US Military Involvement in Ukraine: NATO Expansion Through Proxy War
global research
Introduction
Although the U.S. State Department’s direct role in stoking the
Maidan conflagration and toppling a democratically elected president is
widely accepted as part of the historical record of the political and
civil upheaval in Ukraine, little is reported about the initial and ever
evolving U.S. military presence in the country. Former Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland’s intercepted phone calls and former U.S. President Barrack Obama’s
public admission of the U.S. government’s $5 billion investment in
funding fundamentally altering Ukraine’s political, economic and
cultural alignment in the world received coverage, even by western main
stream media. What has not received extensive media scrutiny is the
involvement of the U.S. military and CIA very early on, and increasingly
since the civil strife in the country began.
Setting aside the wealth of research suggesting the presence of western-trained snipers on the Maidan that fateful February 20th, 2014, the then Director of the CIA John Brennan’s
visit to the new coup leadership just two months later in mid-April was
a sign to the world that the U.S. clandestine intelligence services
were fully involved in the unfolding drama. U.S. intelligence gathering
aid was apparently on offer, yet soon proved to be of little help to the
hapless Ukrainian defense establishment. The declaration by the Kiev
government of an Anti-Terrorist Operation was a clear sign that the
United States was behind the attempt to militarily confront the growing
opposition in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Lugansk. Anyone
refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the coup government would be
labelled a terrorist. The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) was given
command of the operation, not the Ministry of Defense. Paradoxically
what followed was a systematic campaign to terrorize and subjugate the
rebellious population of two regions that had very real concerns and
fears that their culture, interests, and welfare would not be embraced
and protected by the new government that had seized power by force, and
had even attempted to assassinate the deposed President Yanukovich, a
president whom these dissenting regions had overwhelmingly voted for.
The U.S. Congress approved an aid package of $1 billion to Ukraine in
March of 2014, followed up by an additional $53 million in non-lethal
military aid later that same year. The European Union and International
Monetary Fund had already given $26 billion in financial aid to the
ruling government in Ukraine. By the beginning of September of that
year, the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) military offensive was roundly
defeated, culminating in the encirclement battle of Ilovaisk. By April
of 2015, the U.S. Congress approved a further $75 million in military
aid to the new Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko by passing the
European Reassurance Initiative. The UAF tried a second time to settle
the issue in the east by military means, launching their 2015 winter
offensive to divide and conquer the proclaimed Donetsk Peoples Republic
(DPR) and Lugansk Peoples Republic (LPR). This offensive ended in the
disastrous Debaltseve encirclement. At this point, if the DPR and LPR
militias had had adequate manpower, the entirety of the Donetsk and
Lugansk regions could have been secured and the line of contact as it
exists today would look quite different. During that winter’s
engagements, the rebels destroyed or recovered a number of U.S. supplies
counter-battery radars, numerous HMMWV light utility vehicles, and a
number of U.S. supplied small arms, sniper rifles and munitions.
After a year of successive and stunning defeats on the battlefield,
the United States decided to embrace and push the Poroshenko propaganda
excuse for Ukrainian defeat by stating that Russian regular military
forces intervened in the conflict, engaging in a de-facto invasion of
the country. Although totally unfounded; Russian volunteers and military
advisers did aid the DPR/LPR forces and supplied them with arms and
intelligence support, they did not inject regular military forces into
the conflict. The same Russian military secured the strategically vital
Crimean peninsula in 2014 while suffering no casualties, and facing no
resistance from the UAF. It is highly improbable, and there exists no
verifiable evidence, that Russian regular Army units took part in the
devastating defeat meted out to the UAF in January of 2015. Evidence and
truth mean little to the U.S. deep state, which ramped up the
anti-Russian hysteria in all the political and media channels available.
Beginning in February 2015, a month after the Battle of Debaltseve, the
United States Army began planning the first of many deployments of U.S.
Army soldiers to Ukraine with the stated aim of training the Ukrainian
military and establishing a new military training center in the west of
the country. In the intervening years, the U.S. Army, as well as the
militaries of the UK and Canada have sent soldiers to Ukraine as
trainers and advisers. Regular rotations of U.S. Army troops have been
deployed for this purpose for three years now. Additional packages of
military aid have continued unabated over the same time period. What
started out as an operation to train members of the Ukrainian National
Guard, has morphed into a much larger and concerted effort to train the
Ukrainian Armed Forces as a whole, to successfully conduct offensive
operations.
Preliminary Stated Goals and Deployments
The U.S. Army began its training mission with a small contingent of 300 troops of the 173rd
Airborne Brigade based in Vicenza, Italy. Their deployment to
the International Peace Keeping and Security Center at the Yavoriv
training base in western Ukraine, not far from L’viv, occurred just 3
months after the battle of Debaltseve. The initial goal was to train
four companies of the Ukrainian National Guard. As quoted by Defense News at the time, a Department of Defense spokeswoman named Lt. Col. Vanessa Hillman
stated that the training was meant “to assist Ukraine in strengthening
its law enforcement capabilities, conduct internal defense, and maintain
rule of law.”
The
Yavoriv International Peace Keeping and Security Center located in the
extreme west of Ukraine and the break-away republics of the Donbass in
the extreme east.
The original stated intent of the U.S. Army’s effort was to train
battalion sized elements of the Ukrainian National Guard to increase law
enforcement and civil defense capabilities. It was not long before U.S.
official announcements, main stream media and independent media
coverage began to show U.S. soldiers training their Ukrainian
counterparts in small unit tactics and the proper employment of small
arms and light support weapons. This soon expanded to advising Ukrainian
officers on effective command and control technics and processes, as
well as successful combined arms warfare and asymmetric warfare technics
to counter Russian “hybrid warfare” in use in Donbass.
So how has this mission changed in the intervening three years?
Currently, the U.S. Army is now training brigade sized Ukrainian Army
units with the help of trainers from other NATO countries including the
United Kingdom, Canada, Poland and Lithuania. U.S. Special Operations
Command Europe (SOCEUR) has actively been training Ukrainian Spetsnaz as
well, although this topic has received little media attention. The
growing relationship between U.S. SOCEUR and Ukraine’s Special
Operations Forces Command (SOFCOM) likely had its origins in the April
2016 meeting conducted between the heads of these respective commands,
USAF Major General Gregory Lengyel and UAF Major General Ihor Lunyov.
Ukrainian special operators have increasing been seen training and
conducting operations equipped with U.S. pattern uniforms and small
arms.
An Unofficial Military Component of NATO
The U.S. Army mission to train battalion sized units of the Ukraine
National Guard has grown into an operation to develop a Ukraine-led
training center. At Yavoriv, 55-day training rotations conducted by U.S.
Army units focus on the training of brigade-sized Ukraine Army units
and bring them in line with NATO interoperability standards. The UAF as a
whole is being transformed into a military that is 100% interoperable
with all other NATO forces, regardless of the fact that Ukraine is not
an official member of the NATO alliance. An interview conducted as part
of an article posted by Defense One in October of 2017 with a
spokesperson for the Joint Multinational Training Group-Ukraine, U.S.
Army National Guard Captain Kayla Christopher makes this extremely
clear:
“Every 55 days we have a new battalion come in and we
train them…And at the end of that 55-day period, we’ll do a field
training exercise with that battalion. But that’s not the real end
state. Essentially, what we’re trying to do is get them to the point
where they are running their own combat training center. Our overall
goal is essentially to help the Ukrainian military
become NATO-interoperable. So the more they have an opportunity to work
with different countries — not just the U.S., but all their Slavic
neighbors, and all the other Western European countries that come.”
Is this just another example of U.S. military “mission creep” or was
it the intended mission from the outset? Despite the constant
proclamations coming out of the U.S. State Department and the Pentagon
that are adamant that Russian aid to the Donbass militias is a violation
of international law and has only fueled the conflict in the country,
the U.S. seems to have no issue with doing the same thing. The United
States is not a party to the Minsk II agreement, nor is it bound in any
formal defensive treaties with Ukraine, and yet it is playing a growing
part in the military conflict in that country. The mission has also
morphed from an effort to increase the law enforcement and civil defense
capabilities of the Ukrainian National Guard, a very uncontroversial
and unprovocative sounding aim, into a mission to train the entire UAF
into a force that can fight alongside NATO forces. All the training
being conducted at the Yavoriv Combat Training Center can be employed by
the UAF in either defensive or offensive military operations.
U.S.
instructors and Ukrainian Army soldiers review assault on defensive
positions and clearing of trenches at the Yavoriv training center.
Capt. Kayla Christopher made it clear how the U.S.
military views the Donbass Republics and why the Poroshenko regime
labeled the initial attempt to take the rebellious oblasts by force as
an anti-terrorism operation (ATO):
“They’re called anti-terrorism operations rather than
something else because of the issue with the Russian-backed separatists.
So they’re not really Russians, you know. They’re
essentially terrorists.”
This is a revealing statement for a number of reasons. It reveals the
U.S. origin of the initial use of the term ATO by Kiev, and the early
influence of the U.S. over the new regime from the outset. It also
refutes the often toted mantra that the UAF is fighting Russian military
personnel directly in Donbass. Furthermore, while the message coming
out of official U.S. diplomatic channels are in agreement with the
guarantors of the Minsk-II agreement, that the only solution to the
conflict is a peaceful, political one, the U.S. military has lumped all
those that refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the Kiev government
under the label of terrorists. This may just be the ignorance of one low
level military officer on display, as another comment made by Capt.
Christopher seems wholly disconnected from the bloody reality of the
conflict and how it has effected all of Ukraine, most notably the
civilians living in the breakaway regions whose only crime is the place
they call home, and in most cases, their refusal to kneel to an
illegitimate ruler:
“It’s actually pretty remarkable how little you feel the
effect of the conflict on the western side of Ukraine. It’s almost as if
nothing is happening…And if I didn’t work directly with soldiers every
day, I don’t think you would really know. I mean, we see it on the news
every day, and I work with soldiers every day. So we know about it. But
you go out into Lviv, or any of the other big cities around this area
and you really don’t feel the effects of there being war here.”
Such comments are either an attempt to distance the U.S. Army mission
from the actual combat being conducted, or are a very real exhibition
of just how disconnected from reality the U.S. military is in another
failed “nation building” project. The brutal realities of this war are
very clear to the civilians living in Donbass, who are subjected to
indiscriminant artillery shelling by the UAF on a daily basis. The many
families on both sides of the conflict who have lost loved ones could
educate Capt. Christopher, and enlighten her as to just how real the war
is.
Is this a
terrorist that deserves to lose what little comfort and security she has
in this world, or an innocent civilian caught between warring factions
fighting over land she has called home her entire life?
Lethal Aid and a Growing U.S. Presence in the Region in General
U.S. weapons manufacturers have been providing the UAF with
specialized small arms and sniper rifles chambered in NATO standard
ammunition as well as non-standard high- powered rifle rounds. Russian
equivalent rocket-propelled grenades (RPG) systems and projectiles
manufactured in the U.S. have also been provided. Most recently,
President Trump approved the sale of Javelin ATGMs to Kiev. The initial
$47 million sale consists of 210 missiles and 37 launch units. While
some analysts see this more as a symbolic move meant to send a message
to Russia that U.S. foreign policy under Trump is still one of
containment of Russia, by expanding NATO right up to Russia’s borders in
every region, other see it as an initial “testing of the waters”. Will
Russia acquiesce to the sale or respond in kind by supplying the DPR/LPR
with another high-tech weapon system? Regardless, Ukraine is becoming a
de-facto NATO military camp, along with the Baltic States, Poland and
Romania.
The
FGM-148 Javelin ATGM is a fire-and-forget weapon with a reusable command
launch unit (CLU). It is man-portable, although quite heavy at
approximately 50lbs. (22.6 kg.). It can be used to attack in
line-of-sight or “top attack” mode. It is a more complicated ATGM that
requires added operator training to use.
Ukraine special operations forces have clearly undergone a
transformation since U.S. military involvement in the country. UAF
special operators more closely resemble those of NATO nations. They are
now wearing U.S. military issue Operational Camouflage Pattern (OCP)
“multicam” battle dress uniforms and gear, and are increasingly using
western manufactured firearm accessories, optics, and night vision
equipment. More notably, the UAF special operations units have adopted a
number of small arms and sniper weapons systems that utilize NATO
standard ammunition such as the 5.56x45mm intermediate rifle round and
the 7.62x51mm rifle round. Sniper rifles chambered in .308 Winchester
and .338 Lapua have also been adopted in limited numbers. Ukraine
Special Forces, the SBU, and a number of airborne forces have adopted
the Israeli Tavor TAR-21, built under license in Ukraine by the Fort
firearms manufacturer. The Fort assault rifles have been manufactured
and issued in both 5.45x39mm Russian caliber and 5.56x45mm NATO caliber.
A contingent of 25th Airborne Brigade paratroopers were
issued with Fort-21 assault rifles during the parade to celebrate
Independence Day on August 24th, 2016.
Ukrainian
Special Forces are being trained, equipped and armed by the U.S. to the
point that they are hard to distinguish from their benefactors. It is
also true that Russian Spetsnaz have followed a similar transformation,
at least in the use of western tactical gear and firearms accessories.
A more alarming trend from the point of view of the Russian Ministry
of Defense (MOD) is the growing presence of U.S. special operations
soldiers on Russia’s borders. The deployment of these highly trained
operators has increased nearly 300% in just 11 years. According to a
report published in The Nation in October of 2016, European
deployments of U.S. special operations forces accounted for 3% of the
total in 2006, increasing to 12% by 2017. These elite soldiers were
deployed to nations all along Russia’s Western and South Western
borders, in countries such as Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland,
Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Georgia, and even Finland. Just as they have
increased training regimens with Ukrainian special forces, they have
increased inter-operability with special forces in many other European
nations. In 2016 alone, U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM)
conducted no less than 37 Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET)
exercises on the European continent, with 18 such exercises in nations
bordering Russia.
The message being send to the Russian MOD is clear. The United States
is sending soldiers especially trained in asymmetrical warfare to its
borders, and has increased cooperation and influence with peer forces in
those same nations. Most of these nations had long been in Russia’s
sphere of influence. Operation Rapid Trident or similar training
exercises have been held in Ukraine in some form or another since 1995,
and have been attended by a growing list of NATO, NATO-aligned and
non-NATO countries located on Russia’s periphery in increasing number in
recent years. It is not hard to image the U.S response to Russia
deploying Spetsnaz forces in increasing numbers in training exercises in
Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic. The hypocrisy is
obvious when viewed in these terms. U.S. SOCOM deploys soldiers to
roughly three quarters of the nations of the world over the course of a
year, increasingly to nations bordering Russia and the continent of
Africa, and yet NATO complains when Russia conducts military exercises
within its own borders, or in conjunction with its global allies.
Canada,
another NATO member, has been heavily invested in the inter-operability
training from the very beginning. Canadian PM Justin Trudeau even
visited the Yavoriv training center during an official state visit to
Ukraine on July 12, 2016.
Conclusions
A brief study of U.S. military involvement in Ukraine reveals that it
started before the Maidan, increased during the initial ATO, and
continued to increase after the disastrous defeat of the UAF in the
winter months of 2015, culminating in the Battle of Debaltseve. The U.S.
government has been supplying the Ukrainian state with both non-lethal
and lethal aid, military training and support, and crucial monetary
support. The goal of making the Ukrainian Armed Forces a de-facto NATO
inter-operable fighting component have been underway for three years now
at an ever accelerating pace.
The Pentagon has clearly been tasked with tipping the military
balance of power in Ukraine to the advantage of Petro Poroshenko’s
regime. The U.S. government is not a signatory of Minsk-II, nor do they
have any apparent desire to see the conflict settled through dialogue
and compromise. Regrettably, the U.S. State Department ceased to be a
diplomatic service decades ago, and only acts to reinforce threats and
coercion coming from the White House and the military industrial complex
that directs it. There will be no peace, no compromise and no
reconciliation in Ukraine as long as Uncle Sam is coddling a corrupt
oligarch-made-ruler, and encouraging him to crush the “terrorists” in
the east that he claims to represent as a democratically elected
president. Unfortunately, he was not elected by the people of Donbass,
as these regions were not included in the political process, nor were
many of the political parties they may have voted for.
As witnessed in so many other conflicts, from Georgia to Syria,
Russia has decide to be reactionary while the U.S. has decided to take
the offensive initiative. There will undoubtedly come a time in the
Ukraine conflict, as the U.S. continues to up the ante, when Russia will
have to decide it its historic interests in Ukraine and Crimea are
worth a wider conflict, or if it will allow its centuries-old connect to
this region, its land and its people, slip away. The history of
bloodshed and heroic sacrifice on the part of Russian soldiers to defend
and preserve this connection through a multitude of conflicts from the
14th century through the present should give U.S. political
and military decision makers reason to re-evaluate their present course;
however, imperial power and hubris recognize no limitations.
*
Brian Kalman is a management professional in the marine transportation industry. He was an officer in the US Navy for eleven years.
All images in this article are from the author.
****************************************************************
Comments from Moon of Alabama open thread on situation in Ukraine
US and EU support for Z declines
Rationale
Biden has described Putin as an autocrat and a "killer" the implication
being that Putin is psychopathic and lacking in all moral scruples and
therefore not to be trusted.
The key question is "How do you treat a person you describe as a dangerous, power mad, psychopath?"
It is clear RF has repeatedly established red lines and NATOstan has
crossed those red lines: 1) Claiming responsibility for the Moskva
sinking; 2) Providing highly accurate long range missiles; 3) Enabling
UAF attacks on RF territory; 4) Delivering advanced weaponry, NATO level
training, combat planning and assistance, provision of ISR; 5)
Assisting in highly provocative propaganda campaigns (Bucha, Iszym).
This is not the conduct associated with the stance of a neutral state.
Putin has now made clear statement that he is not bluffing and he is actively responding to NATOstan's support for 404.
The issue for Biden and NATOstan is "Do we push Putin even more when
he is clearly aggrieved and escalating his response?" and "Do we not run
the risk of triggering an unexpected and unwelcome response from a
state we assert to be led by a madman?"
Biden faces the fact he is now trapped by his public description of
Putin. If Biden acts in a way that triggers an escalated response from
RF the American public will ask "Why did you provoke someone you
described as a madman?" "Are you totally irresponsible and incapable of
understanding your own pronouncements?"
Given the fact of the upcoming mid-terms and the risk to the
Democratic slate, it is doubted Biden will run the risk of triggering
the RF. The US is likely to slow walk the promised delivery of
additional war material, is likely to reign in 404 adventurism, to dial
back its ISR and combat assistance, and seek to restrain 404.
The EU faces a deteriorating economic situation due to the effect of
their own sanctions. Their populations face unemployment, inflation,
reduced heating and a higher rate of disease, the prospect of
de-industrialization, loss of markets, and the high costs of transfers
to 404 while time being burdened by high social spending and ever
greater long term economic uncertainty and social unrest.
Given these facts it is likely the members of NATOstan may wish to
re-assess their commitment to further poking the bear. Given all of
their problems do they really want to risk the arrival of Mr Kinzal?
It is therefore likely NATOstan will follow the US lead and dial back support for 404.
Without NATOstan paying the daily operating expenses of 404 the outlook for Z is bleak.
Given these facts it is likely the members of NATOstan may wish to
re-assess their commitment to further poking the bear. Given all of
their problems do they really want to risk the arrival of Mr Kinzal?
I seriously start doubting that the "European West" has enough sane
and reasonable politician left or at work, people who can look beyond
their dome of self-delusion, people who noted the weight of Putin`s
words.
Likewise, I thank Fate on a daily basis that Putin and Co. know that
not all Germans or people in Western Europe are brain-dead Russophobes
and restraints his military power to the level we see now. If roles were
reversed, we`d all probably dust by now.
The "irony" is that some (even on here) view Putin`s inaction as some
sort of weakness. I never knew that the death-wish is as widespread as
it sometimes seems.
****
Serious question - what happens when the gas and oil sales to Europe stop?
Thus far the Russian Federation have not used economic warfare
against the West. The pumps for the pipelines are not on Russia, that is
NATO/EU cock-uppery. Even the insistence of payment in Roubles is
reasonable given the financial aspect of the West's actions.
In some human relationships no amount of effort by one party can
necessarily get the other party to comply. In our own lives we have all
been rejected by partners, potential employers and others. Luckily there
is more fish in the sea and these personal failures to win over someone
else only cause a small amount of pain, unbearable it may be at the
time.
What happens if the gas and oil really does get cut off and there is
no means of convincing Russia to sell to Europe or the US ever again?
Oil and gas is worth more than printed money. Russia can get real
money worth real goods and services from the world outside of NATO/EU.
Or they can use it to extract resources to make sure the supply of
artillery shells stays in the millions.
Given all that has gone on, the gas cut off is coming. Ukrainian
sabotage efforts are ongoing. If the Ukrainians nuke themselves by
taking out a nuclear power plant (they have been trying) then we are
done. I can't see NATO/EU being able to go back to Russia, apologising
and getting the gas turned back on.
Small children sometimes get sent to the naughty step and forgiving
parents let them back in. People that stand shoulder to shoulder with
Azov are allegedly grown adults. They do not even know what they are
doing wrong by being passive NPCs. Do we really expect Russia to just
roll over and give us the gas again?
Despite the efforts of the Russian Federation to play nice, I see the
gas getting cut off good and proper as a near certainty. In our own
lives, when we find ourselves in an abusive relationship, the solution
is to go no-contact, move away and get new friends. Russia have kind of
done this already. I just don't see the going back.
The Russian President mentioned about how nobody owes the former
colonial powers a living. The view seems to be that the EU is a welfare
recipient, whether this is through Russian hydrocarbons or goodies from
the rest of the world. We have not got anything to trade.
Actually the Germans and Swiss have plenty to trade. But even then,
Belarus fancies itself as the place of machine tool manufacture. In the
UK the Brexit debacle brought to the fore the question of what the UK
does. What does the UK have that the Russian Federation needs? Why would
Russia sell hydrocarbons to the UK when only paper money is available
in exchange?
Capitalism requires a constant energy supply for 'growth'. If there
is no 'growth' and no energy then the same mechanisms that make stock
markets and housing markets a store of wealth come into some vicious
reverse feedback loop. All of that paper money is worth nothing. The
illusion of wealth is laid bare.
On the battlefield the Russians wait for the Ukrainians to get half
way across the bridge before they blow up the bridge. The Ukrainians get
their victory posted to Snapchat with a flag in a wasteland, maybe with
a swastika for good measure. But then the artillery sorts them out and
that is how it goes.
Are we in a similar noose in the West? NATO is well across the bridge
but the bridge (the gas) still stands. Is it not inevitable that the
oil/gas gets cut off good and proper some time soon?
Posted by: P J | Sep 22 2022 12:59 utc | 41
****
It seems some progress is being made on Russia's attempts to engage
the interest of the UN in the biolabs dotted about Ukraine. This from
the Russian MoD (I reproduce in full because you can't access the site
without a Russian VPN server): Long read but worth it.
19.09.2022 (16:15)
Briefing by the Chief of nuclear, biologic and chemical protection
troops of Russian Armed Forces Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov on
recent consultative meeting of BTWC member States
Member States of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC)
attended Russian-led conference in Geneva due to the violation of the
articles I and IV of the abovementioned Convention by the U.S. and
Ukraine.
The Ministry of Defence of Russia has analysed the data of U.S. and
Ukrainian representatives' speeches, the working documents of the member
States, joint statements and the outcome document of the conference.
The Russian Federation has raised over 20 questions related to the
illegal activity of Kiev and Washington within the BTWC. Here are some
of these questions.
What was the reason for choosing the pathogenic microorganisms examined
in Ukraine within the Biological Threat Reduction Programme and why was
the range of the studied pathogens not related to current healthcare
problems as, for example, Tap-6 project dedicated to examining agents of
glanders that had never been recorded at the territory of Ukraine?
How shout the accumulation of most dangerous infections' strains and
sending them to other countries contribute to improving the situation
related to the contagious morbidity?
Why was the main emphasis made on examining the natural focal and most
dangerous infections that, according to the lists of the U.S. Centres
for Disease Control and Prevention, are considered possible agents of
biological weapons?
What researches that supposed using agents of contagious diseases and
toxic substances were Ukrainian servicemen and mental patients involved
in, being one of the most vulnerable categories of citizens?
And, finally, why do the U.S. and Ukraine obscure the
military-biological cooperation in international reports under the
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), while the U.S. has been
blocking the development of its verification mechanism since 2001?
The participants of the conference received the copies of genuine
documents previously mentioned by Russian Defence Ministry, as well as
the physical evidence that proved the implementation of works within
military-biological programmes' in Ukraine.
There was no delegation that doubted the authenticity of the presented
documents, including those related to the accumulation of pathogenic
materials in Ukrainian laboratories counting the Mechnikov Anti-Plague
Institute.
Ukraine has recognised the fact of inspecting the Institute by a
commission from Healthcare Ministry, emphasising that '...80% of
infringements have been eliminated...'. At the same time, Ukrainian
party has totally ignored the questions related to unreasonable volume
of storaging dangerous biological agents at the establishment and the
detected gross infringements of their storage conditions: accumulating
biological materials at staircases, absence of proper control system
that provides access to pathogenic microorganisms.
No explanations on the range of the accumulated strains of dangerous
pathogens have been received, though there had been implemented 19
researches related to examining possible agents of biological weapons
(Congo-Crimean fever, hantaviruses, anthrax and tularemia) within UP and
Tap projects since 2008 in Ukraine, as well as economically important
infections (African and classical swine fever, Newcastle disease).
Neither Ukraine, nor the United States have presented convincing
evidence to prove that the cooperation contributed to improving the
sanitary-epidemiological situation after recent 15 years of its steady
deterioration.
The outcome of the activity carried out by the U.S. Defence Department's
DTRA in Ukraine presented at the meeting was limited by showing several
pictures of repaired laboratory premises. There have probably been no
results achieved, apart from the abovementioned pseudo-'achievements'.
The US and Ukrainian explanations regarding the export of strains and
biological materials of Ukrainian citizens, as well as the observance of
ethical standards while conducting research on military personnel,
low-income citizens and one of the most vulnerable categories of the
population, patients of psychiatric hospitals, looked extremely
unconvincing.
While discussing this issue, the U.S. delegation recognised these facts
emphasising that the pathogenic biological materials were '...seldom...'
sent to the United States.
Apart from this statement that does not allow to evaluate the volume and
the frequency of sending biological assays, the participants of the
meeting have received no other explanations.
The questions related to the reasons of emergency elimination of
documentary evidence of the military-biological activity have also
remained with no comment. At the same time, Ukrainian delegation stated
that '...it is not a trial and we are not at a cross-interrogation...'.
Russia presented the documents that proved Ukraine's interest in
receiving technical equipment for delivering biological weapons.
This refers to a request by the Ukrainian company Motor Sich to the
Turkish manufacturer of unmanned aerial vehicles Bayraktar Akinci, dated
15 December 2021, to equip the UAV with aerosol spraying systems and
mechanisms with a capacity of over 20 litres, to which the Turkish party
responded negatively.
Having no other points, Ukraine expressed doubts about the authenticity
of this document, with the far-fetched argument that Ukrainian state
institutions do not use Russian language in their correspondence. I
would remind that Motor Sich is not a Ukrainian state-run company and it
uses Russian and English languages to communicate with the Turkish
party, that were the languages of the document we have presented.
However, Motor Sich itself refrained from commenting.
I would like to particularly focus on the U.S. response to patents on
technical equipment for delivering and using biological weapons,
including an unmanned aerial vehicle to spread infected insects in the
air.
The U.S. delegation stated that '...the development and production of
biological weapons is prohibited in the U.S., and any violation is
punishable by penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment. However, the
decision to grant the patent does not violate U.S. obligations under
the BTWC and does not mean that the U.S. government condones the
inventors' claims ...'.
This statement is fundamentally contrary to the U.S. patent code that
clearly states that a patent in the U.S. cannot be granted in the
absence of a full description of the '...the device actually
existing...' and its expertise.
Attempting to evade the raised questions, Kevin Garrett, Deputy Director
of the Biological Threat Reduction Programme, spoke exclusively about
the historical aspects of the programme.
However, Garrett haven't pointed out that the real goals of the
programme, which were aimed at reducing the weapons of mass destruction
potential of the former Soviet Union, and which had been achieved as
early as 2008. Within the congressional hearings, it was reported that
the goals of the programme had been achieved, after which it was
extended to other regions of the world. Within the congressional
hearings, it was reported that the goals of the programme had been
achieved, after which it was extended to other regions of the world.
I would like to pay attention to documents confirming Ukraine's attempts
to end its cooperation with DTRA. Thus, in April 2013, an
interdepartmental commission consisting of representatives of the
Security Service of Ukraine, Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food and
the State Veterinary Service of Ukraine jointly decided that it was
unreasonable to continue DTRA projects in Ukraine, but the US
administration continued to impose them on Kiev.
A confirmation of the US administration's pressure is the address on the
slide from US Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft, dated 8 February 2013,
in which he demands the Head of Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food to
influence his subordinates to extend the DTRA project for another four
years.
Even though the Ministry of Agrarian Policy and Food tried to refuse to
participate in the Biological Threat Reduction Program in its response
of 13 March 2013, the project continued.
We have said that in the run-up to the event, the US persistently
demanded from the participating states on a joint statement on the
supposedly "peaceful nature" of the Biological Threat Reduction Program,
and some countries signed the statement. Fearing the US reaction and
the threat of sanctions, many countries abstained from attending the
meeting, as a result of which only 89 countries out of 184 BWC member
states participating.
Only 43 delegations took the floor during the event, of which more than
half (22 states) either supported the Russian position or took a neutral
position. 21 states, among them Ukraine, the US and most of their NATO
allies opposed, but even among them there was no unanimity.
Thus, the Russian speeches have caused many states to pay attention to
the risks of cooperation with the Pentagon in the military-biological
sphere, as well as to take a fresh look at the necessity and feasibility
of such relations.
The emotional pro-American speeches were directed by the head of the US
delegation, Kenneth Ward, who is currently the US special representative
to the BTWC.
I would like to recall that he was the US Permanent Representative to
the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons from 2015 to
2019. Before his arrival, the work of the organisation was constructive
and focused on specific issues. One of the results of Ward's work has
been to transform the professional, highly technical organisation into a
politicised structure, with roles for the foreign policy goals of
Washington and its NATO allies.
Within his time at the OPCW, Ward worked closely with the so-called
White Helmets, who staged the use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces
in Khan Sheikhoun in 2017. Using this provocation as a pretext, and
without waiting for an investigation to be launched, the Americans
launched a missile attack on the Shayrat airbase, thereby grossly
violating international law. In the coming year, following another White
Helmets provocation in Duma, a missile strike was launched against a
Syrian scientific research centre, already a well-established scenario.
It is clear that Ward's destructive activities on the BTWC platform are
aimed at achieving similar goals and will help "tweak" the Convention
mechanisms to suit Washington's goals.
We have repeatedly spoken about the true nature of the Pentagon's military-biological programmes outside national territory.
While the stated goals are to monitor infectious diseases and assist
developing countries, in reality we see a capacity-building of US
military and biological capabilities to circumvent BTWC commitments.
This manifests itself in the construction of military laboratories along
the borders of geopolitical adversaries; the collection of strains of
particularly dangerous micro-organisms specific to certain territories;
and the testing of toxic drugs on humans.
In the case of Ukraine, we see that the declared nature of interaction
was only superficially in line with Article X of the BTWC (international
cooperation and information exchange for peaceful purposes). As a
result of the DTRA projects, there has been no improvement in the
disease situation and the situation in the countries bordering Ukraine
has deteriorated in a lot of aspects. Other signs of "peaceful
cooperation" were also absent.
As the event resulted in a "zero", non-binding report, we proposed initiatives to strengthen the BTWC.
The first is the resumption of negotiations on a legally binding
protocol to the Convention that includes lists of microorganisms,
toxins, equipment (similar to the CWC control lists), is comprehensive
and has an effective verification mechanism. I would like to recall that
the draft protocol was prepared by an international expert group,
VEREX, back in 2001.
The second is the establishment of a scientific advisory committee with
broad geographical representation and equal rights of participants,
while respecting the so-called "principle of ten", according to which a
decision must be taken taking into account the alternative viewpoint,
even if it is expressed by only one state.
The third is the expansion of confidence-building measures with
mandatory declaration by states of their activities in the biological
field outside national territory.
As questions remain about the US and Ukrainian military-biological
programmes, the Russian Defence Ministry will continue to take further
steps to clarify the situation.
Posted by: pasha | Sep 22 2022 14:00 utc | 60
****
Honestly, I don't understand how patrons at the bar can speak with
such confidence about what either Russia or US/NATO/EU is going to do.
There are so many possibilities, and since Russia has been, is, and
will continue to keep its cards close to its vest, I think trying to
speculate about exactly what they are doing and why is difficult.
US/NATO/EU moves are hard to forecast as well, not only because of
the 'unpredictability' of US foreign policy by design, but because of
the wide range of tools (political, legal, economic) in the Western
array.
For me, the wildcard is how the rest of the world will continue to
interact with Russia. If 90% of the countries continue to trade with
Russia, and if countries like Mexico continue to openly state positions
that either support Russia, oppose NATO, or are neutral, then the chance
that Russia's plan (whatever it is) will continue to work towards its
fruition. This could lead to a somewhat peaceful denouement in which
the world continues its move to multipolarity, and the US accepts its
role a major player in world affairs, not the main or only player.
However, if the US can apply pressure to a range of countries (which
it undoubtedly will do) like Turkey, the Central Asia Republics, and
other nations in Africa and the Middle East, they may be able to slowly
undercut Russia's ability to stay afloat economically and politically.
Seems that this would be a longer project for the US to build and would
need larger nations, like India, Brazil, and China to stop working with
Russia. By this time, while Russia may well have brought eastern
Ukraine into Russia proper, the European population may also have been
beaten down by sanctions and propaganda (much like Germany in the 1920's
and 1930's) allowing "the stones of" Europe "to rise" into open warfare
with Russia.
Sure Biden says nuclear war is not an option, but the US has nuclear
weapons and a policy for using them, and Biden is not actually in
control of the United States. The US can use weapons in extreme
circumstances to protect US interests and allies, very similar to
Russia's policy. We can see that the Ukrainian population is expendable
to decision makers in the West, what makes anyone think that other
populations aren't expendable as well.
Will winter cause a slowdown in the war or an uptick? Once again,
there are arguments on both sides that make sense. Seems that using
winter to continue its advance would make sense for Russia as they would
more of an ability to supply troops and keep the energy necessary for
continued military operations while Ukraine would not. However, I do
not have enough knowledge to know.
As usual, I'm still sitting at the bar, soaking it all in, hoping
that leaders in the West will come to their senses and stop supplying
arms to Ukraine while making overtures to Russia that legitimately
address their concerns. Not likely.
Posted by: Objective Observer | Sep 22 2022 14:08 utc | 63
****
