[News] Why Putin Took Military Action

[Anti-Imperialist News]

*Not an endorsement, but it's responsible to read more than the pro
US/European press*

consortiumnews.com
<https://consortiumnews.com/2022/02/24/what-putin-says-are-the-causes-aims-of-russias-military-action/>
Why
Putin Took Military Action
February 24, 2022
------------------------------

*Russia says it has no intentions of controlling Ukraine and its military
operation is only to “demilitarize” and “de-Nazify” Ukraine in an action
taken after 30 years of the U.S. pushing Russia too far, writes Joe Lauria.*

<https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Putin-speech.png>

Putin explaining his reasons for going to war. (AP screenshot from YouTube)


*By Joe Lauria <https://consortiumnews.com/tag/joe-lauria/> **Special to
Consortium News*

*R*ussian President Vladimir Putin said in a TV address Thursday morning
that the goal of Russia’s military operation was not to take control of
Ukraine, but to “demilitarize” and “de-Nazify” the country.  Moments after
he spoke, explosions were heard in several Ukrainian cities.

The Russian Defense Ministry said these were “precision” attacks against
Ukrainian military installations and that civilians were not being
targeted.  It said Ukraine’s air force on the ground and its air defenses
had been destroyed.

The Ukrainian government, which declared a state of emergency and broke off
diplomatic relations with Russia, said an invasion was underway and that
Russia had landed forces at the port city of Odessa, on Ukraine’s Black Sea
coast, as well as entering from Belarus in the north.  It said
<https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60504334> it had killed 50 Russian
troops and shot down six Russian fighter jets, which Russia denied.

Putin said one of the operation’s aims was to arrest certain people in
Ukraine, likely the neo-Nazis who burned dozens of unarmed people alive in
a building in Odessa in 2014. In his speech Monday, Putin said  Moscow
knows who they are.  Russia said it aims to destroy neo-Nazi brigades, such
as Right Sector and the Azov Battalion.

Putin said the aim was not to occupy Ukraine, but he gave no indication
when Russia might leave. It could be over quickly if Russia’s objectives
are met. But war has its own logic and often lays waste to military plans.

The BBC reported that according to Ukrainian authorities 50 civilians have
been killed so far. President Joe Biden is certain how this will turn out.

“President Putin has chosen a premeditated war that will bring a catastrophic
loss of life and human suffering,” Biden said Wednesday night. “Russia
alone is responsible for the death and destruction this attack will bring,
and the United States and its allies and partners will respond in a united
and decisive way. The world will hold Russia accountable.”

*Diminishing Russia*

<https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Screen-Shot-2022-02-18-at-19.09.43.png>

Biden speaks on Ukraine at White House last Friday. (Ruptly screenshot.)

Biden is to make a televised address on Thursday after he coordinates a
response to Russia’s military action in Ukraine with the G7 and NATO. Biden
said he will announce a new package of economic sanctions against Russia,
in addition to those imposed on Monday, but reiterated that U.S. and NATO
forces would not become involved.  According to TASS, Russia’s news agency,
the EU said <https://tass.com/world/1409859> it intends to weaken “Russia’s
economic base and the country’s capacity to modernize.”

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson even hinted at British military
involvement. “Our mission is clear,” he said. “Diplomatically, politically,
economically and eventually militarily this hideous and barbaric venture of
Vladimir Putin must end in failure.”

In a White House readout after the last phone call between Biden and Putin
this month, Biden said Russia would be “diminished” if it invades, a
longstanding U.S. goal.

In addition to the sanctions, Russia has faced widespread condemnation from
most of the world, expressed at United Nations meetings this week,
including an emergency session of the Security Council on Wednesday night.
Several nations spoke in melodramatic tones about the military operation
changing global security. Many of those nations supported the U.S. invasion
of Iraq.

On Monday, Putin said he would send Russian “peacekeepers” into Lugansk and
Donetsk, which he recognized as states independent from Ukraine.  The West
denounced it as an invasion, triggering the first round of sanctions
against Russia.  Putin said the Russian troops were sent in to protect
ethnic Russians, many of whom have now fled for safety over the border to
Russia.

*Combat in Donbass*

Fierce fighting was reported Thursday along the line of separation
between Ukrainian
forces and militias from Donetsk and Lugansk. It is not clear to what
extent Russian forces are taking part in the Donbass battle and if the aim
is to capture all of the two breakaway provinces.

Both had voted for independence from Ukraine in 2014 after a coup overthrew
the elected president Viktor Yanukovych.  The new Ukrainian government then
launched a war against the provinces to crush their bid for independence, a
war that is still going on eight years later at the cost of 14,000 lives.

Neo-Nazi groups, such as Right Sector and the Azov Battalion, who revere
the World War II Ukrainian fascist leader Stepan Bandera, took part in the
coup as well as in the ongoing war against Lugansk and Donetsk.

*A Matter of ‘Life or Death’ *

The Russian military action follows demands made in December by Russia to
the U.S. and NATO in the form of treaty proposals that would require Ukraine
and Georgia not to join NATO; U.S. missiles in Poland and Romania to be
removed; and NATO deployments to Eastern Europe reversed.  The U.S. and
NATO rejected the proposals and instead sent more NATO forces to Eastern
Europe and have been heavily arming Ukraine.

In his address on Thursday morning, Putin said the military operation he
was launching was a “question of life or death” for Russia, referring to
NATO’s expansion east since the late 1990s. He said:

“For the United States and its allies, it is a policy of containing Russia,
with obvious geopolitical dividends. For our country, it is a matter of
life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation. This is not
an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to our
interests but to the very existence of our state and to its sovereignty. It
is the red line which we have spoken about on numerous occasions. They have
crossed it.”

*Detailed Explanation of Causes and Aims of Operation*

<https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Silets_Sokalskyi_Lvivska-place_of_battle_of_Soviet_soldiers_with_Nazi_invaders-1.jpeg>

Silets Sokalskyi Lvivska battlefield monument in Ukraine of Soviets
soldiers against Nazi invaders. (Viacheslav Galievskyi/Wikimedia Commons)

In his 3,350-word speech <http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843>,
Putin laid out in full detail the reasons he decided to take military
action and what he hopes it will achieve. The speech is a devastating
critique of U.S. policy toward Russia over the past 30 years, which no
doubt will fall on deaf ears in Washington.

Western media is so far ignoring the speech or superficially dismissing it.
But it has to be carefully studied if anyone is interested in understanding
why Russia launched this military operation. Just calling Putin “Hitler,”
as Nancy Pelosi did Wednesday night, won’t do.

Hitler in fact features in Putin’s address. For instance, addressing the
Ukrainian military, Putin said:

“Your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not fight the Nazi
occupiers and did not defend our common Motherland to allow today’s
neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine. You swore the oath of allegiance to
the Ukrainian people and not to the junta, the people’s adversary which is
plundering Ukraine and humiliating the Ukrainian people.”

He linked the Nazis’ invasion of Russia to NATO’s threat today, saying this
time there would be no appeasement:

“Of course, this situation begs a question: what next, what are we to
expect? If history is any guide, we know that in 1940 and early 1941 the
Soviet Union went to great lengths to prevent war or at least delay its
outbreak. To this end, the USSR sought not to provoke the potential
aggressor until the very end by refraining or postponing the most urgent
and obvious preparations it had to make to defend itself from an imminent
attack. When it finally acted, it was too late.

As a result, the country was not prepared to counter the invasion by Nazi
Germany, which attacked our Motherland on June 22, 1941, without declaring
war. The country stopped the enemy and went on to defeat it, but this came
at a tremendous cost. The attempt to appease the aggressor ahead of the
Great Patriotic War proved to be a mistake which came at a high cost for
our people. In the first months after the hostilities broke out, we lost
vast territories of strategic importance, as well as millions of lives. We
will not make this mistake the second time. We have no right to do so.”

Putin said the existential threat from NATO’s expansion was the main reason
for military action:

“Our biggest concerns and worries, [are] the fundamental threats which
irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely
and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward
expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer
to the Russian border.

It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying
to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding
the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response
to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies
or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance
continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine
is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.

Why is this happening? Where did this insolent manner of talking down from
the height of their exceptionalism, infallibility and all-permissiveness
come from? What is the explanation for this contemptuous and disdainful
attitude to our interests and absolutely legitimate demands?”

 Putin called the Americans “con-artists” for lying about NATO expansion.
He referred to:

“promises not to expand NATO eastwards even by an inch. To reiterate: they
have deceived us, or, to put it simply, they have played us. Sure, one
often hears that politics is a dirty business. It could be, but it
shouldn’t be as dirty as it is now, not to such an extent. This type of
con-artist behaviour is contrary not only to the principles of
international relations but also and above all to the generally accepted
norms of morality and ethics.”

Putin said Russia had long wanted to cooperate with the West. “Those who
aspire to global dominance have publicly designated Russia as their enemy.
They did so with impunity. Make no mistake, they had no reason to act this
way,” he said.

*Cold War Triumphalism & Its Consequences*

<https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Iraq-US-invasion.jpg>

U.S. soldier conducts search of family’s home in Iraq, 2006. (Navy
Journalist 1st Class Jeremy L. Wood)

Putin said the collapse of the Soviet Union had led to a redivision of the
world and a change to international law and norms.  New rules were needed
but instead of achieving this “professionally, smoothly, patiently, and
with due regard and respect for the interests of all states … we saw a
state of euphoria created by the feeling of absolute superiority, a kind of
modern absolutism coupled with the low cultural standards and arrogance of
those who formulated and pushed through decisions that suited only
themselves.”

Putin then said this “absolutism,” with the Soviet Union no longer as a
barrier, led to unchecked U.S. aggression, starting with NATO’s bombing of
Serbia in 1999, the 2003 invasion of Iraq and U.S. involvement in Syria.
Russia has been taking note of the destruction Washington has wrought, even
as it seems whitewashed from American minds.

“First a bloody military operation was waged against Belgrade, without the
UN Security Council’s sanction but with combat aircraft and missiles used
in the heart of Europe. The bombing of peaceful cities and vital
infrastructure went on for several weeks. I have to recall these facts,
because some Western colleagues prefer to forget them, and when we
mentioned the event, they prefer to avoid speaking about international law.

Then came the turn of Iraq, Libya and Syria. The illegal use of military
power against Libya and the distortion of all the UN Security Council
decisions on Libya ruined the state, created a huge seat of international
terrorism, and pushed the country towards a humanitarian catastrophe, into
the vortex of a civil war, which has continued there for years. The
tragedy, which was created for hundreds of thousands and even millions of
people not only in Libya but in the whole region, has led to a large-scale
exodus from the Middle East and North Africa to Europe.

A similar fate was also prepared for Syria. The combat operations conducted
by the Western coalition in that country without the Syrian government’s
approval or UN Security Council’s sanction can only be defined
as aggression and intervention.

But the example that stands apart from the above events is, of course,
the invasion of Iraq without any legal grounds. They used the pretext
of allegedly reliable information available in the United States about
the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. To prove that
allegation, the US Secretary of State held up a vial with white power,
publicly, for the whole world to see, assuring the international community
that it was a chemical warfare agent created in Iraq.

It later turned out that all of that was a fake and a sham, and that Iraq
did not have any chemical weapons. Incredible and shocking but true. We
witnessed lies made at the highest state level and voiced from the high UN
rostrum. As a result we see a tremendous loss in human life, damage,
destruction, and a colossal upsurge of terrorism.

Overall, it appears that nearly everywhere, in many regions of the world
where the United States brought its law and order, this created bloody,
non-healing wounds and the curse of international terrorism and extremism.”

Putin said over the past days “NATO leadership has been blunt in its
statements that they need to accelerate and step up efforts to bring the
alliance’s infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders. In other words, they
have been toughening their position. We cannot stay idle and passively
observe these developments. This would be an absolutely irresponsible thing
to do for us.”

Ukraine, he said, had essentially become a de-facto NATO member posing the
greatest threat to Russia.

“Any further expansion of the North Atlantic alliance’s infrastructure or
the ongoing efforts to gain a military foothold of the Ukrainian territory
are unacceptable for us. Of course, the question is not about NATO itself.
It merely serves as a tool of US foreign policy. The problem is that in
territories adjacent to Russia, which I have to note is our historical
land, a hostile “anti-Russia” is taking shape. Fully controlled from the
outside, it is doing everything to attract NATO armed forces and obtain
cutting-edge weapons.”

*A Parting Shot at European Vassals *

Putin also blasted America’s European allies for not having the strength of
principle or the moral fiber to stand up to Washington. He said:

“The United States is still a great country and a system-forming power. All
its satellites not only humbly and obediently say yes to and parrot it at
the slightest pretext but also imitate its behaviour and enthusiastically
accept the rules it is offering them. Therefore, one can say with good
reason and confidence that the whole so-called Western bloc formed by the
United States in its own image and likeness is, in its entirety, the very
same ’empire of lies.’”

[Read the full text of the speech.
<http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843>]

*Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of **Consortium News** and a former U.N.
correspondent for **T**he Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe**, and numerous
other newspapers. He was an investigative reporter for the **Sunday Times **of
London and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for **The
New York Times.  **He can be reached at joelauria at consortiumnews.com
<joelauria at consortiumnews.com> and followed on Twitter @unjoe
<https://twitter.com/unjoe>  *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20220225/ef911fb1/attachment.htm>