Was It Possible that Putin Had Not Been Involved in His Battle Against Ukraine?

Russia Losing War in Media; Imposing Military Success
1- Russian President Vladimir Putin gestures during a press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, in Moscow, Russia, February 7, 2022. Thibault Camus/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
G7 leaders' family photograph during a NATO summit at the alliance's headquarters in Brussels on March 24, 2022. (Photo by Michael Kappeler / POOL / AFP)

Contemporary history has not witnessed such an escalation with consequences Russia did not suffer from its Western opponents even during the height of the Cold War, which lasted for more than forty years.

At that time, the media disinformation on the part of the world's top media organizations had reached its limit. Here we stand today faced with many examples of this misinformation, at a time when the world turned overnight from expressing astonishment coupled with “muffled” admiration for Russian President Vladimir Putin and his ability to “confront” the largest military and economic power in the world, to his “demonization.”

Considering Russia to be a "blameful aggressor" does not give any weight to the capabilities of the civilized world, nor to the foundations of democracy, human rights, and similar "achievements of the age."

Although Putin was the one who took the initiative to warn against the consequences of NATO’s expansion to the east and the danger of its persistence in its plans to swallow up what remained of the countries of the former Soviet territory, including Ukraine and Georgia, the Western media succeeded with its influence and pervasiveness to turn things upside down.

It also managed to demonize Putin to the extent that the world is close to believing what is said about him - that he is on his way to “swallow” Ukraine in preparation for the occupation of areas beyond its western borders, including Moldova, Poland, and its environs.

Here is the world approaching the restoration of the image of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and the crimes he committed before and during the years of World War II, in the person of the Russian leader, in a way that is different from the facts of what is happening on the ground in Ukraine.

Not one of the senior media figures, or even their juniors, stopped to recount the history of fascism in Ukraine, what accompanied it and what happened and is happening in terms of “giving images of heroism to the symbols of Nazism.” These media types have not paid attention to the controversy raging over what some in western Ukraine described as championing of Roman Shukhevych, commander of the Ukrainian rebel army, and Stepan Bandera, leader of Ukrainian nationalists, who in eastern Ukraine are considered among the most prominent symbols of fascism and Nazism.

This is a multifaceted issue with deep significance and dimensions that has caused the intensification of conflicts and disputes that have been erupting for many years between eastern and western Ukrainians ever since the beginning of  the "Orange Revolution."

These conflicts are coming back to the fore and are the leading causes of the disputes with Russia.

In the context of the material evidence that we are presenting about the United States’ involvement in supporting and training the “neo-Nazis” in Ukraine, we refer to a video published on YouTube about some aspects which William Scott Ritter, a former US Marine Corps officer, has revealed in the context of his involvement in training the Nazis in Ukraine.

Ritter said: "We trained the Nazis. The neo-Nazi battalion "Azov" was one of the first forces trained by American and British soldiers.”

We quote from the Arabic-speaking Russia Today website, the assertions of the former intelligence officer in the US Marines during an interview with journalist George Galloway that representatives of the US army, along with trainers from the British and Canadian armies,  trained the neo-Nazis in Ukraine, who later seized power in the country, according to other Russian and foreign sources.

Ritter pointed out that "the United States and the European Union mobilized these malicious groups in western Ukraine."

He added: "Foreign units visited Ukraine to form nationalist groups in the west of the country, after which they overthrew the legitimate president Viktor Yanukovych and began to pursue policies of violence and intimidation against Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko who was ready to recognize the special status of the Donbass in 2015.”

Poroshenko had signed the Minsk Accords in February 2015 under the auspices of the leaders of Russia and Germany and France.

The US officer stated that a similar fate would befall the current Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, noting that "Zelensky appointed himself as the president who would bring peace. He said he spoke with the Azov battalion and demanded that they lay down their weapons, which prompted them to simply expel him from there, saying, "Shut up, we will slap you."

The neo-Nazis went further by threatening Zelensky, saying, "We will hang you if you implement the Minsk agreements" as the settlement demanded by Russia in Ukraine. As for the fate and presence of these forces, the former US officer said that "they were not resolved through the arrests or liquidation of their members, but rather became part of the Ukrainian forces and became everywhere" in Ukraine.

Putin had summarized all these issues in the speech after which he began his military operation in Ukraine, with the issue of "liquidating Nazi symbols" at the forefront of the reasons for his "military operation," referring to it as one of the most important reasons for this war, which is escalating for the third week in a row.

If there are those who say today that Putin is on his way, after subjugating Ukraine, to persist in invading more neighboring countries, there are statements issued by the Kremlin saying that the Russian armed forces “do not plan to occupy or divide Ukraine.”

In this regard, many Russian observers give evidence of this by saying that Russia did not expand in the West, but on the contrary, the West is expanding in the East, without regard to Russia's security or its national interests, which Putin has repeatedly warned of since his declaration rejecting the unipolar world In his famous speech at the European Security Conference in Munich in 2007.

At the Russia-NATO Council on the sidelines of the NATO leaders’ summit in Bucharest in 2008, Putin once again objected to the idea of ​​including Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, which was a reason to announce the postponement of this decision.

The Russian media have been unable to communicate its idea, content, and dimensions to the outside world for many decades, at a time when Western media is achieving almost a miracle in terms of “demonizing” Putin and portraying him as the Nazi leader Hitler was.

On this subject, General Vladimir Cherkin, the former commander of the Russian Ground Forces, in his March 15th speech to the widely circulated newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda admitted the failure of the Russian media policy and said that his assessment of it is less than the average level, or according to the estimates in force in Russia, "-3 out of five"!

This is what must necessitate the Kremlin to reconsider its reliance on certain personalities who have not proven their worth in the face of the fierce Western media campaign that is leading the battle against Russia in one of its most dangerous historical and existential stages, if this may be said.

The vocabulary of contemporary history says that Putin did not go to any of the Western countries as either invader or occupier. All his battles inside Russia were in defense of the unity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of the Russian state, as happened in Chechnya and the North Caucasus starting from the end of 1999, a war through which he was able to root out separatist movements and eliminate terrorism.

Putin did not even initiate the Georgian-Russian war that broke out in 2008 and resulted in a crushing defeat in Georgia that forced it to submit to European mediation decisions.

That was proven by Western sources, including former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who played a pivotal role in mediating between the two countries.

Contemporary history also mentions that, despite the announcement of the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1990, NATO went on to expand further by announcing its plan to include three countries in Eastern Europe, namely Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic in 1999, which was followed in 2004 by the annexation of three of the countries of the Soviet Union.

The former are Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, along with Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.  Putin did not object at the time, like his predecessors Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin in Moscow, whose objection or voice the world did not hear when East Germany was annexed to German territory after the announcement of the union of the two Germanys in 1990.

All of this could be an answer to many questions that arise here and there in search of an answer that may dispel some of the anxiety of millions about the possibility of the Russian President going on the path of escalation and invading more neighboring countries.

As for the reasons and justifications for this concern, there are those who recall what the former Soviet Union did, which did not join the Allies at the beginning of the Second World War, until after it was subjected to Hitler's invasion in the second year of the war in June 1941.

That is what some remember today in expressing the possibility of its repetition, recalling what the sons of the “state of the soviets,” that is, the “local councils” - or the former Soviet Union did previously, when it refused to stop at the liberation of all its lands in the Second World War and proceeded to pursue the invaders to their home in Berlin to plant a red flag over the dome of the Reichstag in the heart of the German capital of Berlin, before the Allies reached it a few days later in early May 1945.

As for what is said about the possibilities of Russian forces using nuclear weapons, this is a question that Putin answered frankly, and was at the forefront of the reasons that precipitated his decision to start the "military operation in Ukraine," which is the official Russian designation for the war in Ukraine.

Observers recall what Ukrainian President Zelensky said at the European Security Conference in Munich last February - that he was considering exiting from the Budapest Treaty signed in 1994 regarding the abandonment of his country's nuclear status.

This came at a time when it was later proven that there were plans to produce nuclear bombs based on Ukraine’s spent nuclear fuel and nuclear cadres trained years ago.

Perhaps this was precisely at the forefront of the reasons behind Russia's seizure of the Chernobyl nuclear plant, and a number of other Ukrainian nuclear plants.

In response to direct questions about the extent of the possibility of using nuclear weapons, Putin said frankly: "There is no need for us in a world where there is no place for Russia."

He had hinted at this in his last meeting in the Kremlin with French President Emmanuel Macron last February.

Regarding what the Western media focuses on about war crimes and its abuses, Kremlin sources revealed that President Putin was briefed by Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett about "the latest developments in the situation in Ukraine, and the brutal practices of the Ukrainian army targeting civilians in Donetsk by deliberately striking a neighborhood in the center of Donetsk using cluster bombs."

According to a statement issued by the Kremlin press service, controversy rages in local circles about the Western media's deliberate omission of the violations of the Ukrainian side, and the hunt for the mistakes of the Russian side that are being published.

This comes in addition to fabricating many facts on a large scale that includes many regions of the world, including the Arab world.

As long as something is mentioned, we refer to what was published by foreign media about Russia's recourse to China regarding its supply of modern weapons, which Chinese sources quickly denied "in whole and in detail," according to the statements of the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson who was quoted by Reuters news agency.

This is in addition to what was announced by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov in Sayyaf, who denied and refuted rumors about Moscow's request for weapons from China.

In this regard, Vasily Nebenzia, Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN Security Council, said at its last meeting, “Now there is a large-scale information war waged against Russia, where they present the destroyed sites by Ukrainian forces, and nationalist formations in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, as traces of our military operation.

“In Ukraine, they spread false information about the indiscriminate bombing of Ukrainian cities.”

The Arabic-language website of Russia Today channel quoted what Nebenzia said about "imposing comprehensive censorship on the media field without any attempts to justify," as well as his statements that Russia "considers the promotion of lies from the podium of the Security Council as a deliberate provocation by Western colleagues."

He went on to say that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe bears full responsibility for the crisis in Ukraine, noting that it "did not force the Ukrainian side to fully implement the Minsk agreements."

Despite all the existing differences, and the accompanying fierce battles, and human and material losses, there are indications of a mutual willingness on the part of the warring sides to continue negotiations and discussions, in pursuit of the desired solutions to get out of the current impasse.

While Moscow refers to its conditions, most of which are Ukraine’s retreat from its request to join NATO and the declaration of its neutrality, recognition of Crimea’s accession to Russia and other demands that Russian President Putin has already outlined on more than one occasion, Alexei Aristovich, adviser to the chief of staff of Ukrainian President Zelensky, announced it is likely that "a peace agreement with Russia will be reached within one to two weeks, or by early May at the latest."

We quote what he said in his speech on the YouTube channel to journalist Mark Feigen: “I think that no later than next May, specifically early May, we should probably reach a peace agreement, and perhaps much faster.”

He added, "I mean the deadline...a peace agreement with the withdrawal of forces and the end of everything." This was confirmed by Ukrainian President Zelensky, saying that "his country's negotiating delegation is making all efforts at the present time to arrange a meeting with Russian President Putin."

He added in a statement via Telegram, “As for the negotiations with the Russian side, representatives of our delegation speak daily via video conferencing technology with the Russian side, and that our delegation has a clear mission ... Make every effort to hold a meeting at the presidential level, which is a meeting with me. I'm sure everyone is waiting for him."

Former Ukrainian President Yanukovych had revealed in statements published by Ria Novosti agency that he had presented the current head of state, Zelensky, with a plan to solve the crisis in the country.

He said his team had proposed a "detailed step-by-step" plan for a truce in the region. The result is the signing of a peace agreement between Ukraine and Donbass, and the creation of an international fund for the reconstruction of Donbass.

For further clarification, Yanukovych said that the Donbass should be reintegrated politically, economically and socially into Ukraine," adding that such a project would include signing US and Russian security guarantees.

He explained that the proposal was handed over to Zelensky for "review and study, but in the end it was not accepted by him. We agreed that after studying we would have an answer. The answer came very soon: ‘We are not interested.’ My comrades were indignant: If they are not interested in the world, let them answer what is their interest.

But the surprise may be what was reported by TASS on March 16, that the US Secretary of State said in his speech to CNN last Tuesday March 15 that “Ukraine’s failure to join the NATO should not be considered a concession to Russia," and "that will be nothing more than a reflection of the true state of affairs…Even before the Russian aggression, Ukraine would not have joined NATO the next day," Blinken added.

These are all statements that raise many questions that seem to need no answers, including an implicit statement that the United States and Western circles have sacrificed Ukraine as a “fuel” in their personal battles with President Putin, and their attempts to overthrow him, in preparation for the implementation of their scheme and dreams.

The postponement was about dividing Russia and consigning it to a fate similar to the troubles and concerns that the Soviet Union faced in the end, which led it to the path of disintegration and collapse in December 1991. This is what can be referred to in a subsequent report from Moscow.


Related Articles