Written by: Bruce Katz

The military engagement between Russia and Ukraine rages on with civilian and combatant deaths and casualties.

If the dimensions of the engagement in Ukraine is to be believed, then it should be clear to all observers that the U.S/NATO versus Russia struggle over the question of NATO’s expansion into eastern Europe and the security of Russia’s borders, Russian trade, commerce, energy resources and influence vis-à-vis Europe, has reached a more preponderant and dangerous stage, one that portends changes in the balance of power and alliances beyond the European theater.

It is incumbent upon observers of the present conflict to note the failure of the Western media in presenting the facts of recent history that underscore the failure of diplomacy which has resulted in the present conflict. That failure on the part of the media, moreover, appears to be willful, thereby setting a narrative which does not necessarily paint a true picture of why the conflict exists or how it can be resolved.

Nowhere in any mainstream Canadian medium – electronic or print- has the author of the present article seen any reference to the fact that in 1990 following Glasnost and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, assurances were given to the government of Boris Yeltsin that NATO would not expand eastward thereby assuring Russia that its borders would remain free of NATO infringement. In 1993, Yeltsin wrote a letter to then American President Bill Clinton maintaining that the promise not to expand NATO into eastern Europe had been broken.

The Clinton administration rejected the accusation. James Baker, who was U.S. Secretary of State at the time, denies that any such promise was made, but “Jack Matlock, who was the U.S. ambassador to Moscow at the time, has said that "categorical assurances" were given to the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand eastward.”

In February 1990, German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher and U.S. Secretary of State, James Baker met with the Russians at the Kremlin where Genscher assured the Russian government that “it is a certainty that NATO will not expand to the east,” meaning east of Germany. For his part James Baker gave the Kremlin "ironclad guarantees that NATO’s jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward.”

The question of NATO’s intended expansion into eastern Europe has been at the very heart of the tension between the U.S., its NATO allies and Russia ever since. After having faced three devastating invasions in its history since the early 19th century (the Napoleonic Wars, World War One and World War Two) with millions of civilian and military losses – more than 20 million Russians died during World War Two – the question of the security of Russia’s borders is not a theoretical one. It underscores the present conflict in Ukraine, that and the resolve of the United States to block Russian influence and trade in Europe, especially the proposed Nord Strom 2 gas pipeline to Germany.

The Budapest Memorandum and the Minsk Protocol

In December of 1994, three separate agreements – known as the Budapest Memorandum - were signed by Russia, the U.S. and the U.K. at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). By virtue of the Memorandum, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine signed on to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum included security assurances against threats or the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result between 1993 and 1996 Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons. Until then Ukraine had the world’s third-largest nuclear weapons stockpile.

After Crimea joined Russia in 2014, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the U.K and U.S. argued that Russian involvement in the annexation was a breach of the Budapest Memorandum. Putin argued that the ousting of the Yanukovich government constituted the revolutionary formation of a new state to which Russia had not signed any formal agreements.

The Minsk Protocol

There were two agreements negotiated by Ukraine and the breakaway Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR). In Minsk, Belarus in 2014 following the coup d’état against the Yanukovich government in Kyiv, negotiations were held. The objective was to end the fighting taking place between Ukrainian forces and separatist forces in the Donbass region.

The first agreement, known as Minsk I, negotiated in September 2014, resulted in Ukraine and the Russia-backed separatists agreeing on a 12-point ceasefire deal. The provisions included prisoner exchanges, deliveries of humanitarian aid and the withdrawal of heavy weapons. The agreement quickly broke down when both sides resumed the fighting.

In February 2015, representatives of Russia, Ukraine, the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the leaders of the separatist-held regions of Donetsk and Luhanskin the region of Donbass signed a 13-point agreement.

The 13 points of the Minsk II agreement were:

Withdrawal of heavy weapons by both sides.
OSCE monitoring.
Dialogue on interim self-government for Donetsk and Luhansk, in accordance with Ukrainian law, and acknowledgement of special status by parliament.
Pardon, amnesty for fighters.
Exchange of hostages, prisoners.
Humanitarian assistance.
Resumption of socioeconomic ties, including pensions.
Ukraine to restore control of state border.
Withdrawal of foreign armed formations, military equipment, mercenaries.
Constitutional reform in Ukraine including de-centralisation, with specific mention of Donetsk and Luhansk.
Elections in Donetsk and Luhansk.
Intensify Trilateral Contact Group’s work including representatives of Russia, Ukraine and OSCE.

Despite the agreement in February of 2015, the military and political steps which should have brokered at least a long-term ceasefire if not long-term peace, have not been implemented. The problem is that there is a fundamental difference in how Kyiv and Moscow view the Minsk Protocol. Ukraine sees the 2015 agreement as the means of re-establishing control over the DPR and LPR. Ukraine “wants a ceasefire, control of the Russia-Ukraine border, elections in the Donbas, and a limited devolution of power to the separatists – in that order,” whereas “Russia views the deal as obliging Ukraine to grant rebel authorities in Donbas comprehensive autonomy and representation in the central government”. A sticking point is that Russia maintains that, given the coup which brought down the elected Yanukovich government in Ukriane, Russia is not a party to the conflict and therefore is not itself bound by the terms of the Minsk Protocol.

What Happened First in 2022?

At the Munich Conference on European security held on February 20, 2022, Volodymyr Zelensky made a speech in which he stated that the Budapest Memorandum was not working and that decisions taken in 1994 were in doubt. Zelensky said “The security architecture in Europe and the world is almost destroyed. It’s too late to think about repairs, it’s time to build a new system.” Zelensky stated that Ukraine continues to implement the Minsk agreements which is “the unquestionable recognition of the territorial integrity and independence of our state.” He chided NATO for its closed door policy on Ukraine: “ This also applies to NATO. We are told: the door is open. But so far authorized access only. If not all members of the Alliance want to see us or all members of the Alliance do not want to see us, be honest.”

Zelensky went on to more or less disavow the Budapest Memorandum –the memorandum which obliged Ukraine to divest itself of nuclear weapons – in stating, “I want to believe that the North Atlantic Treaty and Article 5 will be more effective than the Budapest Memorandum.” It was also Zelensky’s statement that Ukraine should be admitted to NATO. Article 5 binds NATO members to take military action should any one member-nation of NATO be attacked. Article 5 states that an attack on one member of NATO is an attack on all of its members. The only time NATO’s Article 5 has been invoked was in response to the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001.

Zelensky further stated that “Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world’s third nuclear capability. We don’t have that weapon. We also have no security. . . Therefore, we have something. The right to demand a shift from a policy of appeasement to ensuring security and peace guarantees.” The reference to the failure of the Budapest memorandum, the plea restated for Ukraine’s admission to NATO and the demand for an end to the policy of appeasement must not have pleased Russia. That is something of an understatement.

In 1996 the Clinton administration called for NATO expansion into the former Warsaw Pact countries and the post-Soviet republics, which Russia opposed. In 1999 Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were added to NATO followed by another seven central and eastern European countries in 2004. NATO had promised that it would not expand eastward after the fall of the Soviet Union and the reunification of Germany, thereby assuaging Russian fears regarding the security of its borders at that time. Via the Bucharest Declaration of 2008, NATO invited Albania and Croatia to join and openly declared that “NATO welcomes Georgia's and Ukraine's aspirations for membership.”

The 2008 Bucharest Declaration became the red line that Russia would not allow to be crossed. In August of 2008, Russia backed the breakaway Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in seceding from Georgia. Russia launched a military intervention against Georgia, to prevent Georgia’s attempted retaking of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia’s military intervention went up until about 30 miles from the Georgian capital of Tbilisi, before its conclusion. There was no further discussion of NATO expansion to Georgia.

When the two people’s republics in the Donbass region seceded from the Maidan regime, after the coup d’état in Kyiv in 2014, a similar dynamic happened. While a majority of Ukraine’s population doesn’t support the US-imported neo-Nazis, the neo-Nazi Azov Brigade was a beneficiary of CIA training and weapons that targeted the Donbas.

Many of those Azov Nazis received training from the Canadian military through Operation UNIFIER. Meanwhile, current President Zelensky’s biggest financial backer continues to be Ukrainian-Israeli oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky, who significantly backs the Azov battalion.

Eight years later, the Russian army, after Ukrainian forces shelled villages in the Donbass, Russia began a military intervention in Ukraine.. The result is unequivocal: the Crimea is now a permanent part of Russia and the strategically important port of Sevastopol will remain in Russian hands. There will be no further talk of expansion into republics bordering Russia; Russian military power is a deterrent after the show of force in Ukraine. Kyiv is now encircled by Russian forces. Neutralizing Azov is one of the main focuses of the Russian intervention designed to bring security and relief to the Donbas.

Russia has stopped its advance multiple times in the hopes that Ukraine would engage seriously in negotiations, with its demands for neutrality. If these negotiations don’t provide conclusive results, Russia will likely move to remove the present Zelensky government and replace it with a neutral Ukrainian government. That remains to be seen. The fact that Zelensky appears to have finally come to the realization that Ukraine must remain free of NATO is the key to ending the conflict.

Had that reality been established at the outset, there would not have been an armed confict in the first place, no civilians would have been killed, no infrastructure damaged, no Ukrainians made refugees. The people of Ukraine are pawns in a conflict brought on by NATO.

When push came to shove, Putin knew full well that the U.S. and its NATO allies would not intervene militarily and would allow Ukraine to fall to its fate. The flurry of sanctions and sending military equipment to Ukraine cannot erase that fact. The current war in Ukraine signals a clear defeat for the U.S. and NATO. It is a debacle resulting from an acute case of hubris among the sorcerers’ apprentices in Washington who believe in the invincibility of their theories. The Ukrainian people have been sacrificed for Washington’s geopolitical machinations.

It would have been necessary to accept the Minsk Declaration in principle, move toward the defusing of tensions between the West and Russia, deal with legitimate Russian concerns for the security of its borders and perhaps move toward the idea of a federative association between Ukraine and the DPR and LPR. There is no possibility of that happening now. The die have been cast.

The demise of the Warsaw Pact should have signaled the end of NATO. There was no further justification for its existence other than its use as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy.

Ukraine, NATO, the U.S. dollar and the upcoming economic crisis

The airwaves are replete with the blare of how economic sanctions via blocking Russia from the SWIFT banking system have isolated it and will bring Putin’s ‘regime’ (Zelensky’s is not a regime but a government) crashing down. Russia is certainly isolated, but its isolation will impact European economies negatively, as well as other economies. The United States, the European Commission, Canada, France, Germany, the U.K. and Italy have all supported the decision.

Al Mayadeen Net makes reference to a February 8, 2022 article which appeared in The Financial Times to the effect that the “imposition of US or Western sanctions on Russia could heavily impact European economies, especially the energy, trade, manufacturing, and banking sectors . . .” The fear is that Moscow will cut gas to Europe. The Russian gas supply to Europe cannot be replaced.

As quoted by Al Mayadeen, former US colonel and Eurasia Center Vice President, Earl Rasmussen, “said that the European Union's latest sanctions and economic retaliation against Russia will backfire and cause a massive recession in Europe.” Rasmussen said that “the European sanctions against Russia will throw Europe into a "historical recession." Russia is one of the world’s largest exporters of gas along with Iran.

Russia supplies the countries of the European Union with 40% of its natural gas and 33% of its oil imports. Any break in the flow of the gas and oil means an exponential hike in gas prices accompanied by a similar hike in the price of commodities. The Financial Times stated that the “technology suppliers and the manufacturers and exporters of goods are highly dependent on raw materials, and any disrupted trade links would put a lot of pressure on European business.”

Nor will Germany ban Russian gas/oil exports. The German economy minister has warned of a ‘threat to social peace’ and government aid for German companies is facing a $22 billion loss. All of which mitigates against any military response against Russia. In short, despite the military equipment doled out to Ukraine by the U.S and its allies, Ukraine will be left to defend itself. It is too early to know just how this will impact the existence of the present Zelensky government. It seems apparent that the intensity of Russian bombardment points to the Kremlin’s intent to force a change of government in Ukraine.

It is easy enough for the ineffable Boris Johnson to hammer the point of banning Russian oil exports. The U.K. only gets 4% of its oil from Russia. The U.S. only receives a measly 1% and Canada only 3%. Germany gets 40% of its fuel from Russia. It is Europe which will be impacted by a reduction of Russian gas/oil.

Rasmussen said that ‘tough times’ are ahead. He added that “Washington is in no condition to replace Russia’s plentiful and cheap supplies of natural gas to Europe with any alternative energy supply that is remotely comparable in either scale or cost. . .”and that consequently, the gas replacement to the degree that any such replacement is possible, “will be significantly more expensive, perhaps two to four times more expensive." Rassmussen said that the EU has made a huge mistake and added that Washington’s role in the global economy will be significantly reduced in the long term.

"Even if we make it through, the economic system has been severely shaken by the arrogance of the United States, and the European powers which will shift more rapidly away from the dollar as a trading/currency reserve." What this underscores is the onset of a major recession from which the United States, Canada and the NATO countries will not be exempt. It also portends worldwide shortages of commodities with a disastrous effect on human society and a further breakdown of the social fabric. A downhill trend for the U.S. economy means the same for Canada’s economy. It will likely impact the next federal election in Canada.

The sanctions against Russia may provide Canadian exporters of grain and other commodities with opportunities given that these commodities can no longer be exported by Russia due to sanctions, but the opposite will be true for those Canadian companies which export industrial and agricultural machinery, automotive products and aircraft. “The industrial and agricultural machinery group is the largest component of Canada’s exports to Russia, accounting for over 36% of total exports to the country”. Moreover, “Canadian industries that export to Russia and to Ukraine have no way of knowing when, if ever, their contracts will be completed.”

Then there is the big hit in the pocketbook that will affect Canadians’ daily existence. For Canadian consumers already facing the highest inflation in 30 years, “higher gas and food prices will just bring more pain”. The Russian mi coincides with an already difficult economic situation in Canada and elsewhere due to the Covid-19 pandemic and its negative impact on shipping and supply chains. Professor Sylvain Charlebois of Dalhousie University has said that “the crisis in Ukraine will impact an already fragile Canadian supply chain, especially when it comes to food prices”. The war in Ukraine is also likely to have a negative impact on the housing market in Canada, making it more difficult to afford mortgages as the Bank of Canada raises interest rates to counter the rise in inflation.

The Russian economy has been impacted by sanctions imposed upon it by Western nations. There has been considerable loss of jobs as corporations end or suspend ties with Russia. However, the decision to target the Russian central bank with sanctions and to cut the Russian banking system from SWIFT will likely blow up in the faces of the U.S. and its allies. In an article which is required reading, and appropriately entitled, “Follow the money: how Russia will bypass economic warfare,” Pepe Escobar explains that as European traders depend on Russian energy, it is simply not possible that more than a few Russian banks could be excluded from SWIFT. Moreover, a certain number of Russian banks are “already connected to China’s CIPS system” and if “someone wants to buy Russian oil and gas with CIPS, payment must be in the Chinese yuan currency. CIPS is independent of SWIFT.” Russia’s SPFS (System for Transfer of Financial Messages is not only linked to China but also “to India and member nations of the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU). SPFS already links to approximately 400 banks.”

In short, Western sanctions against Russia will push its banking system to merge even more closely with that of China, thereby avoiding the pressures of the U.S. led monetary system with an accompanying trend toward de-dollarization and the devaluation of the U.S. dollar. As Escobar states bluntly: “The key fact is that the flight from the US-dominated western financial system is now irreversible across Eurasia – and that will proceed in tandem with the internationalization of the yuan.” The process signals the end of U.S. monetary domination or as Escobar puts it, “So the US itself, in another massive strategic blunder, will speed up de-dollarization.”

Even Saudi Arabia is considering taking payments for oil sales to China with the Yuan, rather than the U.S. dollar.

What the situation also points to is that much of the analysis coming from Western capitals and Western media misses the mark. Escobar makes reference to Michael Hudson’s recent article, entitled “America Defeats Germany for the Third Time in a Century,” which highlights the fact that “NATO has become Europe’s foreign policy-making body, even to the point of dominating domestic economic interests.”

Escobar summarizes Hudson’s reference to the three oligarchies in control of U.S. foreign policy. First comes the military-industrial complex the base economy of which is “monopoly rent, obtained above all from its arms sales to NATO, to West Asian oil exporters and to other countries with a balance-of-payments surplus.” Second is the oil and gas plus the mining sectors, whose objective is “monopolizing the Dollar Area’s oil market and isolating it from Russian oil and gas has been a major US priority for over a year now, as the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Germany threatened to link the western European and Russian economies together.” Third comes the finance, real estate and insurance sector which Hudson denotes as “the counterpart to Europe’s old post-feudal landed aristocracy living by land rents.”

Hudson goes on to state that “Wall Street always has been closely merged with the oil and gas industry (namely, the Citigroup and Chase Manhattan banking conglomerates).” In a stark comment on U.S./NATO strategy which points to the fact that Ukraine has been played as a patsy in order to impact Germany’s economy, Hudson points out that far from wishing to create economic stability, U.S. strategy is based on driving oil and gas prices soaring. “In addition to creating profits and stock market gains for US companies, higher energy prices will take much of the steam out of the German economy.”

Blocking Russian raw material products will “cause breaks in supply chains for key materials, including cobalt, palladium, nickel, aluminum.” The world is now looking at an exponential increase in the price of gas at the pump and food prices. There will be a serious increase in the price of bread and grain. Russia and Ukraine provide 25% of the world’s wheat exports. “This will squeeze many West Asian and Global South food-deficient countries, worsening their balance of payments and threatening foreign debt defaults.”

Hudson states that the overall intention of Washington and its foreign-policy weapon, NATO, is to : “break up Russia, or at least to restore its managerial kleptocracy seeking to cash in their privatizations in western stock markets.” When viewed from this perspective –one which escapes the analysis of the so-called mainstream media – the Russia-Ukraine crisis has been planned and sustained by Washington/NATO as the instrument for achieving its new Cold War aims.

In his article in Counterpunch, Hudson asks a pertinent question: “Will European nationalist leaders (the left is largely pro-US) ask why their countries should pay for U.S. arms that only put them in danger, pay higher prices for U.S. LNG and energy, pay more for grain and Russian-produced raw materials, all while losing the option of making export sales and profits on peaceful investment in Russia – and perhaps losing China as well?”

Hudson goes on to issue what amounts to a warning to the West and its banking system: “Over the longer term, Russia is likely to join China in forming an alternative to the U.S.-dominated IMF and World Bank.” That translates to de-dollarization and an acute problem for the banking system.

As the dictum goes: “The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray.” The sorcerers apprentices in Washington did not foresee the intensity and impact of the Russian response. As Escobar writes: “Hudson clearly sees how “the most enormous unintended consequence of US foreign policy has been to drive Russia and China together, along with Iran, Central Asia and countries along the Belt and Road initiative.” This not only has economic implications for the long term, but points to a complete realignment of global strategic alliances.

A New, New World Order

The Russian military intervention in Ukraine constitutes a breach with Europe that may well be beyond repair. It may very well mark the opening stage of a much larger conflagration down the road. In effect, European subservience to Washington/NATO has placed it in a position whereby it will be cut off from the Belt and Road Initiative which is where trade and economic development mark the future. More than this, the U.S/NATO versus Russia/China new Cold War has resulted in the delineation of two competing political-economic blocks where the motto has become: You are either with us or against us. The middle road has more or less disappeared. Now that Russia has been cut off from Europe, it will turn its attention to the Middle East and Islamic countries. The process has already begun.

Turkey is a pivotal part of NATO but has had its differences with Washington. Ankara finds itself in a particularly sensitive position in that it is forced to consistently walk a fine line in its relations to both the U.S./NATO and Russia. Not surprisingly, Turkey has offered to mediate between Russia and Ukraine, thereby attempting not to be squeezed between a rock and a hard place, this despite Erdogan’s statement condemning the Russia’s actions. It is noteworthy that Turkey refused to endorse the West’s toughest sanctions on Russia. In short, the Turkish government’s attitude to the conflict differs from that of other NATO members, reflecting the requirement that it not alienate the Kremlin. As an Al Monitor article points out, “Turkey also abstained on Feb. 25 from voting on the suspension of Russia's rights in the Council of Europe, as "it stands for the continuation of dialogue under any circumstances.”

The same Al Monitor article points to a strategic alliance favoring Russia, neglected by many in the mainstream Western press. On February 21st, the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev visited Moscow. “Amid the escalation between Russia and NATO and the preparation of a Russian military operation against Ukraine, Aliyev signed a declaration on allied cooperation between Azerbaijan and Russia. Russia and Azerbaijan agreed to provide each other with military assistance.” The statement linking the military ties between the two countries, as shown by Al Monitor is worth noting:

“In order to ensure security, maintain peace and stability, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Azerbaijan may consider the possibility of providing each other with military assistance on the basis of the UN Charter, separate international treaties and taking into account the existing international legal obligations of each of the parties,” the declaration stated. In addition, Putin and Aliyev agreed to refrain from any actions that, in the opinion of one of the parties, damage the strategic partnership and relations between the two states”.

Of special significance here is the fact that Azerbaijan is already an ally of Turkey on the basis of the Shusha Declaration, and a strategic partner of Pakistan, “with whom it repeatedly conducts joint military maneuvers”. Hence, despite its being a member of NATO, by virtue of its alliance to Azerbaijan and that of Azerbaijan to Russia, Turkey forms part of an alternative military threesome, although it is a member of NATO. Intriguing to say the least.

Al Monitor also reports that earlier, on the eve of the Russian military intervention in Ukraine, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was in Moscow on an official visit. Khan held talks with Putin on February 24th, when Russian troops had already launched their incursion into Ukrainian territory. Earlier, on January 17th, after a phone conversation with Putin, Khan thanked him for being “the first Western leader to show empathy and sensitivity to Muslim sentiment for their beloved prophet. . .”

The case of the United Arab Emirates in their response to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is also significant. It has flip-flopped in first avoiding any condemnation of Russia, then reversing its position and condemning it, obviously under pressure from Washington. But on March 1st, the UAE announced that it had “suspended its visa-free regime with Ukraine that allowed Ukrainian citizens to stay in the country for up to 30 days without the need for a visa”. The flip-flop points to the UAE’s increasingly tense relationship with the U.S.

Dynamics between Israel, the U.A.E., Russia and Iran

Several days after the UAE abstained from voting on the resolution condemning Russia’s military intervention, Yousef al-Otaiba, the Emirati ambassador to the US stated that the UAE and the U.S were facing a ”stress test”. The UAE’s economic and political ties with Russia have been growing, to the displeasure of Washington. Barak Ravid, writing in Axios writes that at the “request of the Biden administration, the Israeli government lobbied the United Arab Emirates to vote for a UN resolution condemning Russia's actions in Ukraine, after the UAE had abstained in a previous vote. . .”The same article references the fact that “U.S. Ambassador to Israel Tom Nides thanked Israel publicly for its efforts without directly mentioning the UAE.” What this highlights is the increasing tendency of Middle Eastern countries to draw their distance from Washington’s juggernaut.

It is not without noting that “the leaders of the Houthis in Yemen, following Russia, recognized the Donetsk and Luhansk republics,.” This explains in large part the reluctance on the part of the UAE to alienate Russia. The UAE, as part of the Saudi-led alliance, has been involved in a brutal military conflict with the Houthi rebels which has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Houthi civilians including children. The close Houthi relations with Moscow places Russia in a position in which it can mediate the Saudi-UAE-Abu Dhabi versus Houthi conflict.

The need for cooperation was “confirmed during a Feb. 24 telephone conversation between the foreign ministers of the UAE and Russia.” It is significant that Washington is absent from the process. Saudi Arabia has kept rather quiet over the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Given that what is at play here is the question of oil, as well as money and security issues, the reticence comes as no surprise. What the situation of growing Russian influence in West Asia also underscores is the weakened position of Israel as Washington’s beachhead in the Middle East. In effect, Israeli hegemony in the region is a thing of the past.

On February 24 Russia slammed Israel’s illegal occupation of the Golan Heights, this following Israel’s statement that it supports “Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty”. The Russian statement was unequivocal: "Russia's unchanging position, according to which we do not recognise Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights that are an inalienable part of Syria." Syrian President Bashar Assad, in a telephone call with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on Friday, praised the Russian military intervention in Ukraine, saying it was a “correction of history.”

A graphic message was sent to Israel following an Israeli missile strike near Damascus. (Israel has breached Syrian sovereignty with over one hundred missile strikes into Syrian territory over several years). A Syrian missile “was fired over occupied Palestine, reaching the northern town of Umm al-Fahem. . . This could only have happened with prior coordination with Moscow, and perhaps at its instigation”. The message to Israel was loud and clear:” Syrian retaliation for Israeli air strikes may soon be stepped up, depending on Israel’s position on the Ukraine crisis.” Russia controls the airspace over Syria and in the past has allowed Israeli strikes against Iranian targets in Syria. This may be about to change. Indeed, Israeli officials fear that the Kremlin will move ahead to curb Israel’s military operations in Syria.

This explains Israel’s subsequent refusal to vote, along with 87 other countries, in support of a U.S.-led Security Council resolution condemning Russia. The US Ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas Greenfield, protested to Israeli Ambassador Gilad Erdan over Israel's refusal. A week later, on March 2nd, Israel voted in favor of a UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia and demanding Russia’s immediate withdrawal from Ukraine, this after criticism by the White House and Republicans. Former Republican U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen stated the following in reference to Israel’s flip-flopping: “Now it comes down to: Are you with the Russians or are you with the United States and the West? They do have to make a decision here.” So, you are with us or against us is what it boils down to, and at the same time, a reminder: “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you”. Therein lays Israel’s conundrum.

Abdel Bari Atwan states that a second unequivocal message was sent to Israel, this from Iran. He writes that Iran’s National Security Adviser General Ali Shamkhani issued a statement saying that “the nuclear negotiations have reached a critical stage and hinge on a political decision by Iran to accept or reject the final terms of a reliable and sustainable agreement. He stressed that this must involve the immediate lifting of all US sanctions and respecting all agreed principles”. In other words, as Atwan summarizes, the message is that “Tehran will not back down in the nuclear talks, is not desperate for an agreement, and is OK with retaining its current status as a nuclear threshold state.” The ball is in Iran’s court, not in Israel’s.

Atwan sums up Israel’s problem succinctly: “Iran, quietly relishing the worsening Ukrainian crisis, decided from the outset to stand in the Russian/Chinese trench. Israel has only one option, to ultimately stand in the US/European trench. That will cost it its distinguished ties with Russia, and it would have to bear the consequences of that in Syria, Iran, and the Middle East at large.”

According to Atwan, the increasing tension between the China-Russia versus US-European ‘axes’ has “made Russia, like China before it, more eager to strengthen strategic relations with Iran, bolstering its standing in this axis challenging US global primacy.” The very same fact imposes upon Washington the need to curry favor with Iran, hence the inevitable lifting of sanctions against Iran – to Israel’s dismay – and the restoring of the JCPOA nuclear deal. Add to Iran’s strategic importance the fact that Iran has the world's second largest gas reserves after Russia. Iran holds about 17.8% of the world's total reserves.

A Russia-Iran alliance puts the two largest gas reserves in the same politico-economic axis. Hence, Iran is in a position of strength and Israel’s is increasingly fragile. That is what has changed ‘on the ground’ as regards geo-political reality. What the cutting off of Russia has confirmed is that there are now two major conflicting axes with global implications: the West (US-Europe) and China-Russia-Iran-Syria. If the two axes cannot find common ground in terms of political and economic cooperation, there is the distinct possibility of a major war in the not-too-distant future.

The U.S. response to the changing geo-political dynamics is now to push Germany to take on the mantle of a larger military role in Europe as a bulwark against Russia. Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe floated the idea of re-arming Japan with nuclear weapons based on the idea of NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangement, this as a counter-weight to Chinese influence in Asia and more specifically in the area of the South China Sea. The current Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida has responded with a firm ‘No’ to the suggestion. The NATO-inspired scenario regarding Japan and Germany nevertheless shows the direction in which the US/NATO versus China/Russia contest is going.

A need for change in Canada’s foreign policy

It is evident that in the context of growing militarism and the formation of two warring political-economic blocks which threatens to bring the world to the threshold of a third World War, Canadian foreign policy should be built on the idea of working to defuse that very situation.

Canadian foreign policy should be aimed at attempting to strike a balance between conflicting powers rather than allowing itself to be made part of a hostile camp bent on imperial domination; it should be promoting de-militarization and de-nuclearization, not the opposite.

Moreover, given the Trudeau government’s penchant to shape its foreign policy to the dictates of Washington and to alienate China and Russia, it will find itself holding the short end of the stick while Chinese initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative and BRICS become the foundation of a new economic order. This points to Trudeau’s failure in foreign policy and the nefarious presence of Chrystia Freeland as Foreign Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and maybe even Prime Minister in-waiting?

If recent popularity polls in Canada are any indication, Trudeau is in deep trouble. According to an Angus Reid tracker, Justin Trudeau’s popularity has fallen to 40% with a 57% disapproval rating (Feb.22) this likely explains why Trudeau is now making it a point of being seen with European Heads of State discussing the current war in Ukraine.

Trudeau may be in Europe more to bolster his sagging popularity by promoting the image of himself as a ‘statesman’. This being more of a public relations venture than a serious attempt to influence European decision-making on the Russian occupation of Ukraine. Any doubt of the seriousness of Trudeau’s presence in Europe should have been dispelled by the news that as part of a group of 30,000 soldiers participating in the 2022 NATO Cold Response maneuvers in Norway for the defense of the Arctic, Canada will be sending only ten representatives. The irony of Trudeau’s visit to Europe to incite European leaders to take a firmer stance against Russia is only too obvious. PR and nothing more.

There is no doubting that Canada’s foreign policy is not set in Canada. The very fact that for the most part it lays in the hands of Chrystia Freeland, devotee of the U.S. State Department, Russophobe, pro-Bandera ultra-nationalist (Bandera was a vicious Ukrainian anti-Semite*) architect of the right-wing Lima Group and friend of anti-communist oligarchs like George Soros, another supporter of the Ukraine’s far-right, should bring shivers to all progressives in Canada.

As stated in a previous Canada Files Article:

Freeland has directed Canadian foreign policy as an adjunct to her admiration for right-wing Ukrainian nationalism coupled with a fierce hatred of all things Russian. She has, in effect, singlehandedly destroyed diplomatic relations with Russia while Justin Trudeau, lacking in political acumen, the front man for Canadian corporate and mining interests has looked on, content to be the ‘human face’ of neoliberal economics and its accompanying policy of ‘regime change’ wherever the neoliberal agenda deems it necessary.

What we are now witnessing is Trudeau’s fall from grace. His largely ineffectual leadership is unraveling which means that Freeland’s moment is soon to arrive. A Nanos research poll which took place between January 21 and January 23, 2022 named Chrystia Freeland to be more preferable to Canadians as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada than Justin Trudeau. Freeland who is playing a key role in Canada’s response to the Russian-Ukrainian crisis, places far ahead of Mr. Trudeau as his potential successor.

With a route to Liberal power likely for Freeland, it is more than ever the time for the question of Canada’s adherence to NATO to be debated once again in Canadian political circles.

Note:

*Historian Karel Berkhoff, among others, has shown that Bandera, his deputies, and the Nazis shared a key obsession, namely the notion that the Jews in Ukraine were behind Communism and “Stalinist imperialism” and must be destroyed . . .

They further promised to work closely with Hitler, then helped to launch a pogrom that killed four thousand Lvov Jews in a few days, using weapons ranging from guns to metal poles. “We will lay your heads at Hitler’s feet,” a Banderite pamphlet proclaimed to Ukrainian Jews.

Editor’s note: The Canada Files has spent two years doing critical investigative reporting on Canada's imperialist foreign policy. We’ve established a clear track record of exposing the truth Canada's political establishment hides from you. There's so much more we can do, but only with your financial support.

When TCF's monthly support reaches $1250 CAD per month, up from $1155 per month at present, we'll introduce the #uponfurtherinvestigation initiative! Check out this thread for more details.

Please consider setting up a monthly or annual donation through Donorbox.

Bruce Katz is a retired language teacher, who’s a founding member and current co-president of Palestinian and Jewish Unity (PAJU) a Montreal-based pro-Palestinian solidarity organization founded in November 2000.

More Articles

Featured