In order to better read through the past and future intentions of the belligerents, we have traced the sources of the war in Ukraine, with the support of recent and old public statements, OSCE and UN data, and real facts.
Past the stupor of February 24, 2022, the attentive people learned at least one thing, that a civil war had been raging in Ukraine since 2014, despite the Minsk II agreements signed in February 2015 by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Germany, and France; let’s quote its two major decisions:
– General ceasefire under OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) scrutiny.
– Revision of the Constitution of the Ukrainian State with a view to granting a special status of autonomy to the concerned regions of Donbass.
The current situation is a result of the failure to comply with these measures, and other factors. Initial guarantor of the implementation of the agreement, Angela Merkel tells the newspaper Die Zeit in December 2022:
« The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give Ukraine time. It had enough time to become stronger, as we can see now. »
« It was clear to all of us that the conflict was at an impasse, that the problem had not been solved, but that is precisely what gave Ukraine valuable time. »
The other guarantor at the time, former French President François Hollande, tells the Kiev Independent:
« Since 2014, Ukraine has strengthened its military posture… It is the merit of the Minsk agreements to have given this opportunity to the Ukrainian army ».
Contrary to what some have inferred, this is not evidence that NATO, via France and Germany, wanted a war between Ukraine and Russia. The faithful readers of the mainstream press will think, without necessarily being mistaken, that Russia would have attacked Ukraine, whatever the outcome of the Minsk agreements, and that it was therefore necessary to prepare for it.
[Not too faithful however, since the perplexing remarks of Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Hollande were not taken up online either by Le Monde, or by Libération, Le Figaro, Mediapart…]
Ukrainian President in function from 2014 to 2019, Petro Poroshenko, tells the BBC that the Minsk agreements « gave Ukraine eight years to build the army, the economy and build the global anti-Putin coalition. » [emphasis added]. The interview cannot be found by keyword on the BBC website, and no Western newspaper has picked it up; only a truncated excerpt remains. Euan MacDonald, a journalist for New Voice of Ukraine and a freelancer for the BBC, offers us the introduction without giving the source.
Even if they were pronounced on the stand of a court, these « testimonies » would not be enough to judge that these signatories of the agreement did not intend to respect it, or make it respected. On this point, Merkel is the most direct: « The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to buy Ukraine time. » A lenient jury just deduces that from the start, the Western camp did not believe in the possibility of a peaceful, or positive, outcome to the Minsk agreements.
In any case, these three former heads of state (two formally neutral, the other in conflict), displayed from the outset a formidable convergence of views, long-range (eight years), most pessimistic or defeatist (to hear them, at least), spending all their energy preparing for the worst, to the detriment, perhaps, of diplomacy.
Asymmetries of the 2014-2022 civil war
Enforcing a ceasefire, when it is continuously violated, is an endless challenge. According to the principle of self-defense, when one fires, the other fires back. In the grey areas of the front line, it is damned difficult to know who started; saboteurs easily point the finger on the enemy.
The OSCE’s primary monitoring task is to locate and count sniper rounds and artillery shells fired by each side, as far as possible, with surveillance drones and ground staff, around a border of about 400 kilometers. Inevitably subject to political pressure, the OSCE, a body managed by the countries of Europe, and on the margins by Russia, is leaning inexorably towards the West (see below); but in this precise, quantitative and technical domain, we can try to identify trends.
Let us first look at the geography around the « contact line », drawn in dotted red below.
5 kilometers away from the front line, the UN counts 200,000 residents on the Kiev side, and 600,000 on the insurgent side.
Let’s now take the largest cities whose centers are less than 10 kilometers from the front line.
– In the area controlled by the Ukrainian government (in the West and North):
In 2013, the three cities Popasna, Svlitodarsk and Volnovakha totaled 56,000 inhabitants.
– In the area controlled by the self-proclaimed republics (Donetsk People’s Republic, or DPR, and Luhansk People’s Republic, or LPR):
Donetsk: 1.6 million inhabitants.
Luhansk: 688,000 inhabitants.
Horlivka: 247,000 inhabitants in 2017.
On this side, the urban population very close to the stabilized front totaled about 2.5 million, so the urban configuration is extremely unfavorable for civilians.
The OSCE has provided a topography of fire and explosions of all types detected: below the last three years of civil war, taken from the 2019, 2020 and 2021 summaries.
2019
2020
2021
It is clear that the autonomous Donbass’ population, as a whole, is undergoing a heavy and continuous atmosphere of war since 2014. In contrast, the Donbass under Kiev control sees its major centers of activity, Kramatorsk, Severodonetsk and Mariupol, largely spared. This means that on the scale of the country, the latent conflict, sometimes intense, was painless from the point of view of the daily life of Ukrainians, for whom it was not vital to put an end to the conflict quickly.
They were certainly not indifferent, since Zelenskiy was elected in part for his promises to resolve the Donbass issue peacefully. But this relative distance facilitates the work of the political-media apparatus, if it wants to take the people in a direction they have not chosen.
Pressed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov for its « sterile » reporting, the OSCE finally published a more detailed than usual « thematic » report in 2017. The issue most heard by OSCE staff « across the line of contact » is highlighted:
When will this be over?
The difference for those living east of the line is that they are in contact not only with the authorities acting in Luhansk and Donetsk, but also with the volunteers and conscripts at the front. They can exert political pressure on local decision-makers, unlike the other side governed by the distant Kiev and its foreign guardians.
If ceasefire violations, following truces that have never lasted more than a few days, were caused by local self-defense militias, it would be extremely difficult to hide this from the population.
Yet this possibility was never mentioned in independent reports from the towns and villages, let alone translated into citizen protests, which were non-existent.
The million and a half inhabitants of Donetsk, whose northern part is stuck to the front line, would thus have passively endured suffered eight years of continuous water and electricity restrictions, eight years of continuous risk of receiving a shell, a missile or a bullet, lost or « lost », of a constant anguish for themselves, their relatives or their children, knowing that their political leaders could be responsible for it.
The minimal demands of this population of Eastern Ukraine were quite simple:
– To live in security, with police institutions managed by the local authorities.
– Private and administrative practice of the Russian and Ukrainian languages as applied in Ukraine before 2014.
– Freedom of conscience and expression respected.
– Freedom of cultural and economic exchanges compatible with the geographical and historical situation of Donbass.
The special status of regional autonomy, an essential condition of the Minsk II agreements, was to meet these criteria; conversely, this mineral-rich industrial region would remain integrated into the state of Ukraine to contribute to the state economy and other exchanges.
The contradictory version, implicitly brought up by former President Poroshenko, is that the Russian Federation engineered a large-scale manipulation, which it managed to conceal for eight years, despite the surveillance of OSCE agents. This involved introducing units of Russian soldiers, acting without the knowledge of local militias, in order to sabotage the ceasefires. On top of that, the complicity of the authorities in Donetsk and Luhansk, betraying the will of their citizens and inflicting years of suffering on them, was necessary.
We are not talking here about direct or indirect Russian support, material, financial, or military advice, individual or state initiative, which most likely took place (see below). Moreover, it is no secret that a certain number of Russian volunteers, but also French (Erwan Castel), Italian and even American, came to fight for ideological reasons; the notorious presence of neo-Nazi troops within the Ukrainian forces is sufficient to explain this scattered support. But much more is required to prove the existence of a Russian plot against the people of Donbass, against Ukraine and the international community combined, aimed at sabotaging the Minsk agreements.
The statistics provided by the OSCE and the UN lack finesse and are scattered in various reports. First of all, the count of destruction of houses and residential buildings is never provided, without any explicit reason. On the first half of year 2020, the UN reports military strikes on civilian infrastructure in « Government controlled Territories » (GCT) and « Armed group controlled territories » (AGCT), with a flagrant disproportion.
Nature of the targets:
Once again, the precision is poor; although the « operational » structures are identified, the distribution between GCT and AGCT zones is not given. For example, 12 of the 17 schools (« educational facilities ») hit were operational. The government forces therefore fired on at least 8 active schools, which as basis casts enormous doubt on the collateral damage hypothesis, and fired at most on all 12 active schools affected, which is solid proof of State terrorism targeting children and teachers. The UN does not divulge this kind of vital, known data, without any reason.
[Note: Although incomplete, these tables are significant. Among about 30 of these semi-annual reports, the one for 2020 is the only one where I found this compact record of affected infrastructure. See access link.]
Drinking water supply facilities are intensely targeted (43 in six months in the AGCT zone!), without any military interest in this situation of latent civil war. The Ukrainian governmental forces demonstrate here their will to punish the insubordinate Donbass, with a certain efficiency in Donetsk. Perpetuated over a long period of time, these acts of persecution cannot be exclusively the responsibility of national-extremist units (Aïdar, Azov, Carpathian Sich…).
An event that occurred on May 26, 2015, four months after the Minsk II agreements, is revealing in more ways than one. While the guns fell silent thanks to a « reinforced » ceasefire initiative, four missiles hit a residential area in Gorlovka, where Anna Turv’s family home is located, in the early morning. She escaped with one arm blown off, and discovered the mutilated bodies of her husband and older daughter; Anna Turv survived alone with two small children; another man died not far the same morning. The British reporter Graham Philipps reached quickly the scene, filming from above to record the direction of the shooting; the OSCE team came to compatible conclusions (North-North-East fire origin), and the video of a local resident at the time of the shooting corroborated the trajectory, but also the peaceful atmosphere in the city prior to the attack.
The front lines have been stabilized for several months, there is no situation of military confusion, the troops know very well where the enemy stands, and have plenty of time to adjust their shots, in violation of the ceasefire, with GPS and launchers capable of the high-precision allowed by the twenty-first century technologies, in a peaceful inhabited area, far from the fighting that does not take place anyway at the beginning of the truce. A resident of Gorlovka recorded four explosions at intervals of about 30 seconds. Accustomed to the characteristics of these « gifts » from the sky, he distinguishes the whistling of projectiles above his head, without panic, incredulous during the moments of calm: « Quiet for now. Probably reloading… » The origin of the shots is thus corroborated by two independent signatures.
Armed with this information, what did the OSCE management conclude, not to be confused with the technicians who had done their job (*)? It indicates the direction pointed by the concordant clues, but does not mention the two sites occupied by the Ukrainian armed forces located in this direction, Dzerzhink and Mayorsk, and uniquely quotes the statement of the Ukrainian Major General, according to whom the shots came from the position « Mine 6-7 », occupied by non-governmental forces, located in the North-West, and not in the expected North-East one; OSCE did not carry out any counter-expertise against the allegations of the Major General.
(*): Now retired, the Danish observer Kai Vittrup explained in 2016 that his OSCE superiors asked to count only the bodies lying after their arrival, which would have lowered the casualties « way below the actual ». Read the report of his lecture to the Helsinki Committee here.
The Kiev press can then rely on OSCE reporting to denounce a ceasefire violation by « separatists » or « terrorists » (two common terms), who would therefore murder their own families or fellow citizens, the Western press can rely on the apparent indeterminacy of the facts to remain silent, and the Washington spokesman can answer to an insistent journalist that he has not read « the entire report », before stammering an endless « sentence ».
During a conference of the head of the OSCE mission in Ukraine, Adam Koberiacki, a Ukrainian calls out to him in the name of « the people of Kharkov, its region and all of southeastern Ukraine »: « We hoped that you would be an impartial and objective observer… You don’t see the blood, you don’t hear the voice of the people… We are outraged by the OSCE’s double standards ».
Is he an agent sent by the Kremlin? A terrorist disguised as a citizen? Does he speak for the people, or for a small manipulative minority?
Our judgement as citizens who have listened to hours of published testimonies and read many written reports (but you will have to trust us or work it by yourselves), is that he is sincere. The lack of neutrality of OSCE and other international organs is not a surprise for us, it is coherent with observations in other conflicts.
International bodies are under intense political pressure from the US-centered globalist hegemon. This is not new. Over time, managers who try to resist, to preserve a minimum of decency and integrity, gradually disappear. The role of these bodies in preserving peace and dignity is very seriously affected.
We cannot go through all cases, but a second might make it; the distortion of realities process is served to us in its entirety, by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the United Nations, in a report prior to the Minsk II agreements, dedicated to civilian victims of the conflict:
« On 4 February [2015], a hospital in the city of Donetsk held by the armed groups, was hit: six people were killed and 25 wounded. The multiple MLRS rockets reportedly came from areas controlled by the armed groups. »
Lexical decryption: While the OSCE uses neutral terminology, referring to « Non-government controlled zone », the UN systematically refers to « Armed groups controlled territories ». This explains the strange ambiguous wording of the first statement. It is not the hospital that is held by the « armed groups », it is the city, which by the way is administered by unarmed civilians. The term « reportedly » is conveniently vague, so that the reader ignores where this information comes from, that « the armed groups » have shelled the hospital that takes care of themselves, their neighbors and their families.
Yet the OSCE had published its investigations on February 7, 2015, well before UN reporting. OSCE experts determined on two different impacts the southwestern origin of the shots, but also the war crime weapon, a multiple rocket launcher type BM-27 Uragan, which is in use by the Ukrainian army for sure, and perhaps also the defenders of Donetsk.
Apparently, the OSCE is not tasked with identifying the perpetrators of the attacks, only their direction and nature; it’s a pity, because the best equipped neutral body able to investigate on the spot is the OSCE. The UN writer is at liberty to tell that « it is imperative to investigate promptly reports of shelling of residential areas », while he does not even use the OSCE’s findings. Nevertheless, it is enough to take a map of Donetsk and consult the BM-27 datasheet to identify the locations from which the missiles were launched. The nominal range of the BM-27 is 35 km, and its minimum range is 10 km; located 30 km away, three localities ideally correspond to the OSCE criteria, as indicated, among others, by an association of « journalists, lawyers, criminologists and simple inhabitants of Donbass », who point this zone as being under the control of the Ukrainian government, at this precise moment.
In this case, the legal or scientific establishment of the crime perpetrators relies on a certification of the military situation (known to the OSCE a priori), and on a neighborhood survey in the six or seven communes potentially involved or overflown by the shells. As the Donetsk authorities are not recognized by any country, they are not direct interlocutors of the UN. It is therefore essential to force the Ukrainian government to give a rational answer to the precise facts attested.
Instead, the UN vaguely evokes (« reportedly ») the implausible version of a suicide attack, which may emanate from Kiev or from some Ukrainian media (the Dialogue.ua site for instance), ignores the others, and awards it a purely arbitrary credit, while letting people think that there is no crime but collateral damage, by an inept linguistic confusion (see lexical decryption).
This is how cities like Gorlovka or Donetsk, the size of Sand Diego or twice Geneva’s, can be bombed for eight years, quarter after quarter, in almost general international indifference.
The days before
The election of President Zelenskiy in 2019 was followed by a relative lull in the course of the civil war, which suggests that part of the « People’s Servants » were committed to a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Donbass. Thus, Sergei Sivokho, advisor to the Security and Defense Council, attempted in 2020 to launch the « National Platform for Reconciliation. » During his press conference, he was inveigled, ejected from the room and then thrown to the ground by militants of the National Corps, a party originating from the Azov regiment and chaired by Andreiy Biletskiy, author of a strictly Nazi doctrinaire statement. Sivokho’s initiative did not survive such convincing arguments.
Seen from Kiev side, the relative decrease in « ceasefire violations » recorded by the OSCE changes absolutely nothing. The endless conflict, exclusively attributed to « Russia », « Putin », « pro-Russian separatists » or « terrorists » in Donbass, continues to justify or cover up the total lack of legal progress in the direction of autonomy for the Donbass regions; the russophobic dynamic goes its way, affecting in particular the younger generation, while the russophile or just conciliatory political opposition is being crushed (the deputy of the party of Regions Elena Bondarenko detailed the methods of « determined persecution », death threats and other intimidations carried out against herself, prosecutors, deputies and « all those who call for peace in Ukraine »).
In Donetsk and Luhansk, the desire for a return to the Russian Federation is obviously growing, as is the need for a return to peace and a quiet life. This balance gave hope for popular acceptance of a political compromise, peace in exchange of a partial reintegration into Ukraine.
In the months leading up to the fateful date, there was an accumulation of soldiers and heavy weaponry on the western border of the Donbass, and on the eastern and northern border on the Russian side. It is difficult to know who initiated the movement: Russians or Ukrainians, but we do know that by February 24, 2022, there were about 150,000 of each side, amassed towards the east of the country, without major disproportion.
The chronology of the days leading up to the large scale attack, in the period of diplomatic tension known to all, is significant in terms of ceasefire violations observed by the OSCE; on February 15, 2022, the trend is consistent with reports from December and January, followed by a slight increase the next day.
On 17 February, the urbanized areas of Donetsk, Kardiivka and Lugansk were hit, and on 18 February the four major cities were heavily hit in their core. This is the day when DPR leader Denis Pushilin ordered the evacuation of civilians from Donetsk.
The violence escalated until February 21 (and beyond), when President Putin officially recognized the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. On the same day, the Russian Minister of Defence declared that in Donetsk, « due to two sabotage groups and artillery, at least 90% of the city is without water », and that two thirds of Lugansk is without gas.
Citizens’ stupefaction
The citizens of the world, belatedly warned of a diplomatic crisis they do not understand much about, are stunned by the February 24 Russian army massive attack in Ukraine. For its part, the NATO Council solemnly declares its indignation:
« We condemn in the strongest possible terms the horrific attack by Russia on Ukraine, without any justification and in the complete absence of provocation. »
At the NATO summit in June 2022 in Madrid, this position is strangely not taken up in the context of the « Key Decisions », but in the session « On the Agenda », a priori not voted by the member countries, where the impact of « the brutal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by Russia » is discussed, without any mention of the words « without any justification ». This position is unanimously adopted by the mainstream press and the Western media, without any false note, including in a monthly magazine expert in geopolitics, faithful defender of Hugo Chavez and harsh critic of NATO’s assault on Iraq in 2003, Le Monde Diplomatique.
In its February 2023 issue, where Le Monde Diplo’s expert on African issues, Anne-Cécile Robert, begins her article as such (emphasis added):
« STUPEFACTION and incomprehension run through Western chancelleries, this March 2, 2022, at the announcement of the results of the vote on a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly deploring the aggression perpetrated by Russia and demanding the immediate withdrawal of its troops from Ukraine. If the text is adopted by a large majority … half of the countries that did not support it is African.
If the senior journalist had wanted to remain neutral, she would have used quotation marks; by pointing out later « The enormity of the Russian fault », she takes sides more clearly.
The definition of the Larousse encyclopedia is unambiguous:
Aggressor: Person, country that attacks without having been provoked.
Aggression: An unprovoked and brutal attack on a person or a country.
The alignment with NATO statement is declined in all the monthly. In her article « Pushkin, victim of Putin », the editor Hélène Richard relates the refusal of a teacher to make her pupils aware of « the language of an aggressor state », without quotation marks either.
It seems therefore unquestionable, within the intellectual and over-informed circles, that Russia is the sole aggressor.
Unprovoked?
From December 2021 to February 2022, the East-West confrontation invades the television screens, the diplomatic tension, growing since 2014, is at its peak. Is this the best time for the Ukrainian Armed Forces to shell the civilian and inhabited areas of the Donbass cities?
These strong signs of provocation, deliberate or not, are provided by the OSCE cartographies.
Was Ukraine, advised, co-led or controlled by NATO, preparing to advance on a large city like Donetsk or Horlivka, stuck to the front line, a promise of bloodshed and destruction, given the vital determination of the local populations not to return to the Ukrainian rule? Only the decision-makers and the secret services of each side have the overview to judge the situation.
As Merkel and Poroshenko reminded us, the army was very well prepared. As proof, the line of contact around Donetsk has hardly moved in a year, despite the Russian firepower, and the need to shield the city from the frequent shelling in strictly civilian areas which has not stopped.
To better situate things, we have traced a historical chronology, centered on the crescendo of the NATO-Russia confrontation, and on the events of the maidan followed by the security responses to the demands of the movement opposed to the maidan.
1990/1991:
. At the eve of German reunification, the chancelleries of the NATO countries verbally promised the USSR that NATO would not be extended eastwards (see AFP).
. January 20, 1991: The Crimea is constituted as an autonomous socialist republic by referendum (94% voted for).
. March 17, 1991: Held in nine Soviet republics, including Ukraine, a referendum is approved by 77% of voters to « preserve the USSR in the form of a renewed federation of sovereign republics … « .
. December 8, 1991: A secret agreement between the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus dissolved the USSR without preserving a federal political unit (Gorbachev denounced an « unconstitutional coup »). This gap between political governance and popular will explains certain future instabilities in the states separated from Russia.
. August 24, 1991: Ukraine is declared a sovereign State for the first time in history. Crimea is reintegrated into Ukraine while retaining a partial autonomous status.
1998:
George Kennan, U.S. diplomat strategist for the « containment » of the Soviet Union and the Marshall Plan, calls NATO expansion a « tragic mistake. »
1999:
Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic join NATO.
2004 :
. Accession of eight other states, including the Baltic States.
. The election of the President of Ukraine is contested, and the « Orange Revolution » forces another vote that results in the election of another president, who favors EU membership and rapprochement with NATO.
2004-2010 :
The rapprochement to the West takes shape. Oligarchic corruption does not abate.
2010 :
The candidate Yanukovich, ousted from the presidency through the 2004 Orange Revolution, is finally elected President with strong majorities in the east and south of the country. He has a majority in the regions colored in brown below.
November 2013
After initiating an east-west political rebalancing, negotiating, for example, a reduction in gas rates supplied by Russia, Yanukovich temporarily suspends the association process between Ukraine and the EU. The reason given was that the aid promised by the EU was insufficient to compensate for the opening of the country to competition. The internal opposition and European voices denounced hypothetical pressure from Russia, and a strong protest developed, against a background of persistent corruption. This is the « Revolution of Dignity« , also known as euro-maidan.
February 4, 2014
The conversation known as « F*CK THE EU! » between Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Kiev Geoffrey Pyatt is intercepted and released on February 4. The subject is the composition of a government headed by future Prime Minister Yatseniuk (« Yats« ), where the roles of Svoboda and UDAR party leaders Tiahnibok and Klitschko are also discussed.
February 21, 2014
Riots in Kiev end up with about 50 victims shot dead, including several police officers. Pointed at, President Yanukovich flees to safety. Most of the sniper fire came from buildings occupied by opposition parties and far-right factions (Praviy Sektor, Svoboda…). In all likelihood this is a « false flag » killing, akin to an armed coup under revolutionary context, supported and co-organized by the United States and the opposition (see the academic study by political scientist Ivan Katchanovski, summed up in our analysis).
February 23, 2014
The Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada) votes to repeal the law « On the principles of state language policy », which allowed the administrative use of the Russian language in predominantly Russian-speaking regions. For Ukrainians in the east and south, from Donbass to Odessa, this is confirmation that the revolutionary forces, supported by the United States, centered on the west of the country and Kiev, are driven by a strong anti-Russian, Russophobic or « fascist » tropism. The « anti-Maidan » protest is gaining momentum.
February 27, 2014
Investiture of Prime Minister Yatseniuk, who appoints 7 ministers from the Svoboda and Praviy Sektor organizations, of Russophobic nationalist ideologies with fascist or Nazi tendencies, attached to the cult of Stepan Bandera.
March/June 2014
Anti-Maidan protests are growing throughout Donbass, Mariupol and Odessa. The main demand is the holding of referendums for autonomy or regional federalization of Ukraine, supported by various elected deputies of the Rada (Evgeniy Muraev, Vyacheslav Markin – murdered on May 2 in Odessa -, Oleg Tsarev…).
March 16: Crimea was annexed to Russia following a referendum. Russian troops from the Sebastopol base intervene with the agreement of the local authorities of Crimea, alongside the « self-defense units ».
April 14: Ukrainian President Turchinov signed a decree declaring the disputed regions an « Anti-Terrorist Operation [ATO] zone« , opening the door to military intervention. CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine the same day.
May 2: Odessa massacre.
May 11: Independence referendums in Donbass and Mariupol are held despite government hostility.
The situation deteriorates into a civil war (« ATO » according to the State).
2015 – 2021
February 2015: Signature of the Minsk II agreements. Not respected, they are followed by a latent civil war (see introduction).
June 2021: The Kremlin recalls that Ukraine’s membership in NATO is a « red line » for Moscow.
August 2021: President Zelenskiy signs a decree « On the communication strategy for Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration until 2025″, setting the strategic course for full NATO membership. The next day, an American advisor ostensibly comes to « discuss plans for military cooperation » between the General Staff of Ukraine and NATO.
Facts and Speculation
The 2014 U.S. interference in Ukraine is not discreet, it is massive, admitted and demonstrated by phone intercepts.
Let’s stop at the ostentatiousness of U.S. officials Geoffrey Pyatt and Victoria Nuland, handing out buns in the midst of the Maïdan uprising, prior to their intercepted conversation where they hand out seats in the future Ukrainian government.
Let’s imagine now, in a Germany facing industrial recession, the irruption of massive protests, coming mostly from the former East Germany, by bus and train financed by who knows which oligarchs or NGOs, demanding the exit from the European Union and NATO, and which endanger the elected government. Then, in the middle of Berlin, the Russian ambassador appears, accompanied by Sergei Lavrov’s chief of staff, smilingly offering the rebels shipments of vatruchka – a grape bread fresh cheese Russian specialty.
What would at first the German voters of the current government, who are in favor of the EU, think?
What would the border president Macron, or anyone else, think?
At the very least, they would see this as intrusive and intolerable arrogance.
In Ukraine, the primary targets of this arrogance are the Ukrainian populations opposed to the Maïdan, whether for purely political reasons, or, more seriously, for a mix of political, ethnic and cultural reasons associated with Russian history; the indirect or quasi-direct target being, unavoidably, the Russian Federation.
In a Ukrainian society historically divided between east and west, a newly formed, weak and corrupt State, the alliance between the United States and an opposition ranging from pro-Western liberals to the most fanatical and Russophobic elements, with the aim of overthrowing the elected government, made the advent of a civil war more than predictable. As early as November 2013, the deputy of the Party of Regions Oleg Tsarov denounced in the Rada Assembly « preparations for a civil war in Ukraine » with « direct assistance from the U.S. embassy… »; the French Ukrainian speaking philosopher Marc Sagnol feared as early as May 2014 « the outbreak of a third war. »
As for the extension of NATO, it is widespread and aimed directly at Russia. In Ukraine, the process materialized as early as 2014 with the creation of a post of deputy Prime minister in charge of « Euro-Atlantic integration« , reappointed by President Zelenskiy, who has multiplied since 2019 declarations and decrees (see above), as many affronts to the integrity of Russia.
Nevertheless, from the point of view of international law, Ukraine has the right to seal the military agreements it wants, and did not attack Russia militarily before 2022; neither it, nor NATO, has therefore legally provoked Russia.
Western’s views
As the Western bloc speaks with one voice, its positions are easy to summarize.
Since February 24, the eight years of civil war have been largely obscured, and the bloc essentially relays the position of the Ukrainian state, rarely questioned by the political-media apparatus.
On April 13, 2014, six weeks after its installation, the Yatseniuk government was already calling the regions in anti-Maidan rebellion, extended from Lugansk to Mariupol, an « ATO zone, » for « Anti-Terrorist Operation. » In 2018, President Poroshenko redefines this Operation as aimed at ensuring « national defense, and repelling and deterring armed aggression by the Russian Federation in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts », and the same states in 2023 that « Russia has not complied with any detail of the Minsk Agreement« .
The Ukrainians of Donbass are first erased as « terrorists », without rights, political claims or citizenship, and then they simply disappear behind « Russia », guilty of all the evils. The civil war is not named, it is an « ATO » in Ukraine, and in the eyes of the West, it never really existed, the media having flown over it and then forgotten it, without ever relaying the point of view of the Donbass.
With the « disappearance » of one of the two main actors in the conflict, Russia loses even its role as mediator, which it holds under the Minsk agreements.
It is obvious that the Russian state is not neutral and that it defends its economic and geopolitical neighborhood interests; but it also has a responsibility towards the rebellious population of the Donbass, which is asking for its protection. The possible offensive of the Ukrainian army on Donetsk and Lugansk would run the risk of ethnic and cultural cleansing (passive and/or active) and the flight of millions of refugees to Russia. The consequences would be disastrous for the inhabitants of Donbass, as well as for the stability and legitimacy of the Russian government vis-à-vis its own people, especially since Putin was criticized by certain elected officials in the Duma, notably from the KPRF (Communist Party), for his wait-and-see attitude regarding the diplomatic stalemate with Ukraine and NATO.
The other hypothesis would be that the Kremlin played a double game, formally trying to ensure that the agreements were respected (for example, by pushing for the establishment of pragmatic rules for monitoring cease-fires), while sabotaging them on the ground.
However, it would be necessary to provide proof, motives and, above all, to carry out in-depth investigations. Journalistic investigation is non-existent in the Donbass, apart from a few images shot by channels such as Sky News, and the work of various independent reporters; the OSCE and UN mission reports, as we have seen, are too incomplete to determine the responsibilities and intentions of the actors in the conflict.
Nevertheless, several academics have gathered and synthesized the available information. The most dedicated is the Ukrainian-Canadian political scientist from the University of Ottawa, Ivan Katchanovski, who has published more than a hundred academic investigations and articles on the conflict. In his study on « the secessionist war », he states:
« Various sources show that, despite the Russian government’s persistent denials, Russia’s direct military intervention in Donbass began in late August 2014. It took the form of incursions of several battalion-sized units in order to prevent the defeat of separatist forces and attacks on the cities of Donetsk and Luhansk.
The most important evidence is the following: videos of Russian military convoys, videos of captured Russian soldiers and equipment… satellite images broadcast.
[…]
Indirect evidence of Russian military intervention includes a relatively rapid change in the military situation in the Donbass in August 2014 and February 2015. »
Katchanovsky adds that « a close examination suggests that much of the evidence regarding Russia’s direct military intervention during this initial period was distorted or even fabricated. This concerns claims by Ukrainian and Western governments that Russian military and intelligence units or ‘green men’ were leading the separatist struggle in Donbass from the beginning in the spring of 2014. »
In sum, it was not until the end of August 2014, six months after the overthrow of Mayan, and four months after the start of the « ATO » (Anti-Terrorist Operation), that serious signs of direct support from the Russian Federation to the Donbass revolts appeared.
The question is: How could the Donbass resist a national army?
– The spontaneity of the massive protests against the Maïdan is undeniable, and it is verified in images in this 17 episode documentary.
– The large cities strongly opposed to the Maidan are numerous (Khramatorsk, Mariupol, Slaviansk, Donetsk, Gorlovka, Lugansk…).
– The density of the population that considers the ruling coalition illegitimate is very high in these regions, so the police and military units that turn against Kiev are numerous. All the skills necessary for resistance are mobilized and backed by the population.
– A strong popular determination in the face of a power supervised by the USA, and porous to Banderist fascism as violently demonstrated by the Odessa massacre.
– The army units sent to fight are disconcerted while facing their compatriots, and sometimes defect, returning their weapons and armor to the locals. Several of these sequences were filmed.
– The dense urban configuration from Donetsk to Lugansk forms a favorable barrier from a military point of view (although unfavorable for civilians after the Minsk agreements), limiting the risk of encirclement given the proximity of the Russian border, which also facilitates probable logistical support from Russian neighbors.
Minsk agreements: acceptable compromises?
The special status of autonomy for the Donbass was above all essential for the security and freedom of conscience of its inhabitants. The Agreements aimed to reconcile two principles, antagonistic in this case, enshrined in the United Nations Charter:
– The right of peoples to self-determination (Article 1 paragraph 2).
– Respect for the territorial integrity of a State. (Article 2 paragraph 4).
Eastern Donbass thus remained economically integrated into the national territory, while enjoying significant political and cultural autonomy; given the absolute defiance following the Maidan and the « anti-terrorist » operation, the only peaceful solution to the conflict lay in this compromise signed in Minsk. Of course, the different signatories do not have the same perception of it.
– Ukrainian State.
Obviously, his preference would have been to retain total sovereignty over the Donbass. Would he have accepted the Minsk compromise? We do not know, since he limits himself to pointing the finger of blame at Russia and Putin (see Poroshenko’s remarks). What we do know is that the ultra-nationalists and their Banderist and Fascist components, major actors of the 2014 revolution, and very influential militarily and politically in the following years (see our analysis), were radically opposed to the agreements – especially since pacification amounted to implicitly accepting the annexation of Crimea.
– Self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Lugansk :
Their preference would undoubtedly have been an attachment to Russia, while compliance with the Agreements formed a half-way solution, allowing a return to normal and serene life, and minimal guarantees.
– Russian Federation.
It had a friendly buffer zone on its border in Ukraine. The Agreements did not include any clause on Ukraine’s neutrality, nor did they constrain its non-membership in NATO, so they were a necessary but not sufficient first step towards a diplomatic solution acceptable to Russia.
– United States/NATO/EU
First point, the fate of the populations of the distant Donbass is not the concern of the U.S., and this distance is not compensated in any way by the European vassals, guilty of a deafening silence on the issue.
Second point, the arbitration of the West was crucial to push Ukraine to respect the Minsk agreements. For this, the West had to be satisfied with the Ukrainian regime change, resolutely pro-European and turning its back on Russia; the words of Merkel and Hollande suggest that the West has not encouraged Ukraine to respect the agreements.
Strategists Perspectives
Great inspirer of American foreign policy, Zbigniew Brzeziński successively advised Presidents Carter, Bush senior and then Barack Obama. When in 1979, the CIA planned a « secret operation » in Afghanistan, he warned Carter that this « help would lead to a military intervention of the Soviets. » In an interview with the Nouvel Observateur in 1998, he expressed self-satisfaction on this « excellent idea » which « had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap ».
The same year, Brzeziński declared in a conference: « Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire in Eurasia »; the choice of « an independent Ukraine opposed to Russia » is based, according to him, on « strategic interests and not democratic considerations. »
But for a recent and frank view, we must deport to George Friedman, director of the intelligence agency Stratfor, the « private CIA » made famous by WikiLeaks. He spoke in 2015 at the « Chicago Council on Global Affairs », following the Minsk agreements, evoking, not without irony, the visit to Ukraine of General Hodges who came « to announce that American trainers would henceforth come officially, and no longer unofficially »; such truthful speech is rare enough to be quoted at length:
« Our problem… is actually admitting that we have an Empire ».
« For Russia, the status of Ukraine represents an existential threat, and the Russians cannot let this happen. «
« For the United States, the overriding fear is Russian capital, German technology and capital with Russian natural resources and labor, as the only combination that has scared the US very much for centuries. »
« The real unknown in the European equation is the Germans. «
In the continuity of Brzezinski, George Friedman makes it quite clear: their problem is not specifically Putin, the danger for the American « empire » is a strong Russia, sharing economic ties with Europe, and especially with Germany, whose relations with Russia are « complex » and undecided.
On this perspective, the outbreak of war between Russia and Ukraine is excellent news for the United States. It ensures a clear split between Europe and Russia, not only in economic and political terms, but also in the peoples’ minds, especially since the Kremlin took the initiative for the massive attack.
Russia’s interest in waging this war sounds hazardous. Economically, it did not need it: its GDP has been rising sharply for twenty years, its natural resources are plentiful (Nord Stream II offered a very profitable outlet), its public debt is negligible… The war exposes not only its people, but also its territory and its capital, within range of drones and missiles.
Outcomes
An exhaustive account of the facts and intentions is impossible, especially with regard to the medium and long-term global objectives of the major powers involved in the conflict. However, the visible facts and official positions listed show that from 2014 to 2022, Russia acted essentially in a reactive manner, in the face of an « existential threat » recognized by a leading American political scientist, George Friedman, and acted upon diplomatically by Russia.
We cannot know whether NATO leaders « wanted war ». All we know is that when it comes to proxy wars, the United States has a furnished historical record.
Examples:
– 1979-1989 / USSR-Afghanistan War: CIA-operated destabilization (admitted by Brzezinski); the CIA relies on the Islamist Bin Laden to support armed resistance against the USSR.
– 2011 / Libya: NATO bombing in violation of the UN resolution, against the Gaddafi regime; direct and indirect support to armed rebels (British agents…).
– 2011-2023+ / Syria: Direct or indirect support to armed Islamist aka « moderate rebels ».
Failing to confront reality with these eventualities, the editorialists could have rubbed shoulders with the official assertions. Once again it was François Hollande who, through the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, declared on March 24:
« But Putin wanted war.
This is what Europe and even the United States have not understood. »
The French press has not echoed these words, which have the merit of a clear statement. Perhaps is it the apparent paradox that disturbs them: if the West has been preparing Ukraine for war since 2015 (or before), what had they not « understood »? Hollande explains that they did not react « with sufficient determination », so President Putin would not have believed « that in case of invasion, there would be a very strong response ». The arming of Ukraine by NATO would therefore be a failed deterrence operation, because it was carried out too timidly.
Let us wrap it up: Because « Putin wanted war, » Hollande signed the Minsk agreements without believing in them, betting everything on the military balance of power to the detriment of diplomacy; if deterrence had worked, Putin would have waited for Ukraine to join NATO, which would have made it automatic and legal for NATO troops to intervene in the event of an attack, paving the way for the Ukrainian re-conquest of the Donbass by force. Russia could thus prepare itself for a huge humanitarian and political crisis to manage, with a reinflated and hostile Ukraine on its border.
Not too surprisingly, the political-media apparatus did not play out the Hollandian scenario. In the early months of 2022, the focus was on a Putin who would have lost his mind, disconnected from realities, prey to « pride delirium » and « excess of narcissism », or according to a novelist recently invited by France 5, he would be « basically a thug », head of a « mafia mob ». From the right-wing Le Figaro reader, for whom « Vladimir Putin’s warlike barbarity » is a stock market truth, to the anti-capitalist NPA activist (Nouveau Parti Anti-Capitaliste), summoned to stand in solidarity with the « Syrian people » (which one?) against the « [bourreaux] executioners Assad and Putin », all hear the dominant narrative as a simple confirmation, since Putin is a repeat offender.
This personifying and psychologizing narrative has the effect of evacuating the most important questions: what motives, what national, financial and strategic interests are behind this war?
For those who, like all of us, thought they were victims of disinformation while undergoing intense brainwashing, and who nevertheless dare to face the brutal truth, it is a matter of revisiting the great recent and distant events with a fresh eye. This work of citizen clearing is essential to glimpse the reality of the ongoing war in Ukraine, starting with the conflict that has been raging in Syria for twelve years: the same major actors are present there, the NATO countries more or less directly since 2011, followed in 2015, a pivotal year, by the military intervention of Russia on the basis of a cooperation agreement signed with Syria in 1980 (our analysis based on field sources is proposed in The Western art of disguising its demons).
We cannot ignore the wars in ex-Yugoslavia, where was inaugurated the methodical cynicism of the West, freed from the Soviet counterweight, cynicism all the more effective since European history is full of taboos that have been very well guarded, since 1945 in particular, by the « corporation of historians« .
The false reality imposed on our spirits maintains, among others, two major vices:
– The people are manipulated and paralyzed when faced with the outbreak of wars and conflicts.
– Any reflection on the systemic background that produces these wars is hindered, relegated, indirectly censored, as is consequently any construction of perennial and peaceful alternatives.
As for the targets that are presented to us as « barbaric », it has become impossible to share an intelligent criticism, negative or positive, or to draw elements of inspiration or rejection from them, apart from Pavlovian reflexes; and those who express themselves freely are easily labelled « pro-Putin », pro-Bidule or anti-Truc, translatable as Not Nice! or Nasty! In short, the arena of democratic debate takes the form of a grotesque pugilism not even worthy of schoolyard disputes, where the first to take refuge under the teacher’s skirts is now set up as an inquisitor devoted to the arbitrary tracking down of « conspiracy theorists ».
Illegally locked up somewhere in the dark dungeons of the Free World, Julian Assange, or his spectre, is watching us. Still free to wander about, he rubbed shoulders with the lions of Trafalgar Square in 2011, for a scathing speech against « the majority of the mainstream press », accomplice to these wars which are « the result of lies ».
« Journalists are war criminals, » roared Julian Assange, before drawing the unstoppable and derisive weapon of the unarmed citizens, as a sign of hope:
« If wars can be started by lies, peace can be started by truth. »
Du droit des peuples à disposer d'eux-mêmes 
Laisser un commentaire