Recently Jeremy Corbyn posted the following Tweet, "I condemn the Russian invasion, the war against Ukraine and the illegal occupation. Today, I asked the Foreign Secretary what role the UN can play in bringing about a process of peace to prevent any further loss of life."
The website Corbynista.org
, has begun to post Corbyn's Tweets and replies received. However, the degree of disinformation expressed in responses to this Tweet by Corbyn was notable. As a result, APEurope Correspondents Pool suggested to Corbynista.org , in good faith, that they should provide a background explanation to the Ukrainian crisis to clarify specific issues. This was produced and once published, Corbynista.org received a large email response asking if what they had stated was in fact true while others accused Corbynista.org of being Putin apologists or Russian agents. However, Corbynista.org, in spite of its name, has nothing to do with Jeremy Corbyn nor is it a Russian agent; it is an independent member of the APEurope media group whose main mission is to inform the public of facts.
This raised concern about the widespread disinformation concerning the origins, motivations and progress of the Ukrainian conflict. It also demonstrated a failure of people to make a direct connection between our government's own decisions and our current economic crisis. Therefore, APEurope Correspondents' Pool decided to turn their Corbynista.org background explanation into an article. This is presented below.
Jeremy Corbyn is, of course right in asking this question. At the popular level it makes sense. However what is happening in Ukraine is, in reality, not what has so far surfaced in the UK media because of a blanket censorship imposed by government, intel and USA. Therefore, Jeremy's question needs to be set within the reality of this hidden background context.
Below we have provided a factual brief on the background to the specific Ukrainian affair. However, an observation of Twitter members' responses and counter positions on Jeremy Corbyn's questions demonstrated a worrying level of misunderstanding of the fundamental reasons as to why the Ukrainian action was and is till promoted by NATO is not understood.
Few align anything to do with Ukraine with the government's current struggle on economic policy to balance the books and close a massive fiscal gap created by the current energy price crisis affecting the population of the Unite Kingdom. The government prefers to continue to support the US State Department objectives rather than concentrate on protecting the interests of the British population. This bizarre state of affairs is tied up with attempts to change the global strategic economic balance in the direction of the USA and UK. It is a fact that Russian-German collaboration, over a long period, has resulted in Germany gaining the world's highest balance of payments in the world, based on very cheap Russian gas. Anthony Blinken has explained the concerns of the USA in his book "Ally versus Ally"
where he describes clearly the concern of the USA over the
|If what is stated here is true,|
Why has the German government supported NATO actions?
Olaf Scholz, the German Chancellor has been advised by German industry of what is going on but he is hampered by the German Minister of Finance and vice Chancellor Habeck, who has no understanding of industrial affairs, and remains unresponsive to appeals by industrialists to the collapse of leading corporations, and by Annalena Baerbock the Foreign Affairs Minister who actively supports NATO actions in Ukraine. Both are committed to supporting the USA. It is not known what the hold the USA has over these two people but it is evident that this government will fall as an increasing number of the German population realizes their role in Germany's downfall.
Russian Siberian pipeline placing the USA at a disadvantage in terms of global competition.
Following the decision to abandon the Gold Standard and move to a fiat currency in 1971, both the USA and UK have lost exports of goods as a result of monetary policy/globalization causing de-industrialization. By 2000 the USA had the world's worst balance of payments for goods (negative) and the UK the second worst (negative).
The State Department has therefore been working to correct this situation by a strategy to undermine existing global competition. They have not adopted a policy of fair competition but have resorted to using sanctions and in many cases military interventions under various guises, to weaken economic rivals. China is of growing concern to the USA but the current target is Germany because it is this country that up until 2022 have the highest balance of payments in goods with China catching up. Since Germany is a NATO member and an "ally", the USA set out to undermine the Germany economy in an indirect manner. To achieve this they have promoted the idea of "Europe's dependency on Russian gas
" as being a strategic security issue. They therefore, under this banner, set out to stop the flow of cheap gas to Germany and Europe. Therefore NATO has been used to make Ukraine a proxy to begin to undermine Russia.
Because Russia, in spite of sanctions, was still offering cheap gas on the basis of long term contracts and Germany industry was pressuring to open Nord Stream 2, the USA, and it is alleged UK, blew up the Nord Stream pipelines to get rid of this option. What is remarkable is that in spite of such action representing the fact that NATO members see the USA and UK, in fact in an economic war with Germany in particular, the EU&, the main media effort is still a destraction strategy focussing of a range of imaginary evils of Russia in order to maintain popular support for Government actions. At the same time this maintains pressue to undermine the image of Russia and to support USA's hidden economic strategy.
As reality sets in, it is unlikely that NATO can survive as the backfiring of NATO's economic sanctions against Russia has created a devastating depression in Europe and UK as a result of this US strategy. NATO strategists have made a fatal error which is likely to kill the organization.
- In 2014 the USA State Department was instrumental in organizing a violent coup against a democratically elected Ukrainian government;
- The USA installed a puppet government with its membership being discussed by Victoria Nuland of the US State Department, via a mobile telephone call, which was intercepted and during which she made the now notorious comment, "..and F*ck Europe"
- The USA State Department involvement was openly admitted/confirmed by Victoria Nuland who stated, in a Washington speech, that the US government had spent some $5 billion to bring this about;
- This US State Department installed Ukrainian government expressed particularly racist views concerning the large ethnic Russian minority in Ukraine as a result of important ministerial positions being occupied by neo-Nazi militia members or people closely associated with them.
Why Russia did not invade Crimea
Starting in 1772, Russia has maintained troops and naval personnel in Sevastopol Crimea for some 250 years including under legally binding leasing agreements with all Ukrainian governments.
In 2014 there were around 15,000 Russian military personnel stationed in and around Sevastopol with family members in Crimea, this is why the claims that Russia invaded Crimea in 2014 are factually incorrect. There was no invasion of Crimea and Crimea and Sevastopol became Russian without a single shot being fired.
"The Russian Squadron on the Sebastopol Roads", 1846 By the Russian, Crimea born, marine artist, Ivan Constantinovich Aivazovsky
- In response to the coup and knowledgeable of the nature of the puppet regime's intent with respect to the ethnic Russian minority in Ukraine, Crimea and Sevastopol which are about 97% ethnic Russian, immediately declared their independence from Ukraine.
- Sevastopol has been the main naval station of Tzarist Russia, the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation since construction began in 1772 (250 years ago) and finished in 1783 . Since that time the growth in the ethnic Russian population has steadily increased.
- At the time of the violent coup in 2014, there were about 15,000 active Russian marine and naval personnel based in Sevastopol, signifying that there was no "invasion" of Crimea by Russia; their military were already there.
- Crimean and Sevastopol leadership requested annexation by Russia. Russia responded by asking these authorities to confirm the wishes of the region's constituents.
- A referendum was soon held with the overwhelming majority, around 98% voting to be annexed by Russia.
- Russia then completed the formalities of having the Duma formalize the annexation.
- The Ukrainian government began to mobilize troops and cur off the water supply to Crimea.
- As separate movements the largely ethnic Russian population of the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Lugansk (Donbass region) also voted to become separated from Ukraine, fearing the intent of the puppet government.
- In Odessa Ukrainian militia murdered around 40 ethnic Russians in the Union House and set this ablaze, any escaping Russians were bludgeoned to death. The police and members of the public did not intervene to prevent this from happening the known perpetrators have never been brought to justice.
- Ukraine initiated military action on what were a Ukrainian minority in Donbass region in 2014.
- The population in Donbass only had local security forces who were poorly armed and initially Ukraine succeeded in bringing about a considerable loss of life of civilians and local Donbass militia, by 2015 this count had risen to around 15,000.
- Russian volunteers joined in this military action on the side of the ethnic Russian Donbass communities which led to a stalemate with the Ukrainians no longer able to continue their campaign of genocide.
- Negotiations to resolve this conflict began in 2014, resulting in Russia and Ukraine agreeing to the Minsk agreement under which there was a cease fire and agreement that the Donbass communities would remain as part of Ukraine under a devolved status (somewhat like United Kingdom's Scottish and Welsh assemblies).
- The notable fact is that Russia relied on the Minsk agreement to arrange a peaceful solution to this conflict and made no claims to either territory or desiring that the Donbass become part of Russia.
- Details concerning the Minsk Agreement were changed slightly in 2015 and France and Germany were guarantors.
- Rather than work to avoid any further conflict and deliver the Minsk Agreement as a peaceful solution and upon which Russia relied to resolve the situation it has since been admitted by ex-President Poroshenko of Ukraine that:
Russian satellite intel and military intelligence observed the build up of Ukraine military around Donbass and the supply of arms and training to the Ukrainian troops
- Ukraine had no intention to implement Minsk;
- NATO began to supply arms to Ukraine;
- NATO countries began to train Ukrainian militia and army;
- Ukraine and NATO was doing this to prepare to continue the Ukrainian genocide directed against the ethnic Russian communities in the Donbass.
The movement and nature of Ukrainian preparations cause the Russian government to conclude that the Ukrainians were preparing to attack the Donbass
Knowing that this military build up and preparation was largely organized by the USA and through NATO, the Russian government, on 17th December, 2021, sent NATO and the USA a communique setting out the "red lines" concerning their position on Ukraine and NATO activities.
The USA and NATO did not respond to this communique seriously but continued to supply arms, advice and training tho the Ukrainian military
In the meantime Russia began to build up it own troops and equipment on the Donbass border in case there was an attack on the Donbass with the objective of protecting the ethnic Russian communities
In February 2022, Ukrainian President Zelensky who had been voted in on a mandate to implement the Minsk agreement, declared he had no intention to implement this agreement.
The Russian Presidential spokesman, stated that, "The Ukrainian side and Mr. Zelensky declare the discussion of the settlement in the southeast as the main goal. But we (Russia) are not a party to the conflict. And the discussion in the southeast should be between President Zelensky and the regionís representatives"
On the morning of February 17, 2022, the Lugansk and Donetsk Peopleís Republics reported some of the most intensive shelling by Kiev forces in recent months was aimed at and destroying houses and civilian facilities. On Friday, 18th February, 2022 the leaders of the Lugansk and Donetsk Peopleís Republics announced the evacuation of the republics' inhabitants to Russia, citing the increasing threat to families and of increasing Ukrainian hostilities.
On 24th February, Russia joined this ongoing military action to protect the threatened Donbass communities.
Paraphrasing the declared intent of the Russian action described as: a Technical Military Action, was to protect the Donbass communities, demilitarize and de-Nazify Ukraine.Note:
In Russian military terminology a technical action has a well-defined and limited objective or objectives. In this case there was no intent to occupy the country or, as some have suggested, to "expand the Russian Empire".
Unfortunately, rather than serve the interests of the British population, the new Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, is doubling down on training and paying for Ukrainian arms in a conflict in which so far around 600,000 Ukrainian troops have been killed or incapacitated. In spite of "counter-offenses" declared to be successes by Western media, any advances were made possible by Russian withdrawals awaiting an additional 320,000 Russian reservists. So far Russia has only committed 150,000 troops or 7% of their total complement. Ukraine is bound to lose this affair. A recent incident where a Ukrainian antiaircraft missile misfired or was misdirected, landed in Poland killing two people. The Ukrainian President tried to insist that this was Russian missile and that Article 5 should be invoked, demonstrating that he wished NATO to attack Russia. NATO does not have either the troops or equipment to fight Russia having depleted their stocks supplying Ukraine.
Following the destructive way in which the USA has attempted to correct its lack of competitiveness and our national support for this fray has turned out to be highly prejudicial for the British economy and to the wellbeing of the people of this country. If amongst the country's leadership there be someone who sincerely believes in the importance of this country's sovereignty as being the basis of independence and a way to defend the interests of the people against meddling by foreign interests, then there is a need to demonstrate statesmanship by talking directly to the relevant individuals in the government of the Russian Federation. The purpose should be to negotiate a means of removing sanctions and returning to the situation before 2022 when Russia had requested a response to strategic security statements to avoid military confrontation. It is self-evident that NATO has simply acted as a means whereby the USA has been able to orchestrate its economic strategy which has had nothing to do with defence but rather offence, starting with the violent coup against the government of Ukraine in 2014.