While much of the western media is fretting over the decision by US President Donald Trump to withdraw American troops from northern Syria there is another potential conflict brewing. This time, the trouble is, once again, coming from Ukraine, where NATO may end up getting the confrontation with Russia they so desire.

Last month, the long-simmering tension between Russia and Ukraine came to a head when Ukrainian Navy ships entered the Sea of Azov heading towards the Kerch Strait. According to Moscow, this was a violation of Russia’s territorial waters and resulted in the Ukrainian ships being stopped by Russian vessels and 24 sailors being detained.

Even though this event took place in late November and now it is almost January, the fate of the Ukrainian sailors seems settled with the denial of an appeal by five of the detainees by a Russian court this week. The court decided against the appeal of five of the sailors to end their time in custody and declared that they would be held by Russia until the end of January.

Predictably, all 24 of the Ukrainian sailors didn’t take the news of the failed appeal well as they have already been attempting to use their arrests as propaganda. The sailors’ legal team even doubled down on this after the ruling, with one of their Russian lawyers, Nikolai Polozov posting on Facebook that “As of December 27, all 24 captured Ukrainian sailors told the investigation that they were prisoners of war.”

While it may seem surprising to hear a Russian lawyer say this, he is likely just reflecting his clients’ attitudes. This is also a reflection of the overall attitude of the Ukrainian government which now considers Russia stopping their vessels from violating their territory as “an attack.”

In fact, following the last “attack,” Ukraine has done nothing but prepare for a future act of Russian aggression which they say is likely. The initial sign of this attitude was the fact that Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko declared martial law following the incident in November to prepare the military for potential conflict (which likely didn’t work) and, although he has called it off now, the military is now fully ready for a confrontation.

This sentiment was voiced publicly as recently as this past holiday weekend when Vice Admiral Andriy Tarasov, chief of Ukraine’s naval staff told Kyiv post that “There’s a war going on, initiated by Russia…and this war is raging at the sea too, since 2014. Whether we want and don’t want to lay low at bases and offices; we have to fulfill our duties regarding the protection of our sovereign interests. And the sovereign interests of Ukraine apply to the Kerch Strait as well.” Tarasov then went on to warn Russia that, should they attack again his country is “fully entitled by international and Ukrainian law,” to apply the rules of war to the situation as far as military responses go.

Moscow, for their part, has called out this dangerous behavior by the military junta that still rules in Kiev since the Euromaidan coup in late 2013. Following these latest threats by Ukraine to respond to an attack that hasn’t happened (and that there are no signs of) Russian officials have rightfully deemed this language as provocative.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said as much on the 24^th when she told reporters that based on Kiev’s actions, “it is quite possible” Ukraine “might switch to full-scale combat actions within the next few days.” Most western media, of course, treated Zakharova’s statement as the provocation yet this was at the same time that Kiev had ordered more troops to their border with Russia in preparation for a potential clash.

As of right now, Kiev and Moscow are currently in a standoff and it is unclear which side (probably Ukraine) if any, is going to make the first actual military move but the two countries are continuing to fight in the economic sphere (as has always been the case). Russia has already expanded their sanctions on Ukraine freezing the assets of 68 Ukrainian companies and over 300 individuals.

There are also elections in Ukraine next year and these further sanctions, on top of the rampant government corruption, are likely to make things hard for Poroshenko who already has lost the support of over 50% of Ukrainians according to some polls. With election prospects like these, Poroshenko may be looking to make a grand gesture to drum up support among voters. While an attack by Ukraine on Russia would presumably need NATO support before going forward, Poroshenko may be getting desperate enough to skip that step.

geopoliticsalert.com

In accordance with Kosovo not being a UN member state and the Serb position on UN Security Council Resolution 1244 (recognizing Kosovo as a continued part of Serbia), the disputed former Yugoslav territory wasn't formally represented at the discussion as a nation. Kosovo's leader, Hashim Thaci, sat with a nameplate having his name, as opposed to Kosovo. Countries recognizing Kosovo's independence made it a point to state Thaci as the president of Kosovo and Aleksandar Vučić as president of Serbia. Nations not recognizing Kosovo's independence referred to Thaci as either Mr. Thaci or Mr. Hashim Thaci and Vučić as the president of Serbia.

The UK was excessively biased against Serbia. Vučić noted the difference between the UK's stance, versus a comparatively more objective approach among some other countries that recognized Kosovo's independence. Kosovo's independence is partly premised on a non-binding 2010 International Court of Justice advisory opinion, which said that Kosovo's declaration of independence didn't violate international law, while not saying whether Kosovo is properly independent, or should be independent. Having the right to declare independence doesn't by itself mean that such a declaration should be fully recognized by others.

The Serb and Kosovo leaders expressed differences of opinion on the conflict in Kosovo over the years. Vučić was the more even handed. Not mentioned was the casualty figure in Kosovo before the 1999 Clinton administration led NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia (then consisting of Serbia and Montenegro). In that period, the Serbs had the disproportionately greater casualty number. Within a 18 to 24 month period before the NATO action, 1,500-2,000 were killed out of a Kosovo population put at about 2 million. Serb casualties were in the 500-600 range. At the time, Kosovo had an Albanian population that was listed as high as 90%, with Serbs being somewhere around 10%. Serb sources note that their proportionate number in Kosovo has dwindled over the decades for several reasons, which include Albanian nationalist terrorism, some Serbs finding better opportunities elsewhere, a comparatively higher Albanian birthrate and a migration of Albanians from Albania to Kosovo.

Thaci stated a wildly unproven figure of 20,000 raped in Kosovo by Serb forces. In the former Yugoslav wars, the purpose of number trumping casualties was for the losing party/parties to make the suffering look worse than reality, for the purpose of goading foreign military support for their side. In addition to Kosovo, this tactic was evident in the earlier Bosnian Civil War.

In that Bosnian conflict, I very much recall the claims of a 200,000-350,000 casualty figure range, as well as some far fetched rape figures, said without meaning to diminish the seriousness of such a crime, regardless of the ethnicity of the perpetrator and victim. At the end of the Bosnian Civil War, others like myself, deduced that the actual fatality number was somewhere between 75,000-125,000. Years later, there has been a universal acknowledgement that the Bosnian Civil War death toll was in the area of 100,000. Those who wrongly hedged on the higher 200,000-350,000 figure, are nevertheless more likely to get greater Western mass media access, than the ones that got it right from the get go. (A related Bosnian Civil War fatality issue, concerns the different numerical takes of summary executions in and near Srebrenica.)

As the UN Security Council discussed Kosovo, the UN General Assembly voted in favor of a non-binding pro-Kiev regime resolution on the Azov Sea. Notwithstanding, most of the UN member states didn't vote for that resolution, with numerous abstentions and some no shows. Regarding the recent Kerch Strait incident (where the Azov Sea and Black Sea meet), a December 13 Consortium News feature, includes some comparisons that you'll be hard pressed to find in US mass media circles.

Excerpt –

"As I said, I think the Russians had every right to be suspicious of the intent of the Ukrainian vessels. The Ukrainians know that these are Russian territorial waters. They know that the only way to go through the Kerch Strait is by making use of a Russian pilot. They refused to allow the Russians to pilot the ships through the strait. Whatever the Ukrainians’ ultimate intent was—whether it was to carry out an act of sabotage, to provoke the Russians into overreaction and then to demand help from NATO, or simply to go through the strait without a Russian pilot in order to enable President Poroshenko to proclaim the strait as non-Russian—whatever Kiev’s intent was, the Russians were entitled to respond. The force the Russians used was hardly excessive. In similar circumstances, the US would have destroyed all of the ships and killed everyone on board. Recall, incidentally, Israel has seized Gaza flotilla boats and arrested everyone on board. In 2010, the Israeli Navy shot nine activists dead during a flotilla boat seizure, and wounded one who died after four years in a coma."

I'm not so sure about the aforementioned US hypothetical. The Israeli example underscores that Russia acted in a peacefully responsible way, followed by some hypocrisy against it at the UN. Nikki Haley is right about a biased element at the UN. The likes of her don’t acknowledge their contribution to some of the unfair biases.

This excerpt from the Consortium News feature brings into play the matter of Kosovo –

"During the recent incident, the Ukrainian Navy acted provocatively, deliberately challenging the Russians. As for what the UNSC accepts, how would NATO respond if Serbia entered Kosovo on some pretext or other?"

The last thought hits home on a point I repeatedly make on how the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia has served to impress Russia that pious BS aside, might essentially makes right. BTW, Kosovo doesn't stand out as being socioeconomically and multi-ethnically better off than Crimea.

George Szamuely is a Hungarian-born scholar and Senior Research Fellow at London’s Global Policy Institute. He lives in New York City. I spoke to him about escalating hostilities on Russia’s Ukrainian and Black Sea borders and about Exercise Trident Juncture, NATO’s massive military exercise on Russian borders which ended just as the latest hostilities began.

Ann Garrison: George, the hostilities between Ukraine, NATO, and Russia continue to escalate in the Sea of Azov, the Kerch Strait, and the Black Sea. What do you think the latest odds of a shooting war between NATO and Russia are, if one hasn’t started by the time this is published?

George Szamuely: Several weeks ago, when we first talked about this, I said 60 percent. Now I’d say, maybe 70 percent. The problem is that Trump seems determined to be the anti-Obama. Obama, in Trump’s telling, “allowed” Russia to take Crimea and to “invade” Ukraine. Therefore, it will be up to Trump to reverse this. Just as he, Trump, reversed Obama’s policy on Iran by walking away from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal. So expect ever-increasing US involvement in Ukraine.

AG: NATO’s Supreme Commander US General Curtis M. Scaparrotti is reported to have been on the phone with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko “offering his full support.” Thoughts on that?

GS: There has been a proxy war within Ukraine since 2014, with NATO backing Poroshenko’s Ukrainian government and Russia backing the dissidents and armed separatists who speak Russian and identify as Russian in Ukraine’s southeastern Donbass region. But in the Kerch Strait the hostilities are between Russia and Ukraine, with NATO behind Ukraine.

A shooting war will begin if it escalates to where NATO soldiers shoot and kill Russian soldiers or vice versa. Whoever shoots first, the other side will feel compelled to respond, and then there’ll be a war between Russia and NATO or Russia and a NATO nation.

We don’t know whether NATO would feel compelled to respond as one if Russians fired on soldiers of individual NATO nations—most likely UK soldiers since the UK is sending more of its Special Forces and already has the largest NATO military presence in Ukraine. Russia could defeat the UK, but if the US gets involved, all bets are off.

Szamuely: U.S. ready to fight to last Brit

AG: It’s hard to imagine that the US would allow Russia to defeat the UK.

GS: It is, but on the other hand, the US is the US and the UK is the UK. The United States might well be ready to fight to the last Brit, much as the United States is definitely ready to fight to the last Ukrainian. There are already 300 US paratroopers in Ukraine training Ukrainians, but the British would be well advised that words of encouragement from Washington don’t necessarily translate into US willingness to go to war.

AG: The US Congress passed a law that US troops can’t serve under any foreign command, so that would require US command.

GS: Yes, and without that, any British military defeat could be blamed on traditional British military incompetence rather than US weakness or foolish braggadocio.

AG: This latest dustup between the Russian and Ukrainian navies took place in the Kerch Strait. I had to study several maps to understand this, but basically neither Russian nor Ukrainian vessels, military or commercial, can get to or from the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea without passing through the Kerch Strait. That doesn’t mean that neither could get to the Black Sea, because both have Black Sea borders, but they couldn’t get from ports in the Sea of Azov to the Black Sea and back.

And neither Ukraine nor Russia can get from the Black Sea to Western European waters without passing through the Bosporous and Dardanelles Straits in Turkey to the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas, and then further to the Atlantic Ocean through the Strait of Gibraltar, which is bordered on one side by Spain and the British territory of Gibraltar, and on the other by Morocco and the Spanish territory Ceuta. So there are many geo-strategic choke points where Russian ships, naval or commercial, could be stopped by NATO nations or their allies, and Ukraine has already asked Turkey to stop them from passing through the Bosporus Strait. Thoughts on that?

GS: Well, of course Ukraine can ask for anything it likes. There’s no way in the world Turkey would try to stop Russian ships going through the Bosporus Strait. That would be a violation of the 1936 Montreux Convention and an act of war on the part of Turkey. It isn’t going to happen. As for the Kerch Strait, it is Russian territorial water. Ukraine is free to use it and has been doing so without incident since 2014. The only thing the Russians insist on is that any ship going through the strait use a Russian pilot. During the recent incident, the Ukrainian tug refused to use a Russian pilot. The Russians became suspicious, fearing that the Ukrainians were engaged in a sabotage mission to blow up the newly constructed bridge across the strait. You’ll remember that an American columnist not so long ago urged the Ukrainian authorities to blow up the bridge. That’s why the Russians accuse Kiev of staging a provocation.

AG: There’s a longstanding back channel between the White House and the Kremlin, as satirized in Dr. Strangelove. Anti-Trump fanatics keep claiming this is new and traitorous, but it’s long established. Obama and Putin used it to keep Russian and US soldiers from firing on one another instead of the jihadists both claimed to be fighting in Syria. Kennedy and Khrushchev used it to keep the Bay of Pigs crisis from escalating into a nuclear war. Shouldn’t Trump and Putin be talking on that back channel now, no matter how much it upsets CNN and MSNBC?

GS: Well, of course, they should. The danger is that in this atmosphere of anti-Russian hysteria such channels for dialogue may not be kept open. As a result, crises could escalate beyond the point at which either side could back down without losing face. What’s terrifying is that so many US politicians and press now describe any kind of negotiation, dialogue, or threat-management as treasonous collusion by Donald Trump.

Remember Trump’s first bombing in Syria in April 2017. Before he launched that attack, Trump administration officials gave advance warning to the Russians to enable them to get any Russian aircraft out of harm’s way. This perfectly sensible action on the part of the administration—leave aside the illegality and stupidity of the attack—was greeted by Hillary Clinton and the MSNBC crowd as evidence that the whole operation was cooked up by Trump and Putin to take attention off Russia-gate. It’s nuts.

AG: Most of us have heard Russia and NATO’s conflicting accounts of why the Russian Navy seized several Ukrainian vessels in the Sea of Azov. What’s your interpretation of what happened?

Poroshenko: Provocation with elections near?

GS: As I said, I think the Russians had every right to be suspicious of the intent of the Ukrainian vessels. The Ukrainians know that these are Russian territorial waters. They know that the only way to go through the Kerch Strait is by making use of a Russian pilot. They refused to allow the Russians to pilot the ships through the strait. Whatever the Ukrainians’ ultimate intent was—whether it was to carry out an act of sabotage, to provoke the Russians into overreaction and then to demand help from NATO, or simply to go through the strait without a Russian pilot in order to enable President Poroshenko to proclaim the strait as non-Russian—whatever Kiev’s intent was, the Russians were entitled to respond. The force the Russians used was hardly excessive. In similar circumstances, the US would have destroyed all of the ships and killed everyone on board. Recall, incidentally, Israel has seized Gaza flotilla boats and arrested everyone on board. In 2010, the Israeli Navy shot nine activists dead during a flotilla boat seizure, and wounded one who died after four years in a coma.

AG: Don’t the US, Ukraine, and the UN Security Council refuse to recognize the Kerch Strait as Russian territory, and insist that Russia’s claim to it violates various maritime treaties? I know the UNSC refuses to recognize the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, not that that does Syria any good.

GS: According to the 2003 agreement, Russia and Ukraine agreed to consider the strait as well as the Sea of Azov as shared territorial waters. From 2014 on, Russia considered the strait as Russian waters, though it’s made no attempt to hamper Ukrainian shipping. The Azov Sea is still shared by Russia and Ukraine. During the recent incident, the Ukrainian Navy acted provocatively, deliberately challenging the Russians. As for what the UNSC accepts, how would NATO respond if Serbia entered Kosovo on some pretext or other?

AG: OK, now let’s go back to NATO’s Exercise Trident Juncture, a massive military exercise on Russia’s Scandinavian and Arctic borders that concluded on November 24, one day before the Kerch Strait incident. The first phase was deployment, from August to October. The second phase was war games from October 25th to November 7th. The war games were based on the premise that Russia had invaded Scandinavia by ground, air, and sea. They included 50,000 participants from 31 NATO and partner countries, 250 aircraft, 65 naval vessels, and up to 10,000 tanks and other ground vehicles, and I hate to think about how much fossil fuel they burned.

The final phase was a command post exercise to make sure that, should NATO forces ever face a real Russian invasion of Scandinavia, their response could be safely coordinated in Norway and in Italy, far from the war zone.

So George, do Scandinavians have reason to worry that Russia might invade any of their respective nations?

GS: Not at all. This is ridiculous. It was the largest military exercise since the end of the Cold War, and why? Why did they do this? Russia isn’t threatening Scandinavia, but it’s more likely that it will if NATO continues conducting war games on its borders. Right now tension between East and West is escalating so fast that a single event could be like a match that triggers an explosion, and then there’ll be a war.

Stranger than Strangelove

AG: There was a recent Russian exercise, or joint Russian and Chinese exercise, based on the premise that the US had invaded Korea, right?

GS: Right. But it wasn’t anywhere near Europe, so it wasn’t threatening the Europeans. It took place in eastern Siberia, so it shouldn’t have caused panic in NATO countries. It shouldn’t have caused panic in the US either, because the Pacific Ocean separates the US and the Korean Peninsula.

What’s striking about Trident Juncture is that it involved Sweden and Finland, both of whom are traditionally neutral. They were neutral during the Cold War, not joining any alliances. Finlandization came to mean a foreign policy that in no way challenged or antagonized the USSR. So now here’s Finland rolling back that policy and joining NATO in this massive military exercise to stop nonexistent Russian aggression.

AG: Has Russia ever attempted to seize territory outside its own borders since the end of the Cold War?

GS: No. Russia never attempted to seize territory outside its own borders. The case cited by the West is Crimea, but that was really an outstanding issue that should have been addressed during the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Boris Yeltsin, the drunken, incompetent stooge that the US installed, just neglected it.

The Russian-speaking and Russian-identified people of Crimea were unhappy about Ukraine claiming sovereignty over them. They had been an autonomous republic within the USSR, and after its dissolution, they still retained their constitutional autonomy. That’s what gave them the right to hold a referendum to join the Russia Federation in 2014.

If the West is involved in an uprising, as in Ukraine, it recognizes the “independence” of the government it puts in power. It won’t recognize the constitutional autonomy of Crimea, which predated the 2014 Ukrainian revolution or illegal armed coup, whichever you call it, because it wasn’t part of their plan.

AG: The NATO nations and their allies say that Russia invaded and occupied Crimea, violating Ukrainian sovereignty according to international law. Democracy Now’s Amy Goodman referred to the “illegal annexation” of Crimea at least three times after the Kerch Strait incident. How do you explain the presence of Russian soldiers in Crimea prior to the referendum?

GS: They didn’t invade and occupy Crimea. Their forces were there legally, according to a 25-year lease agreement between Russia and Ukraine.

Crimea had been a part of Russia for more than 200 years. For most of the time, during the USSR era, it was an autonomous republic within the Russian Federation. In 1954, Khrushchev transferred some degree of sovereignty over the Crimean Republic to Ukraine. I’m not entirely sure why he did that, but the issue wasn’t that important then because Ukraine, Russia and Crimea were all part of the USSR.

Khrushchev didn’t envisage an independent Ukraine walking off with such a prize piece of real estate. Crimea is not only a huge tourist destination, it is also the site of Russia’s primary naval base on the Black Sea in Sevastopol. Yeltsin failed to address the problem in 1991. Since then, every time Crimeans talked about holding a referendum on their future, Kiev threatened to use force to stop them. Kiev would have used force again in 2014 if the Russians in the Port of Sevastopol had not left their Crimean base and made their presence known.

AG: The US, aka NATO, has an empire of military bases all over the world, and troops right up against Russia’s borders as in Exercise Trident Juncture. Does Russia have anything remotely like it?

NATO practices war with Russia. Exercise Trident Juncture (Master-Corporal Jonathan Barrette, Canadian Forces Combat Camera)

GS: No. Russia does not have military bases outside its borders, which are now more or less as they were in 1939, when the USSR was surrounded by hostile states that were more than happy to join Hitler. So it’s ridiculous to tell Russia, “Don’t worry about our troops and war games all over your borders because we don’t really mean any harm.” Washington is calling Russia an existential enemy, and the UK is promising to stand shoulder to shoulder with its NATO allies and partners against “Russian aggression,” which is really Russian defense. So now we have an explosive situation on the Ukrainian and Russian borders that could easily turn into a shooting war.

AG: I read some US/NATO complaints that Russia was conducting exercises on its own side of the border. And last week NATO accused the Russian military of jamming its signals during its rehearsal for a war on Russia’s borders.

GS: Yes, that’s what the US considers Russian aggression, even though its troops and bases are all over the world and all over Russia’s borders.

AG: Competition between US and Russian energy corporations is one of the main undercurrents to all this. The US State Department even said that Europe should abandon the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline project with Russia because of the Kerch Strait incident, but that received a cool response, particularly from Angela Merkel. What are your thoughts about that?

GS: Well, obviously, the Trump administration is determined to push the Europeans to give up on natural gas from Russia and to opt, instead, for US liquefied natural gas (LNG). The problem is that LNG shipped across the Atlantic is much more expensive than natural gas piped to Europe from Russia. So it’s clearly not in the interests of the Europeans to have a bigger energy bill. Look what’s happening in France. Ordinary people are not making so much money that they can afford to shell out more for energy, particularly when there is no need to do so. Some countries such as Poland are so imbued with hostility toward Russia that they’re willing to pay more for gas just to hurt Russia, but Germany won’t go down this path.

AG: Anything else you’d like to say for now?

GS: Yes, I think it’s amazing that this many years after the Cold War we’ve reached a point where there’s almost no public criticism of a policy that has led to the US abandoning a major arms control agreement, namely the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty signed in 1987.

There’s almost no public criticism of the US getting involved in an armed confrontation on Russia’s doorstep, in Ukraine, Syria, Iran, or conceivably even Scandinavia. There’s almost no public criticism of roping formerly neutral European powers like Sweden and Finland into NATO military exercises.

Given the fact that the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that went into effect in 2011 will expire in 2021, and given that there’s nothing on the horizon to take its place, this is an extraordinarily perilous point in time.

And much of this has to be blamed on the liberals. The liberals have embraced an anti-Russian agenda. The kind of liberal view that prevailed during the Cold War was that we should at least pursue arms control agreements. We might not like the Communists, but we need treaties to prevent a nuclear war. Now there’s no such caution. Any belligerence towards Russia is now good and justified. There’s next to no pushback against getting into a war with Russia, even though it could go nuclear.

consortiumnews.com

Photo: Flickr

It seems clear – and criminally reprehensible – that the Kiev regime and its President Petro Poroshenko are intent on dragging the United States and the NATO military alliance into a war with Russia. The incendiary conduct of Ukrainian politicians and their military is that of a regime out of control, with no regard for maintaining international peace. But this Frankenstein creation is entirely the responsibility of the American and European governments which have enabled and condoned its reckless behavior.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova got it right when she said that Russia is the party which is preventing Europe from sliding towards war by stoically containing the Kiev regime’s provocative conduct. Yet the regime turns reality on its head by claiming that it is “defending Europe” from “Russian aggression”.

The recent Kerch Strait incident was a cynical and flagrant attempt by Poroshenko to incite a conflict with Russia. The three Ukrainian warships violated Russian maritime borders in a deliberately menacing maneuver. Moscow was within its legal right to apprehend the heavily armed vessels and 24 crew members some of whom were secret services.

Absurdly, the Kiev regime is accusing Russia of “lawlessness”. More perplexing, the US and European governments appear to have bought into that perverse narrative and are also haranguing Russia over the incident. Poroshenko has been doing the US and European media rounds urging American and NATO military support.

This week it was reported that the US Navy 6th Fleet is planning to send a warship into the Black Sea area “in response to Russian aggression”. US warplanes also reportedly this week flew over Ukrainian territory under the so-called Open Skies treaty, in a blatant show of force to Moscow.

Following the Kerch Strait incident, the Kiev regime has gone several steps further in inflaming tensions with Russia.

It is renewing the push for an historic schism in the Russian Orthodox Church. Evidently, the politicians in Kiev are trying to incite sectarian conflict between Ukrainians, many of whom wish to remain part of the Russian Orthodox denomination rather than a putative new, separate church of Ukraine. The nefarious agenda is also to antagonize Moscow which will be obliged to defend the security of its church interests and members.

There were also credible reports of the Ukrainian Armed Forces this week mobilizing artillery and troops on the Contact Line with the breakaway Donbas regions of Luhansk and Donetsk. The Kiev regime has been waging a low-intensity war against the ethnic Russian people in Eastern Ukraine over the past four years because they refuse to accept the legitimacy of the February 2014 coup which ousted an elected government. Despite an international peace treaty, the Minsk Accords of 2014 and 2015, the Kiev regime has shown no signs of granting autonomy to the Donbas regions and has continued its aggressive military campaign. This week’s mobilization of UAF – and reports of NATO troops also present – raises concerns that the Kiev regime is deliberately destabilizing the region.

Poroshenko and his Russophobic cabal are calling on NATO for support in the event of a confrontation with Russia. This is a reckless premeditated pursuit of war, which has been a tendency by the Kiev regime ever since it illegally seized power in the CIA-backed coup d’état in 2014. The US and European governments bear responsibility for creating the highly dangerous situation by their fawning over Kiev with military and financial support.

The resonance with the origins of World War II is too alarming to ignore. It was through the Ukraine that the German Third Reich launched its catastrophic offensive on Soviet Russia in June 1941. Today, the Kiev regime is all too reminiscent of Neo-Nazi affiliation and a rabid anti-Russian mentality. Its unhinged conduct is being indulged by American and European governments, military and media – either out of ignorance or, more sinisterly, out of calculated intent to prompt confrontation with Russia.

It is only 73 years since the end of World War II. Incredibly, despite living memory of that horror, the world is being endangered again by criminal disregard for international law. And in the same geographical location.

Western governments are fully responsible for the present instability and potentially incendiary situation. They must act immediately to restrain the Kiev regime – if, that is, they genuinely want to uphold peace with Russia.

Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), a co-author of the bill and a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, believes Russian President Vladimir Putin is "testing the West." In his interview with CNN, he said “I would love to see a multinational freedom of navigation operations into the Kerch Strait – into the Sea of Azov. We need to have a presence there. We need to probably do more military exercises.” The US FY2018 defense policy bill authorized the administration to provide Ukraine with air and coastal defense systems as well as littoral-zone and coastal defense ships.

Hardly can anything be more provocative than the idea of international drills in the area. The Azov Sea is too shallow for warships to operate. The only vessel to do it is the US littoral combat ship (LCS) but its lacks firepower. The vessel is known to have too many flaws It is one of the projects to gobble up much money with little efficiency produced in return. Anyway, it cannot stay in the Black Sea for more than 21 days in accordance with the 1936 Montreux Convention.

The 2003 Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Ukraine on cooperation in the use of the sea of Azov and the Strait of Kerch states the Sea of Azov and the Strait of Kerch are the internal waters of Russia and Ukraine and specifies no precise borders. A naval vessel can cross the Kerch Strait to enter the Azov Sea only for a port call upon an invitation of one side and with the consent of the other. No military exercises are possible without Moscow’s approval. It’s not about taking measures to prevent other countries from coming to the Azov Sea, but rather making them comply with the international agreement in force.

The last thing the Black Sea region needs is another provocative exercise that could spark a fire there at any moment. Complying with the Incidents at Sea Agreement (INCSEA) is of crucial importance. It already prevented an armed conflict that was very likely during the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

The adoption of the resolution is part of a bigger picture. Just a few days ago the bill dubbed Stopping Russia Nuclear Aggression Act was introduced in Congress to endanger the future of arms control because it contains provisions unacceptable for Russia. The authors know well that signed into law it would kill any hope for maintaining restrictions on arms race. True, the US GDP is much larger but Russia’s defense programs are more efficient. Moscow gets a bigger bang for its buck. Unlike the US, Russia is not shouldering the heavy burden of the national debt exceeding the national gross domestic product.

One bill under consideration is aimed at erosion of arms control that has been considered to be the pillar of the country’s national security. The other is fraught with provoking the US Navy into a conflict that has no whatsoever relation to the country’s interests and would take place in the area situated far away from the continental United States. US lawmakers introduce one draft law after another to bring closer a conflict with the country that Henry Kissinger, a foreign policy veteran, views as «an essential element of any new global equilibrium». Hopefully, the members of US Congress will make a thorough assessment of consequences before they vote. 

Last Sunday, Kiev pulled off a stunt against Russia that was so utterly stupid and reckless it could only have been carefully planned. 

Three Ukrainian naval vessels deliberately crossed into Russia’s maritime border in the Black Sea without first obtaining permission from Russian authorities. Ignoring calls from the Russian Coast Guard to stop, the vessels continued towards Russia’s Kerch Strait, where Moscow just put the finishing touches on the 11-mile Kerch Strait Bridge that connects the Russian mainland and Crimea. Given the heightened tensions of late, the Russians had every reason to believe they were dealing with a potential case of terrorism on the high seas. Six Ukrainian crew members were wounded in the ensuing melee.

If Kiev, not to mention Western powers, were looking for any sign of the so-called ‘Russian aggression’ they’ve been clamoring about ever since Crimea voted to join the Russian Federation, they finally got their wish. Never mind, however, that Kiev appears to have deliberately staged the provocation.

Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) released footage of three of the sailors admitting on publicly released footage that they were “following orders” by willfully entering Russian territorial waters without permission. At the same time, two members of the Ukrainian Security Service, or SBU, were also apprehended aboard the boats. The FSB concluded that the event was a “provocative act of the Ukrainian Navy executed upon direct orders by the government in Kiev.”   

Kiev’s response to the border incident could best be described as odd. Although the naval showdown was isolated in scope, with no indication whatsoever that Russia would use the opportunity to retaliate with military force, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko imposed martial law for 30 days in 10 Ukrainian regions, five of them in the separatist-held east. Even during the worst moments of the four-year civil war, Kiev never resorted to the imposition of martial law  (The declaration of martial law does not appear to be, as many have suggested, an effort on the part of Poroshenko, whose popularity ratings are in the basement, to cancel March elections, given the time frame). Not only does Kiev’s over-the-top move further dash hopes for the Minsk Protocol, it risks triggering renewed hostilities between Kiev and Donbass.  This much was suggested by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for the Russian President, warned that Poroshenko’s order for martial law “has the potential” of triggering renewed hostilities in the country’s east.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin noted that Kiev’s choice of location for provoking Russia was no coincidence since the Sea of Azov carries significant strategic importance and "provocative activities by Ukraine can bring rapid and required results for an international scandal."

“Unfortunately our worst fears have been confirmed," Karasin told RIA Novosti.

Indeed, Ukraine will now appear justified to intensify a crackdown on Donbass should the separatists be accused of violating the conditions of martial law, whatever Kiev determines those to be.

Meanwhile, the Western media and assorted ‘think tanks’ were out in full force, not missing an opportunity to portray an obvious Ukrainian provocation as yet another case of ‘Russian aggression.’

Ian Brzezinski, for example, Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council's Scowcroft Center on International Security, commented nonsensically and very bombastically via Twitter: “This is not a provocation but military aggression by Russia against Ukraine. Putin is testing the West's resolve. The West's response should include sectoral economic sanctions and transfer of more lethal assistance to Ukraine, including anti-ship missiles.”

Nothing like cool heads prevailing, even before the evidence is presented.

Whatever the case may be, Ukraine seemed primed to ‘repeat history’ with the outbreak of another ‘Saakashvili scenario,’ in which Kiev is motivated – much like Tbilisi was motivated in August  2008 when it unwisely attacked South Ossetia, killing Russian peacekeepers in the process – through a false sense of tactical superiority to believe that it can bend Russia to its will.  

On that score, it is interesting to note that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo held a meeting with his Ukrainian counterpart, Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin, on November 16 in Washington, D.C. in a plenary session of the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership Commission.

In the brief, one-page statement that was released following the meeting, ‘Russian aggression’ was sited six times.

More specifically, it stated that “The United States condemned Russia’s aggressive actions against international shipping transiting the Black Sea, the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait to Ukrainian ports. Both sides underscored that Russia’s aggressive activities in the Sea of Azov have brought new security, economic, social, and environmental threats to the entire Azov-Black Sea region.”

Was Kiev moved to conduct some sort of provocation against Russia around the Sea of Azov based on the grim assessment of the situation by such a high-ranking US official? Or was something more sinister at play?

While it is difficult to say, it is beyond doubt that American influence in Kiev was arguably what touched off the Maidan revolution against the government of then President Viktor Yanukovych. And it is no secret that a number of US non-governmental organizations had been long operating inside of the country, where they cultivated a “special relationship” with a large portion of the Western Ukrainian population.

Former US intelligence officer Scott Rickard, speaking about the violence that broke out in Kiev, pointed the finger at US NGOs. He told RT’s Sophie Shevardnadze that , “There are individuals who are very well-trained. These NGOs operate on every level. They operate on this peaceful side and they also operate on the violence side. It’s pretty clear that Americans have been wildly successful around militarizing jihad and violence and any kind of operations.”

Meanwhile, who could forget the site of the late Senator John McCain, standing beside the leader of the far-right Svoboda party, emboldening a rally in Kiev that "America is with you." This was happening around the same time the US ambassador to Ukraine was discussing with Victoria Nuland, former Assistant Secretary of State, who would make up the new Ukrainian government.

Considering that the US spent $5.1 billion dollars since 1992 in Ukraine “to support democracy,” I guess it believed it was entitled to at least choose who would run the country.

But is Kiev really seeking want war with Russia? Of course not. Kiev’s motives for provoking Russia at this particular juncture range from putting NATO membership on the fast track, to wrecking the atmosphere of the upcoming G20 Summit in Buenos Aires where Trump and Putin are expected to meet. There is even the possibility that Poroshenko, the puppet king, is aiming to portray himself as the rightful defender of his country in the face of ‘Russian aggression.’

Whatever the case may be, it is a terrible gamble, and one that is pushing Russia’s patience to the limits.

This is all in response to Russia’s completing the Kerch Strait bridge which Russia can use to block access through. The Kerch strait is Russian territory and, by international law, Russia can limit access to the Sea of Azov.

So, this weekend’s incident in which a tug was rammed, ships fired upon and seized by Russia, ultimately was a proper and legal response to a clear provocation because the Ukrainian military ships refused to announce their intentions.

Let’s not beat around the bush here. This incident is meant to justify further antagonism between the West and Russia on the eve of the G-20 and the planned meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin.

It also was meant to enflame Ukrainian nationalism and drum up support for Poroshenko who is trailing badly in the polls as we approach March elections. Declaring martial law so as to potentially suspend those election, the US satrap is raising the stakes on Russia to it finally responding to these repeated provocations.

At the same time the Ukrainian Army unleashed the heaviest shelling of the Donbass contact line near Gorlovka in years.

There are a number of different angles on this incident and how it will be used to increase tensions between the West and Russia.

Russia is officially taking the position that Poroshenko is doing this to keep his Western backers happy who have dumped billions into him and his government to keep Ukraine a festering wound on Russia’s border.

It is also a desperate attempt to prop up this failing government and potentially suspend March’s elections.

While I am certainly sympathetic to that position, it is also the least interesting part of it because it is so blatantly obvious. I think the deeper gambit here has to do with Poroshenko ending the Friendship Treaty.

According to Rostislav Ishchenko ending the treaty works only in Russia’s favor as it removes the permanence of the boundary between Russia and Ukraine. In effect, it opens up the path to Russia to recognize the breakaway republics of Lugansk and Donetsk.

But, it’s more than that because it also opens up the argument that the Sea of Azov is now International Waters since the border is in dispute. This allows for legal maneuvering by Europe and the US through the UN to find Russia in violation of Ukrainian vessels’ right of passage. I’m not saying this is the case, being no legal scholar on this, but this looks the most likely tack to take to sell the world further on the evil, expansionist Russia narrative.

And that argument can hold weight because no one recognizes Crimea as part of Russia, officially.

The UN Security Council’s usual suspects – Europe and the US – backing Ukraine on this issue was wholly predictable. And the question now will be whether the US got its casus belli to try and force NATO ships into the Sea of Azov under the pretext of keeping the peace in International Waters.

Former British MP George Galloway, writing for RT, suspects this may simply be a ‘Wag the Dog’ moment for not only May but French Poodle Emmanuel Macron and Trump with his Mueller ‘troubles.’ Invoking Tennyson’s Charge of the Light Brigade Galloway muses.

A dangerous constellation of weak, collapsing Western governments and leaders suddenly find their interests coinciding with the tin-pot tyrant Poroshenko. And into the Valley of Death they might just be ready to send their people charging. If they do they will find a resolute Russia far stronger than at Balaclava.

I would go even further at least as it regards Theresa May. This provocation occurred in concert the announcement of British forces being sent to Ukraine next year.

With the May government betraying the British people over Brexit with her awful deal, continuing the distraction of evil Russia is one way to keep support from failing further.

Because, deal or no deal, May is finished once we’re past this and like her accomplishing her mission to betray Brexit, setting NATO on a collision course with Russia is more possible by having British forces on the ground. All manner of false flags can be ginned up to saddle any incoming Labour government with.

Going back to the transition period between the outgoing Barack Obama and the incoming Trump everything imaginable was done to poison Trump’s early days as President. The idea that Trump and Putin could establish normal relations was anathema.

He’s been bogged down ever since.

And who was behind that? British and American Intelligence along with the judiciary who today are slowly being pulled into the limelight of their corruption. This is all part of a carefully stage-managed plan.

Those who cling to power do so out of desperation and will use every trick and point of leverage they have to remain where they are. In that respect Poroshenko is no different than anyone else. He knows if he loses power he will be expendable, to be thrown to the wolves while the US and Europe move to back the next quisling presiding over Kiev.

There doesn’t seem to be much on hope on the horizon regardless of the elections.

The big question at this point is whether Ukraine as a neocon project to destroy Russia is still worth the trouble. That’s what Poroshenko and those behind him hope is the case. I’m not convinced they have enough support to keep this up, given the tepid response from Europe.

If no sanctions are added to Russia over this incident and NATO is not dispatched to ‘calm things down’ in the Sea of Azov then this was nothing more than an attempt by Poroshenko to derail elections and rally Ukrainian nationals. The Verkovna Rada cut his martial law demand down to 3o days from 60 to ensure elections happen on time.

But looking ahead to the G-20, Trump will be saddled with this incident precluding finding any common ground with Putin over anything important. The two need to work out a plan for Syria, Korea, Japan and Iran and now we’re talking about Ukraine.

So, the days pass and nothing of substance changes. Putin knows time is on his side while those arrayed against Russia become increasingly desperate to justify its destruction to a tired and skeptical world.

Kiev has rushed to accuse Moscow of “military aggression.” The incident immediately captured the headlines, with Western leaders raising their voices to back Ukraine without even offering any details about exactly what had happened or what had sparked this dangerous turn of events. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg wasted no time to express the bloc’s “full support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, including its full navigational rights in its territorial waters under international law.” Canada, Poland, and Denmark, in addition to some other countries, were quick to join their voices to the anti-Russian choir. It serves their purpose to brush aside both the details as well as any attempts to try to gain insight into the real causes of this incident in particular or the deterioration of the situation in the Azov Sea in general.

On Nov. 26, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko signed a bill imposing martial law. Once approved by parliament, it will remain in effect for at least one month. Afterward it can be extended. The Ukrainian president did not raise the question of imposing martial law in 2014, when Crimea requested via referendum that it be incorporated by Russia. Nor did he take that step in 2015 during the battle of Debalsevo Bulge in the heat of the fighting in the eastern part of the country. The ongoing conflict with the self-proclaimed republics has never prompted him to consider a state of emergency. But he found the recent sea incident grave enough to justify the imposition of martial law prior to the presidential election that polls indicate he has a slim chance of winning.

The move would curb civil liberties and give state institutions greater powers during the election scheduled for March 31, 2019, if it is not postponed. Presidential, parliamentary, and local elections, as well as strikes, protests, rallies, and mass demonstrations, are all forbidden during a time of martial law. The incident at sea may not be the only provocation that is planned. The situation along the border with the self-proclaimed republics began to deteriorate as soon as the reports about the sea incident started to pour in. Heavy shelling by Ukrainian forces of residential areas in eastern Ukraine was reported during the evening of Nov. 26.

Another motive — the provocation was staged to expedite the procedure of joining NATO. The 2003 Russia-Ukraine agreement, which states that the Azov Sea is considered to be the domestic waters of both the two countries, can be annulled. A bill to repeal the treaty was introduced in the Ukrainian parliament (Rada) last summer. It forbids any warship from entering the sea without the consent of both nations. If that agreement is torn up, the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea would take effect. Russia’s and Ukraine’s territorial waters would extend for 12 nautical miles from their respective coasts. The interior of that sea would become international waters, allowing NATO ships to enter the Azov Sea without restrictions.

Kiev also hopes that military aid from NATO countries will increase, allowing it to build a powerful navy and coastal defenses. It would like to have an international monitoring mission stationed in the Azov Sea, probably under the auspices of the OSCE and with the participation of navies that are unfriendly to Russia. Another thing the Ukrainian president would like to see happen is for US President Trump to cancel his meeting with Russian President Putin at the G20 summit in Argentina.

What has prompted Kiev’s actions? It was the backing of the West. On Oct. 25, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Azov Sea to express its support of Ukraine. On Nov. 19, UN High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini stated that the EU foreign ministers had discussed taking relevant “targeted measures” against Russia due to the situation in the Azov Sea. The US continues to expand its military assistance to Ukraine. The US already has a military facility in Ochakovo. Once the Oliver H. Perry-class frigates arrive in Ukraine, they will be followed by American naval instructors. The US presence and military infrastructure will gradually expand. Great Britain is doing the same thing.

The West’s support is encouraging Ukraine to escalate the tensions. Ukraine’s Constitutional Court has just okayed an amendment to proclaim NATO and EU memberships as official foreign-policy goals. If approved by parliament, the Minsk accords will then become null and void, because Russia originally agreed to comply with them on the condition that Ukraine remain a neutral state.

No one needs such heightened tensions in an area with so much ship activity. All seafaring nations want shipping lanes to be free and protected by law. The more political and military support Kiev gets, the greater the chance that a spark will kindle a fire in the Azov Sea that will spread further. The responsibility rests with those who are egging Kiev on and thus whipping up tensions in pursuit of political goals.

It’s also a reckless gambit to push Kiev’s madcap agenda for joining NATO and the European Union. No matter, it seems, if that gambit risks igniting a full-scale war between Russia and NATO.

The US-led NATO military alliance and the European Union appeared to back Kiev’s claims of aggression by Moscow following the latest escalation in the Black Sea. That response fits Poroshenko’s long-held narrative of casting Russia as an aggressor and to mobilize support from NATO and the EU.

Ironically, Western news media featured pro-NATO pundits who have claimed that the weekend confrontation was “vintage Putin”. It is speculated that the Russian president was taking advantage of several political distractions for Western governments – Trump’s public relations problems with Saudi Arabia over the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the Brexit debacle and so on – to strike a heavy hand at Kiev.

That typically cynical anti-Russian view completely overlooks the glaring facts that the naval clash between Ukrainian and Russian forces in the Black Sea plays conveniently for the Kiev regime and Poroshenko. It’s less a case of “vintage Putin” and more the dregs of Poroshenko’s intrigue.

The prompt declaration by Poroshenko’s national security council for imposing martial law in Ukraine – within hours of the naval confrontation on Sunday – effectively strives to give Poroshenko and his Kiev regime dictatorial powers. Potentially, a state of emergency could permit Poroshenko to call off presidential elections due in March next year. With his poll ratings trailing at around 10 per cent, it is looking very likely that the chocolate-tycoon-turned-politician is heading for a meltdown in the forthcoming election. If Poroshenko doesn’t actually call off the ballot, the ramping up of security drama may still allow him to rally voters around the flag and his leadership.

Not only that, but if martial law is imposed it allows the Kiev regime to outlaw public protests, which had been growing out of popular discontent with corruption and social deprivation. The Kiev regime can also tighten its censorship of news media, impose dusk-to-dawn curfews and dragoon more men into military service.

On Sunday, three Ukrainian navy warships were commandeered by Russian forces near the Kerch Strait in the Black Sea. The Russians claim that the Ukrainian vessels violated territorial limits, acted dangerously and ignored warnings to back off. The Ukrainian side claims that their vessels were in international waters trying to transport from Odessa via the Kerch Strait to the port of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov.

Tensions have become particularly sharp since Russia opened a new bridge earlier this year over the Kerch Strait, linking its mainland with the Crimea Peninsula. Crimea seceded from Ukraine in March 2014 after a referendum on the peninsula called for joining the Russian Federation. That event is routinely referred in Western media to Russia’s “annexation” of Crimea. Such pejorative Western reports ignore the fact that Crimea’s popular mandate followed a CIA-backed coup d’état in Kiev by Neo-Nazis in February 2014 which illegally overthrew an elected government. The incumbent Ukrainian President Poroshenko owes his office to that violent putsch in Kiev.

Several Kiev political and military figures have called for acts of sabotage against the $4 billion bridge over the Kerch Strait. That has in turn touched off Russia’s stepped-up security patrols in the area.

On the latest naval clash, Russia’s deputy foreign minister Grigory Karasin said it appeared to be a “premeditated provocation” by the Kiev regime. The swift suite of actions taken by Poroshenko do indeed suggest that the drama was following a script. In addition to wanting to impose martial law and all the dictatorial benefits that engenders, Poroshenko also called for Western governments to impose more anti-Russian sanctions, and for NATO partners to take action in “defense of Ukraine”. Kiev demanded that its three detained warships and over 20 crew members be returned immediately.

Poroshenko asserted, somewhat unconvincingly, that any martial law regime would not be a “declaration of war” against Russia. He claimed that the Kiev regime was seeking to settle the nearly four-year conflict in eastern Ukraine through political means and in accordance with the Minsk 2014 and 2015 treaties. Poroshenko’s peacemaking rhetoric is acutely contradicted by the unremitting aggressive actions of his military forces towards the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. Immediately following the naval showdown at the weekend, there were reports of Ukrainian forces launching heavy artillery attacks on Donetsk and incursions by assault drones across the truce line near Gorlovka.

It seems significant that only three days before the naval clash in the Black Sea, President Poroshenko addressed the parliament in Kiev, saying that a constitutional amendment explicitly outlining his state’s plans to join NATO and the EU would be a final repudiation of Russia. Poroshenko declared that Moscow would not have a “veto” over Ukrainian aspirations to join the Western blocs.

Russia has repeatedly warned that the bordering state of Ukraine joining NATO would be an unacceptable breach of its national security. Too, it appeared that both NATO and the EU had gone cool on Ukraine’s prospective membership owing to disturbing reports about systematic human rights violations, political corruption and the woeful state of its economy.

The ever-petulant Poroshenko and his Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev are pushing confrontation with Russia in order to bolster their madcap plans to join NATO and the EU. And by buying into this latest provocation, it appears that NATO and the EU are drinking down the dregs that the Poroshenko regime is serving up.