One of the interesting features of the ongoing war in Ukraine is the extent to which the Australian mainstream media has almost entirely ceased to bother offering an objective assessment of what is actually happening in the ongoing war in that country. The latest examples refer to the alleged murder of citizens in the town of Bucha by Russian soldiers. The allegations of the Ukrainian forces are accepted without question. The facts of the case create a different picture.
The Russian troops had vacated the town four days before the discovery of the deceased victims, most of whom who had been shot in the head with their arms bound together. The gap between the departure of the Russian soldiers and the revealing of the deceased was not less than three days, or more likely four. Reports from the city in the first days after the departure of the Russians made no mention of the finding of any bodies.
This gap is something in entirely missing from Western mainstream media accounts. Similarly missing from media accounts is that the city was re-occupied by members of the Neo-Nazi battalion whose hatred for Russian speaking persons (who were the victims) is well established. Western mainstream media have reported the finding of these bodies, days after the Russians left, without pointing out the obvious problem with
“the Russians did it” official narrative. The Western governments (nearly all members of NATO) that have supported the Ukrainian government, have leapt upon the incident as a reason to express horror at the alleged Russian atrocities and to propose further restrictions on the purchase of Russian goods.
It is in this context that NATO has held a meeting in Brussels on the sixth and seventh of April. The Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg said that the NATO allies are “determined to provide further support to Ukraine, including the provisions of weapons.” This is something the Australian government has also done. That it makes them a party to the ongoing war and therefore a legitimate target of attack is something that seems not to have entered the limited brain cells of Australia’s foreign minister.
Not content with mounting an attack on Russia, Stoltenberg also said that NATO would “need to take account of China’s growing influence inclusive and coercive policies on the global stage, which pose a systemic challenge to our security, and to our democracies.” The last time anyone looked, NATO was an acronym for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. Stoltenberg’s comments draw attention to the fact that NATO’s ambitions are in fact worldwide. It is no less than a United States vehicle to enhance the United States’ pretentions to worldwide domination.
Stoltenberg’s speech coincided in terms of timing with the evidence given to the Defence Appropriations Subcommittee of the United States Congress by Admiral Charles Richards. His testimony related to the “systemic challenge” posed by the rise of China. He said that China “continues the breathtaking expansion of its strategic and nuclear forces with opaque intentions as to their use.”
Richards went on to say that “the strategic security environment is now a three-party nuclear peer reality, where the PRC and Russia are stressing and undermining international law, the rules-based order, and norms in every domain. Never before has this nation simultaneously faced two nuclear capable near peers who must be deterred differently. Today, both the PRC and Russia have the capability to unilaterally escalate a conflict to any level of violence, any domain, worldwide, with any instrument of national power, and at any time.”
In the case of Russia, the Admiral noted “its novel and advanced weapon delivery systems, many of which are capable of hypersonic speeds and flight path adjustments designed to avoid United States missile defence systems. They continue to develop additional strategic systems with new hypersonic warheads to expand the range of threats against the United States.”
In the case of Russia, the Admiral noted “its novel and advanced weapon delivery systems, many of which are capable of hypersonic speeds and flight path adjustments designed to avoid United States missile defence systems. They continue to develop additional strategic systems with new hypersonic warheads to expand the range of threats against the United States.”
Of the admiral’s conclusions the one that was of most significance was his claim that China and Russia both “actively seek to change the international rules-based order, while the United States and our allies and partners seek to defend it.”
These statements by both Stoltenberg and Richards highlight the critical importance of the current conflict in Ukraine. A defeat of Russia in the conflict would force a rethink of the non-western international community (currently overwhelmingly supportive of Russia,) although you won’t read that in the local newspapers as to the lack of capability of the United States led Western alliance. Conversely, Russia’s victory in that war, which looks increasingly likely to be the case, would inevitably speed the decline of the West as a major global player.
Which points to the real reason for the support for Ukraine given by the United States and its European stooges. The outcome of that conflict is of critical importance because the conflict is being closely watched around the world. There are two possible outcomes. On the one hand, if Russia is defeated by a United States led Western alliance, then the current perception around the world of the United States as a declining power would be reversed. On the other hand, for Russia to win this conflict would inevitably result in an acceleration of the world’s perceptions of the declining western power structure as a force to be reckoned with, and in the American perception, feared.
In short, the West needs to win in Ukraine to reverse the disintegration of United States and Europe in the eyes of the world. Such a victory looks increasingly unlikely. The world is undergoing massive changes in its balance of power. The emphasis has shifted from West to East and the speed of the transition has been markedly affected by the conflict in Ukraine. The West is showing a remarkable tendency to completely misjudge the resilience of Russia and the impact upon its own position of so disastrously misjudging the course of events.
What we are witnessing is of historical significance. The war in Ukraine truly marks the end of an era. The West should have noted the refusal of the developing world to condemn the Russian move. Its implications will be profound in its effects. Western hegemony has at last been given the proverbial boot. It is not before time.
James O’Neill, an Australian-based former Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.