Eric Draitser

A rebel checkpoint Saturday as Ukrainian troops pressed their
assault on separatists in the east. (Photo: Sergey Ponomarev/NYT)

The Kiev regime’s deadly assault on cities in the East and South of Ukraine in recent days has opened a new chapter in the ongoing conflict in that country. The scores of dead and injured provide a sad testament to the fact that what was a united country little more than three months ago has now become a nation tearing apart at the seams.

As the Ukrainian military launches assaults on key cities in the East and South, the danger of civil war, which once seemed possible but unlikely, is now becoming an all too real threat. However, the threat does not end there. A full blown civil war in Ukraine would necessarily require intervention from Moscow as the security of Russian-speaking Ukrainians, Russian nationals in Ukraine, as well as Russia itself would be threatened. With a neoliberal-fascist alliance supported by, and subservient to, the West, ruling the day in Kiev, Moscow would be forced to respond if only as a defensive measure. In such a scenario, events and outcomes often become unpredictable, precisely the recipe for a military conflict of terrifying global proportions.

The Changing Complexion of the Crisis — In order to understand where the situation in Ukraine is heading, it is critical to examine how the nature of the conflict, specifically in the East, has transformed from one of political grievances and calls for regional autonomy, to a military and paramilitary campaign to crush opposition. In doing so, it becomes clear that this fundamental transformation has severely limited the political and diplomatic options of the various sides, making a civil war and regional instability a very real possibility.

More »

Eric Draitser

Robert Heinlein’s classic novel Stranger in a Strange Land tells the story of a human, born and raised on Mars, who comes to Earth and struggles to understand the world around him. The protagonist of the novel, having no knowledge of the planet, is susceptible to misunderstanding issues based on a literal interpretation of all he sees and reads. Were he to come to the US or Europe today and pick up a newspaper or turn on the news, what would he think of Russia and its ambitions? Conversely, would he even encounter the word NATO? And would he have any concept of the fact that NATO is by far the most dominant military force in the world?

Obscuring the Truth with Media ■ The onslaught of Western propaganda in recent months has attempted to portray Russia as an aggressor – an imperial nation with designs on Ukraine and its other neighbors. Russia is presented as a belligerent actor using its military to menace former Soviet republics in order to reconstitute its former glory.

However, this narrative conveniently leaves out the fact that it is NATO, not Russia, which is actually escalating military tensions throughout the former Soviet space. While the US and European media build the myth of “Bad Vlad” and Russian imperialism, NATO is quietly deploying troops and hardware to critical locations, providing material support to nations along Russia’s borders and those of its allies, and generally raising the stakes and inviting the possibility of war. With headlines such as “Putin’s imperial project threatens European values” (Financial Times), and “Putin’s Imperial One-Man Show” (New York Times), the Western media has done yeoman’s work for Washington and Brussels, establishing the narrative that it is Russia that is an imperial aggressor seeking regional (global?) domination through military force. These media outlets frame the discussion as to the degree to which Russia seeks hegemony, not whether or not this is truly the case.

More »

Eric Draitser

As Crimea prepares to vote on Saturday March 16th in a crucial referendum on its future, the rhetoric coming from the West and its propaganda machine has hit a new and ridiculous low. Not only has US President Barack Obama and his administration done everything to undermine democracy in Ukraine, they have now resorted to the most naked forms of hypocrisy in an attempt to delegitimize the democratic process.

On Thursday March 6th President Obama spoke at the White House on the referendum and the issue of Crimea. In his prepared remarks, Obama stated categorically that the United States would not recognize the results of the Crimean referendum. He argued that the it would violate both the “Ukrainian Constitution and international law.” Obama kept the comedy coming when he noted that, “In 2014 we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn over the heads of democratic leaders.” As with all statements made by the US government, and the President specifically, this must be contextualized and deconstructed in order to be effectively critiqued.

First and foremost is the question of democracy and, more specifically, how exactly Washington is choosing to define this gravely abused word. In referring to the so-called “interim government” in Kiev, headed by Yatsenyuk and his associates, as “democratic leaders”, Obama demonstrates either a complete lack of understanding of the word democracy, or as I think is more likely, an utter contempt for democratic principles. By referring to an unelected entity that has seized political power in Kiev by force, and through collaboration with Nazi elements, as “democratic leaders,” Obama exposes himself and his administration to be cynical opportunists whose interests rest not in democracy but in a geopolitical agenda guided solely by strategic interests.

More »

Eric Draitser

The damaged turbine hall of Baksanskaya hydroelectric power station after
it was attacked by militants in Russia’s restive North Caucasus region.

The seemingly endless attempts to subvert the Putin government are cynically designed operations whose overarching goal is geopolitical in nature.

The shootings and bombings in Ingushetia and Dagestan this week rekindled a long-standing, brutal campaign of violence and terrorism in Russia’s Caucasus region – one that has seen more than its share of terror stretching back to the Chechen “rebellion” of the 1990s. However, in examining the recent attacks, it becomes clear that there are political and geopolitical interests behind the scenes that are actively working to destabilize Russia, with violence as their most potent weapon. The attacks are not simply isolated terrorist actions, but rather, cynically orchestrated events carried out by well-connected criminal networks whose goal is to foment conflict and carry out the agenda of the US intelligence establishment in its subversion of Russia.

More »