The Biden-Putin summit back in July produced some real but fragile promise. The Presidential Joint Statement on Strategic Stability, signed by US President Joseph Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the close of the summit, confirmed the Reagan-Gorbachev declaration that a nuclear war could not be won and should never be fought, and called for robust “bilateral” dialogue between the US and Russia and the initiation of negotiations toward new treaties to control current weapons systems.
True, the media ignored that Joint Statement, focusing entirely on President Biden’s repeated mention of vague “consequences” if Russian “behavior” didn’t change. But the way was there, if only the two sides had the will, to build back the structure of international arms control – which Russian president Putin has called for repeatedly. The stage was set.
Since then the US (echoed by NATO) and Ukraine have issued a number of impossibly hawkish statements and the US has supplied Ukraine with a humongous torrent of sophisticated weapons. The chorus has grown so fierce and loud that many commentators have criticized their tone and expressed fear that Ukraine may be encouraged to take offensive action against Russia, leading to war between them and possibly to US involvement which would threaten nuclear holocaust. The import of these criticisms has been to urge the US to tone things down. But perhaps the more appropriate admonition would be to urge the US to start telling the truth.
I pointed out after the July summit that who those want to continue and expand the New Cold War could easily head off improvement in US-Russia relations by continuing to make unfounded accusations that would be reported as facts by the major media, triggering calls for “consequences” and continuing the demonization of Mr. Putin and Russia. I imagined further evidence-free charges of objectionable conduct such as ransomeware attacks.
The charge that Russia is preparing to invade Ukraine carries that dynamic to a whole new level. It’s so far beyond what I had in mind that it took a headline in my local newspaper to make me recognize the similar dynamic. Here’s the headline:
US intelligence: Russia planning Ukraine attack.
The “news” is that US intelligence agencies claim Russia’s troop movements within Russia are the prelude to an invasion. According to the Associated Press, “US intelligence officials” “determined” that Russian planning is underway for a possible military offensive that could begin as soon as early 2022. The “new intelligence finding” estimated the Russians are planning to deploy an estimated 175,000 troops and almost half of them are already deployed near Ukraine’s border, “according to a Biden administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the finding.” The “official” added the “plan” calls for the movement of 100 Russian battalion tactical groups along with armor, artillery, and equipment.
These are pretty detailed “findings.” US intelligence supposedly has uncovered a Russian “plan” that is disclosed to the public without any evidence and on condition of anonymity.
There’s the dynamic, in full: the intelligence agencies make the charge, the media act as stenographers conveying it to the public as news. Democrats who belong to the bipartisan War Party threaten whatever they can think of (so far, short of war) should there be such an invasion, and off we go.
Meanwhile, various US spokespeople – led by Mr. Biden himself – encourage Ukraine to believe the US has got its back, no matter what. And Ukraine has refused for years to take the steps it agreed to years ago to defuse and resolve its conflict with residents of eastern Ukraine who object to the installation of an anti-Russian government in a US-backed coup back in 2014.
As Caitlin Johnstone points out, nuclear war is getting increasingly likely. Other analysts have provided detailed background on the situation, including the absence of any Russian motive for attacking Ukraine. On the other hand, two in particular have pointed to the profits of the war industries as the obvious motive of those who are increasing US-Russia tension to seriously frightening levels. Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, The US-Russia Confrontation Over Ukraine (Consortium News, November 23, 2021),
Personally I find quite appealing Dmitri Orlov’s description of the situation:
The Ukraine aspires to NATO and EU membership, but this prospect appears exceedingly unlikely since it is much more of a liability than an asset: destitute, bankrupt, politically unstable and not in control of its own government or its own territory—a failed state, essentially. Plus, the EU and NATO are themselves perhaps not too long for this world, the EU having recently lost the United Kingdom and NATO having just fabulously failed in Afghanistan, and not really capable of accepting new members. Sensing their own weakness, and projecting onto Russia their own instincts to engulf and devour all that they can, they automatically assume that Russia will exploit this weakness and reconquer the Ukraine and perhaps some other parts of Eastern Europe as well. But this is all it is—a projection, because the contemporary Russian project is something else entirely. Russia does periodically move its troops around its own territory, thereby keeping the West in a constant state of nervous agitation bordering on outright panic, but from the Russian perspective that is just a pleasant side-effect of regularly scheduled training exercises. There was a recent hysterical outburst in Western press over Russian tanks massed on the Belorussian border, for instance. Russia is always “about to invade,” on Tuesdays especially, but somehow never gets around to it. Dmitri Orlov, Who Wants Some Ukraine? (November 24, 2021)
Much as I enjoy Orlov’s humor, however, economist Michael Hudson suggests another explanation – besides profits, and apart from any genuine panic – for the intemperate outbursts emanating from US and NATO officials these days, an observation which warrants much wider exposure and contemplation. Professor Hudson, a former Wall Street economist and now a Distinguished Research Professor at University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), has authored many books on international economics, counsels governments on finance and tax policy, and maintains a website at https://michael-hudson.com/ . In a discussion with Pepe Escobar (In Quest of a Multipolar Economic World Order (March 26, 2021), ), Hudson declared:
“The Americans want war. The people that Biden has appointed have an emotional hatred of Russia. I’ve spoken to government people who are close to the Democratic Party, and they’ve told me that there’s a pathological emotional desire for war with Russia, largely stemming from the fact that the Tzars were anti-Semitic and there’s still the hatred about their ancestors: ‘Look what they did to my great-grandfather.’ And so they’re willing to back the Nazis, back the anti-Semites in Ukraine. They’re willing to back today’s anti-Semites all over the world as long as they’re getting back at this emotional focus on a kind of post 19th-century economy. I’ve met these people. Their emotion is one of hatred and anger. You can look at their face and see what they’ve become. This is really dangerous. They are crazy.”
Robert Roth prosecuted false advertising and consumer fraud as an assistant attorney general for New York (1981-1991) and Oregon (1993-2007), and wrote a mini-primer on the war on Syria, posted at http://www.syriasolidaritymovement.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/RobRothSyriaPrimer_v3.4.pdf .