A Ukraine Miscellany (X): Clashes on the Russian Frontier and Charges of Torture

The longstanding conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has flared up and dozens are dead as a result of skirmishes. The evidence suggests this latest round of violence was instigated by Baku as Armenia is all but broken and still recovering from its serious defeat in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. It is highly unlikely that they would pick a fight at this time – a point even Western academics and commentators are willing to concede.

But this didn't stop US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken from trying to spin the story – suggesting that Russia was somehow involved in creating the instability, the skirmishes – a cynical ploy on Moscow's part to distract the eyes of the world from its defeat in Kharkiv. It's a ridiculous assertion and not a few people believe the exact opposite is the case – that in fact it was Azerbaijan acting at the behest of NATO – primarily Washington and Ankara making an attempt to pour fuel on the fires of Russia's Kharkiv defeat and generate yet another geopolitical headache for Putin.

Whether this is the case or not – I don't know that anyone can say for sure. It's certainly possible and even plausible – though it seems an unlikely move on Turkey's part at this time. It's also possible that Azerbaijan acted on its own initiative – taking advantage of Russia's moment of weakness. This would make some sense (though a bit of a stretch) as Moscow is the peace broker in the conflict and has secured the disputed borders and the Lachin Corridor which connects Armenia to the Karabakh enclave. A distracted Russia would be less likely to respond or so goes the logic but given the number of peacekeepers this argument actually carries little weight. The situation is easily reinforced and Azerbaijan also benefits from the stability brought by the Russian troops – Armenia has no hope of retaking the territory under the present arrangement.

Or it may be entirely unrelated to the Kharkiv defeat or NATO machinations, and it was simply Baku making a move, further chipping away at Armenia's claims. The American dynamics of its relationship with both Armenia and Azerbaijan is complicated as its human rights narrative and the practicalities of an influential Armenian minority in the United States comes into conflict with geopolitical realities in its relationship with Azerbaijan – one rooted in its resources, Turkishness, and its location on the Caspian Sea between Russia and Iran. Nancy Pelosi can make a token gesture to the Armenian community in the United States but US policy in general has been pro-Turkey and since 1991 pro-Azerbaijan. Washington only tepidly recognized the Armenian Genocide last year – a move directed at Erdogan and the deteriorating relationship between the US and Ankara. Armenia has largely remained within the Russian sphere of influence but the US has been chipping away at that status as well.

As far as Blinken goes he's revealed as either ignorant of world affairs and geopolitics or more likely a calculating and deceitful person willing to lie and make outrageous accusations in order to further the agenda he's been assigned. His record reveals him to be an influential architect of American Imperialism with significant influence and connections. Either way it does not speak well of him – but that's more or less in keeping with American Secretaries of State. And his supposedly Christian predecessor Mike Pompeo was actually even worse.

The same discussion can be had with regard to the recent flare up on the Kyrgyzstan-Tajikistan border. There has been trouble on and off there for several years and so a flare up in violence isn't all that surprising or unexpected. However, it's the timing that has made some sit up and take notice. Once again, was this somehow connected to Russia being on its back foot in light of its Kharkiv defeat? It's possible. It's also possible that money was spread around, orders were given, and provocateurs were turned loose. Why? Once again, the strategy would be to foment instability on the Russian frontier and draw Russian energy and resources into putting out these fires even while it deals with a crisis in Ukraine.

That said, Central Asia has its longstanding boundary tensions – a legacy of Stalin and the Soviet era. The already extant ethnic and border tensions have certainly been heightened by the economic stress of the hour and the presence of Salafism. The economies have long had their troubles but Russian sanctions have exacerbated this as these countries in many respects are still wed to Russia through cultural and economic ties.

It would seem the Western propaganda campaign is really trying to 'lay it on thick' in light of the Kharkiv victory. More money and weapons are flowing to Ukraine and just in case public interest is waning we have renewed reports of war crimes. This times it's mass graves which sounds horrific to be sure but it doesn't necessarily mean anything beyond the normal horrors of war – which when they are deaths that have resulted from US bombs or policy then these things are downplayed and explained away.

The media campaign is meant to promote outrage and therefore it wants to plant ideas like 'mass executions' in the heads of the public. That very well could be but more likely these are people who have died in the battles and both fighters and civilians killed in the crossfire and by bombs and artillery. You can't have hundreds of bodies strewn about rotting in the summer heat. The bodies have to be dealt with and quickly. A mass grave would be a pretty typical response in such an instance.

Is there evidence of torture? I'm not going to take the word of Ukrainian officials. More evidence is needed. Again though, it very well could be. The Russians are certainly capable of it and if the reports are to be believed they've already been engaged in the practice.

But I cannot stand the moralizing tone I'm hearing on outlets like NPR, France 24, and the BBC. They're going on endlessly about the brutality of the Russians and the total destruction of the towns and cities – and how people are unable to bury their dead.

I don't doubt it. War is terrible. But when the US (and/or NATO) does these very same things it's all whitewashed and explained away.

The US has been responsible for mass graves and when you factor in its use of proxy forces, the numbers of dead are considerable. In fact the use of proxies allows the media or US officials to conveniently put the blame on them and then downplay their connections to US command. The same is true with torture, bombed hospitals, weddings, and schools. In these instances all American crimes are whitewashed.

And it's these same media figures that are so distressed over Ukraine that help to cover up America's behaviour – which on the whole has been worse than anything Russia has done and of a far greater magnitude and duration. This is not to excuse Russian conduct which has been atrocious but rather it is discount (if not indict) Western coverage and to reject its moralistic tone. And once again, lacking context, the public cannot follow these stories and interact with them but are instead steered and manipulated by propaganda and demagoguery. Needless to say mainstream coverage (such as ABC, CBS, NBC, and the like) is absurd and insulting.

Regardless of who is to blame for the unrest across Russia's frontier, the incidents reveal a growing danger of a wider war. If these situations truly flare up and break into open conflict, even more players will be drawn in and all the conflicts will begin to overlap.