Not a day seems to go by without simplistically high-profile tabloid inaccuracies regarding Russia. The prevailing theme spun is the brutal aspect of that country and its people. Several recent instances relate to this very point.
Mark Katz’s November 4 National Interest article on settling the Russia-Ukraine conflict is another idealistic pro-Kiev regime piece, at a realist leaning venue within the overall Capitol Hill slant. Concerning that limit, Katz isn’t off base in describing his piece as “pragmatic”. For a variety of reasons, it’s (put mildly) questionable for him to suggest that the Kiev regime and its Western backers have greater reason to be in disagreement with his peace proposal than Russia.
He opens with the dubious claim that “Russia’s poor military performance” has led Russia “to negotiate an end to the war.” Since the February 24 start of Russia’s armed action, Russian calls for diplomacy have been pretty consistent and not out of feeling cornered and on the brink of defeat.
Russia’s stated “special military operation” is called such in part to highlight that it’s far from engaging in an all-out conflict. In comparison, the Kiev regime is operating closer to a more maximum level to its overall capability. Russia is continuously seeking to achieve objectives with as less force as possible, which (among other things) seeks to limit casualties. On the other hand, it’s the Kiev regime side taking the far greater brunt of military casualties, along with the civilian fatalities caught in the crossfire.
Katz’s proposal is essentially what I advocated on March 11. Months later and tens of thousands of dead, Katz reaches the same settlement. A good deal has changed since then, leading me to an April 4 revision, which sees the Kiev regime losing more territory, in addition to its earlier loss of Crimea.
In September, Russia declared that Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhe are part of the Russian Federation. To go back on that declaration will be a severe blow to that country’s standing.
There’s nevertheless room to possibly secure a settlement, where the Kiev regime wouldn’t completely lose all of the territory recently proclaimed as Russian. In turn, Russia would be able to maintain in name these territories, with the other parts staying in Ukraine. For now, neither side appears so willing to consider this scenario.
The topic of human rights reveals a major difference between the likes of Katz and those being more inclined to see things my way. In his National Article, Katz carries on about Russian “war crimes”, as if there’s no evidence of Kiev regime misbehavior.
Upon getting the wrath of the Kiev regime, Amnesty International (AI) wasn’t able to convincingly walk back its accounting of the former’s use of civilians and civilian infrastructure as human shields – something that had already been pretty well established before AI’s finding.
There’ve been numerous instances of Western establishment downplaying and outright ignoring of Kiev regime abuses. On the nightly US national TV half hour news (ABC, CBS and NBC), one has yet to see any segments on Roma and people deemed as pro-Russian tied up to trees in Kiev regime-controlled Ukraine. Likewise, with the instances of people beaten and/or killed for that sentiment. In comparison, the evidence of this kind of behavior (verified, unverified or sheer crock) gets highlighted when done by Russia/Russians.
Brian Berletic’s November 7 YouTube commentary and Scott Ritter’s November 4 observations provide compelling counters to a PBS feature on what transpired at Bucha. With sarcastic wit, Mark Chapman’s November 3 blog post hits back at the Western mass media spin on Russian General Sergey Surovikin.
Berletic’s November 9 YouTube video summarizes the belief that recent events in Kherson aren’t indicative of an impending Russian defeat. Along with Andrey Martyanov, he comments further about this on Gonzalo Lira’s November 10 YouTube show.
Michael Averko is a New York based independent foreign policy analyst and media critic.