The Russia-Ukraine Conflict: The Conflicting Reports of Various Sources on the Subject

 

By David Starr

 

Much has been reported on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, mainly in black and white terms. But there are times when shades of gray have been applied in relation to this tragedy. 

 

Realistically, sides are taken on various issues by various sources. The author of this article is also not immune to taking sides ordinarily, but does show shades of gray and the black and white factors.

 

It is rare that the Western media quotes Vladimir Putin, getting his thoughts on the conflict. Further, the media mainly portrays the conflict as a fight between “good vs. evil.” Putin is no angel, possibly being an ultra-nationalist and probably being an anti-communist. Ideally, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was wrong. But those shades of gray nevertheless reflect reality. 

 

Risking being called a Putin puppet or a Russian propagandist by Ukraine supporters, a Russian source is used here, namely, Tass. This publication quoted Putin on the existence of Ukrainian neo-Nazis and the threat that they pose, the West’s supplying of weapons to Ukraine, and Russia’s excuse for invading. 

 

Quoting Putin: “Russia’s confrontation with the Neo-Nazi regime that emerged on the territory of Ukraine was inevitable. Had we not taken the corresponding actions in February, this would have been all the same but only from a worse position for us.” Calling the Ukrainian government, a “Neo-Nazi regime” is stretching the truth a bit. But there are Nazis in government positions, and especially in the military. 

 

Putin said, that Ukrainians are “the first and primary victim of the deliberate instigation of hatred for the Russians and Russia.” He mentioned that foreign powers benefitted from the civil war that occurred after the 1917 October Revolution. “They did not care a damn about the Whites and the Reds, they pursued their own interests, were engaged in weakening and tearing historical Russia apart.”

 

Putin added that, “…by incessantly supplying weapons to Ukraine, bringing in mercenaries there, they are absolutely ruthless about its citizens. At their expense, they are pushing through their geopolitical goals that have nothing in common with the interests of the Ukrainian people.” Speaking of mercenaries, the Russian military has possibly employed them, also. 

 

It is true that the U.S./NATO alliance’s interests have nothing to do with the establishment of a sovereign Ukraine. The intent is probably to use Ukraine as a market satellite, making it dependent on the rule of capital, burdening it with massive loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and employing its workers for cheap labor.

 

Contradicting all this was a statement from the Ukrainian delegation in November 2014 (after the right-wing coup) on “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism” during Third Committee open debates at the United Nations: “Ukraine is convinced that, clearly, none of the delegations sitting in this room is supportive of or willing to glorify Nazism and neo-Nazism and any other form of intolerance. We condemn Nazism and neo-Nazism as well as other violent totalitarian ideologies in the strongest possible terms. We still remember millions of our compatriots lost as a result of another totalitarian regime known as Stalinism that was killing Ukrainians in artificial famines and concentration camps of GULAG. Ukrainians equally condemn Hitler and Stalin as international criminals for their misanthropic and xenophobic nature.” Ironically, Stalin was Georgian, not Russian.

 

The Ukraine delegation’s condemning of Nazism doesn’t entirely reflect Ukraine’s reality, considering the presence of Nazis and neo-Nazis there. In an interview with Medea Benjamin of Code Pink by the Chris Hedges Report, part of the Real News Network, Benjamin was on the show to talk about her new book, co-authored with fellow Code Pink member Nicolas Davies, entitled War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict. The following was mentioned in the transcript of the interview:

 

Chris Hedges: I want to go back to the Azov Battalion and these neo fascist elements, because there’s a long fascist tradition in Ukraine going back to World War II. And after the fall of communism, you saw the resurrection of these fascistic, or fascist-allied movements, they sprouted back up out of the soil.

 

Medea Benjamin: Well, that’s right. And there were several different branches of them, and they also had their political party, which at one point, in 2016, I think they got 10% of the electorate, and then in the elections after that, got a much smaller amount. And so, people say, well, they’re not important because they have no significant power      when it comes to the elected government. But that’s not where their power lies. Their power lies in the paramilitary groups, in the armed elements, in the ones who refuse to allow the Minsk Accords to be implemented, and the ones that have been fighting and killing many people on the Donbas. They are the ones who have the power.

 

Regarding the Russia-Ukraine relationship, Benjamin said, “I think people don’t understand how close Ukraine and Russia have been for centuries, how many Russian speakers there are in Ukraine, how the connection between Ukraine and Russia has gone back and forth for a long time, but Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union [and the two Soviet Republics were not at each other’s throats like they are now].”

 

Benjamin’s book was critiqued by Eric Draitser, writing in Counter Punch. Draitser asserts that the book “fails on every level.” Draitser continues: It offers a myopic view of Russia’s war in Ukraine that sees the entirety of the conflict through the lens of U.S. aggression without making even [an attempt] to engage with the many other critical aspects of the war: oligarch rivalries, capital accumulation, imperial revanchism, anti-communism, resource extraction, and more.

 

“The book makes no effort to understand Ukrainian perspectives beyond casting the entire society as nameless and faceless pawns of U.S. imperialism. Similarly, the authors don’t bother to engage with any Russian perspectives–except those of Vladimir Putin–let alone provide a material analysis of Russian society, economy, or political institutions.”

 

Draitser goes on, writing that the book doesn’t mention examples of Russian actions such as crushing a workers’ uprising in Kazakhstan, and NATO-Russia collaboration. He asserts that Benjamin and Davies expressed “hollow condemnations of the Kremlin while using its propaganda to badly misinform the public about the nature of a war that has already shaken the global capitalist system and has the potential to end human civilization.”

 

While Draitser makes valid points, he nonetheless comes across like a judge in an ivory tower. Despite the flaws, Benjamin has over time brought out inconvenient truths, even if there’s a strong focus on U.S./NATO aggression in the book. As a priority, the threat of the U.S./NATO alliance must be made clear to the public. But Draitser’s input about bringing out other factors is valid. Overall, Draitser’s critique does bring out a lot of shades of gray.      

 

But there are the supporters of Ukraine who will not think of the Russia-Ukraine conflict as having shades of gray. And that includes some on the Left. It’s either-or, that is, “if you are not with us, you’re against us.” Many sources in the Western media have this attitude. There are a great many omissions of facts, for example, that the U.S./NATO alliance lied when there was a verbal agreement between it and Gorbachev that the alliance would not expand Eastward. But it did the opposite. How, then, can the alliance be trusted at all? And that’s where the root of the problem is.

 

In Germany, there is a talk show called Hart aber Fair (Hard but Fair). Its host, Louis Klamroth, had guests on to talk about the Russia-Ukraine conflict. This was written in an article by Christoph Vandreier and published on the World Socialist Web Site. Vandreier emphasized that the German government, for example, has been using propaganda, making assumptions in “hysterical and grotesque forms.”

 

Vandreier wrote that it was “atrocity propaganda of the worst kind, open lies and a script orchestrated in detail were employed to intimidate anyone who harboured doubts about the constant escalation of war by NATO…”  And Hard but Fair was another example of this. Left Party politician Sahra Wagenknecht was a guest, along with right-wing Humboldt Professor Emeritus Herfried Munkler, Green Party politician Katrin Goring-Eckardt, and Sergiy Osachuk, a sergeant major in the Ukrainian army who was on video to speak.

 

Vandreier wrote, “Wagenknecht was the punching bag that all the guests and the moderator pounded on for 70 minutes.” Wagenknecht’s “sins” were to publish a Manifesto for Peace, and opposed the increase in military aid to Ukraine, instead, supporting peace negotiations. But the other guests didn’t care. As soon as Wagenknecht expressed her views or objected to the other guests’ justifications for the war, they practically jumped down her throat. In a sense, Wagenknecht was censored not only by the other guests but also by the host himself. 

 

Regarding atrocity propaganda, Vandreier wrote that it is “a well-known tool to justify the escalation of wars and to exclude any negotiations. Atrocities committed by the opposing side are systematically exaggerated or even invented, while the crimes of one’s own side are downplayed and denied.” The question is, whose side is coming closer to truths and facts than the other side? The U.S./NATO alliance? Russia? 

 

The PBS News Hour published a piece online detailing Putin’s participation in the anniversary of the Battle of Stalingrad (now called Volgograd), a major battle during World War II in which the Soviet Union prevailed over an invasion by Nazi Germany. It stated that “Putin laid a wreath at the eternal flame of the memorial complex to the fallen Red Army soldiers in Volgograd.” 

 

It then detailed how Putin justified Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, comparing it to the Battle of Stalingrad because of the threat of Nazism. Additionally, it stated that “Putin and other Russian officials frequently characterize Ukraine as a hot-bed of neo-Nazi beliefs, although Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is of Jewish descent.” There is neo-Nazi practices and influence in Ukraine. But a “hot-bed?” And what the PBS piece didn’t mention is that Zelenskyy has probably been threatened by the right-wing, especially if he wants negotiations with Russia.

 

A statement by MFA Russia, a Russia government organization, made the following assertion in an attempt to prove there are Nazis in Ukraine:

 

“No Nazis in Ukraine they say? For those blind and deaf, here’s yet another piece of evidence: On Valentine’s Day Zelensky officially named a Ukrainian division Edelweiss–after the infamous Nazi Wehrmacht unit, responsible for its war crimes.

 

“MSM still keeping mum?”  

 

In response, a reader said, “The presidential decree on the naming of the brigade does not indicate that the brigade has been named ‘after’ anything but the Edelweiss flower.

 

“The Russian National Guard has a special forces unit also named ‘Edelweiss.’”

 

If the reader is trying to prove there are no Nazis in Ukraine, it is a failed attempt. The existence of the Azov Brigade and others like it bears this out. And in Russia, there are also the existence of Nazis. And it wouldn’t be surprising that some are in the military.

 

Besides the U.S./NATO alliance sending weapons to Ukraine and having them get into the hands of neo-Nazis, there was shocking news that Israel welcomed a leader of the Azov Brigade as an honored guest. Amiad Horowitz, a student at the Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics in Vietnam, wrote in People’s World that Illia Samoilenko was “invited to tour Israel as part of a PR stunt for the Ukrainian government.” 

 

Horowitz wrote, “I found myself thinking of my ancestors and the millions of Jews slaughtered at the hands of Nazis.” (Horowitz is a Jew who is also an atheist.) “The red-carpet treatment given to the ‘hero’ of the Azov Battalion, Illia Samoilenko, is an insult to the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis during the Holocaust.” Horowitz’s outrage is of course understandable. What in hell are members of the Israeli government thinking by inviting a neo-Nazi to their country? Actually, it is understandable considering there are fascists in the Israeli government.

 

Horowitz revealed that “The Azov Battalion never attempted to hide their Nazi roots. The battalion’s iconography consists of several Nazi logos, such as the Sonnenrad (otherwise known as the ‘Black Sun’). For those Ukrainian supporters who still think there are no Nazis in Ukraine, their denial is naïve. Adding to that is their denial that “the United States and its allies decided that the Azov battalion was a valuable ally in their anti-Russia crusade.”

 

Another fact is that several Ukrainians practically worship Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian Nazi sympathizer who helped to commit war crimes during World War II.

 

An example of Ukrainian supporters is the Democratic Party elite. Writing for the Code Pink blog, Bryan Davies states that the elite has “given over $54 billion in military aid to Ukraine from February, 2022 to [November, 2022.]” And that doesn’t count very recent aid.

 

U.S. officials went to Ukraine after the 2014 coup and practically mingled with neo-Nazis. Joe Biden John McCain, Victoria Nuland, among others, shook hands with neo-Nazis in Ukraine’s capitol, Kiev. They met, for example, Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of Svoboda, an antisemitic and neo-Nazi political party; and Andriy Biletsky, who founded the Azov Battalion. 

 

Neo-Nazi and ultranationalist paramilitary groups were incorporated into the Ukrainian military, such as, Azov, Aidar, Svoboda, Right Sector, Misanthropic Division, National Corps, C14, Ethnic National Union, and Patriots of Ukraine. Biden, McCain, Nuland, etc. may have known about this but went into denial.     

Regarding propaganda, Davies wrote, “Reading the mainstream news, we’re led to believe that this invasion was unprovoked; unpredictable; and the story of a rogue authoritarian state preying on a weaker, open, democratic society, fighting for the future of democracy in the Western world.

 

“We’re led to believe that this war started in February [2022] with Russia’s invasion. In reality, this war has been going on for 8 years, fueled by American support. This support has largely been funneled to neo-Nazis and ultranationalist elements fundamentally opposed to democracy.”

 

Davies made an important point that to understand Russia’s motivations, the conflict should be looked at in a historical and geopolitical context, to show what forces are involved and their motivations. Providing an interesting chronology of events leading up to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Davies contributes more, revealing information than the establishment media in the West.

 

While there are a variety of news sources out there, they all have agendas. But which come closer to truths and facts when analyzing the Russia-Ukraine conflict? Looking at the historical and geopolitical factors would help to understand this.