamble, which is its integral part, postulates the commitment of the parties to the principle of indivisible security and building relations based on mutual trust and cooperation. Today, however, the United States is openly seeking to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia, and the tensions fueled by Washington go far beyond the Ukrainian crisis – the United States and the West they lead are trying to harm our country at any level, in any area and in any region of the world.
There is every reason to state that US policy is aimed at undermining Russia’s national security, which directly contradicts the fundamental principles and understandings enshrined in the START preamble, on which the Treaty is based and without which it would not have been concluded. In fact, we are talking about a radical change in circumstances compared to those that existed at the time the START was signed.
In such an environment, it is no longer possible to conduct business with the United States and the West in general as usual, both in principle and in relation to the field of arms control, which is inseparable from geopolitical and military-strategic realities.
Moreover, serious changes in the security landscape are also related to the fact that the consolidation of Western countries on anti-Russian soil is increasingly affecting aspects of their nuclear policy. In particular, NATO members, who have been practicing so-called “joint nuclear missions” for decades and have for some time now openly declared the North Atlantic bloc a “nuclear alliance”, are increasing the emphasis on nuclear weapons in NATO-wide conceptual guidelines, declaring their focus on further strengthening and increasing the combat readiness of “assigned » to NATO potentials in this area. There are calls for expanding the bloc’s nuclear infrastructure and moving it east. The direction of these efforts against our country is not hidden.
In this context, the factor of the combined nuclear arsenal of the three NATO nuclear powers, namely the United States, Great Britain and France, which can be turned against Russia, is of particular importance in the current conditions. In this sense, it is very symbolic that all the countries of the North Atlantic bloc, including Great Britain and France, have clearly demonstrated their involvement in the START issue by issuing a joint statement in which they completely block the US approaches. This political act confirms the validity of the Russian position on the need to take the nuclear potentials of the three Western nuclear states together and take this factor into account in the process of limiting and reducing nuclear weapons, as well as when considering the future fate of START.
For many years, Washington has ignored the relationship between strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons, which is also fixed in the New START. The statement on missile defense made by Russia in the context of signing and ratifying the Treaty clearly refers to the fundamental importance of this relationship. Our document clearly emphasizes that START can operate and be viable only in the absence of a qualitative and quantitative build-up of US missile defense systems. Nevertheless, Washington defiantly continues to take actions that go in the diametrically opposite direction. Against the backdrop of a general aggravation of the military-strategic situation, this factor is becoming increasingly important.
The most important thing for assessing the situation with the implementation of START is the fact that Washington has long and in a significant way violated the central provisions of the START on quantitative restrictions on the corresponding weapons of the parties. This is due to the illegitimate unilateral exclusion from the count under the Treaty of more than 100 US START units, which were renamed in Washington so that they ceased to fall under treaty definitions, or declared converted, without giving the Russian side the opportunity to reliably verify that the results of such conversion comply with the START requirements, i.e. .e. follow the procedure expressly stipulated by the Agreement. This clear and direct violation has been repeatedly pointed out.
In addition, the well-known US attempts to “probe” the security of a number of Russian START facilities declared under the Treaty have become blatantly provocative and extremely risky. Armed attacks on them, undertaken by the puppet regime in Kyiv, were carried out with the clear military-technical and information-intelligence assistance of Washington.
Against this background, we consider it the height of cynicism to demand that the United States immediately provide them with access to these and other strategic facilities of Russia, under the guise of the provisions of the START on inspection activities. This causes particular bewilderment in conditions when the anti-Russian restrictions imposed by Washington previously violated the efficiency of the procedures provided for by the Treaty related to verification activities. As a result, the ability of the Russian side to freely and on a completely equal basis to carry out control measures on US soil was undermined, which created obvious unilateral advantages for the American side.
These assessments were repeatedly brought to the attention of the American side and were invariably accompanied by a call for Washington to take measures to rectify the situation, taking into account the concerns expressed by Russia. Instead, however, Washington continued to purposefully pursue malicious moves to undermine Russia’s security. The Americans are raising the stakes in the all-out hybrid war unleashed against our country.
Based on the totality of the circumstances outlined, the Russian side was forced to conclude that the United States committed a material violation of the New START Treaty, that is, a violation that is of fundamental importance for the implementation of the object and goals of the Treaty.
In this regard, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin announced on February 21 this year. in the Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on the suspension by our country of the START.
At the same time, in order to maintain a sufficient degree of predictability and stability in the nuclear missile sphere, Russia intends to adhere to a responsible approach and will continue to strictly comply with the quantitative restrictions on strategic offensive arms stipulated by it within the life cycle of the Treaty. In addition, the Russian side will continue to participate in the exchange of notifications with the American side on launches of ICBMs and SLBMs on the basis of the relevant agreement between the USSR and the USA in 1988.
The decision to suspend the START may be reversible. To do this, Washington must show political will, make conscientious efforts for a general de-escalation and create conditions for the resumption of the full functioning of the Treaty and, accordingly, comprehensively ensuring its viability. We urge the American side to do just that. Until then, any of our steps towards Washington in the context of START are absolutely out of the question.
We also call on the United States to refrain from steps that could prevent the resumption of the New START in the event that the necessary conditions for this mature. We are convinced that the potential of the Treaty in terms of its contribution to strengthening international security and strategic stability is far from exhausted. Nevertheless, it will be able to open up in full only if the possibilities for symmetrical, equal and thorough implementation of the START Treaty by both parties are restored.
We mean to closely monitor the further actions of the United States and its allies, both in the field of strategic offensive arms and in general on the track of international security and strategic stability, and also analyze them for damage to Russian interests and the need for us to take additional countermeasures
Posted by: START | Feb 21 2023 17:19 utc | 11
I think that what we are seeing in slow motion is the dissolution of the entire structure of International Government centred around the UN. The system never worked-that was evidenced clearly in Korea- but it has taken a long time for the peripheral powers, such as Russia and China, to give up all hope that it could be reformed and adapted to fulfil its charter. A hope that flared up again after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Which was really the beginning of the collapse of the US empire which lost its raison d’etre overnight. Had the, US dominated, UN and the various trade and finance organisations really been what they advertised themselves as being they would have been adapted to deal with real issues. But the UN etc had never been anything but an imperialist front, which, like the various courts and tribunals, never deviates from the requirement of the Empire.
Why is the truth of Hammarskold’s death still obscured? Why is the IAEA ambiguous about its reporting from Iran? Why does the OPCW still hide the truth about Dhouma? These and a million questions like them are very simply explained: the imperialists control all of these organisations.
What’s next? I would not be surprised if Russia did not put the case of Ukraine before an internationally convened tribunal of independent judges drawn from the “Third World”. The Nordstream matter is another candidate for a thorough airing before world opinion.
Then there is the question of the Security Council. Is the UK really the successor state to the Empire which was one of the founders of the UN? Could not a case be made in favour of India or South Africa, or even Canada? For it was these states and other parts of the empire which furnished the manpower, the resources and the wealth needed to sustain “Britain” during the War. Would the UN ever have come into existence without India’s weight? Would even the channel have protected the UK if Canada had not thrown its vast resources behind it in 1940? As to France its place on the Security Council is nothing more than atavistic racism- its biggest contribution to the Victory in Europe the beaches of Normandy. Both France and the UK have places at the UNSC, among the US delegation’s advisors and bearers.
The Western narrative has become fictional. Ludicrously so. To portray Ukraine as an outpost of democracy, liberal social values and individual liberty is a bad joke. And one that discredits the comedians behind it. Revealing the truth about Ukraine, its government and the emigre Gladio regimes throughout eastern europe, is not hard. And it is time that the swastika tattoos on their foreheads became the subject of discussion in polite international company.
The United States does not engage in diplomacy. It hasn’t done so since about 1988 when the neo-cons were on the rise and Perle, Feith etc produced “A Clean Break” which, in effect marked the end of any Zionist attempts to make peace in Palestine. And that meant that the US had given up on diplomacy. The timing was fortuitous because with the breaking of the USSR it became possible, in Washington, to conclude that diplomacy was obsolete- the US dominated the world, its imposition of global rule was just a matter of time.
And that is the history of the 1990s, followed by the more comprehensive efforts of the Bush regime, which was designed to clean up the last nests of resistance- Seven Countries in Seven Years. Obama, who followed, produced an alternative which was indistinguishable from the model. And by 2016 there were no diplomats left- unless Gunboat Captains count. It was all stick and carrot stuff: ‘Do as we want or we will cut you off from all international trade and finance. And here’s a million Swiss francs and a bolt hole in Florida, just in case the natives get the pitchforks and Molotovs out.’
Look around-the Chinese and Russians are despatching diplomats everywhere, meeting with the leaders of other nations and explaining Russia or China’s case to them. On the other hand the US has fired all its diplomats and replaced them with neo-con ideologues and liberal yes men. They go around the world threatening and bribing, and then, when they return home frustrated and empty handed, their work is handed over to the CIA or one of its fronts. Regimes that do not agree must be replaced.
The one thing that unites the governments and the peoples of the world is hatred of and contempt for the United States. It is rarely said aloud but it is, nevertheless, there. It is the central fact of international relations in 2023.
And, of course, the United States’ allies feel exactly the same. France, Germany even the UK, when/if ever it wakes up, long to be free to unloose their diplomats and reach agreements with other states, trade agreements, cultural agreements, defence agreements..whatever. But they cannot, they no longer enjoy agency. They are no longer sovereign. That is what Minsk showed: Hollande and Merkel did not, as they now suggest, negotiate in order to buy time for Kiev. They genuinely believed that they had solved an irritating and dangerous problem, diplomatically. It was afterwards that they learned that they had been conned by the Americans into deceiving Russia and betraying the trust put in them.
It was a sordid business and a nasty awakening. But now the world knows that NATO members do not count. They are not allies but satraps, puppets. They don’t matter. And what this means-and western europeans are gradually awakening to it- is that they are entirely disposable targets.
Ukraine is about, inter alia, medium and short range missile emplacement: if Kiev joins NATO there will be a ring of potentially nuclear armed missile launch sites surrounding western Russia, bringing Moscow within ten minutes of having to rely on its Air defences. It will begin in Norway and Finland and run south from the Baltic to the Black Sea and the Black Sea to the Caspian. Which means that the next war will take place in europe and that entire cities, entire countries will be wiped off the map. That is in Europe starting at John o’ Groats and moving eastwards.
And there is nothing that NATO members can do about it because NATO is nothing more than a local branch of the Pentagon, their governments nothing more than fan clubs. It is only a matter of time before it becomes incumbent upon Europe’s Ministers to learn the “moves” the gymnastics and dance steps of cheerleaders.
Posted by: bevin | Feb 21 2023 19:17 utc | 32
|
