At first glance, the conflict as it unfolded in Donbass and Crimea starting in 2014 appears to be a classic textbook case of separatism. An ethnic minority – of Russians, in this instance – wants to be independent and to reunite with the Motherland from which it was cut off decades ago when Soviet leaders drew arbitrary borders.

Kiev wants to eradicate the cultural identity and political autonomy of this ethnic minority. Therefore, members of the minority rise up in rebellion. Quite straightforward. Right?

The issue, however, is much more complicated due to the geopolitical confrontation between NATO and Russia. For eight years, Donbass and Crimea have been pieces on the chessboard of superpower rivalry and now they’re on the frontline of Europe’s most devastating conflict since the 1990s Balkans wars.

When NATO and the Kiev regime talk about “liberating” Crimea and Donbass, what they really mean is they’re determined to eradicate the ethnic identity of the local Russian population and to weaken, if not destroy, the Russian Federation.

Rubicon crossed

NATO and Kiev officials are obsessed with seizing full control of these disputed regions, and there’s no limit to the blood and treasure they’re willing to sacrifice toward that goal. However, entirely absent from their plans are details about what will happen to the local Russian population in case of their victory.

More than a million people in the Donbass applied for and received Russian citizenship between 2019 and the moment the areas became part of Russia in 2022, because it’s a country to which these people are bound by blood, language and culture. After the regions (collectively dubbed “new Russian territories”) joined Russia, all their inhabitants became Russian citizens from Moscow’s point of view. They can opt out and are not required to renounce their Ukrainian citizenship.

Under international law, Moscow has a right to protect its citizens no matter where they might be. According to the Western media narrative, however, the conflict in Ukraine began on February 24, 2022 when Russia “invaded” Ukraine in an effort to “destroy” the country and “to rebuild the Soviet Empire.”

The reality, of course, is quite different. Here’s a brief overview of how the conflict really began, almost nine years ago.

On February 21, 2014, with US support, a violent insurrection in Kiev toppled the democratically elected President Victor Yanukovich, who is from Donbass. Not surprisingly, his supporters across eastern and southern Ukraine resisted the new US-backed regime in Kiev.

As Ukraine crumbled into anarchy in spring 2014, Crimea held a referendum and quickly reintegrated into Russia. The two Donbass regions – Donetsk and Lugansk – soon declared their independence from Kiev. The Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic were born, but didn’t join Russia at the time.

Kiev responded by bombing Donbass, arresting “separatists” and launching an “Anti-Terrorist Operation.” On May 2, 2014, nearly 50 pro-Russia demonstrators were burned alive inside the Trade Unions House in Odessa. The Rubicon had been crossed. In 2014-15, more than a million Ukrainians fled to Russia.

Canceling ethnic Russians

While NATO and Kiev talk about “democracy” and “freedom,” they fail to apply these concepts to the Russian citizens in Crimea and the new territories, which became part of Russia in September after holding referendums on the question.

Today, Kiev and NATO insist they’re fighting “totalitarian Russia” to protect the “rules-based order.” Yet, NATO refuses to recognize those referendum results. And Western journalists –often reporting from Washington, London and Kiev– have concocted a bizarre and false narrative that the people in these regions are held captive, living under a ‘brutal’ Russian occupation.

The right to self-determination is a fundamental principle of international law, enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The concept was embraced by US President Woodrow Wilson to justify entrance into World War I. The US fought to “Make the World Safe for Democracy” and to free European nations –Poles, Czechs and Serbs– from Austrian and German rule.

Why can’t the people of Crimea and the new Russian territories also enjoy such rights? Despite disinformation spread by Western media, NATO leaders are well aware of their own hypocrisy. So, what to do when lofty American principles clash with Washington’s geopolitical ambitions? Alter the facts to fit the narrative!

The West has effectively canceled the Russians of Crimea and Donbass. Voila! Everyone residing in those regions is automatically ‘Ukrainian’ – no need to ask what they think, what language they speak or how they identify ethnically. In Western reporting this matter is glossed over, and not because modern Ukraine is welcoming to those of any ethnic or language background. It’s the opposite – the Kiev regime’s goal is a purified Ukrainian state where everyone speaks Ukrainian and embraces the national identity. There’s no room for other ethnicities (or at least, no room for a certain other hated ethnicity) in their vision for Ukraine.

Ethnic cleansing on the horizon?

This brings us to the main dilemma – if Kiev and NATO win, what happens to the Russians living in the regions they will have ‘liberated’? This is the question I posed to both former and current US government officials and experts. But no one would answer. So I searched online. Likewise, nothing. No detailed information on Kiev’s post-war plan. Their silence is sinister.

Therefore, let’s look at what has already happened in territories ‘liberated’ by the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) in the past nine months. Retribution against pro-Russian locals in the Kharkov and Kherson regions was quick and furious, with ‘filtration measures’ used to round up and punish ‘collaborators’, allegedly including extrajudicial killings.

Also, we can see how on a daily basis the UAF indiscriminately shells and terrorizes civilian centers in Donbass, racking up horrendous civilian casualties.

Let that thought sink in – Kiev considers these people to be its own (since it doesn’t recognize the Donbass regions as Russian). Yet, it bombs them ruthlessly every day. How much greater will be the slaughter if the UAF ‘liberates’ Donbass and Crimea from ‘Russian occupation’?

Shutting down free speech

In the past 25 years the world has seen many cases of separatism. Most prominent among them are Kosovo, and South Sudan. Both have enjoyed Western support and, so, their ambitions have been quite successful.

Yet, many other groups yearning for independence are ignored by Western powers. Clear and indisputable facts about the pro-Russian sentiment among the people of Donbass and Crimea are dismissed by the West as “Russian propaganda.” Anyone who dares to question and doubts the NATO narrative is smeared as a “Putin puppet.”

The goal of such malicious name-calling is to shut down free thought and debate. Crimes are best committed in silence, far from the light of truth and transparency. Censorship is the refuge of rogues and villains whose views and ideas are unable to withstand intellectual scrutiny and inquiry.

This is why no one in NATO and Kiev wants an honest discussion about the future of Crimea and the new Russian territories, and of the people living there.

We can be certain – a Kiev victory means that innumerable locals will have to flee their homes and thousands will be declared ‘collaborators,’ and subjected to all kinds of punishment, probably even including executions. Russians and other ethnic minorities are not welcome in a radical nationalist Ukrainian state that seeks to be cleansed of Russian influence.

Welcome to NATO’s “rules-based order.”

By John Varoli, veteran journalist who holds a dual degree in Russian Studies and the History of US Foreign Policy from Cornell University. He has worked with both Russia and Ukraine since 1992, including 15 years as a foreign correspondent for major media such as the New York Times, Bloomberg News and Reuters TV. His personal blog can be found on Substack

Journalist Eva Bartlett, based in Ukraine, heard the shelling start on Saturday night.

“This morning I saw these mines in a heavily populated western Donetsk district,” she said. “They tear off limbs but don’t necessarily kill. Nasty war crimes to add to the list of Ukraine’s manifold war crimes.”

Local authorities issued a warning to residents asking them to “watch your step carefully, walk only on asphalt” and to call emergency services if they spot one of the deadly mines.

Civilians were advised to only walk on open routes and to avoid shortcuts after the latest attack as the mines are difficult to spot in grass or other areas.

The Lepestok cluster mines are banned under international humanitarian law and their use is deemed a war crime under the Geneva Convention.

They were widely used in Afghanistan where children often mistook them for toys, and were seriously injured or killed after handling them.

On Saturday, Donetsk authorities said that a large number of the petal mines were found by a school in the city’s Kirov district.

The overnight shelling occured shortly after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky ordered troops and civilians to urgently evacuate from Donetsk.

Transport networks were suspended across the city today as clear-up operations were under way.

On January 30, 2022, Truss, talking on the British Broadcasting Corporation’s Sunday Morning show about measures to stop Russian “aggression,” said “we are supplying and offering extra support into our Baltic allies across the Black Sea.” At last count no Baltic nations could be found on the Black Sea.  

Arriving in Moscow, she told her opposite number, the intelligent and highly experienced Sergey Lavrov, that the Ukrainian areas around Rostov and Voronezh were being threatened by Vladimir Putin’s armies.

Lavrov then had patiently to explain to her that those areas have long been Russian, and face no threat of invasion.  

And so it goes on, with much of the brave talk about confronting Russia coming from people like Truss who probably have little idea even where Ukraine is, let alone how and where Russia has to be confronted.

But they have no trouble issuing endless warnings to prepare for the imminent Russian invasion, which for some reason never comes and which Moscow denies it has any intention of doing anyway.

Common sense suggests that Moscow has long had two other much more understandable reasons for sending troops close to Ukraine’s borders. One is to encourage Kiev to carry out the Minsk Protocol it signed in 2014 together with other European powers anxious to end a bloody civil war there that had forced pro-Russian elements into the small holdouts of Donetsk and Luhansk along the border with Russia. 

The Protocol called for temporary self-government in Donetsk and Luhansk under a “special status” law, and the holding of local elections there. Granting autonomy to part of a country is no big deal. Many others do it for linguistic or other differences; Quebec in Canada is a good example. Some do it just for administrative convenience.

But Kiev says its extremist-dominated parliament will not approve the constitutional amendment said to be needed to approve that autonomy. So the war has to go on, forever.

Meanwhile the British and other hardliners are trying to say Minsk is now a dead letter anyway – not a great start to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s new era of rules-based international relations. 

Another good reason for Moscow’s troop movements is the still-lingering possibility the Ukrainian government or extremist forces might, as in Georgia in 2008, try to attack and wipe out the two pro-Russian holdouts.

Such an attack would have given Moscow the excuse to go into eastern Ukraine temporarily and clean up the Donetsk, Luhansk and other problems in the Russian-speaking Donbas area, problems left over by Ukraine’s messy 1991 separation from the Soviet Union.  

One particular problem is the fate of the many Russian speakers left inside Ukraine. Currently the Kiev government – the extremists especially – are trying to enforce a “Ukrainian language only” regime. Ukrainian is close to Russian, so the change would not be unbearable. But for many pro-Russians it not only means a forced change of identity; it  means also submission to those extremists, some with ugly pro-Nazi, fascistic leanings. 

Fortunately French President Emmanuel Macron realizes that observance of the Minsk Protocol is the key to solving the Ukrainian crisis. Moscow goes along with his efforts to move the debate in that direction.  

Unfortunately there are others who have a vested interest in going the other direction. And there are far too many, like Liz Truss, who do not seem to have any idea what the crisis is about anyway let alone directions for a solution.

Between them they may well manage to create the war they say Russia wants to create. 

Gregory Clark, emeritus president of Tama University, Tokyo, is a Russian-speaking former Australian diplomat, posted to Hong Kong and Moscow in the 1960s and currently active in Japanese academic circles. He can be contacted at www.gregoryclark.net.

These demands have been dismissed in turn by the Western allies. NATO and the USA both rejected changes to NATO’s open door membership format for Russia’s sake, while leaked letters from the USA and NATO to Russia show that the latter is unwilling to discuss the “indivisibility of security” – the idea that no state’s security policy should be harmful to the security of other countries.

The delicate peace in the Donbass region is held together by the Minsk Agreements, whereby neither Russia nor Ukraine can deploy forces in the region and Ukraine must restore economic ties and dialogue on the potential for constitutional reform with representatives from the Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic.

“We are carrying out a very deep de-centralization reform, and we are ready to work on the implementation of the Minsk agreements,” said Kuleba. “But the Minsk Agreements begin with security issues. The political aspect is secondary.”

But with Kyiv now officially rejecting a special status for the Donbass, one more avenue to peaceful settlement has been closed, and even more hinges on the talks between senior diplomats and politicians in the coming days.

With all the talk of Ukraine in the American press over the last six months, one would think that at least a few peace plans might be seriously debated. No such thing. Western journalists and opinion leaders are in no mood for peace and reconciliation. It wasn’t the Steinmeyer Formula or the Minsk Agreement that kept coming up at the recent hearings on Capitol Hill, but rather the Javelin missiles, of course. The main concern in the West was that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky might appear weak in the 9 December meeting with President Vladimir Putin of Russia or even could “capitulate” completely.

In that respect, the Western media seemed to be channeling the zeitgeist from Kyiv, where crowds were apparently on call, lest the comedian turned president of Ukraine not show adequate spine. Led by the defeated incumbent Petro Poroshenko, protesters were perhaps poised for Maidan 2.0 if that proved necessary. Fortunately, it did not, and all the journalists could go back to writing about various conspiracies, whether Rudolph Guliani’s most recent visit to Kyiv or the latest murder spectacle. Peace negotiations – what a quaint and silly idea. Why even bother?

Measured as a meeting that aired grievances candidly and got both sides rather red in the face, the Paris Summit in the Normandy format (with Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany all represented) seems to have succeeded. A writer in the Kyiv Post channeled a rather smug “told you so” attitude immediately after this first Zelensky-Putin encounter, explaining that the possibility of genuine peace in the Donbass is simply up to the Russian president, “But it appears that he does not want to” make peace. The author explains: “Zelensky returned to Kyiv with what many saw as no victory and no loss, ‘a draw’ … The reaction in Ukraine seems to be that the political newcomer, president since May, did what he could — neither capitulating nor delivering a breakthrough.” This Ukrainian reporter does admit that the prisoner swaps, along with the pull back of troops from the front line, as well as the new crossing points for civilians do amount to something achieved. But the article also notes that sparks flew aplenty over the issue of Ukrainian control of the border between Donbass and Russia, and concludes by quoting a Brussels specialist, who observes that Putin’s goal is “is to keep Ukraine in trouble and himself in power.”

The single substantial analysis to run in the New York Times after the summit did not highlight any of the progress outlined above, but predictably focused on the negative. There were the usual tropes about “appeasement,” of course. The Russian president is said by these DC establishment “experts” to require a war to keep himself in power, and that the Kremlin will “never abide a stable, prosperous … Ukraine.” These authors bemoan increasing “Ukraine fatigue” in the West, as if only more military aid for Kyiv will bring about peace. Most galling is the critique of the actual peacemakers: both French president Emmanuel Macron and German chancellor Angela Merkel, who are derided as arrogant and also naïve for striving to end the war. This follows an infuriating pattern of Americans pretending that they understand European security better than do Europeans themselves. With irretrievably hawkish establishment foreign policy views like these predominating in DC and flourishing in the American press, no wonder U.S.-European relations are in a deep crisis.

And that hostile feeling is generally reciprocated in Moscow, logically enough. One Russian perspective on the discordant meeting in Paris was that the war will be dramatically intensified by the United States and its allies, which are said to be intending to declare the Donbass “militias to be ‘terrorist groups’ and our country their ‘sponsor’ [ополченцев Республик ‘террористическими группировками,’ а нашу страну – их ‘спонсором’], concluding that the Donbass militias will then be “destroyed.” Another Russian article appearing after the summit said that Kyiv is preparing to resolve the Donbass issue by force, so “Donbass veterans are ready to fight back against NATO ‘peacekeepers.’ [Ветераны Донбасса готовы дать отпор ‘миротворцам’ НАТО].” A slightly less hawkish appraisal appeared under the headline “The War in Donbass is not stopped,” wherein the author asks incredulously “What can be achieved in a situation, when Kyiv is basically not ready to make compromises [Что можно успеть … в обстановке, когда Киев принципиально не готов к компромиссам]?” A common theme, echoing Putin’s agitated responses, was the frustration that Zelensky was walking back the progress from previous rounds of negotiations, known as the Minsk Accords. Interestingly, and quite contrary to conventional Western assessment of the Russian press as state-controlled, one Russian headline appeared that excoriated Putin for his supposedly “quiet capitulation,” before the Ukrainians. The Russian author charged: “Our leadership has chosen the policy of ‘appeasement.’ [наше руководство выбрало политику ‘умиротворения’].”

Still, for all the pessimism and bitterness flowing out of the volatile Donbass issue these days, is a resolution actually so far out of reach? Do Western experts and journalists take any interest at all in possible solutions to the conflict or are they too busy tracking down evidence of Russian influence in their constant discharge of McCarthyist twaddle? If American diplomats put even a quarter of the effort they have made at shafting their own president toward finding a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conundrum, Europe might actually be able to live in peace for the next century.

In the interest of such a peace (and also brevity), I will outline such a conflict resolution plan below. In effect, both sides have already inaugurated a “cooperation spiral” with Ukrainian troops having pulled back from several positions, while Russia has now apparently agreed to continue gas transit through Ukraine (a major part of the Ukrainian national budget) for an extended period. A first additional step in the spiral would be for Ukraine to affirm the existence of humanitarian corridors in all directions for the population in the Donbass region. Russias could reciprocate that step by confirming and also expanding the role of OSCE monitors across the conflict region to assess humanitarian needs and aid with ceasefire compliance.

The second step would be the hardest and most important leap, but is still quite conceivable. Both sides have, more or less, agreed that UN peacekeepers or “blue helmets” are a vital part of the solution. It’s absolutely true, but heretofore the discussion has generally concerned peacekeepers from Europe and therein is the problem. Instead of NATO or OSCE peacekeepers, Kyiv would have to agree to non-European soldiers to fill the vital role as blue helmets in this conflict. The most promising candidates are China, Japan, South Korea and India for this important role. Ideally, one pro-Western country (e.g. India or Japan) would be paired with one pro-Russian country (e.g. China) and the mission might be commanded by a senior officer from an agreed upon post-Soviet nation familiar with the requisite challenges, such as one from Kazakhstan–a country that has stepped into the mediator role before. Moscow could reciprocate Kyiv’s new flexibility on welcoming non-European peacekeepers by making the hard decision to retract the Mink Agreement’s stipulation on Ukrainian constitutional reform over the special status of Donbass – a process that is not realistic for the foreseeable future given the political complexities and intrigues now pervasive in Kyiv.

After these vital steps are taken and the “blue helmets” are in place (perhaps 25,000), the rest of the steps should not be so difficult. With Donbass autonomy now assured by external (UN) forces, Moscow could maintain the momentum of the cooperation spiral by taking the third step of extensively drawing down and pulling back heavy military forces (armor, artillery and aviation chiefly) from Russian territorial zones proximate to the Donbass. In return, Kyiv would offer its blessing to local elections in Donbass, overseen by both the blue helmets as well as the OSCE monitors. A much harder fourth step for Kyiv would be the acceptance of a low-key “dual citizen” regime that allows Donbass residents to quite easily hold Russian passports. As it turns out, such arrangements are quite common in Europe and across the whole globalizing world. It implies that Donbass citizens will enjoy very substantial freedoms in an increasingly cosmopolitan world with overlapping identities. In return for such acceptance, Russia should make the difficult concession of giving Ukraine full control over its entire border with Russia, including the ultra-sensitive Donbass portion. However, that presence would necessarily entail a border security and customs presence rather than a military presence, logically enough.

As the icing on the cake for finally burying this bloody and dangerous “family quarrel,” Kyiv would take the final step of recognizing Russian sovereignty over Crimea. Yet Kyiv would only take this momentous final step under the condition that Ukraine would be permitted full and unambiguous entry into NATO without Russian objections or countermeasures. To safeguard such a peace, Ukrainians would naturally be wise enough to keep their shiny, new NATO bases and (appropriately low-key) exercises on the west bank of the Dnieper River.

Thus, the comprise solution yields a win-win-win-win-win. Ukrainians could enjoy enhanced security and a new prosperity. Full NATO membership has its privileges, for sure. As a bonus, Kyiv’s sons and daughters would no longer be sent into the meat grinder of the Donbass trenches. The people of the Donbass gain the most, obviously. They would finally put down their weapons and now focus on the hard work of economic development and rebuilding their lives after this devastating conflict. Russia would benefit very substantially by getting out from under sanctions and also gain security for its treasured prize of Crimea. Merkel and Macron could share the Nobel Peace Prize, having achieved peace in Europe for the next hundred years and beyond. Even the Asian powers (e.g. Japan, China, India) would gain substantial prestige by making a very noteworthy contribution to peace in Europe, illustrating that they can actually make major contributions to peace and security, proving that they are prepared to assume the mantle of global leadership.

Americans would win too, since there would be no need to talk about Ukraine (and Russia) incessantly anymore. But what would all those DC national security pundits (and their journalist friends) do with their ample time if peace breaks out in Ukraine?

Diversion tactics?

This tactic has usually been used to divert attention from economic problems, suppress political opposition and carry out unpopular neoliberal reforms. Each time, prior to the next increase in prices and tariffs, made at the behest of the IMF, the Ukrainian authorities have demanded that citizens should not be indignant, because there was allegedly a high probability that Russia would attack, taking advantage of Ukraine’s internal instability. This continued for seven years, becoming routine.

However, the current difference is that the American and British publications have become the primary source of November’s alarmist predictions (or rather a source of its new wave). For the first two weeks of November, the Ukrainian authorities denied the likelihood of a Russian invasion. At first, they even called the predictions the “pro-Russian panic rumors”, but after visits to Kiev by the western countries military ministers, Ukraine’s authorities were forced to agree and obediently began to echo the West predictions.

False rumours?

In the early days of November, Pentagon spokesman, John Kirby, expressed concern over the relocation of the Russian military. Shortly before that, on November 2, the US Department of Defense announced the deployment of 90,000 Russian troops near the Ukrainian border. These figures were also reported by the Politico and The Washington Post. In Kiev, they said that they knew about this and that these troops were always there.

Despite the fact that this information was made public by the Pentagon, the Ukrainian authorities began to reproach the American media for purportedly spreading false rumors. On November 7, Ukraine’s presidential press secretary, Sergei Nikiforov, said that the Office of the country’s President had no information about the increase in the number of Russian military personnel, and the Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense did not actually confirm the information that the press service of the US Department had earlier released.

Indeed, S. Nikiforov called the dissemination of this news “elements of psychological or propaganda pressure.” Separately, he noted that both the officers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the Ukrainian intelligence actually reported on the absence of tensions at the border. Oleksiy Danilov, the Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council head secretary, as well as Andriy Demchenko, the press secretary of the State Border Service of Ukraine, also made statements that there were no Russian troops’ movements close to Ukrainian border.

The Russian authorities also denied any plans to invade Ukraine and move troops to its borders. The US then announced an unprecedented but covert call for reservists in Russia, citing two anonymous persons. However, it is impossible to carry out such a mobilization in secret. Nowadays, everyone has a phone and Internet access, so it is impossible to secretly call tens or hundreds of thousands into service. However, the US insisted on this.

“Possible Russian invasion” and “psychological operations”?

And just two weeks later, the Ukrainian authorities agreed that Russia would soon invade Ukraine, but no practical actions or preparations were made in the country against a possible Russian invasion. “Along the entire length of the border between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, which extends more than 2000 km. normal life continues. People and goods are moving, there are no two armies that look at each other with hatred, there is no deeply echeloned defense that should be built if you really expect an attack,” writes the Ukrainian edition Focus.

However, after talks with the US some of the top-military in Ukraine tried to confirm the US allegations. According to the head of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine (GUR) Kirill Budanov, the Russian Federation has concentrated more than 92000 troops near the border with Ukraine and is preparing to attack by the end of January or beginning of February 2022.

The head of the GUR added that the attack, which would likely be instigated by the Russian Federation, will include airstrikes, artillery and armored attacks, followed by landing strikes in the East of Ukraine, landing attacks in Odessa and Mariupol, and a smaller invasion through Belarus.

At the same time, he separately added that any military attack would follow after the “psychological operations” that Moscow is allegedly already carrying out. He said that they would “stagger” the stability in Ukraine with the help of anti-vaccination protests, unrest associated with the economy troubles and “the launch of anti-government sentiments.” In other words, although at first denying the likelihood of such an invasion, then they realized how the US allegations could be used to suppress any internal opposition.

Bloomberg, US Embassy’s alarmist statements

Then Bloomberg began to spread similar information with claims that the Russians are preparing an attack from three sides—from the Crimean peninsula, from the Russian-Ukraine border and from the territory of Belarus. According to Bloomberg, Russia is preparing 100 thousand soldiers for an attack. Attention has been drawn to the alleged preparation of an invasion from Crimea. But if you look at the map, there is nothing more stupid from a military point of view than attacking across a narrow isthmus, which is also mined, when you have thousands miles of undefended common land border.

On November 24th, the US Embassy issued a warning to US citizens, who are advised not to visit Crimea and the eastern regions of the Donbass due to “Russian military activity.” It is unclear why they are talking about these areas. Russia has thousands of kilometers of common border, and if it wanted to invade, it would obviously not go through those small sections of the border where Ukrainian troops and minefields are concentrated. On the rest of the Ukrainian-Russian border, there are no fortifications at all, or even a wire fence—hundreds of smugglers cross them with ease, every day.

Against the backdrop of these alarmist statements, the United States and Great Britain have increased the supply of weapons to Kiev. Every week, planes with military cargo land in Kiev. And at the end of November, for the first time, American Javelin anti-tank systems were used against the Donbass militias, where the situation worsened significantly in November.

Canada, reportedly, is considering an increase in the number of its troops in Ukraine.

The Swedish Defense Minister said he was ready to send troops to Ukraine to help train the country’s soldiers. The UK also said it is ready to send 600 marines to Ukraine at any time. Obviously, 600 service personnel are not sufficient forces to withstand a Russian invasion in the event of it ever happening, but the goal is obviously different.

Kiev to be US and Britain’s sacrificial lamb?

Ukraine’s military experts believe that the United States and Great Britain are pushing Kiev to a military adventure against the Russian Federation or the Donbass republics, announcing in advance about “plans for a Russian invasion.” Kiev is well aware of the suicidal nature of such a provocation, so for a long time it refused to acknowledge the existence of the Russian ‘invasion plans.’ Commentators on the Ukraine have even compared the Ukrainian authorities to a stubborn donkey that does not want to go to the notorious abattoir and become a victim. Kiev, of course, has been repeating in recent years that it is fighting Russia, but this was just a simulation and a reason to ask NATO countries for money.

Therefore, in Ukraine there are now suspicions that insignificant contingents of troops from Great Britain, the USA, Canada and Sweden should only force the Ukrainian authorities to face an armed provocation, that is, serve as something like a barrage detachment behind the Ukrainian army. A similar situation took place in August 2008 when Georgian troops pushed by US/UK instructors attacked Southern Ossetia, causing Russian involvement. Currently the former Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili (now a citizen of Ukraine) is imprisoned in his home country, Georgia, on charges of corruption.

At the end of November, publications in the Western media and military alarmism had already caused a fall in the value of Ukraine’s currency. The fact is that in recent years, on the advice of the United States and the IMF, Ukraine has been increasing the financial pyramid of domestic government bonds, selling these short-term bonds to foreigners at 12%. The money from their sale has covered debts to the IMF and other international banks. Now foreigners have rushed en masse to get rid of their Ukrainian securities, buying up USD and taking them out of the country.

Kiev has been prepared for the role of a sacrificial lamb, which must take itself to the slaughter, but it still has a little instinct  of self-preservation left, so Ukraine will, as far as possible, continue to merely simulate a war with Russia. But then, the economic methods of pressure will become involved: either an economic collapse due to Ukraine’s dependence on Western financial assistance, or a military provocation with the subsequent defeat for another round of anti-Russian hysteria in the West at the cost of hundreds or even thousands of lives.

What a mess. Sections of the U.S. Deep State are in open revolt against the combo that remote controls Crash Test Dummy, who impersonates POTUS. The neocon-neoliberal axis is itching for a war – but has no idea how to sell it to an immensely fractured public opinion.

UKUS, which de facto controls the Five Eyes spy scam, excels only in propaganda. So in the end it’s up to the CIA/MI6 intel axis and their vast network of media chihuahuas to accelerate Fear and Loathing ad infinitum.

Russophobic U.S. Think Tankland would very much cherish a Russian “invasion”, out of the blue, and could not give a damn about the inevitable trouncing of Ukraine. The problem is the White House – and the Pentagon – must “intervene”, forcefully; otherwise that will represent a catastrophic loss of “credibility” for the Empire.

So what do these people want? They want to provoke Moscow by all means available to exercise “Russian aggression”, resulting in a lightning fast war that will be a highway to hell for Ukraine, but with zero casualties for NATO and the Pentagon.

Then the Empire of Chaos will blame Russia; unleash a tsunami of fresh sanctions, especially financial; and try to shut off all economic links between Russia and NATOstan.

Reality dictates that none of the above is going to happen.

All exponents of Russian leadership, starting with President Putin, have already made it clear, over and over again, what happens if the Ukro-dementials start a blitzkrieg over Donbass: Ukraine will be mercilessly smashed – and that applies not only to the ethno-fascist gang in Kiev. Ukraine will cease to exist as a state.

Defense Minister Shoigu, for his part, has staged all manner of not exactly soft persuasion, featuring Tu-22M3 bombers or Tu-160 White Swan bombers.

The inestimable Andrei Martyanov has conclusively explained, over and over again, that “NATO doesn’t have forces not only to ‘counter-act’ anything Russia does but even if it wanted to it still has no means to fight a war with Russia.”

Martyanov notes, “there is nothing in the U.S. arsenal now and in the foreseeable future which can intercept Mach=9-10+, let alone M=20-27, targets. That’s the issue. Same analytical method applies to a situation in 404. The only thing U.S. (NATO) can hope for is to somehow provoke Russia into the invasion of this shithole of a country and then get all SIGINT it can once Russia’s C4ISR gets into full combat mode.”

Translation: anything the Empire of Chaos and its NATO subsidiary try in Donbass, directly or indirectly, the humiliation will make the Afghanistan “withdrawal” look like a House of Gucci dinner party.

No one should expect clueless NATO puppets – starting with secretary-general Stoltenberg – to understand the military stakes. After all, these are the same puppets who have been building up a situation which might ultimately leave Moscow with a single, stark choice: be ready to fight a full scale hot war in Europe – which could become nuclear in a flash. And ready they are.

It’s all about Minsk

In a parallel reality, “meddling in 404” – a delightful Martyanov reference to a hellhole that is little more than a computer error – is a totally different story. That perfectly fits American juvenilia ethos.

At least some of the adults in selected rooms are talking. The CIA’s Burns went to Moscow to try to extract some assurance that in the event NATO Special Forces were caught in the cauldrons – Debaltsevo 2015-style – that the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, with Russian help, will concoct, they would be allowed to escape.

His interlocutor, Patrushev, told Burns – diplomatically – to get lost.

Chief of the General Staff, Gen Valery Gerasimov, had a phone call with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen Mark Milley, ostensibly to ensure, in Pentagonese, “risk-reduction and operational de-confliction”. No substantial details were leaked.

It remains to be seen how this “de-confliction” will happen in practice when Defense Minister Shoigu revealed U.S. nuclear-capable bombers have been practicing, in their sorties across Eastern Europe, “their ability to use nuclear weapons against Russia”. Shoigu discussed that in detail with Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe: after all the Americans will certainly pull the same stunt against China.

The root cause of all this drama is stark: Kiev simply refuses to respect the February 2015 Minsk Agreement.

In a nutshell, the deal stipulated that Kiev should grant autonomy to Donbass via a constitutional amendment, referred to as “special status”; issue a general amnesty; and start a dialogue with the people’s republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.

Over the years, Kiev fulfilled exactly zero commitments – while the proverbial NATOstan media machine incessantly pounded global opinion with fake news, spinning that Russia was violating Minsk. Russia is not even mentioned in the agreement.

Moscow in fact always respected the Minsk Agreement – which translates as regarding Donbass as an integral, autonomous part of Ukraine. Moscow has zero interest in promoting regime change in Kiev.

This charade has come to a point that – diplomatically – is quite unprecedented: Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov lost his Taoist patience.

Lavrov was forced, under the circumstances, to publish 28 pages of correspondence between Moscow on one hand, and Berlin and Paris on the other, evolving around the preparation of a high-level meeting on Ukraine.

Moscow was in fact calling for one of the central points of the agreement to be implemented: a direct dialogue between Kiev and Donbass. Berlin and Paris said this was unacceptable. So yes: both, for all practical purposes, destroyed the Minsk Agreement. Public opinion across NATOstan has no idea whatsoever this actually happened.

Lavrov did not mince his words: “I am sure that you understand the necessity of this unconventional step, because it is a matter of conveying to the world community the truth about who is fulfilling, and how, the obligations under international law that have been agreed at the highest level.”

So it’s no wonder that the leadership in Moscow concluded it’s an absolute waste of time to talk to Berlin and Paris about Ukraine: they lied, cheated – and then blamed Russia. This “decision” at the EU level faithfully mirrors NATO’s campaign of stoking the flames of imminent “Russian aggression” against Ukraine.

Armchair warriors, unite!

Across NATOstan, the trademark stupidity of U.S. Think Tankland rules unabated, congregating countless acolytes spewing out the talking points of choice: “relentless Russian subversion”, “thug” Putin “intimidation” of Ukraine, Russians as “predators”, and everything now coupled with “power-hungry China’s war on Western values.”

Some Brit hack, in a twisted way, actually managed to sum up the overall impotence – and insignificance – by painting Europe as a victim, “a beleaguered democratic island in an anarchic world, which a rising tide of authoritarianism, impunity and international rule-breaking threatens to inundate”.

The answer by NATOstan Defense Ministers is to come up with a Strategic Compass – essentially an anti-Russia-China scam – complete with “rapid deployment forces”. Led by who, General Macron?

As it stands, poor NATOstan is uncontrollably sobbing, accusing those Russian hooligans – scary monsters, to quote David Bowie – of staging an anti-satellite missile test and thus “scorning European safety concerns”.

Something must have got lost in translation. So here’s what happened: Russia conclusively demonstrated it’s capable of obliterating each and every one of NATO’s satellites and blind “all their missiles, planes and ships, not to mention ground forces” in case they decide to materialize their warmongering ideas.

Obviously those deaf, dumb and blind NATOstan armchair warrior clowns – fresh from their Afghan “performance” – won’t get the message. But NATOstan anyway was never accused of being partial to reality.

What exactly is Putin up to? A number of theories have been presented. Some seasoned Russia analysts believe Putin is trying to resolve the eight-year Ukrainian crisis on Moscow’s terms before he vacates office (whenever that may be). Others cite Putin’s frustrations with the Minsk II process, in which Kyiv is supposed to trade a degree of political autonomy to the Donbas region in exchange for a Russian troop withdrawal. The honest fact of the matter is we don’t know what Putin is thinking. As Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin admitted last week, “We’re not sure exactly what Mr. Putin is up to.”

Ultimately for U.S. policymakers, Putin’s calculations are less important than how Washington chooses to respond to an evolving dilemma. The default option in U.S. policy circles is stand up to Russia in defense of its smaller neighbor. This is an understandable emotional reaction. Russia, after all, violated international law when it decided to send forces into the Crimean Peninsula to occupy and later annex it. The Russians breached Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity the moment it decided to foment an anti-Kyiv separatist rebellion in Donetsk and Luhansk and make heavy weapons like battle tanks, multiple-rocket launcher systems, rockets and armored personnel carriers available to their proxies. From the U.S. and European standpoint, Russia’s activity in Ukraine has been nothing short of an abomination.

Yet it would be foolhardy and outright dangerous if U.S. policymakers let emotional qualms, however strong and ingrained, to dictate U.S. policy in Ukraine. The ugly reality is that however disturbing the U.S. may find Russia’s conduct, Ukraine is not a vital U.S. interest or a problem that can be resolved without Russian buy-in.

Since the war in eastern Ukraine began in 2014, Washington has penalized Moscow with a series of economic sanctions in the hope the Russian government would cease its military campaign in the country and withdraw its support to the separatists. U.S. military support to the Ukrainian military, including the provision of anti-tank Javelin missiles, was crafted for the same purpose. Since 2014, the U.S. has provided Kyiv with $2.5 billion in military aid through a specially-created fund called the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.

Despite this support, Russia is no closer to cutting its involvement in Ukraine or handing Crimea back to Kyiv today than it was two, three, or five years ago. While the war in eastern Ukraine is certainly not as violent as it was during its peak in 2014 and 2015, hostilities still flare up between Ukrainian troops and separatist forces. The Donbas remains divided by deeply-dug trenches, with civilians in the region still living in a war-zone. Sanctions and diplomatic opprobrium aside, the Russians have no intention of stopping their involvement in Ukraine and can essentially turn up the temperature whenever it’s in their interest to do so.

While those in Washington are reluctant to admit it, there is an asymmetry of interests in Ukraine. The political disposition and geopolitical positioning of Ukraine doesn’t matter a whole lot to the United States, but it’s extremely important to Russia. It may be undesirable, but the U.S. can live with a Russian-influenced Ukraine and did throughout the entirety of the Cold War period. For Russia, however, a Western-influenced or aligned Ukraine is a red-line to be prevented, even if the economic, military and diplomatic costs of doing so prove to be high.

Ideally, Ukraine would be able to establish its own independent foreign policy without any external interference. Yet geography and power matter in the confines of international relations—and for nearly a decade, Russia has demonstrated a willingness to leverage its power to maintain a strong presence in its neighborhood.

One can’t blame Kyiv for worrying about a possible Russian invasion. Its request for more U.S. trainers, reconnaissance drones, anti-tank missiles and air defense batteries will be met with sympathetic ears on Capitol Hill and segments of the Biden administration.

But if U.S. officials were being honest with themselves, they would recognize that more military assistance to the Ukrainians is unlikely to do much of anything except prompt Russia to retaliate in kind. And if the U.S. genuinely cares about Ukraine, they will look their Ukrainian colleagues in the eye and deliver them a tough message: As the weaker party in this dispute, your only viable option is to stop stalling on implementation of the Minsk II agreement and come to a diplomatic settlement. There is no sense in holding out any longer. The U.S. won’t be getting into a war with a nuclear-armed Russia on Kyiv’s behalf.

Following that putsch, and the refusal of the Donbass (along with Crimea) to recognize the new US State Department-installed Ukrainian government, the Ukrainians made attempt to recapture the Donbass by force. This attempt failed, and Kiev managed to avoid all-out defeat by signing the Minsk agreements of February 2015, but has clearly had no intention of ever fulfilling them. Instead, ever since then, Ukrainian forces have been shelling the no man’s land between Ukrainian-held territory (which is mostly open prairie) and Donbass (which is urbanized and thickly settled), killing small numbers of civilians and local militia members and causing considerable property damage. Although Western press has continuously reported on “Russian forces” in the Donbass, they are yet to present any evidence of it. And although Western press likes to describe the Donbass using the hackneyed epithet “war-torn” it is actually more prosperous and stable than the rest of the Ukraine, integrated into the Russian economy and essentially functioning as a Russian region.

Turning down Western media noise, a Russian military effort to capture the Donbass, never mind the rest of the Ukraine, is exceedingly unlikely. Russia already has everything it wants. Unlike Crimea which in its 2014 referendum produced a 97% vote for integration of the region into the Russian Federation with an 83% voter turnout, in a similar referendum in the Donbass (held against Moscow’s wishes) only 27.5% of the 74.87% who turned out voted in favor of joining the Russian Federation. Based on this result, Moscow chose to soft-pedal the Donbass situation, providing humanitarian aid and diplomatic support, granting Russian citizenship to those who want it and gradually integrating the region socially and economically. In other Ukrainian regions, were similar referendums to be held there, the level of support for joining Russia would in all likelihood have been even lower, and now, seven years later, would be lower still. From this, a conclusion can be drawn: other than Crimea (which was part of an independent Ukraine for just 23 years), none of the Ukraine was or is a candidate for inclusion within the Russian Federation. The Russians living there will receive some amount of Russian support and are, of course, welcome to move to Russia, but that is really it.

Having ruled out that which is exceedingly unlikely, let us turn to that which is quite likely; and that is a provocation in the Donbass staged by the authorities in Kiev and by their State Department, Pentagon and CIA handlers, designed to deflect the blame from the truly disastrous economic situation that is unfolding there in the hopes of being able to maintain political control of the situation. In blundering into the Ukraine and converting it into a sort of anti-Russian bulwark, the US gained a brazenly corrupt and unruly dependency. Unable to stop its inexorable slide into failed-statedom and political and social disintegration, the US is faced with the prospect of another Afghanistan-style rout, with desperate left-behinds running after US transport planes hastily taking off from Kiev’s Borispol Airport, after which point even the mental laggards who run the European Union will be forced to admit that American security guarantees are an utter joke and will start getting ready to walk into the Kremlin on their knees to kiss the gem-encrusted felt slipper.

Given this unwelcome scenario, the US is quite eager to control the optics and to make it look like it is all Russia’s fault. Since merely jumping up and down and screaming “The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!” is no longer doing the trick, they are looking for something—anything!—that will make the Russians show up and put up even a tiny bit of a fight so that CNN and MSNBC can broadcast staged photos of a bloodied baby blanket and US Congress can then harrumph-harrumph about “Russian aggression” and impose sanctions on Russian baby blanket manufacturers. That “anything” is called a provocation, and what better place to stage it than the Donbass, which is an existing bleeding sore they’ve been picking away at for seven years now. Of course, they will do this in great trepidation of an escalation they would be unable to control, hence the hasty “deconfliction” conference with General Gerasimov: “Look, we go pew-pew, then you go pew-pew, then we declare hostilities over and toast each other with vodka and caviar; OK?”

Given that a provocation of some sort appears to be very likely, it is worth pondering what it would look like and what the outcome of it might be.

The People’s Republics of Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR), which declared independence in response to the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014, have once again become flash points in the intensifying Cold War between the United States and Russia. The U.S. and NATO appear to be fully supporting a new government offensive against these Russian-backed enclaves, which could quickly escalate into a full-blown international military conflict.

The last time this area became an international tinderbox was in April, when the anti-Russian government of Ukraine threatened an offensive against Donetsk and Luhansk, and Russia assembled thousands of troops along Ukraine’s eastern border.

On that occasion, Ukraine and NATO blinked and called off the offensive. This time around, Russia has again assembled an estimated 90,000 troops near its border with Ukraine. Will Russia once more deter an escalation of the war, or are Ukraine, the United States and NATO seriously preparing to press ahead at the risk of war with Russia?

Since April, the U.S. and its allies have been stepping up their military support for Ukraine. After a March announcement of $125 million in military aid, including armed coastal patrol boats and radar equipment, the U.S. then gave Ukraine another $150 million package in June. This included radar, communications, and electronic warfare equipment for the Ukrainian Air Force, bringing total military aid to Ukraine since the U.S.-backed coup in 2014 to $2.5 billion. This latest package appears to include deploying U.S. training personnel to Ukrainian air bases.

Turkey is supplying Ukraine with the same drones it provided to Azerbaijan for its war with Armenia over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020. That war killed at least 6,000 people and has recently flared up again, one year after a Russian-brokered ceasefire. Turkish drones wreaked havoc on Armenian troops and civilians alike in Nagorno-Karabakh, and their use in Ukraine would be a horrific escalation of violence against the people of Donetsk and Luhansk.

The ratcheting up of U.S. and NATO support for government forces in Ukraine’s civil war is having ever-worsening diplomatic consequences. At the beginning of October, NATO expelled eight Russian liaison officers from NATO Headquarters in Brussels, accusing them of spying. Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, the manager of the 2014 coup in Ukraine, was dispatched to Moscow in October, ostensibly to calm tensions. Nuland failed so spectacularly that, only a week later, Russia ended 30 years of engagement with NATO, and ordered NATO’s office in Moscow closed.

Nuland reportedly tried to reassure Moscow that the United States and NATO were still committed to the 2014 and 2015 Minsk Accords on Ukraine, which include a ban on offensive military operations and a promise of greater autonomy for Donetsk and Luhansk within Ukraine. But her assurances were belied by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin when he met with Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy in Kiev on Oct. 18, reiterating U.S. support for Ukraine’s future membership in NATO, promising further military support and blaming Russia for “perpetuating the war in Eastern Ukraine.”

More extraordinary, but hopefully more successful, was CIA Director William Burns’ visit to Moscow on Nov. 2 and 3, during which he met with senior Russian military and intelligence officials and spoke by phone with President Putin.

A mission like this is not usually part of the CIA director’s duties. But after Biden promised a new era of American diplomacy, his foreign policy team is now widely acknowledged to have instead brought U.S. relations with Russia and China to all-time lows.

Judging from the March meeting of Secretary of State Blinken and National Security Advisor Sullivan with Chinese officials in Alaska, Biden’s meeting with Putin in Vienna in June, and Under Secretary Nuland’s recent visit to Moscow, U.S. officials have reduced their encounters with Russian and Chinese officials to mutual recriminations designed for domestic consumption instead of seriously trying to resolve policy differences. In Nuland’s case, she also misled the Russians about the U.S. commitment, or lack of it, to the Minsk Accords. So who could Biden send to Moscow for a serious diplomatic dialogue with the Russians about Ukraine?

In 2002, as under secretary of state for near eastern affairs, William Burns wrote a prescient but unheeded 10-page memo to Secretary of State Colin Powell, warning him of the many ways that a U.S. invasion of Iraq could “unravel” and create a “perfect storm” for American interests.

Burns is a career diplomat and a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, and may be the only member of this administration with the diplomatic skills and experience to actually listen to the Russians and engage seriously with them.

The Russians presumably told Burns what they have said in public: that U.S. policy is in danger of crossing “red lines” that would trigger decisive and irrevocable Russian responses. Russia has long warned that one red line would be NATO membership for Ukraine and/or Georgia.

But there are clearly other red lines in the creeping U.S. and NATO military presence in and around Ukraine and in the increasing U.S. military support for the Ukrainian government forces assaulting Donetsk and Luhansk. Putin has warned against the build-up of NATO’s military infrastructure in Ukraine and has accused both Ukraine and NATO of destabilizing actions, including in the Black Sea.

With Russian troops amassed at Ukraine’s border for a second time this year, a new Ukrainian offensive that threatens the existence of the DPR and LPR would surely cross another red line, while increasing U.S. and NATO military support for Ukraine may be dangerously close to crossing yet another one.

So, did Burns come back from Moscow with a clearer picture of exactly what Russia’s red lines are? We had better hope so. Even U.S. military websites acknowledge that U.S. policy in Ukraine is “backfiring.”

Russia expert Andrew Weiss, who worked under William Burns at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, acknowledged to Michael Crowley of The New York Times that Russia has “escalation dominance” in Ukraine and that, if push comes to shove, Ukraine is simply more important to Russia than to the United States. It therefore makes no sense for the United States to risk triggering World War III over Ukraine, unless it actually wants to trigger World War III.

During the Cold War, both sides developed clear understandings of each other’s “red lines.” Along with a large helping of dumb luck, we can thank those understandings for our continued existence. What makes today’s world even more dangerous than the world of the 1950s or the 1980s is that recent U.S. leaders have cavalierly jettisoned the bilateral nuclear treaties and vital diplomatic relationships that their grandparents forged to stop the Cold War from turning into a hot one.

Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy, with the help of Under Secretary of State Averell Harriman and others, conducted negotiations that spanned two administrations, between 1958 and 1963, to achieve a partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that was the first of a series of bilateral arms control treaties. By contrast, the only continuity between Trump, Biden and Under Secretary Victoria Nuland seems to be a startling lack of imagination that blinds them to any possible future beyond a zero-sum, non-negotiable, and yet still unattainable “U.S. Uber Alles” global hegemony.

But Americans should beware of romanticizing the “old” Cold War as a time of peace, simply because we somehow managed to dodge a world-ending nuclear holocaust. U.S. Korean and Vietnam War veterans know better, as do the people in countries across the global South that became bloody battlefields in the ideological struggle between the United States and the U.S.S.R.

Three decades after declaring victory in the Cold War, and after the self-inflicted chaos of the U.S. “Global War on Terror,” U.S. military planners have settled on a new Cold War as the most persuasive pretext to perpetuate their trillion-dollar war machine and their unattainable ambition to dominate the entire planet. Instead of asking the U.S. military to adapt to more new challenges it is clearly not up for, U.S. leaders decided to revert to their old conflict with Russia and China to justify the existence and ridiculous expense of their ineffective but profitable war machine.

But the very nature of a Cold War is that it involves the threat and use of force, overt and covert, to contest the political allegiances and economic structures of countries across the world. In our relief at the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, which both Trump and Biden have used to symbolize the “end of endless war,” we should have no illusions that either of them is offering us a new age of peace.

Quite the contrary. What we are watching in Ukraine, Syria, Taiwan and the South China Sea are the opening salvos of an age of more ideological wars that may well be just as futile, deadly and self-defeating as the “war on terror,” and much more dangerous to the United States.

A war with Russia or China would risk escalating into World War III. As Andrew Weiss told the Times on Ukraine, Russia and China would have conventional “escalation dominance,” as well as simply more at stake in wars on their own borders than the United States does.

So what would the United States do if it were losing a major war with Russia or China? U.S. nuclear weapons policy has always kept a “first strike” option open in case of precisely this scenario.

The current U.S. $1.7 trillion plan for a whole range of new nuclear weapons therefore seems to be a response to the reality that the United States cannot expect to defeat Russia and China in conventional wars on their own borders.

But the paradox of nuclear weapons is that the most powerful weapons ever created have no practical value as actual weapons of war, since there can be no winner in a war that kills everybody. Any use of nuclear weapons would quickly trigger a massive use of them by one side or the other, and the war would soon be over for all of us. The only winners would be a few species of radiation-resistant insects and other very small creatures.

Neither Obama, Trump nor Biden has dared to present their reasons for risking World War III over Ukraine or Taiwan to the American public, because there is no good reason. Risking a nuclear holocaust to appease the military-industrial complex is as insane as destroying the climate and the natural world to appease the fossil fuel industry.

So we had better hope that CIA DIrector Burns not only came back from Moscow with a clear picture of Russia’s “red lines,” but that President Biden and his colleagues understand what Burns told them and what is at stake in Ukraine. They must step back from the brink of a U.S.-Russia war, and then from the larger Cold War with China and Russia that they have so blindly and foolishly stumbled into.