UKRAINE - EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW - BUT DIDN'T DARE ASK

Wherein I explore what is known about the Ukraine conflict and what you should do about it...

Welcome to the next installment of “The Five Essentials”!

Well, better late than never!

NOTE: This email is a long one. If your email provider, such as Gmail, clips this message, you can view the whole thing on the Web here. Also Gmail provides the option to see the entire message in a separate tab in your browser. Look for the “message clipped” notice at the bottom.

I wasn’t intending to spend a lot of time on current events in this Substack, neither domestic nor foreign policy, except as it might apply to personal survival in the world we live in. And make no mistake, both do apply, obviously. But the goal of this Substack is to show how one can possibly live “outside society” in a manner that improves the probability of personal survival and personal development given the present reality and the likely future. This implies the ability to “escape and evade” the consequences of the domestic and foreign policies of the states around the world.

Then the Ukraine war hit.

I have spent the last month, at least eight hours a day, attempting to get a handle on the war, the background, the motivations and goals of the parties, and the actual progress of the war. I believed I had a good handle on all of these aspects and could possibly reasonably predict the likely outcomes. I was wrong.

Let me go back a bit.

I, like most Americans, was fairly oblivious to foreign affairs for most of my life. Only when there was an actual war going on did I summon up an interest, mostly because I found military conflict interesting. For obvious reasons, military conflict is where the issue of survival comes up pretty quickly. I knew that, because I enlisted in the US Army on March 17, 1967 and was discharged on March 16, 1970. I spent a year in Vietnam from August 6, 1967 to August 5, 1968, mostly in a non-combat role (what they call a “REMF” – “Rear Echelon Motherfucker”.) I was stationed at a location in Vietnam at one point where my facility was attacked, and while I did not see direct combat on that occasion, there was a direct threat that could have materialized at any moment. Oddly, that was the most interesting time of my military employment; the rest of the three years were boring and irritating. It did give me my first real exposure to the nature of the state, however, which was definitely educational.

But until the war in Iraq in 2003, I was pretty much out of touch with foreign affairs. That war stimulated my interest, and I followed it pretty closely using alternative media for the most part, in particular a site called Iraqwar.com. That site’s operators supposedly had connections with the Russian GRU military intelligence organization, and thus they allegedly reported events in Iraq that were at odds with the mostly rosy US main stream media reports on how that war was going.

I believe I was one of the first to suggest there that Saddam Hussein had deliberately disbanded his military once Iraq’s defeat was assured and that the next step would be a major insurgency. I had studied guerrilla war and terrorism in some detail over the previous twenty years – despite my lack of interest in foreign affairs per se – and recognized the risk for a US occupation of Iraq. This prediction was made, if I remember correctly, in April, 2003, when the war was barely over and Bush had proclaimed “Mission Accomplished” – a statement which proved premature as events proved me right.

Having developed an interest in Middle Eastern conflicts as a result of my trying to understand the causes and effects of the Iraq war, I became interested in the conflict of the US and Israel with Iran. I quickly learned that Iran had no nuclear weapons program and that the claims of Israel and the US about such were along the same lines as the now debunked Iraq “weapons of mass destruction.” I spent a lot of time on the Web site “goingtotehran.com”, run by Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett, experts in the Middle East with specific focus on Iran and authors of the book of the same name.

Iran kept me interested for quite a while. I predicted on various Web sites, such as the one run by Josh Marshall called “Talking Points Memo”, from which I was banned, that eventually there would be a war between Israel and Iran, with the US doing the heavy lifting on behalf of Israel. I still think that will occur. The current ongoing talks between the US and Iran over the US rejoining the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that President Obama negotiated and President Trump abandoned are in my view doomed to fail, with the resulting ramp up of anti-Iran propaganda once again heading the US to war with Iran – which the US will lose, as it has lost most of its wars since 1945. But I digress.

In 2014, a new war arose – in Ukraine – the “Maidan Revolution”. I can’t remember how I got interested in that one, frankly. But I followed it closely, using the usual alternative media sources (some of which I’ll list below). I got a good grasp of the background and history of the conflict beginning from about 2013 and continuing through the ceasefire and the signing of the Minsk and then Minsk II Package of Measures. After that, I lost interest, although I was aware over the next eight years that the ceasefire was broken repeatedly and the Russian-speaking Ukrainian inhabitants of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics were being shelled on a regular basis.

A basic recap of the events since 2014 can be obtained here:

How the US Instigated the Ukraine Crisis

https://original.antiwar.com/rick_sterling/2022/02/24/how-the-us-instigated-the-ukraine-crisis/

John Mearsheimer on why the West is principally responsible for the Ukrainian crisis

https://archive.ph/artIo#selection-575.0-575.84

How NATO Empire-Building Set the Stage for Crisis Over Ukraine

How NATO Empire-Building Set the Stage for Crisis Over Ukraine

Six Things the Media Won’t Tell You About Ukraine

https://original.antiwar.com/ted_snider/2022/01/05/six-things-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-ukraine/

The History Behind the Russia-Ukraine War

by Scott Horton Posted on March 03, 2022

The following is adapted from a speech Scott gave to the Libertarian Party of Utah on February 26, 2022.

https://original.antiwar.com/scott/2022/03/02/the-history-behind-the-russia-ukraine-war/

There is also a documentary movie made in 2016 directed by Igor Lopatonok, called “Ukraine On Fire.” It features Oliver Stone, the executive producer, interviewing figures surrounding the 2014 Ukrainian revolution such as Vladimir Putin and Viktor Yanukovich.

A Documentary You’ll Likely Never See

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/13/a-documentary-youll-likely-never-see/

Ukraine On Fire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_on_Fire

Subsequent to the war starting, Youtube removed the video, the restored it but flagged as “adult” material. The rights holders subsequently released all rights to the movie, and it is available here:

https://rumble.com/vwxxi8-ukraine-on-fire.html

Then in spring, 2021, the situation heated up dramatically. The Ukraine government moved nearly half of its army to the contact line between the People’s Republics and the rest of Ukraine. It appeared that a new offensive was being planned. Russia, which had supported the Republics for the last eight years, reacted promptly by building up a large military force on the border with Ukraine and warning the Ukrainian government that a new offensive would be responded to by Russia militarily.

The situation eased and many of the Russian forces were returned to their permanent barracks.

I had started following the commentary on foreign affairs provided by the Youtube channel of Alexander Mercouris, an international law expert and international affairs analyst. I had read him in the past on Web sites such as The Duran and Russia Insider, and had seen him on the current affairs program on Russia Today called “Crosstalk”. I had even been cited by him on one occasion during the 2016 “Russiagate” affair on a matter of computer security connected to the allegations that Russia had hacked the Democratic National Committee, allegations that I doubted along with other information security experts.

Mercouris is precise, logical and very good at explaining the contexts of things, in a manner reflecting his legal training. As I followed his daily briefings on Youtube through the course of 2021, the situation with regard to Ukraine, as well as the situation with regard to US and China relations, including over Taiwan, the present state of foreign affairs and US foreign policy became clear.

Then in fall of 2021, the US began pushing a narrative that Russia was going to invade Ukraine. Initially, Mercouris, many other analysts, and myself were skeptical. There appeared to be a US plan to induce Russia to invade Ukraine in order to continue and enhance the economic sanctions the US had placed on Russia subsequent to the 2014 Ukraine situation. Given that Ukraine had not reduced the number of its forces on the contact line, there still appeared to be a direct threat of a new offensive on the People’s Republics, so it appeared that Russia was anticipating that offensive. It was not clear whether Russia was actually moving forces to the border with Ukraine. Satellite photos produced by the US and NATO had been proven to be manipulated to ignore the fact that many of these forces were not sitting in fields on the Ukrainian border but were in fact next to permanent Russian military barracks in the military districts of Russia. So most of us concluded that unless Ukraine began a new offensive against the Republics, Russia would not invade Ukraine. If Ukraine did start a new offensive, Russia would indeed respond militarily to some degree.

Subsequently, Russia presented the US and NATO with two treaty proposals intended to resolve issues that Russia had with the collective West about expansion of NATO into the eastern European countries. Mercouris analyzed these and the US and NATO’s responses in detail for months. It was clear that Russia had become “fed up” with the US and NATO expansion towards it borders, and the latest and most critical aspect was the integration with and expected ascension to NATO status for Ukraine, which would present Russia with a NATO country on its immediate borders within 400 kilometers of Moscow.

Here are links to these two treaty proposals. The first link in each document is to the official Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs site. The second link is to a copy on my Google Drive, as the Russian sites are frequently not accessible lately due to various Internet issues due to the war.

Agreement on measures to ensure the security of The Russian Federation and member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (PDF)

https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790803/?lang=en

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1djiHv2ZkwblyK4wv80lmY4-qkPfrJ1hh/view?usp=sharing

Treaty between The United States of America and the Russian Federation on security guarantees (PDF)

https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/nato/1790818/?lang=en

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11EjE2vsRZzLs_-u2gWViAP4fQj8VzHnh/view?usp=sharing

It was clear back in 2014 that with the rise of the new Ukrainian government after the Maidan Revolution the goal was to bring Ukraine into NATO with the obvious purpose of seizing the Russian naval base – its only warm water port – at Sevastopol. It was clear that this is why Russia seized Crimea after the Crimean people revolted against the new Ukrainian government in the same manner as the Donbass People’s Republics. Russia could not allow Ukraine to enter NATO and have a NATO naval base in Sevastopol. It would be like Cuba seizing the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay and installing Russian submarines and warships there. Regardless of international law, there is no way Russia could allow that – it would be an existential threat to its national security.

So now Russia offered the US and NATO a way out of the intensifying conflict over NATO expansion. The treaty proposals were entirely reasonable and offered concessions on both sides which would materially reduce the probability of future military conflict in Europe. The Russians clearly considered this a last ditch effort to avoid Russia having to take what it called “military-technical measures” to counter NATO expansion. No one was sure what Russia had in mind with those measures. Russia very clearly warned that if its proposals were not negotiated in good faith in a timely manner that Russia would resort to those measures.

Instead, the US and NATO categorically denied the core requirements of Russia’s proposals, and instead offered to start negotiations over side matters such as arms control, most of which Russia had been proposing for years which the US and NATO had previously dismissed. Russia evidently made the decision that the US and NATO were not capable of negotiating fairly on these issues.

Here is the official US and NATO response to the Russian treaty proposals, as published in a Spanish paper, with link to the PDF document on my Google Drive:

NATO and US Response to Russian Treaty Proposals (PDF)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pdcsBggwZApeVjafmtq2Jngu0ZsDfL6x/view?usp=sharing

While these talks were going on in December, 2021, and January and February, 2022, the US continued to hype the threat of a Russian invasion. More importantly, Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, while on the one hand denigrating the threat of a Russian invasion, used the US hype to make an increased effort to get NATO to accept Ukraine as a member. Despite the fact that Ukraine, with an active civil disturbance on its territory, was not a qualified candidate for NATO membership under NATO rules, the US and NATO continued to state categorically that NATO had an “open door” policy and that any European nation could apply for membership and that Russia had no say in the matter.

In fact, such a policy does not exist:

There is no NATO open-door policy

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/591448-there-is-no-nato-open-door-policy/

Then Zelenskyy made a major mistake. During a speech at the Munich Security Conference on February 19, 2022, he made the following statement:

Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world’s third nuclear capability. We don’t have that weapon. We also have no security. We also do not have part of the territory of our state that is larger in area than Switzerland, the Netherlands or Belgium. And most importantly – we don’t have millions of our citizens. We don’t have all this.

Therefore, we have something. The right to demand a shift from a policy of appeasement to ensuring security and peace guarantees.

Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum. Three times without success. Today Ukraine will do it for the fourth time. I, as President, will do this for the first time. But both Ukraine and I are doing this for the last time. I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest Memorandum. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was commissioned to convene them. If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt.

Wikipedia explains the Budapest Memorandum as follows:

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers: the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.

The memorandum prohibited the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, "except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations." As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.

In essence, what Zelenskyy was saying is that if the Budapest Memorandum is no longer in force, then Ukraine has the right to obtain nuclear weapons to defend itself from Russia.

In other words, Ukraine, a country which is attempting to gain NATO membership and which has a hostile relationship with Russia, would have nuclear weapons on Russia’s borders.

Worse, Ukraine has a significant internal political problem, which is a combination of extreme nationalism, extreme anti-Russian social attitudes, and indeed a contingent of what can only be called “neo-Nazis” or “Banderites”. These groups are extreme right-wing political movements and military militias which have been integrated with the Ukraine government since their formation in 2014.

While this has been called “Russian propaganda”, in reality even the US mainstream media has acknowledged the presence of neo-Nazi forces in Ukraine for years, for example this:

Nazi Roots of Ukraine’s Conflict

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/01/28/nazi-roots-of-ukraines-conflict/

Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/

How Many Neo-Nazis Is the U.S. Backing in Ukraine?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-many-neo-nazis-is-the-us-backing-in-ukraine

Examining the Threat of the Azov Movement in Ukraine

https://geohistory.today/azov-movement-ukraine/

Worse, these groups have been thoroughly embedded in the entire Ukrainian government, including the security services and the military.

Ukraine’s Kiev Regime is not “Officially” A Neo-Nazi Government

https://justice4poland.com/2018/12/08/ukraines-kiev-regime-is-not-officially-a-neo-nazi-government/

The Grayzone Web site with independent journalists Max Blumental, Aaron Mate and others have been covering this story for years:

https://thegrayzone.com/tag/azov-battalion/

In other words, Russia would be confronted with a hostile nation, including virulent Nazi ideologies integrated within that government – with potentially nuclear weapons and the backing of NATO.

Anyone who thinks this situation would be acceptable to Russia is completely delusional. Russia lost 27-30 million of its population in WWII to the German invasion. There is no ideology more hated by Russia than National Socialism or its variants.

In addition, the US CIA started an insurgency in Ukraine by these same extreme Ukrainian nationalists against Russia in the 1940’s – called the “Ukrainian Insurgent Army”. The Wikipedia entry states as follows:

During late 1944 and the first half of 1945, according to Soviet data, the UPA suffered approximately 89,000 killed, approximately 91,000 captured, and approximately 39,000 surrendered while the Soviet forces lost approximately 12,000 killed, approximately 6,000 wounded and 2,600 MIA….Official Soviet figures for the losses inflicted by all types of Ukrainian nationalists during the period 1944–1953 referred to 30,676 persons; amongst them were 687 NKGB-MGB personnel, 1,864 NKVD-MVD personnel, 3,199 Soviet Army, Border Guards, and NKVD-MVD troops, 241 communist party leaders, 205 komsomol leaders and 2,590 members of self-defence units. According to Soviet data the remaining losses were among civilians, including 15,355 peasants and kolkhozniks.[111] Soviet archives state that between February 1944 and January 1946 the Soviet forces conducted 39,778 operations against the UPA, during which they killed a total of 103,313, captured a total of 8,370 OUN members and captured a total of 15,959 active insurgents

In short, Russia knows these Ukrainian extreme nationalists. There is no chance Russia would accept a highly nationalistic anti-Russian Ukraine gaining nuclear weapons.

My guess is this is when Russia decided to go ahead with its military operation against Ukraine. On February 24, the operation began.

Russia also claims that it had evidence that Ukraine was going to begin a new offensive against the Donbass Republics before Russia launched its invasion. While the document they have produced to support this contention does not, in my view, do so – it has been badly translated, however, so this is not certain – there is also the evidence, supported by Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) documents from its mission to monitor the military situation in eastern Ukraine, that support a significantly enhanced shelling by Ukraine forces against the Donbass Republics, possibly as a means of preparing the battlefield. It is also significant that this enhanced shelling began shortly after Zelenskyy’s return from Munich and following a visit by him to the Ukraine forces on the contact line. It is believed that he gave the order for a new offensive on that occasion, but there is no proven documentation of that as yet to my knowledge.

So, now the war is on.

As I usually do, I resorted to the alternative media sources I usually follow, which I will list below. I ignored the US and European mainstream media for the most part, as it was clear from the outset that the narrative being fostered there was not only inaccurate, but deliberately so. Since it is difficult to obtain useful information from the battlefield, much of the information has to be obtained from social media, notably through various channels on the Telegram communications application. This information, however, is fragmented and unreliable, unless one can accumulate descriptions of the events from more than one source – which is often not the case.

Early on, based on my understanding of overall Russia’s security objectives as expressed by them and as analyzed by others in the run up to the war, I made predictions concerning how Russia would prosecute the war and what its final objectives would be when the war ended. I asserted these fairly emphatically, although I recognized that there were by no means certainties, first, because events could change them, and secondly, because they were based merely on my logical reasoning rather than actual official statements or actual events. In other words, I operated on the basis of “if Russia wants this, then logically they have to do this, therefore they will do this.”

That was a mistake.

The problem was that some of the things I thought had been established more or less at the outset of the invasion were apparently not true. For example, with a week or two of the start of the invasion, some of the analysts I followed said that the Ukrainian force located in the Donbass region on the contact line had been surrounded by the Russian and People’s Republics forces. This turned out not to be the case. In fact, these forces are only now attempting to close the encirclement of those forces and there still remains, according to reports, an option for those forces to either be reinforced by Ukrainian forces from the west or to attempt a breakout retreat before being fully encircled. There is also the question of how and why Russia attempted its Kiev operation and why it appears to be abandoning that operation, about which there is competing speculation.

Whether this is true or not is beside the point. The point is that the information coming out of the war, either on the positions and maneuvers of either side, or the final objectives of the Russian side, and the possible actions on the US/NATO side, are so unclear that no reasonable projection of the outcome of the war is possible, in my current view.

However, I do think that, absent some derailing event such the US and/or NATO directly entering the war inside Ukraine with actual military forces, Russia is inevitably going to “win” this war. What “win” actually looks like is entirely uncertain. It could range from Russia just seizing eastern Ukraine to Russia seizing the entirety of Ukraine up to the Polish border or anything in between.

Therefore, it is clear to me that the amount of attention I – and probably most people - have spent on this war has been mostly wasted. Furthermore, it is not clear to me that this war will have any significant direct affect on my personal living conditions to warrant that level of attention. It could have a significant direct affect on me, in my view, if one of three things happens: 1) it escalates to nuclear war, or 2) the economic consequences result in hyperinflation in the US, or 3) the economic consequences of the sanctions result in food or other supply shortages that might affect me.

For many of you, especially if you drive a car, you will be affected by this war. The energy sanctions are going to result in a massive increase in the price of gas at the pump. The economic effects of the sanctions and counter-sanctions are going to result in a significant increase in inflation of food prices and other consumer goods. The negative effects on the viability of the US dollar as the world reserve currency is going to have an impact on the US and EU economies that is likely to drive them into at least a severe recession or even a depression. The UK, for example, has seen a study released in the last week that says the standard of living of the average citizen will be reduced to the lowest levels since the 1950’s when records were started. The longer the overall conflict between the US and Russia (and indeed much of the rest of the world who do not support the West’s sanctions on Russia) continues, the more likely such results will appear in much of the West, including the US. In Third World countries, the situation may become even worse.

So, what is the right move now?

Data leads to information which leads to intelligence which leads to power. It is incumbent upon you to stay as informed as possible about the consequences of this war. It is not so important to be informed about the progress of the war itself. This is because of two things: 1) there is so little reliable information coming out about the war that it is pointless to try to discern what will happen next, and who is “winning”, and 2) the economic and geopolitical consequences of this war are far more important than what happens on the battlefield.

So I recommend the following approaches:

1) Ignore the main stream media reports on war events, most of which are being entirely made up by one side or the other. It seems clear that most of the information produced in the West originates with the Ukrainian government as laundered by the CIA, or vice versa. It is almost totally meaningless. It’s hardly worth the effort to read between the lines and try to glean any useful information from it. The only source to which I give any credence is the Russian Ministry of Defense daily briefings. Those aren’t really that useful, however, because they invariably consist of “we killed a few guys here, we blew up some stuff here, and in total we’ve blown up this much stuff.” They’re almost useless as to their next moves, except in general terms, such as “we’re reducing operations in the Kiev region, and concentrating on the Donbass, but we won’t tell you why.” Which is not surprising since a military doesn’t like telling the enemy what they’re doing and why.

2) Take the alternative media reports and analyses of war events with a larger than grain of salt. Almost none of these people are in Ukraine or have access to either the Ukrainian or Russian governments. If they do, they’re probably suspect as to reliability. As for various military analysts, most of them do not have access to reliable data as to the military movements of the sides. So all they can do is “informed speculation” based on their military background. This is of limited value because it appears Russia is conducting this conflict in a manner not consistent with their military doctrine, although there is some similarity to their conduct in Syria since 2015.

3) Absolutely no one outside of the Russian government – Putin and his team – have any idea what the end goals on the ground are. Period. End of story. I made predictions in the past. I disavow all those now for two reasons: 1) I have zero evidence except logic to support them, and 2) human beings always screw up. Which means Russia is likely to screw up its own intentions and means of achieving them. The US and NATO even more so, as has been clear since before the war started. The one thing you can count on with human beings is that they can always make a bad situation much, much worse – and usually do.

4) The primary things you should be focused on:

a) Has this conflict escalated to the point of direct military confrontation between the US/NATO and Russia? By direct confrontation, I mean the US or NATO forces are actively shooting at Russian forces – not just sending arms or “mercenaries” to Ukraine. If this happens, start looking for a ticket to South America until the situation resolves itself. You don’t want to be in the US if a nuclear war happens. Trust me on this.

b) Are the shelves of your grocery store starting to look empty? If so, start stocking up on extra food of the sort you normally eat. Also stock up on your ordinary consumables. There are plenty of videos on Youtube teaching you how to construct a “prepper pantry” to survive food shortages and other emergency situations. Since even President Biden has suggested this could happen, it behooves you to pay attention to the possibility. Take your time but try to stock up at least two or three months of extra food and consumables over time. It can be done even on a low budget.

c) Don’t involve yourself in discussion with relatives, friends and co-workers about the war. Keep your opinions to yourself. In today’s “cancel culture”, being on the outside of the conventional narrative, particularly in this case of anti-Russian hysteria which is more extreme than even the 9/11 anti-Muslim hatred, can cost you your job, your friends or worse.

d) Stay as informed as possible, given the unreliability of available information. I recommend the following sources – but don’t regard any of them as infallible. They primarily provide a coherent alternative to the mainstream media without necessarily drifting off into obsessive ideologies – but keep your eyes and mind open.

Sources:

Alexander Mercouris and Alex Christoforou at The Duran

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwGpHa6rMLjSSCBlckm5khw

https://www.youtube.com/c/AlexChristoforou/videos

https://odysee.com/@theduran:e

Alexander  Mercouris is a writer on international affairs with a special interest in Russia and law.  He has written extensively on the legal aspects of NSA spying and events in Ukraine in terms of human rights, constitutionality and international law. He resides in London.

Alex Christoforou is President and Chairman of The Duran, part of DRN MEDIA PLC, a public limited company based in Nicosia, Cyprus. The Duran is a media outlet that focuses on realpolitik news and analysis. The Web site is defunct but they continue on various video channel outlets.

Scott Ritter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

Do a Google search for his videos on Youtube. Don’t search ON Youtube as they appear to be not featuring his videos. He has been interviewed by numerous people in recent weeks, most of which is on Youtube on their own channels.

Pepe Escobar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepe_Escobar

Same as with Ritter. He’s everywhere. He goes everywhere, he knows everyone, and he can explain it all in plain English.

Moon of Alabama

https://www.moonofalabama.org/

A blog run by the pseudononymous “b”, also known as Bernhard. Excellent and usually correct analysis of world events. I have posted there often in the past, especially recently on the Ukraine war, before deciding to back down on covering the war. Highly recommended.

Vineyard of The Saker

https://thesaker.is/

A blog run by Andrei Raevsky, a former Swiss Red Cross officer, with a pro-Russian viewpoint and an interest in military affairs.

Consortium News

https://consortiumnews.com/

Independent investigative journalism site founded by the late Robert Parry and currently run by Elizabeth Vos and Joe Lauria

John Helmer – Dances With Bears

http://johnhelmer.net/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Helmer_(journalist)

Andrei Martyanov

http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/

An expert on Russian military and naval issues. He was born in Baku, USSR, graduated from the Kirov Naval Red Banner Academy and served as an officer on the ships and staff position of Soviet Coast Guard through 1990.

John Mearsheimer

https://www.mearsheimer.com/

R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Chicago since 1982. International relations theorist from the “realist” school.

Also available all over the Internet especially on the issue of Ukraine lately.

Colonel Douglas Macgregor

http://www.douglasmacgregor.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Macgregor

Again, all over the Internet on the Ukraine war.

M.K. Bhadrakumar

https://www.indianpunchline.com/

Retired Ambassador; Columnist for Hindu and Deccan Herald Indian newspapers, Rediff.com, Asia Times and Strategic Culture Foundation, Moscow

Richard Sakwa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sakwa

Again, can be found on the Internet commenting on the Ukraine war. Has written numerous books on Russia, including on Ukraine specifically.

The Grayzone

https://thegrayzone.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grayzone

Antiwar.com

https://www.antiwar.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiwar.com

Books on Ukraine

Here is a list of books on Ukraine which might help. I personally have not read them all. However, the books by Sakwa, Mearsheimer and Cohen are very good. All three are known experts in international relations and Russia.

Democracy, Populism, and Neoliberalism in Ukraine – Olga Baysha

Frontline Ukraine - Crisis in the Borderlands – Richard Sakwa

Near Abroad - Putin, The West, and The Contest Over Ukraine and The Caucasus – Gerard Toal

The Frontline - Essays on Ukraine’s Past and Present - Serhii Plokhy

The Gates of Europe - The History of Ukraine - Serhii Plokhy

The Great Delusion - Liberal Dreams and International Realities – John J. Mearsheimer

The War In Ukraine's Donbass - Edited by David R. Marples

Ukraine - What Everyone Needs To Know - Serhy Yekelchyk

Ukraine And The Empire Of Capital - From Marketisation To Armed Conflict - Yuliya Yurchenko

Ukraine and Russia - From Civilized Divorce To Uncivil War - Paul D’Anieri

Unlikely Allies – Pawel Markiewicz

War with Russia - From Putin and Ukraine To Trump and Russiagate – Stephen F. Cohen

Closing Remarks

Beyond this, I’m probably not going to say much more on this subject, unless something really significant happens. Hopefully in the near future I can get on with writing about the main topics of this Substack: The Five Esssentials. Because, in the end, they’re probably going to matter a lot more to you than how this war turns out. Unless of course, we have WWIII. Good luck with that.