A Ukraine Miscellany (VII): Proxy War, BRICS, and Roadblocks to the US Plan

It's a point that needs to be reiterated. By failing to provide any kind of context to the war, the reporting on Russia and the responses of Putin to the sanctions regime are effectively spin-jobs. His threats to cut off Eastern European gas are not cases of blackmail, but the result of him being painted into a corner. The sanctions are basically an attempt to blackmail Russia into bowing to NATO. Any resistance on his part is ironically couched as 'blackmail'.

Putin's threats regarding a quick response to outside intervention are presented as menacing and aggressive but once again he finds himself in a serious quandary. He's fighting a war against NATO and losing. He has certainly lost the propaganda war in much of the world. By means of proxy war, economic sanctions, and various other measures his regime is under severe strain and increasingly isolated. They're fighting him but he's not allowed to respond. In fact if Foreign Minister Lavrov or anyone for that matter within the context of US politics or media declares this to be a proxy war between the US/NATO and Russia, they're decried and even mocked by the mainstream media.

And yet the US Secretary of Defense has openly declared the US is in a fight with Russia and military aid to Ukraine is meant to weaken Moscow's military might. That sounds like a proxy war to me.

This is ignored as is the historical weight of Germany's recent shift and willingness to send heavy weaponry to Ukraine. Instead of marking the occasion as historic given Germany's history vis-à-vis Moscow, the media presented it as a question of being 'it's about time.'  

For the Russian people who lost well over twenty million people during Operation Barbarossa and the subsequent Generalplan Ost, along with the Holocaust, it's a significant moment. Russian territory was the largest theatre of the epic conflict known as the Eastern Front of World War II (1941-1945) and the fact that Germany is fighting them again (even if by proxy) is a pretty stunning development and certainly worthy of everyone's reflection.

NATO is making major moves, and is now set to rapidly expand under the shadow of this war. All of this is being downplayed. Any attempt at addressing the issues raised by Russia over the past twenty-some years are ignored or mocked. The anti-Russia faction has won the debate and they are now determined to cement their cultural victory in viciously attacking and dismantling anyone who dares to question their narrative.

Any response on the part of Moscow is spun as aggression, recklessness, and hysteria. It's an impressive and (thus far) very effective propaganda campaign. Once again, not a few of us are amazed that Putin walked into it. It would seem that Western attempts to destabilize Belarus, and Kazakhstan, as well as the rhetoric and actions of NATO in Ukraine along with the political leadership within Kyiv, drove him to the point of believing a strong response was necessary. Now with thousands dead and cities in ruins, he knows it was a trap. But it's hard to feel sorry for him. Despite Western claims he's not the instigator. Nevertheless his hands are dripping with blood.

The media may mock the notion of a US-led proxy war and they continue to claim that such accusations effectively aid Moscow and help Putin to make his case.

And yet I've heard no mainstream news reporters comment on the fact that over fifty billion dollars in military aid has effectively put the Ukrainian military budget into the world's top ten club - that's even if subtractions are made from that amount for 'humanitarian' and 'economic' aid. And I'm sure there's more coming. Nor does this address the financial magnitude of European aid to Ukraine. The numbers in terms of money and weapons are pretty staggering. It's an operation of a kind that has not been seen before, dwarfing the money and weapons poured by the US into Afghanistan during the 1980's – an operation that up till now was considered to be of a massive scale. And this has all been within just a few months. It's the compressed time frame that really makes the numbers staggering.

As I've repeatedly said, the US can talk all it wants about peace but it continues to fan the flames and pour fuel on the fire. This reveals that the talk of peace is little more than a charade.

In the meantime the US is not only supplying sophisticated weaponry to Ukraine, it's providing logistical and intelligence support – classic proxy war tactics. Kyiv would not have been able to sink a Russian missile cruiser without US help. Since then they've also damaged a logistics ship.

And then there are the slain generals. For a dozen generals to be killed in this short time span is to put it simply – incredible. General officers are typically well out of the firing range. Their locations are being pinpointed and they are specifically be targeted in an attempt to decapitate the Russian military leadership. These are battlefield casualties. These are assassinations. Few would call such acts 'war crimes' (though the US would if it were their generals) and yet the actions clearly indicate that Kyiv is receiving help. Not very many nations would have the necessary technology to pull such a thing off – the US clearly does. It will be interesting in the years to come to learn more of this and just what mechanisms were employed. Moscow has denied many of these killings and given that a lot of the information is flowing from dubious intelligence-connected outlets like Bellingcat, one has good reason to doubt.  These are the days of lies. That said, I think it's also clear that Russia is attempting to cover up the magnitude of their losses and battlefield failures. The myth of the Russian Army has by many accounts been exposed. While it's not quite the Potemkin Brigade some are evoking, this is clearly not the army of the Great Patriotic War. Ukraine has put up a stiff fight and has been armed with top of the line weapons in abundance.

In addition to the clear proxy nature of the conflict and NATO-American involvement – there are even greater dangers looming. As Ukraine has driven back the Russian troops in many places, their counter-offensives are increasingly resorting to cross-border attacks, shelling into Russian territory. For the Putin regime this is a vindication of their narrative and frankly such moves reveal the true nature of NATO's interest in Ukraine.

And while the media continues to argue the explosions in the Moldovan breakaway republic of Transnistria are the result of Russian provocateurs, the opposite is likely the case. NATO is on the move and Moldova (and Transnistria) has long been on the agenda. For its part, Russia has seemingly abandoned its original battlefield goals and is now attempting to solidify its claims on the Donbass, establish a land bridge to Crimea and possibly link up with Transnistria. This would land-lock a rump Ukrainian state, rendering it impotent in terms of the geopolitics of the Black Sea, and greatly diminishing its usefulness to NATO. And yet Moscow doesn't need a justification to march toward Transnistria. They're already in the midst of the fight – though Western Ukraine which borders Transnistria has seen little of the action. NATO on the other hand needs a reason or a justification to occupy Moldova and given Transnistria's still dubious claims to independence, the fear (real or perceived) of Russian machinations (such as provocative explosions) would give NATO a reason to intervene if not in Transnistria, then certainly in Moldova.

If Moscow is experiencing its difficulties on the battlefield, Washington is engaged in its own struggles to hold together its war coalition and keep its agenda on track. The goal is clearly a marginalised Russia and preferably the removal of Putin. A decision was made to knock Russia out of the geopolitical chess game. Leaving a revivified NATO to guard the European frontier and contain Russia, the US is determined to direct all its energies against China. The fear was a two-front conflict and so while the debate has been raging for years whether to take on China immediately or take out Russia first – it's clear the debate is over and the Anti-China Blue Team lost this round. Ultimately China is the goal (everyone is agreed), but the sides arguing for China first, and especially the minority that wanted to 'flip' Russia over to the West against China – have lost and are out of favour. In fact any voices of dissent are subject to a McCarthyite campaign and face blacklisting.

But not everyone in the West is following the script.

Turkey is blocking the NATO candidacy of Finland and Sweden. Though both nations have long worked with and alongside NATO and Sweden has long had a special relationship with the US, the push in Washington is to cement the Trans-Atlantic bond and formalize it – and solidify claims and control over the Baltic – where the Russians have both St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad. This is going to turn the Baltic into a high-tension zone as Moscow is certain to augment its arsenals in both locations – including nuclear weapons.

Again, the big conflict is ultimately with China but if Putin isn't ousted or is replaced by another regime that's less than submissive to the interests of the American Empire – then a super-charged and robust NATO will be in place for the new European Cold War. Turkey is playing spoiler and no doubt this is more a case of bitterness and revenge than it is a move to help Moscow. They have other reasons related to Kurdish immigrants in Sweden and the PKK, but ultimately it's Erdogan's attempt to carve out an independent path and a refusal to submit to the machinations of Washington which has long tried to oust him.

V4 members Slovakia and Hungary are also blocking some of the sanctions the EU is trying to impose on Russia. Normally if they were playing a spoiler role in Brussels it would be in the interest of the US. But not in this case. What's happening now is the Right-wing and nationalist impulses of these nations are overriding the trans-national Atlanticist interest in creating a unified bloc against Russia. Nationalism in this case is a thorn in the sides of both Brussels and Washington. The response might be different if a Republican administration was in Washington but that's far from definite. The crisis with Russia and the Ukraine War has thrown many diplomatic paradigms into turmoil and this is one of them.

Further, Italy (along with Hungary) has generated no small degree of irritation in agreeing to make gas payments in rubles. And yet this was declared even while Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi is proposing a shift in the EU foreign policy structure. He is floating a kind of 'pragmatic federalism' that would eliminate national/member veto powers and scrap the need for unanimity when it comes to EU foreign policy decisions. The irony here is that his plan to pay in rubles would probably be nixed if his reforms were implemented.

And despite the massive propaganda campaign there are clearly voices of dissent even within the US. Most would say these sceptics are to be found within the Right, among the Trumpites and some of the FOX crowd – Tucker Carlson in particular. There's some truth to that but as I keep arguing the American Right's opposition is politically motivated and not rooted in ideal or principle. There is still a small group (which has been exaggerated by the mainstream media) that believes Putin is a kind of Christian hero and that Russia is defending Christendom. However the majority of those on the Right were actually opposed to Putin not that many years ago and would cheer on a conflict with Russia if a Republican held the White House. But what has really changed is that their domestic foes the Democratic Party have become the chief antagonists to Putin's Russia. This is what drives their opposition. If the political situation in the US changes they too will quickly cheer on and support US policies directed against Moscow.

The Right talks about 'cancel culture' but the mainstream is waging a rather vicious war on the Left that is being largely ignored. By Left I do not refer to the Democrats who are in fact a Centre-Right party. I refer to the actual Left in the United States which is represented by some sectors of alternative media. They too are subject to 'cancel' culture which belies the claims of the FOX crowd that such machinations are a 'Leftist Plot'. If it is, then explain why the actual Left is under attack? From restricted search results for websites like the WSWS, to the shutting down of RT, to the erasure of YouTube accounts such as those of Chris Hedges, to PayPal's blocking of outlets like Consortium News – it's the Left that's under attack. Twitter and Facebook may tag and silence those on the Right, but they still have FOX! They still have a major outlet – the major television 'news' outlet in the United States. What does the Left have? If you're answering CNN or MSNBC then you've entirely missed the point.

And let's not forget the media blackout of what's happening to Julian Assange.

Beyond these circles we have figures like Pope Francis speaking out, albeit in somewhat ambiguous terms. And yet, he's challenging the narrative. In Brazil, Lula da Silva has condemned the war and yet places much of the blame on Zelenskiy and Biden. While his administration was taken down partly by means of a grand scheme (with American fingerprints all over it) and right now is little more than a thorn in the side of the fascistic Bolsonaro – Lula clearly intends to make a comeback and hopes to win the presidency this fall and undo the Bolsonaro legacy. And this is something Washington does not want to see. The debate has placed Bolsonaro in an awkward place as he's keen to pander to the US and yet he also doesn't support what's happening vis-à-vis Russia.  

Many thought BRICS was doomed with the accession of Bolsonaro but it has survived – perhaps because Brazil is in many respects is not as critical to its fiscal scheme. And yet now in light of the war in Ukraine and Western sanctions everyone is waiting to see what BRICS will do. China and India are not on board with Western sanctions. If Brazil can be brought along and if South Africa doesn't interfere – it can create a financial mechanism to help Russia evade the full force of the sanctions and effectively countermand the US strategy. It would represent a watershed moment and a clear defeat for the US financial arsenal.

The US will be putting tremendous pressure on Brazil and South Africa to nix this plan. And if it destroys BRICS in the process, that would suit Washington just fine. And yet if Lula wins in the fall election, it's 'game on' for BRICS and even if the bloc goes back to being BRIC (minus South Africa), Moscow will have a means to evade some of the worst aspects of the sanctions. But it's only May and a lot can happen before the October general election in Brazil. And BRICS may be gaining momentum. Argentina is being floated as a new potential member and was recently invited by China to attend upcoming meetings.

And though it's well beyond what's being written about here, this tumult and the accompanying tensions have played a significant role in amplifying the roller coaster performance of the crypto-currencies. The US sanctions regime on Russia is a big test and all of the world is watching. Does the US really have that kind of power to break the Russian economy? If it fails, then US prestige will fall to say the least. And the miscalculation could lead to a significant backlash and begin the process of removing the dollar from its position as the world reserve currency. If almost half the population of the Earth (represented by BRICS) breaks with the dollar, the US Empire will face its worst defeat yet.

The stakes are high for many of the players involved. History is being made.