Putin is either an aggressive schemer, to be opposed and vilified at all costs, or a wise, restrained real-politician, balanced irreconcilable forces next door. Which is it?By Jonas E. Alexis, Assistant Editor -March 11, 20223123 5https://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/03/11/the-new-world-order-lost-the-war-against-russia-and-ukraine/&layout=button_count&show_faces=false&width=105&action=like&colorscheme=light&height=21 Share
Jim W. Dean: “The most dangerous rogue nation on the planet now is the US, not because the American people are that way, but because we have sat on our asses while special interests have taken over the government, something that is actually in its final stages.”
…by Jonas E. Alexis and Eric Walberg
Canadian Eric Walberg is known worldwide as a journalist specializing in the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia. A graduate of University of Toronto and Cambridge in economics, he is author of 3 books. Presently a writer for the foremost Cairo newspaper, Al Ahram, he is also a regular contributor to Counterpunch, Dissident Voice, Global Research, Al-Jazeerah and Turkish Weekly, and is a commentator on Voice of the Cape radio.Walberg’s articles appear in Russian, German, Spanish and Arabic. Foreign rights to his book Postmodern Imperialism were acquired for Chinese, Turkish and Russian editions. He is the author of the new book, The Canada-Israel Nexus.He has lived in both the Soviet Union and Russia, and then Uzbekistan, as a UN adviser, writer, translator and lecturer.
Jonas E. Alexis: It should become clear by now that the war on terror has been spearheaded by the Khazarian Bankster Cult to terrorize much of the Western world for Israel. Like Gollum in the Lord of the Rings who loves and hates the ring of power at the same time, the Khazarian Bankster Cult loves and hates terrorism at the same time. Those ethnic cleansers love terrorism when it suits their ideological agenda, but hate it when it begins to kill their own children.
They also love and hate Nazis. For example Victoria Nuland loved Nazis, and she was the mediator who
“began funneling money into the coffers of the Ukrainian fascists, the descendants of Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian nationalist who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II and with the CIA and the Bundesnachrichtendienst (Germany’s intelligence agency) under former Nazi Reinhard Gehlen beginning in 1956.”
As E. Michael Jones puts it,
“As if to prove that politics continue to make strange bedfellows, Israeli soldiers were also involved in the Maidan square demonstrations fighting alongside the Ukrainian fascists.
“In an interview with the Jewish Telegraph Agency, an officer in the Shu’alei Shimshon reconnaissance battalion of the Givati infantry brigade of the IDF explained how he headed a force of 40 men and women, ‘including several fellow IDF veterans,’ in violent clashes with Ukrainian government forces, clashes which eventually brought down the government…
“What is clear is Delta’s (the pseudonym for the IDF officer) willingness to work with anti-Semitic Neo-Nazis to achieve common political goals.”
You remember Otto Skorzeny, “one of the great heroes—if not the greatest—of Nazi Germany” who “had become a daredevil commando officer who carried out spectacular operations”? Well, shortly after World War II, the Mossad recruited him in their covert operation.
Lansky was a Zionist who poured millions upon millions of dollars into “Israeli business and industry.” When one of the Mossad agents telephoned him and said, “I am an Israeli, operating in Paris, and I need your help for the Zionist state,” Lansky quickly responded, “No problem. In a month I shall be in Lusanne, in Switzerland. Let’s meet there.”
So, whenever the Khazarian Bankster Cult starts exonerating a nation or state, then put your thinking cap on. In the same vein, whenever the same cult starts vilifying a nation or state it doesn’t like, keep your thinking cap on. Which brings us to Russia and the whole “Russia invaded Crimea” nonsense. What’s your take on this issue, Eric? You’ve lived in many places around the world, including Russia. Tell us your views on this whole issue.
Eric Walberg: Putin is either an aggressive schemer, to be opposed and vilified at all costs, or a wise, restrained real-politician, balanced irreconcilable forces next door. Which is it?
The 2014 coup in Ukraine succeeded due to the fierce campaign led by neo-fascists, heirs to the Banderistas of 1940–50s, now lauded as freedom fighters, but seen at the time as terrorists, murdering Ukrainians and Jews, and sabotaging a Ukraine in shambles after the war.
They had almost zero support then, having collaborated with the Nazis to kill tens of thousands, but their hero, Stepan, was honoured with a statue in 2011, erected by the godfather of the current anti-Russian coupmakers, the (disastrous) former President Viktor Yushchenko. Ukraine’s Soviet war veterans were outraged and the statue was torn down in 2013, just months before the coup, bringing the Bandera-lovers back to power.
The eastern Ukrainians, mostly native Russians, centred in Donetsk and Lughansk, saw the coup as a surreal rerun of WWII, this time with Banderistas triumphant. They had no real plan, but panicked at the thought of what was to come, and seized government buildings and declared themselves mini-republics, calling on Russia to come and rescue them, as was happening in Crimea.
A tall order. Much as Putin empathized with his fellow Russians, now being bombed and boycotted by the Ukrainian forces, with a death toll of well over 10,000 so far. Starting in August 2014, a series of Russian “humanitarian convoys” crossed the border into Ukrainian territory without the permission/ cooperation of the Ukrainian government with food, water and blankets, after which the Red Cross took over.
This state of stalemate led the war to be labelled by some a war of aggression against poor Ukraine, a “frozen conflict”. The area has stayed a war zone, with dozens of soldiers and civilians killed each month. Close to 4,000 rebel fighters and the same number of ‘loyalists’ have been killed, along with 3,000 civilians. 1.5 million have been internally displaced; and a million have fled abroad, mostly to Russia.
A deal to establish a ceasefire, called the Minsk Protocol, was signed on 5 September 2014, but immediately collapsed. It called for reincorporation of the rebel territories under a federal system, with full rights of the Russian-speakers and open relations with the Russian Federation. Russia stands by the principles of the protocol, calling for Ukrainian borders to stay as they are, despite the pleas of the rebels.
This protocol pleases neither the rebels nor Poroshenko. Poroshenko saw it as a waiting game, intent on taking the rebel territories by force, with ethnic cleansing hovering in the background. The Russians clearly will not abandon their fellow Russians, but at the same time, refuse to invade and start a war with their unpredictable, basket-case of a neighbour. Russians are surely thinking: Ukrainians — you can’t get along with them or without them.
The Russian position is clear and firm: give Russian Ukrainians their rights, make our borders porous for locals and their relatives, and revive shattered economic links among common peoples with a thousand years of common history. Get on with it.
The Ukrainian position is mostly hysterical, calling for NATO and Europe to fight off the Russkies, salvage the bankrupt economy, ignore their (creepy) fascists. WWIII if necessary. The coup-makers are unrepentant as Ukraine slides deeper into insolvency, corruption getting worse (if that’s possible). Poroshenko is as unpopular as a leader can get (3rd place 11%), and only the threat of a Ukraine shattered in pieces gives him a life preserver among his citizens.
The West incited the coup and quickly embraced it, ignoring its unsavoury origins in nostalgia for fascism. While it feigns shock and anger at Russian actions, it can’t ignore that the Russians really had no choice, that their actions were/are both necessary and measured.
Putin’s red line is that Ukraine cannot – will not — join NATO. The NATO creep eastward, a violation from 1991 on of the implicit understanding with Gorbachev and Yeltsin, will not be tolerated.
The Ukrainian coup created a new scenario. If Russia had moved to support the rebel territories, form a customs union with open borders, aimed at eventual incorporation in the Russian Federation, that would have given the NATOphiles their trump card, and NATO and the EU would be hard pressed not to move in and try to salvage a bankrupt dysfunctional state, with the final coup as its prize: NATO now lined up surrounding Russia, the last real holdout against US world domination.
The Baltic ministates and (almost all) the Balkan ministates are now in the NATO fold. There are a few loose ends for the EU in the Balkans, but EU hegemony economically and US hegemony militarily are the new playing field. Then there’s Turkey as a key NATO ally.
Putin sees this logic and is not biting the bullet. Better a tolerable federated Ukraine, where Russians are left in peace, or another frozen conflict, than NATO breathing fire on Russia’s borders.
The West played the ‘shock and anger’ card over Crimea, ignoring the fact that Crimea has been a key part of Russia since Catherine the Great since 1783, the heart of Russian naval power, thoughtlessly given to Ukraine when Soviet internal borders were meaningless, populated by mostly Russians and Tatars.
As Ukrainian nationalism heated up after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia still maintained its bases there, paying rent to Ukraine. But dreams by Ukrainian Russophobes to join NATO, and the desire of NATO forces to occupy Crimea, or that somehow Russia and NATO could share Crimean bases, are nonsensical. Russia’s only option was to accede to Crimeans’ pleas.
As if to taunt the Russians on Crimea, a British missile destroyer and a Turkish frigate docked at the port of Odessa in July for a joint NATO maritime exercise , several days after the US, Ukraine and 14 other nations deployed warships, combat aircraft and special operations teams for the ‘Sea Breeze 2017’ exercise off the Ukrainian coast.
It looks like a reenactment of western policy following the Crimean War in 1856, when Russia was denied its naval presence in the Black Sea, as Britain and France were preparing to take the Ottoman territories for themselves and keep Russia out in the cold. Combined with the NATO creep in the Baltics and Balkans, it also looks like a replay of the build up to WWII.
But without the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. To Stalin’s (sorry, Putin’s) discomfort, there is no split among the imperialists anymore. Germany et al are postmodern nations, nations without a foreign policy, beholden to the world hegemon, the US. There is only one thousand-year reich (sorry, pax americana) on the table these days. History may repeat itself, but in its own ways.
Better frozen than dead
Frozen conflicts have a bad reputation, but peace is always better than war. Tempers cool over time, past wrongs can be ironed out with reason and compromise. Donetsk and Lughansk will not hoist a white flag to Kiev, given the bad blood. They will continue to get electricity and gas from Russia, and revive their economies by reviving trade and industry with their real ally. Kiev should be careful in its game of trying to starve the rebels into submission. Russians as a people have never backed down when faced with a hostile enemy.
Watch out Poroshenko. The longer the freeze continues, the more willy-nilly Donetsk’s and Lughansk’s integration with the Russian economic sphere will proceed. Or rather the Eurasian customs union (EACU) that Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan formed in 2010, eliminating obstacles to trade and investment that went up after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Moscow stands to benefit as a natural hub for regional finance and trade and Ukraine is welcome. Win win. A free trade pact as an economic strategy elevates the prospects of the entire region where Russia is a natural centre of gravity. In 2015 the EACU was enlarged to include Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. Russia imports labour from the ‘stans’ and could well help Ukraine by inviting Ukrainians to work as well.
Sensible realpolitik by the West would take NATO away from Russian borders, and push Ukraine to make an acceptable deal on a federal state structure to keep its own Russians and its neighbour happy. Sensible realpolitik by Ukraine would be to join the EACU, bringing ‘little Russians’, ‘white Russians’ and plain old Russians back together.
This would be welcomed with relief by EU officials, who have no military axe to grind, and are not happy about the billions it would take to get Ukraine off life support. Only Dr. Strangeloves will be disappointed.
This article was first published on October 12, 2017.
 E. Michael Jones, “Crimea River: The Hypocrisy of U.S. Foreign Policy,” Culture Wars, April 2014.
 See Michael Bar-Zohar and Nissim Mishal, Mossad: The Greatest Missions of the Israeli Secret Service (New York: HarperCollins, 2012), chapter 8.
 See historical studies on this issue, see for example Albert Fried, The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Gangster in America (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); Jenna Weissman Joselit, Our Gang: Jewish Crime and the New York Jewish Community, 1900-1940 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983); Stephen Birmingham, The Rest of Us: The Rise of America’s Eastern European Jews (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1999); David Pietrusza, Rothstein: The Life, Times, and Murder of the Criminal Genius Who Fixed the 1919 World Series (New York: Basic Books, 2011); Robert A. Rockaway, But He Was Good to His Mother: The Lives and Crimes of Jewish Gangsters(Jerusalem and New York: Gefen Publishing House, 2000).
 Bar-Zohar and Mishal, Mossad, chapter 8.
 Ibid., 119.