- While many people are concerned about the implications of a Russian take over of Chornobyl, a commentator on MSNBC points out that the danger is more likely to come from the operational nuclear plants in Ukraine.
- Note: How long has this story been in the news and Katy Tur (MSNBC) doesn’t know where Chernobyl is.
- Note: Nothing reveals the utter stupidity of corporate media pundits like having to carry on an unscripted conversation about anything outside this country.
- Most of Europe has now agreed to remove Russia from the SWIFT banking system. The U.S was (even up to this afternoon) using their objections to cover for its own unwillingness to upset the economic apple cart for the elite. The corporate media has fallen in lock step with the narrative that removal of Russia from swift 1) isn’t as effective as it was cracked up to be and 2) could be done if it weren’t for the objections of the Europeans.
- There has been an announcement that certain Russian banks will be removed from SWIFT.
- The Ukrainians would not be asking for a removal of Russia from SWIFT if it weren’t effective.
Tag: Ukraine Crisis
President Zelensky of Ukraine has stated that he has been informed that a Russian attack will occur on Wednesday. He has not said, as reporters have pointed out, that he believes this information.
Commentators on CNN are talking about reports that the Ukrainians have said that they would be willing to talk about agreeing not to join NATO for the time being in exchange for ending the standoff. Michael Bociurkiw maintains that such a move or agreement would be a death knell for Zelensky and perhaps provoke demonstrations on the streets.
It has also been reported that Ukrainian officials have been talking about giving the Russians access to Crimea and Donbas and ceasing to object to Russian control of the two regions. Should Putin gain such a concession, it would mean that without firing a shot, he has gotten through threat what he couldn’t get at negotiations.
Julia Davis, the Daily Beast, is reporting that the head of RT has gone on Russian television, crying and stating that Russia has no choice but to intervene in Ukraine before they (the Ukrainians) start building concentration camps and gassing people.
Books on Ukraine Crisis:
- “Putin’s War against Ukraine.” By Taras Kuzio
- “War with Russia?” By Stephen F. Cohen.
Review of “War with Russia?” From Irish Times
- Cohen has been called “Putin’s No 1 American apologist.”
- Also, “…a fellow traveller of an authoritarian rogue state and an implacable opponent of western efforts to contain Russian aggression and expansionism.”
- Cohen thinks “Putin is a potential partner in a revived Russo-American détente. The greatest threat to American security, argues Cohen, is not Putin’s foreign policy but international terrorism, nuclear proliferation and instability in the Middle East.”
- Cohen “was also an ardent supporter of Mikhail Gorbachev’s efforts to democratise Soviet socialism.”
- “…after the collapse of the communist system in 1991, Cohen became a dissident of a new type – a severe critic of the US’s crusade to reinvent Russia as a liberal, free-market democracy.”
- “Cohen felt the US shared responsibility for the so-called economic shock therapy that impoverished the Russian people, created an elite of super-rich oligarchs and corrupted the country’s politics.”
- “As Cohen never tires of reminding us, you can’t understand Putin and contemporary Russia without reference to the country’s historical memory of the 1990s.”
- Cohen argues that you cannot understand Russia without understanding their collective memory of the 1990s. “Central to that memory is the disdain with which a triumphalist West treated post-Soviet Russia…”
- According to Cohen: “It was not Putin who caused what Cohen calls the new cold war, but Nato’s expansion to Russia’s borders; US and EU meddling in Ukraine; and western regime-change wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.”
- Cohen is evidently one of those people who believes against all evidence that the corporate media made up “russiagate” even though every other person in Trump’s world is Russian and mafia connected. He maintains that “Russiagate has been accompanied by a pernicious Russophobia that demonises not just Putin but the Russian people.” I have seen no evidence or mention that comes anywhere near demonizing the Russian people.
- As Cohen argues: “The resultant hysteria has been ramped up by US media, by grandstanding politicians, and by blatantly self-serving military and industrial interests.”
- According to Cohen (and others) American elites seem to have lost their fear of atomic warfare, while there is little or no mainstream political opposition to current hawkish policies aimed at Russia. As Cohen points out, even at the height of the Soviet-American cold war – an existential struggle between capitalism and communism – there were many mainstream advocates of détente with the USSR. During the old cold war the communist bloc acted as a buffer between the two sides. The new cold war is being fought directly along Russia’s borders, most dangerously in a proxy civil war being battled out in Ukraine.”
- “Among Cohen’s many controversial claims is that the greatest scandal in American politics is not Russiagate but Intelgate – the myth propagated by elements of the US intelligence community that Putin is attempting to subvert American democracy. The reverence with which some liberals greet pronouncements made by today’s intelligence chiefs is in sharp contrast to their past critiques of the malevolence and misinformation spread by the CIA, the FBI and other agencies.” Note: This is a frequent argument used by the likes of Glenn Greenwald.
- “Another Cohen target is the hallowed institutions of the American media, especially the New York Times and the Washington Post, whose reporting on Russia he sees as not merely tendentious but actively mendacious. The narrative of the new cold war is driven by stories published by these newspapers that are based on unverified, anonymous intelligence.”
- Cohen maintains that even though Hillary Clinton may have compared Putin to Hitler, the Russian president is actually a moderate.
- “Although the book focuses on current affairs, Cohen brings to bear a much-needed historical perspective. The first post-Soviet Russian-Western clash occurred in 1998-1999 when Nato sponsored the secession of Kosovo and bombed Russia’s ally, Serbia – an intervention that Moscow later used to justify its takeover of Crimea. If the past is any guide, western sanctions against Russia will achieve nothing, except to bolster support for Putin at home. Notwithstanding the accusations of treason that greeted Trump’s summit with Putin in Helsinki, he is not the first US President to favour détente with Russia. That was the policy of Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan too.”
- “Cohen is by no means an uncritical supporter of the Putin regime. While he sympathises with Moscow’s foreign policy he characterises its domestic polity as a “soft authoritarianism” and sees Russia as a society in transition to a better democracy. What he fears is that western isolation of Russia will blow the country off the democratic path. Waiting in the wings to replace Putin are not pro-western liberal democrats – who have little support in Russia – but truly authoritarian ultra-nationalists.”
- “Cohen gives the impression that he is a lone voice opposing the spurious narratives created by the new cold war warriors. He is disappointed by what he calls the “silence of the doves”. In fact, the new cold war has many critics, not least among Russia experts. In Europe, if not in the United States, there is a strong undercurrent of what the Germans call Putinverstehers – those who urge understanding of the Russian point of view. Liberal elites may wax hysterical about the Russian threat, but common sense about Putin prevails among the general public.”
- “The title of Cohen’s book is intended not as a prophecy but a warning. In the overexcited debate about Putin and Trump, Cohen chooses to eschew moderation because he believes that in practice that results in conformity with an anti-Russia narrative that is not only wrong but dangerous. This book will delight his supporters and enrage his opponents, while readers of a moderate persuasion will be able to admire the passion and tenacity of his resistance to the trend towards provoking war with Russia.”
- Geoffrey Roberts is emeritus professor of history at University College Cork and a member of the Royal Irish Academy