War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Clusterf*ck

After months of tension and speculation, on February 24, Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded his neighbor Ukraine. Putin’s troops started in the Russia-friendly separatist region of the country known as the Donbas and have since made their way toward the Ukrainian capital city of Kyiv, which remains under siege.

The invasion has put the world on high alert. Western nations have imposed sanctions on Russia, markets have spiraled, and politicians have begun openly wondering whether the end result of all this will be a nuclear World War III.

No one can predict the future, but to make even an educated guess requires an understanding of Ukrainian/Russian history and US/NATO influence in the region.

A brief history of Ukraine

The modern history of Ukraine and the origin of the current political situation really begins in 1991, when Ukraine declared its independence from the USSR. This move was widely seen as the death blow for the Soviet Union. Ukraine’s separation involved difficult negotiations over Russian nuclear weapons in Ukraine and political control of Crimea, the quasi-independent peninsula populated mostly by ethnic Russians.

Since then, Ukraine has been consistently beset with political and economic turbulence, including corrupt leaders and regional skirmishes. Representatives from more than 70 political parties have won seats in Ukraine’s parliament since 1990. Far-right forces carry a lot of influence in the country, including the ultranationalist political party Svoboda and Avoz, a neo-Nazi battalion within Ukraine’s National Guard. Neo-Nazi groups often “operate with impunity” in Ukraine, terrorizing populations like the LGBT community.

After achieving independence, Ukraine tried to move away from its Russian alliances in the east and integrate more into Western Europe. In 1997, Ukraine signed a Charter on a Distinctive Partnership with NATO. While never becoming a full member, Ukraine has continued to strengthen its ties to NATO, with some Ukrainian leaders making full membership a key strategic goal. Current President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wants Ukraine to join both NATO and the European Union.

Ukraine’s growing ties to Western Europe, NATO, and the United States have been a particularly sore spot for Putin. Despite promises that it would not expand “one inch eastward,” NATO has continually moved closer to Russia, eventually absorbing states like Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Some NATO member states house US nuclear weapons. Putin is wary of this military structure moving toward his borders and warned that Ukraine is a red line.

In 2014, Ukraine’s Maidan uprising culminated in the overthrow of then-President Viktor Yanukovych. Maidan was depicted in US media as a grassroots revolution against a corrupt government. In reality, Western powers including the Obama Administration supported – and, to some extent, facilitated – Ukrainian neo-Nazis like Svoboda in the violent overthrow of a democratically elected government.

Shortly after the Maidan uprising, Putin invaded and annexed Crimea. The eastern Donbas region of Ukraine, which borders Russia and is home to large numbers of pro-Russian separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk, has been engulfed in off-and-on war ever since. The 2014 Minsk Agreement was supposed to grant Donbas some independence. Instead, the far-right Ukrainian military has continued carrying out human rights abuses in Donbas, torturing, detaining, and terrorizing ethnic minorities and LGBT people.

Putin’s most recent invasion began with his recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent territories. He moved troops into the Donbas region on February 21, 2022, and pushed into Ukraine on February 24.

Putin’s invasion

In a speech on February 24, Putin laid out his reasons for going to war. Chief among these were the expansion of NATO’s military apparatus, potentially including nuclear weapons, toward Russian borders; US domination of global affairs and disregard of international law in the post-Cold War world, including bombings in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere; and mistreatment of the people of Donbas by neo-Nazis in Ukraine.

Regardless of the legitimacy of some – if not all – of Putin’s claims, the United Nations and the international community have roundly condemned his invasion of Ukraine. It may well be a war crime.

Russian air, land, and sea units attacked Ukraine through the Donbas region in the east, from the Black Sea in the south, and through Belarus in the north. They have already seized certain areas, including the infamous Chernobyl nuclear power plant and the important port city of Kherson. Russian forces continue to shell Ukraine’s second-largest city, Kharkiv, and a large convoy of Russians has been stationed near Kyiv, with apparent plans to capture Ukraine’s capital.

Ukraine has accused Russia of war crimes for bombing civilian targets, including Kyiv’s biggest TV station and an opera house in Kharkiv. Russia has also been accused of using vacuum bombs, a particularly deadly weapon prohibited under international law.

News has been filled with images of Ukrainians, desperate to flee to safety, waiting for transportation and trekking long miles to neighboring countries like Poland. The UN estimates the war has already created 1 million refugees. Other Ukrainians have taken up arms and hunkered down to defend their country as Russian shells lay waste to their homes. Hundreds – if not thousands – of civilians have been killed already.

Numerous Western countries imposed sanctions on Russia and cut them off from various international banking and finance systems. President Biden authorized $350 million in arms support to Ukraine, including anti-tank weapons and Stinger missiles, and the European Union pledged another €500 million. Biden also sent 7,000 US troops to Germany, apparently in case NATO needs them for any extra defense operations.

There is a real possibility that the war in Ukraine leads to a larger conflict – including, perhaps, direct military engagement between Russia and the United States. That could mean a nuclear World War III.

Propaganda in overdrive

Reports during war need to be taken skeptically. Accurate reporting from a chaotic warzone is challenging enough, but it’s made even worse when the parties involved manipulate press into propaganda for their own side.

In Western media, the Ukrainian conflict is boiled down to a clash of good vs. evil; freedom vs. tyranny. That view is cartoonishly simplistic, but it has already led to jingoism and anti-Russian bigotry.

FOX News’s Sean Hannity called for the assassination of Putin and suggested that NATO forces attack Russian troops in such a way that Putin doesn’t know who hit him. Hannity is laughably out of his depth pretending to be a military strategist. Apart from being illegal, such actions would likely escalate the conflict into a full-blown global war – the number one thing we should be trying to avoid.

Hannity went on to say, “If you invade an innocent sovereign country, and you kill innocent men, women, and children, you don’t deserve to live.” It’s an interesting perspective coming from a man who supported the US invasion of Iraq – an invasion that destroyed the country and killed hundreds of thousands. One of the architects of that war, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, characterized Putin’s invasion as being “against every principle of international law and international order.”

Other commentators have been explicitly racist in explaining why Putin’s war is worse than US invasions. Charlie D’Agata of CBS News said Ukraine “isn’t a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan… This is a relatively civilized, relatively European… city, one where you wouldn’t expect that, or hope that it’s going to happen.” Ukraine’s Deputy Chief Prosecutor, David Sakvarelidze, said, “It’s very emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blonde hair being killed.” Western nations have also been far more welcoming of Ukrainian refugees than Middle Eastern ones.

There has also been backlash against ordinary Russian people. Representative Eric Swalwell, a Democrat from California, proposed expelling all Russian students from the country. Russian businesses and brands have changed their names or been boycotted, in moves that recall the infamous campaign to change “French fries” to “Freedom fries” during the Invasion of Iraq.

Not all of the propaganda has been quite so sinister, but much of it is still very silly. Photos of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in fatigues and on the streets of Kyiv recently turned him into an internet sex symbol. Prior to becoming president, Zelenskyy played a fictional president on Ukrainian TV. He knows how to stage a photo op, and the enthusiastic responses to the photo illustrate just how powerful misinformation can be, particularly in times of war.

What can we do?

Understanding how we got here may help illuminate a way out. We must understand how Western provocations brought us to this point without using them to give Putin excuses. As the most powerful country in the world, the US sets the tone for global events. The best way we can reduce violence, suffering, and war across the globe is to stop participating and funding it.

Many of Putin’s concerns are legitimate. It’s long been known that NATO’s expansion could provoke a response like this from Russia. Even foreign policy hawks like former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger encouraged NATO to exercise restraint. Formally abandoning NATO membership for Ukraine could go a long way toward appeasing Putin. More broadly than that, though, the West must abandon our aggressive takeover of the global economy and our expansion of military alliances toward the border of rival nuclear superpowers.

There are few encouraging signs. Putin and Zelenskyy have had peace talks, but they haven’t gotten far. They have, however, negotiated safe passageways for aid workers and civilians. So far, NATO and the US have been reluctant to engage Russian forces directly or establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine, and that relative restraint will hopefully continue.

The invasion has made Putin a pariah on the world stage, ostracized his country from global events, and led to domestic unrest. That kind of resistance could make the war untenable. We should be uniting with the Russian people, many of whom have protested the war at great personal risk, not villainizing them for the actions of Putin. We should join them on the streets of our own cities, demanding Western leaders compromise and find peaceful solutions to the conflict.

This is an unbelievably tense, dangerous moment, with a real potential for things to go catastrophically wrong. We want to root for “our side,” but we have to accept that walking the path of peace requires us to make concessions. We can’t trust the media, because it is too often used as a propaganda weapon to goad us into war. We must find ways to punish politicians who call for radical escalations like assassinations or nuclear strikes.

Most importantly, we must prevent nuclear war. In his speech, Putin reiterated the strength of his nuclear capacities and warned against any direct, physical attack. Meanwhile, US defense and intelligence agencies have gradually begun warming to the idea of using nuclear weapons. If the West pursues peace and abandons the goal of global economic domination, there may be hope of resolving this before it breaks out into a world war. Granting Putin one little concession is far more desirable than burning the world in a nuclear fire for the sake of Western finance.

Washington wants you to warm up to the idea of a nuclear war with Russia. Don’t.

As tensions on the border of Russia and Ukraine escalate, the United States is getting more deeply involved. Over the last two weeks, US cargo planes have delivered nearly 600 tons of military equipment to Ukraine. Last week, President Biden announced the deployment of 3,000 US troops to eastern Europe. The United States is pushing toward a nuclear World War III, and American citizens must raise their voices to stop it.

The problem need not concern us at all. Ukraine sits on the southwest border of Russia and was part of the Soviet Union until declaring independence in 1991. In the decades since, Ukraine’s turbulent politics have been influenced by far-right and neo-Nazi factions. In 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea, a peninsula in the south of Ukraine, and in 2021, he began a military buildup on the Ukrainian border.

American media frequently accuses Putin of wanting to expand the Russian empire. It’s a rich criticism coming from us. Our real fear is not that Putin may extend his empire — it’s that he may encroach on ours.

Biden’s press secretary, Jen Psaki, recently offered some insight into how Washington views the world when she described Ukraine as one of “our eastern flank countries.” As a NATO ally, Ukraine is afforded protections. But NATO is, essentially, the US empire in disguise. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have repeatedly broken promises to Russia by expanding NATO closer to their border. Russia is understandably concerned that we have placed nuclear weapons within easy striking distance of them.

Russia has threatened to use nukes in response to NATO expansion. But we have moved towards their borders, not the other way around. Defending Ukraine isn’t about lofty principles like freedom or sovereignty. Washington is simply unwilling to suffer any dent in its international armor. If Ukraine is taken by force and falls under Russian rule again, it will be a tragedy. If World War III happens, it’ll be the end of human civilization.

It’s impossible to appreciate just how dangerous this moment is without fully understanding the power of nuclear weapons. In 1945, the United States dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan, killing as many as 250,000 people and causing innumerable diseases and deformities. Today’s nukes are around 80 times more powerful than those bombs, and there are some 12,000 of them in the US and Russian arsenals. A single modern nuke detonated in Manhattan could kill nearly 2 million people and spread fallout for hundreds of miles. Dropped in the right places, 12,000 nukes could kill almost everyone in the US and Russia.

For 77 years, humanity has lived under the specter of extinction by nuclear war. So far, we have avoided it — but sometimes only narrowly. There’s been an uneasy presumption that nobody is suicidal enough to start a nuclear war, a philosophy appropriately known as MAD — mutually assured destruction. The theory holds that a nuclear attack will trigger a never-ending series of deadlier counterattacks until every nuke has been launched and both sides are completely destroyed.

Now, a growing number of voices in the US defense sector are challenging that long-held conventional wisdom. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists explains how the Pentagon’s internal messaging now insists that a nuclear war can be won. As the Biden Administration conducts its Nuclear Posture Review, most of Congress and the Pentagon is insistent that the US retain first-strike nuclear attacks as foreign policy options. Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, pushed for a ground war with Russia in December and warned that, “We don’t rule out first-use nuclear action.”

American history shows we may be the world’s most dangerous nuclear power. We are the only country ever to use nuclear weapons in war. Since World War II, we have been in a constant state of war, perpetually conducting regime changes, military operations and invasions around the globe. Now, Washington is earnestly trying to sell war with Russia, even as Ukraine’s defense minister accuses the US of “spread[ing] panic and fear in our society.”

There is a theory that the Ukrainian tensions are a distraction to cover Putin’s and Biden’s respective domestic problems. It’s possible this will blow over. But even if it does, we cannot allow leaders to continually ratchet up tensions that put us at ever-greater risk of nuclear annihilation.

Only about 15 percent of Americans want American soldiers involved if Russia invades Ukraine. Washington can’t go to war without our permission — or, at least, our complacency. Every citizen must be prepared to unite in opposition to nuclear war. We should be prepared to cause widespread disruptions, stage strikes, shut down the economy, and clog the streets to demand a peaceful resolution. Further than that, we should demand that the US adopt a no-use policy on nuclear weapons and lead the world in nuclear disarmament.

The biggest nuclear threat doesn’t come from Russia — it comes from us. Given all that our leaders have said, it is naïve to assume that they have the wisdom to refrain from using nuclear weapons. Our collective power may be the only thing that can stop the greed of Washington and the recklessness of the defense industry from risking extinction over a territorial dispute on the other side of the planet. All the pain and suffering of the last 20 years — the War on Terror, the Great Recession, COVID-19 — will evaporate into quaintness if we allow nuclear war to begin.

Donald Trump’s pipeline to Putin


Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin shake hands at a summit in Helsinki, Finland, on July 16.

After his submissive appearance alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin at a summit in Helsinki last month, President Donald Trump faced some of the most severe and unanimous criticism of his chaotic political career. Members of Trump’s own party called the president “treasonous” and “disgraceful” while commentators speculated that Putin must have serious kompromat on Trump to make him behave so obsequiously. As the media and the FBI connect the dots of Putin and Trump’s relationship, their most obvious common interest in oil goes largely undiscussed. Continue reading

How establishment Republicans learned to stop worrying and love Donald Trump


Hannity’s sources are now telling him that, yeah, maybe the president did want to obstruct justice by firing the special counsel investigating him. So what? Isn’t that his right?

Late last week, The New York Times reported that President Trump ordered the firing of Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating suspected crimes by the Trump campaign, transition, and administration. Mueller was put in place last year after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, the man previously leading the investigation. Trump’s attorney and White House counsel, Donald McGahn, threatened to resign rather than carry out the June 2017 order to fire Mueller, and Trump backed off.

In a sea of massive Trump scandals, this should be one of the biggest. It’s the clearest indication yet of Trump’s desire to obstruct an investigation into he and his inner circle’s financial ties to Russian oligarchs and, potentially, their cooperation with a campaign of cyber warfare against the American people. That investigation, which Trump continually derides as entirely phony, has already ensnared high-level Trump aides and campaign officials like Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, and Carter Page.

Yet Republicans have been mostly mum on the Times report. Senator Lindsey Graham, often a representative for the establishment vanguard against Trump, warned, “if he tried to [fire Mueller], it would be the end of his presidency.” Despite the strong words, no action has been taken. Meanwhile, Trump has enlisted a growing chorus of Republican pundits and politicians to undermine the special counsel and, indeed, just about any institution responsible for holding him accountable. Continue reading

What if climate change is a hoax?

Australia blog about climate change science media coverage : Anti-carbon tax protesters in Canberra

Pro-oil protesters hold signs at a demonstration against taking action on climate change.

The most demanding issue of our time is environmental protection. Over hundreds of years of exploding populations, consumption-driven economies, and carving up the planet for resources, the human species has completely reshaped its humble home world. For decades now, scientists have warned that this behavior, unchecked, could have an ominous consequence. Science has given humanity a simple ultimatum: change our behavior or face nature’s wrath.

This has led to a deep schism. Those who are most heavily invested in the current system fight scientists’ claims aggressively. Corporate giants have spent untold millions on disinformation campaigns and disseminated their propaganda through far-right outlets. They have successfully transformed a scientific and moral issue into a political one.

But for the sake of argument, suppose the denialists are right. If we turn our resources to the fight against climate change and it turns out to be a hoax, what will we have done? Continue reading

Russia collusion among least of Trump’s crimes


Putin and Trump Matryoshka dolls. Image taken from Politico.

The number one political scandal in Washington, D.C., continues to be President Trump’s campaign and cabinet’s association with Russia. A steady trickle of salacious, but ultimately inconclusive, headlines has dominated the D.C. press ever since the election. Each new testimony and new detail, however minor, is treated like a bombshell. But even if the worst possible scenario between Trump and Russia is confirmed, it will still be among the least of his crimes. Continue reading

A theory: Comey firing proves Bannon is still in charge of the White House


Steve Bannon is the likeliest administration member to push Trump into full authoritarianism.

Donald Trump fired FBI director James Comey because he was leading an investigation into Trump’s Russia connection, whatever that may or may not be. But even as Trump essentially admitted this was the reason in a TV interview, the Trump Administration made one ridiculous excuse after another. First Trump passed the buck to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. But when Rosenstein passed the buck back, Trump trolled the world and said Comey was fired because of his mistreatment of Hillary Clinton.

It’s a pitiful naivety that would allow anyone to believe anything Donald Trump says, particularly about this case. What the whole episode really proves, though, is that the rumors of Steve Bannon’s demise were greatly exaggerated. The decision to fire Comey may have been Trump’s, but Bannon’s fingerprints and the fingerprints of the alt-right are all over it. Continue reading

Donald Trump is making bad foreign policy worse


In the first international crisis of his presidency, Trump is failing as spectacularly as anyone might have guessed.

As many as 70 Syrian men, women and children were killed this week by what is believed to be sarin gas, and another 100 were seriously injured. The atrocity played out on news networks and social media feeds around the world. President Trump seized the opportunity to demonstrate just what kind of a leader he is and will continue to be – by blaming former President Obama. Continue reading

Indulging a fantasy: What comes after Trump’s impeachment?


The First Lady and the President looking rather dour on the day of Trump’s inauguration.

To say that the first two months of the Trump presidency have been embattled would be an understatement. Several of Trump’s biggest-ticket items, including the border wall with Mexico, the replacement of Obamacare with “something terrific,” and a ban on Muslims entering the country, have been fraught with political peril and popular opposition. If that wasn’t bad enough, the extent of Trump’s connection to Russia is being examined by practically every journalist and investigative body in the federal government.

His presidency may not last long. Predictions about Trump run the full gamut, from early impeachment to a lifelong reign as America’s first Führer. It remains to be seen which will actually happen, but the way things stand now, early impeachment looks to be the odds-on favorite. But Trump’s impeachment will not solve America’s problems. Continue reading

Mountains and molehills: what to take seriously in the Trump/Russia saga


Attorney General Jeff Sessions was a prominent Trump campaign surrogate when he met with a top Russian diplomat.

Americans are divided over just what to make of President Donald Trump’s connection to the Russian government. Most of them favor a special prosecutor to look into the matter, and the political establishment is certain it’s a massive story. But until more facts are revealed, it’s impossible to know just how deep the arrangement goes. Knowing which angles of the story are mountains and which are molehills is difficult. Continue reading