Posts Tagged ‘NATO’

On Tankies

Posted: March 4, 2023 in Geopolitics, History, War
Tags: , , , ,
2

A guest article by Quentin Malcolm Innis, CD

I would not have thought that, one year into Putin’s war on Ukraine, there would still be people defending Russia.  Particularly post-Bucha, after the Russian VDV has been revealed as a collection of murderers, rapists, and thieves, I’m unsure how anyone can defend Russia or advocate on Russia’s behalf.   However, some people are slow learners, so here’s a compilation of tankie arguments, with some thoughts in response.   

Why tankies?  The term “tankie” derives from the hapless left-wingers who defended the Russian invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.  To defend their simplistic premise of “USSR good” they were forced by the circumstances of these invasions to perform a series of intellectual backflips, some of which have been resurrected as attempts to justify the current Russian invasion of Ukraine.  These attempts have many variations, but following are seven of the most popular. 

The Historical Threat from the West.  Russia has been invaded by the West three times over the past 210 years, starting with Napoleon’s invasion as part of the Second Polish War in 1812.  However, in that same 210-year period, Russia has been involved in at least 39 other wars.  

1812.  It is true that Napoleon’s Grand Army invaded Russia in 1812.  However, all wars start with diplomatic manoeuvring, and in the lead-up to the invasion, Napoleon and Czar Alexander the First had been bickering over Alexander’s withdrawal from the Continental Blockade, Napoleon’s primary strategic weapon against England.  The French invasion of Russia began when Alexander issued an ultimatum to Napoleon demanding that he remove French troops from Prussia and the Grand Duchy of Warsaw in April 1812.  Napoleon refused, and the Second Polish War was declared.  

1914.  While WW1 had multiple and intersecting causes, the event that precipitated the war was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in 1914.  On 23 July, the Austrians submitted a list of demands to Serbia that they knew would be unacceptable, to secure a pretext for war.  On 25 July, the Serbians accepted all but one of the Austrian demands, but the Austrians claimed that the caveat amounted to a rejection of their demands and declared war on 28 July.  The Russians mobilized to support Serbia on 30 July, the Germans in turn mobilized, and the war kicked off.  The Russians then tapped out of the war they had a hand in starting, allowing the Germans to switch forces to the Western Front for the March offensive of 1918, nearly winning the war.  

1941.  Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of Russia, began on 22 June 1941.  This came as a surprise to the Russians, as they assumed that the Germans would abide by the terms of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which had been signed 23 August 1939 and allowed Germany and Russia to dismember Poland by attacking simultaneously.  With his Eastern flank secured, Hitler then turned to the west, over-running most of Western Europe and isolating England.  Russia thus played a key part in enabling German plans, kicking off the bloodiest war in human history.  

Russia claims to be the aggrieved party in these wars, even though they enabled one and precipitated the other two through issuing ultimations that they knew would be unacceptable to the opposing power.  Set against this the list of Russian attacks on their neighbours.  

2014: Ukraine

2008: Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia

1994 – 1996 and 1999 – 2009: Chechnya

1979 – 1989: Afghanistan

1968: Czechoslovakia

1956: Hungary

1953: East Germany

1939: Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania

1929 – 1930: Afghanistan

1921: Georgia

1920: Azerbaijan

1917 – 1921: Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine

1905: Japan

This does not count the Russian Civil War, annexations after the First and Second World Wars as well as involvement in various smaller wars, including, most recently, Syria.  It’s obvious that Russia has no claim to innocence but has instead been a consistent predator on her neighbours.

Russia is currently threated by NATO expansion.  NATO is, by design, a defensive alliance, and has no mandate to invade other countries.  Russia has nuclear weapons; although three NATO members are nuclear powers, NATO itself is not.  NATO operates by consensus, which means that every country would need to agree to an invasion of Russia.  NATO would also require a UN resolution to mount such an invasion.  Russia argues that Ukraine joining NATO could place ground-launched nuclear weapons within 1000 kilometers of Moscow, but the reality is that the US can deploy bombers with nuclear-armed cruise missiles, a much greater threat, within 1000 kilometers of Moscow any day of the week.  NATO is a voluntary organization which allows countries to apply for membership based on that country’s perception of need.  Joining or not joining NATO is a choice that Ukrainians can make, as Putting himself acknowledged in his essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”.   Denying Ukrainians this choice denies them agency and interferes with their right to self-determination. 

Russia has a right to intervene in neighbouring countries.  We live in a post-Wilsonian world, where we have agreed that countries possess a right to self-determination.  Arguing that Russia has a “right” to interfere with the internal affairs of its neighbours violates that right to self-determination.  Essentially, this argument boils down to “might makes right.”  We have evolved beyond that; this is why we have the UN and why the legitimate use of force requires a UN resolution.  Arguing that other countries intervene with their neighbours is a childish response. If it’s wrong for the Americans use force without a UN resolution, then it’s also wrong for the Russians.  

Ukraine is not a real country.  This is the gist of an essay that Putin published in July of 2021, titled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians.”  In this essay, Putin argues that Ukraine has, historically, been a part of Russia, and that Ukrainians therefore have no national identity.  But Ukraine pre-dates Russia: Kyiv was founded in 482; Moscow in 1147.  So are Ukrainians Russian, or are Russians Ukrainian?  Putin spends a considerable amount of time and effort constructing a narrative linking Ukraine and Russia, making the claim that modern Ukraine is a creation of the Soviet Union, and pointing to the similarities of language and religion.  But he concedes that, in other parts of the world, people sharing language and religion exist as different countries, citing the examples of Germany and Austria, and Canada and the United States.  Despite his best efforts to construct a narrative in which Ukrainians and Russians are one people, Putin admits to the existence of Ukraine, averring Ukraine’s right to self-determination with his closing statement: “And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide.”  So, if Putin admits that Ukraine and Russia are separate countries, concedes that people sharing common religions and language can live in separate countries, and concedes the Ukrainian people’s right to self-determination, why did he invade? 

Ukraine is run by Nazis.  Obviously untrue; the current Ukrainian president is Jewish.  President Zelenskyy is a native Russian speaker and graduated from the Kyiv National Economic University with a degree in law.  He won the last election with 73.23% of the vote, defeating the Kremlin-backed candidate, Petro Poroshenko, who had been pushed by Russian media and endorsed by Putin.  President Zelenskyy engaged negotiations with Russia to end the ongoing war, based on implementing the Minsk 1 and 2 agreements, but, as we now know, the Russians were not negotiating in good faith during this period.  Zelenskyy appears to have been caught by surprise by the Russian escalation of the war on 24 February of last year, but adapted quickly and has organized an extremely effective Ukrainian response.  He campaigned on an anti-corruption platform and has pushed ahead with cleaning up the Ukrainian government, removing several high-ranking politicians and bureaucrats.  President Zelenskyy’s grandfather, Semyon Ivanovych Zelenskyy, served in the Red Army, reaching the rank of colonel in the 57th Guards Motor Rifle Division.  Colonel Zelenskyy’s father and three brothers died in the Holocaust after German troops burned their home to the ground.  According to Statista, as of November 2022, President Zelenskyy’s approval rating was 91% for those 15 to 34, 85% for those 35 to 54 age, and 79% amongst those over 55.  All in all, hardly the picture of a Nazi, a war-monger, or an inept leader.

The charges of neo-Nazism are based around the Svoboda party, which won 2% of the vote in the last national election and holds one seat in the 450-member Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament.  There is no upper house in the Ukrainian system, and members are elected using a system which is a mix of proportional representation and first-past-the-post, with 50% of the members coming from party lists and 50% elected from constituencies.  Voting support for Svoboda has been trending downwards since peaking in 2012 at 10.45% of the vote.  

Ukraine is the “most corrupt country in Europe”.  It is not.  According to Transparency International’s ratings, the most corrupt country in Europe is Russia, ranking 137th in the world with a score of 28.   Ukraine ranks a 116th, with a score of 33.

This is a proxy war between Russia and the US.  As I’ve noted elsewhere, this is a war by Russia against Europe.  Putin is motivated by power and is terrified of losing it.  Is the United States supporting Ukraine? Yes, of course.  Is NATO supporting Ukraine?  Again, yes.  But this is by no means a proxy war.  This war started with Russia invading Ukraine in 2014, in violation of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, in which Russia, along with the UK and the US, agreed to guarantee sovereignty for Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan in exchange for those three countries giving up nuclear weapons.  Russia has repeatedly violated that agreement; the UK and the US are upholding it.  Ukraine is not a proxy for the West; it is a country defending itself from attack, as permitted by Article 51 of the UN Charter.  Claiming that Ukraine is a proxy denies Ukraine agency and is an attempt to create a false moral equivalency.  

Remember who you are supporting.  If the foregoing does not convince you, then remember that conduct indicates morality, and the Russians have conducted themselves in a barbaric and atrocious manner.  If you still want to support the Russians, that’s fine; but understand who and what you are supporting.  

As early as 25 February 2022 Amnesty International identified attacks on Vuhledar, Kharkiv, and Uman as likely to constitute war crimes.  As Ukrainian forces have recaptured towns and villages, evidence of rape and torture has been uncovered.  Russian forces are kidnapping children and sending them to back to Russia, where they are adopted by Russian families.  Russian forces have conscripted civilians in the occupied territories and used them as cannon fodder, sending them into battle with minimal equipment, training, or leadership.  

The Ukrainian Prosecutor’s office has documented 39,347 alleged war crimes committed by Russian forces.  More than 600 suspects have been identified, and proceedings have been initiated against 80 of these suspects.  The Ukrainian authorities have so far tried 3 Russian service members, all of whom pled guilty.  

Russian forces have deliberately targeted civilians, cultural property (protected under international humanitarian law) and critical infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and shelters.  

There have been 3 allegations of war crimes committed by Ukrainian troops; these are being investigated by the Ukrainian authorities, with a view to conducting prosecutions if warranted.   So far, Russian authorities have declined to investigate allegations of war crimes committed by Russian troops.  

Meanwhile, the effect on Russian society increases.  Since 1992, 58 Russian journalists have died, 38 of them killed as a direct result of their professional activities.  Russians are now subject to imprisonment for even calling the war a war, and thousands of Russian families have lost sons and husbands to a failing cause.  

Russia is engaged in an illegal, unprovoked, and unjustifiable war in Ukraine.  Their soldiers have conducted themselves as criminals.  There is no justification for Russian actions, and if you are still a Russian apologist, you are on the wrong side of history.  

© 2023 Quentin Malcolm Innis

No, NATO Isn’t Responsible for Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine

Posted: February 19, 2023 in Geopolitics, History, Information Warfare, Readiness & Strategy, War
Tags: , , , , ,
1

By Richard Martin

There is a widespread belief that Russia’s war of aggression and conquest in Ukraine was somehow caused by the US and, especially, NATO enlargement. This is false. Russia’s aggressive and provocative stance has been consistently driven by its leadership’s drive to reestablish its suzerainty over its former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact countries.

Russia justifies its hegemonic and imperialist aims and actions by claiming that NATO threatens it. This is a complete lie, one that, moreover, is reinforced by ethically-challenged so-called “realist” historians and theorists, including Henry Kissinger and, especially, John Mearsheimer.

The basis of Russia’s claims and actions and that of the “realist” geopolitical hacks is that nations and people within Russia’s “sphere of influence” must respect Russia’s right to dominate them and exploit them as its leaders and people see fit. If there is a more anti-liberal and anti-democratic stance in the world today, I don’t know of it. Russian imperialists are one thing, but the fact that supposedly well-informed Western intellectuals like Kissinger and Mearsheimer still uphold these values is beyond the pale.

People, many of whom should know better, need to reacquaint themselves with the founding principals of Western, liberal, democratic values and ethics, and the political, economic and social consequences derived therefrom. It is also crucial to be aware of the FACTS about Russian claims, instead of sound bites, disinformation, and propaganda injects into Western media, corporate and social. To this end, I’m including a list of useful links to factual information and reports concerning NATO, Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia.

If you want to share your views, go right ahead, as I believe in free speech and open debate and dialogue. With that said, it should be done from a position of knowledge and understanding of actual facts and events, not uninformed commentary on the basis of fears, uncertainty, and doubt.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50090.htm

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO%E2%80%93Russia_relations

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm

https://www.nato.int/…/20120705_0919-12-Fiche-Info-NATO…

Non, l’OTAN n’est pas responsable de l’invasion de l’Ukraine par la Russie

Posted: February 19, 2023 in Geopolitics, History, Information Warfare, Readiness & Strategy, War
Tags: , , , , ,
0

par Richard Martin

Il existe une croyance répandue selon laquelle la guerre d’agression et de conquête de la Russie en Ukraine a été en quelque sorte causée par les États-Unis et, surtout, par l’élargissement de l’OTAN. C’est faux. L’attitude agressive et provocatrice de la Russie a toujours été motivée par la volonté de ses dirigeants de rétablir sa suzeraineté sur les anciennes républiques soviétiques et les pays du Pacte de Varsovie.

La Russie justifie ses objectifs et ses actions hégémoniques et impérialistes en affirmant que l’OTAN la menace. Il s’agit d’un mensonge total, qui est d’ailleurs renforcé par des historiens et théoriciens dits “réalistes”, contestés sur le plan éthique, dont Henry Kissinger et, surtout, John Mearsheimer.

La base des revendications et des actions de la Russie et des apologistes géopolitiques “réalistes” est que les nations et les peuples de la “sphère d’influence” de la Russie doivent respecter le droit de la Russie à les dominer et à les exploiter comme ses dirigeants et son peuple l’entendent. S’il existe une position plus anti-libérale et anti-démocratique dans le monde d’aujourd’hui, je ne la connais pas. Les impérialistes russes sont une chose, mais le fait que des intellectuels occidentaux soi-disant bien informés comme Kissinger et Mearsheimer défendent encore ces valeurs est inacceptable.

Les gens, dont beaucoup devraient être mieux informés, doivent se réapproprier les principes fondateurs des valeurs et de l’éthique occidentales, libérales et démocratiques, ainsi que les conséquences politiques, économiques et sociales qui en découlent. Il est également crucial de connaître les FAITS concernant les revendications russes, au lieu des extraits sonores, de la désinformation et de la propagande injectés dans les médias occidentaux, commerciaux et sociaux. À cette fin, j’ai inclus une liste de liens utiles vers des informations et des rapports factuels concernant l’OTAN, la Russie, l’Ukraine et la Géorgie.

Si vous voulez partager vos opinions, allez-y, car je crois en la liberté d’expression, au débat ouvert et au dialogue. Cela dit, il faut le faire à partir d’une position de connaissance et de compréhension des faits et des événements réels, et non pas à partir de commentaires non informés fondés sur des craintes, des incertitudes et des doutes.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm…

https://www.nato.int/cps/fr/natolive/topics_50090.htm

https://fr.wikipedia.org/…/Relations_entre_la_Russie_et…

Is the West Going Overboard in “Cancelling” Russia?

Posted: March 26, 2022 in Geopolitics, History, Readiness & Strategy, War
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

by Richard Martin

This question was asked by an acquaintance of mine this morning. This is my answer.

Not in the least. For the following reasons.

1. The West as a whole, and particularly the EU, NATO, and the US, invited post-Soviet Russia with open arms into the international community of nations after the end of the Cold War. There was a Russia-NATO joint commission. Russia was first invited and accepted into the G7 — becoming the G8 — and G20 groups as well as the WTO. Western companies poured hundreds of billions into Russia in investment, only to see their operations hijacked and expropriated to the benefit of Moscow’s minions.

2. NATO countries made great efforts to secure and destroy Soviet nuclear weapons and materials, all at the cost of the countries doing the hard work of conversion and transformation. There were disarmament treaties and attempts at military cooperation and confidence building measures. NATO and other Western nations actively engaged with former Soviet republics to increase military professionalism and assist in converting their armed forces to a more defensive posture under civilian control.

NATO Exercise in West Germany in the 1970s

3. At the end of the 80s, just before the end of the Cold War, NATO forces in Europe were well-armed, integrated, and operationally exercised and trained to a very high standard of readiness and capability. I know, I served as an infantry platoon commander in Germany and then brigade and division staff officer from 1988-91. I participated in the largest peacetime deployment of troops as part of the REFORGER exercises in Germany in September 1988, with the US V and VII Corps and the entire German army, plus all the other countries in the Central Region of NATO. Before that, I was a platoon commander in the 5th Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group. We deployed on exercise by sea and air to northern Norway in August-October 1986 for the largest peacetime deployment on Exercise Brave Lion, to train with the Norwegian Armed Forces as well as the Royal, Dutch, and US Marines. This was to demonstrate and test the capabilities of the Canadian Air-Sea Transportable Brigade to NATO’s northern flank. The US protected Western Europe with its nuclear arsenal, especially at the level of theatre nuclear forces (Pershing II, Lance, and cruise missiles). Meanwhile, the US was developing and deploying the initial elements of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars).

4. NATO countries, mostly in Europe and Canada, paid out the “peace dividend” and proceeded to slowly disarm and degrade their military capabilities. Eventually, the Baltic republics, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Albania, Slovenia, and Croatia formally asked to join NATO and were accepted into the collective security organization. These countries had to meet stringent requirements in terms of military professionalism, civilian control of the armed forces, respect for the rule of law, and the explicit renunciation of expansionism and irredentism.

5. Western nations only started to change their tack with Russia after it became clear that the Kremlin had no intention of honouring its commitments to respect the borders of the former Soviet republics, recognized by the international community of nations and integrated into the UN. The Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 was only the first move by Russia, followed by the annexation of Crimea and the Donbass separatist “people’s republics” in 2014. That’s when the West finally woke up to the Russian threat and imposed economic and political sanctions. But nowhere near to the same level as what is being imposed since 24 February 2022.

6. Russia NEEDS to be cancelled. The West must isolate the Russian economy, punish those who are responsible for this war of aggression, support Ukraine with as much military, technical, economic, financial, diplomatic, and political means as needed to defeat and reverse the invasion and to restore the borders of Ukraine to the internationally recognized — including by Russia in 1994 — borders of post-Soviet breakup. That means that the so-called “peoples’ republics” of Donetsk and Luhansk and the Crimean peninsula must be reconquered by Ukraine.

© Richard Martin

Richard Martin was an infantry officer for over 20 years in the Canadian Army. He is currently an entrepreneur, strategic advisor, and information warrior focusing on extracting valuable information and signals from chaos and noise.

An Assessment of Russia’s Warfighting Strategy

Posted: March 12, 2022 in Geopolitics, Readiness & Strategy, War
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

by Richard Martin

This is a longer post than usual. My aim is to provide a better understanding of Russian strategy, operations, tactics, and logistics in its invasion and attempt to conquer Ukraine.

War is the systematic application of violent means to attain political ends. It is a contest of wills, with the aim of imposing one’s will on the enemy. The ultimate Russian aim is therefore to destroy Ukraine’s will to resist and to neutralize NATO’s will to commit to the war other than through indirect and long-term means.

We must therefore analyze the war from Russia’s perspective at the four levels of the hierarchy of ends, ways, and means: grand strategic, military strategic, operational, and tactical. Each level provides the ways to achieve the higher level. To this we add logistics, which provides the means to implement the ways to achieve the ends.

Grand Strategic Level

Ukraine conquered, fully merged into Russia, either de jure or de facto. Rally the international Axis of Lies and Resentment (Iran, North Korea, China, etc.). Keep the rest of the world guessing and off balance, wondering how far Putin is willing to go, up to and including World War III and global thermonuclear exchange.

Military Strategic Level

Destroy Ukrainian armed forces and national will to resist. Isolate Ukraine geographically and militarily, while keeping NATO off balance with threats of nuclear escalation. Exploit Western and NATO reluctance to engage in the conflict. The following diagram provides a quick visual overview of the military strategy.

Assessment of RU War Plan as of 12 Mar 22.jpg

Operational Level

Manoeuvre on exterior lines. Attack on 4 axes to keep the Ukrainian military dispersed and guessing as to the focus of main effort. Since the start of the invasion on 24 February, the Russian main effort has been on the Belarus-Kyiv axis. The initial attempt to execute a coup de main to capture or eliminate the Ukrainian government in Kyiv failed. It was based on seizing the major airport at Hostomel with heliborne forces then bringing in air transportable mechanized forces to rush to seize Kyiv. The aim was apparently to install a puppet regime. Ukrainian forces foiled the initial and repeated attempts to seize Antonov Airport (Hostomel) and the subsequent “thunder run” to Kyiv. This forced the Russians to fall back on a ground assault plan. I won’t speculate on how far the apparent “plan B” was developed in advance, but I will say that weather, logistics, and terrain were major factors in slowing the Russian advance.

Tactical Level

The Russian army basically follows military doctrine developed and honed during the Soviet era. The best way to characterize Russian tactics is as follows: “Who needs tactics when you can mass a thousand tanks in a square kilometer?” As best I can make out, tactical proficiency, low-level and individual initiative, and welfare of troops on the ground are the last consideration of the Russian command. Russian units, up to and including divisions, tend to follow prescribed patterns of movement and rigid drills while relying on concentrated mass at points of breakthrough followed by exploitation forces. What is considered basic field craft in Western armies is, for all intents and purposed, non-existent in the Russian army.

Sidebar on Russian Logistics

We need to also briefly consider Russian logistics doctrine, which is closely intertwined with fighting doctrine, as in all armies. The best way to do so is to compare US and NATO logistical methods with Russia’s.

NATO armies mainly use a “push-pull” system and keep large groupings in the field for extended periods. Combat stores (ammunition, rations, water, and fuel) plus spare parts and medical supplies are kept close to the front lines in the logistics train and called forward by combat units as their stores are depleted, at minimum daily, and more often in high intensity combat. Smaller armies, such as Canada’s, tend to be more “forward focused” in their logistics and maintenance. For instance, Canadian Army doctrine is based on forward maintenance of equipment: repair as many vehicles and weapons as possible as far forward as possible. The US Army approach is based more on workshops and depots in depth that can exploit specialization, replacement, and economies of scale. This obviously stems from its huge size compared to smaller countries’ armed forces. Regardless of the implementation, the basic philosophy is the same: soldiers are the most important resource; they must be cared for and treated with respect.

The Russian army basically follows Soviet doctrine, upgraded somewhat to reflect the evolution of combat since the end of the Cold War. From what I gather, Russian units and soldiers basically go into combat with a basic load of ammunition and fuel, and they are expected to fight until depleted, to be replaced by new units. When I was studying this stuff in the 80s and 90s, the expectation was that a Soviet unit or formation could be in the line until it was down to 30% fighting strength. If you look at the 2nd World War, sometimes it even went lower than that. We’re currently seeing that approach being tested, especially north and west of Kyiv, but it fits with what I know of Soviet logistics doctrine that the Russians have adapted. They fight with smaller, more flexible units than under Soviet structures, e.g., Battalion Tactical Groups (BTGs) grouped into task-organized brigades, divisions, and armies. However, Russian fighting forces appear to have about two thirds less support units within their organizations than NATO/US ones.

© Richard Martin

Richard Martin was an infantry officer for over 20 years in the Canadian Army. He is currently an entrepreneur, strategic advisor, and information warrior focusing on extracting valuable information and signals from chaos and noise.

What Fascism Really Is

Posted: March 6, 2022 in Geopolitics, History, Political Philosophy, War
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1

By Richard Martin

Fascism is the worldview, the Weltanschauung, that sees the grassroots, deeply felt social solidarity and cohesion of nations as both a model and a threat. Fascism is thus an attempt to recreate the same level and type of social cohesion as what reigns seemingly naturally and effortlessly in liberal democracies, but from the top down, rather than the bottom up and laterally between individuals.

Similarly to socialism, fascism sees independent centres of social solidarity, cooperation, and community as threats to this top-down cohesion. Both are inherently collectivist in nature, but in different ways. Whereas socialism and its revolutionary incarnation, communism, see these threats and the need to united authority and control in terms of transnational classes and other categories (e.g., gender, sex, race), fascism sees the nation or people (e.g., German Volk) as the basis of top-down control, authority, and cohesion.

German National Socialism (i.e., Nazism) and Italian Fascism were the primary incarnations of “small f” fascism in the 1st half of the 20th century, with the disastrous consequences of World War 2 as main effects.

Current Russian nationalism, let’s call it Putinism, is a variety and instantiation of “small f” fascism. When I say, “small f,” I specifically mean that it stems from the same worldview as Italian Fascism and German Nazism of the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. That worldview interprets Western power and, especially, success, prosperity, and cultural attractiveness as a threat to the solidarity, cohesion, and security of the Russian nation, defined in a wide sense to include White Russians (Belarusians) and Little Russians (Ukrainians) in addition to Great Russians (Russians proper).

From this perspective, Putinism is an ideology of resentment, envy, frustration, and anger. It views all Western influences as subversive of Russian purity and security. The military doctrine of Russian “hybrid war” (gybridnaya voyna) tries to distill the secrets of Western success and cultural magnetism as encroachments and offensive manoeuvres. It identifies a “Western playbook” for world hegemony, particularly from the American perspective, and tries to apply the same playbook to Russian defence and counter-encroachment.

Western observers who say that Russia’s concerns vis à vis NATO, the United States, Europe… and Ukraine, fall into the trap of accepting Kremlin claims of being surrounded and under foreign domination and threat of invasion at face value. Just like Russian fascists and other Putinists around the world, they are blinded to the basic truth that Western, and especially American/Anglo-Saxon cultural, political, social, and economic “hegemony” stem from the inherent attractiveness and magnetism of Western values and civilization, not from any master plan for world domination. (That would also include those in the West who fear the World Economic Forum.)

This article is just a first installment of what is proving to be a fundamental metanoia for me. It is a journey of “seeing through the world.” I hope you will accompany me on this adventure.

© Richard Martin

Richard Martin was infantry officer in the Canadian Army. He is now an entrepreneur, trusted strategic advisor, and information warrior focusing on extracting valuable lessons and signals from chaos and noise.

Seven Falsehoods About the War in Ukraine

Posted: March 4, 2022 in Geopolitics, History, Readiness & Strategy, War
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
1

By Richard Martin

1st Falsehood: Russia has legitimate security concerns about its borders and NATO encroachment. Wrong! Russia would have less security concerns if it weren’t constantly threatening, badgering, or bullying its neighbours.

Highly detailed physical map of Russia,in vector format,with all the relief forms,regions and big cities. (c) bogdanserban

2nd Falsehood: The United States/West/NATO caused this crisis by wanting to expand to Russia’s borders, thus threatening the latter. Wrong! The reason NATO has expanded since the end of the Cold War is that Russia’s neighbours felt, and continue to feel, threatened by Russian aggression and expansion.

3rd Falsehood: The Russians are just like us; they want freedom and democracy with a free market system. Wrong! There is little or no evidence to support this assertion, at least since the end of the Cold War. There have been attempts at economic and political reform, but the Russian people have remained relatively quiescent and followed the official ideology and worldview.

4th Falsehood: Ukrainians are just a part of the Russian nation. Wrong! That’s like saying the Flemish and Dutch; Austrians and Germans; Czechs and Slovaks; or even the French and Quebeckers are unitary nations. They’re not. Ukrainians and Russians speak closely related languages and have intertwined histories. But they are different nations, and this has been asserted and realized to varying degrees over hundreds of years.

5th Falsehood: NATO and non-NATO countries not at war with Russia. Wrong! Russia has been conducting what it calls “hybrid warfare” against the U.S., Canada, U.K., and other NATO nations since at least 2016, and one of the main theatres is cyberspace, where Russia has been conducting continuous cyber and information warfare to disrupt communications, infrastructure, military, and financial networks.

6th Falsehood: Economic sanctions and financial restrictions are sufficient to bring Russia to heel. Wrong! Only military defeat of the Russian invasion either by Ukraine acting alone (though with foreign support) or outright foreign involvement will force Russia to leave Ukraine.

7th Falsehood: A negotiated solution is in the offing. Wrong! Everything indicates the exact opposite. Putin and the Kremlin appear determined to solve what they perceive as the Ukrainian problem once and for all. Even if there were a negotiated withdrawal, Russia would only do that to buy time, just like Saddam did after the expulsion of Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991.

© Richard Martin

Richard Martin was a career infantry officer in the Canadian Army. He now plies his trade as an information warrior and strategic advisor to leaders and decision-makers. He focuses on extracting valuable lessons and signals from chaos and noise.