Tag: Russia

  • United Nations’ Guterres: Chief servant of many masters – By Owei Lakemfa

    United Nations’ Guterres: Chief servant of many masters – By Owei Lakemfa

    The tours through Europe and Africa from April 26, 2022, by Antonio Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General, raised once again the powers, importance and relevance of the world body.

    The tours reinforced my analysis that the UN scribe is basically a funambulist, an acrobat walking a tightrope or slack on the world stage. He has to be faithful to many masters with conflicting interests, especially the five permanent members of the UN Security Council each of who, at will, can veto whatever he does or deny him a second term in office as was done to Boutros Boutros-Ghali in 1996.

    When Guterres visited Europe over the Ukrainian Conflict, he was aware that two permanent members, China and Russia, are on one side, and the three other members: the United States, Britain and France, are on the other. It was like a man tiptoeing through a landmine. He had visited Russia before crossing over to Ukraine. He received a barrage of attacks for not visiting Ukraine first. But did it really matter which country he visited first? Secondly, the visit, coming in the third month of the war was late when the UN in the first place, should have prevented the war. True? Can the UN effectively intervene in a war in which its permanent members have no meeting point?

    I think these attacks were tactics meant to intimidate Guterres into feeling some guilt that he had not championed the cause of Ukraine. Ukraine, before this visit, had attacked the UN refugee agency, UNHCR, for not allegedly being effective in addressing the humanitarian crisis in which 12 million persons are in need of assistance. It had also attacked the International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC, for alleged inaction. In fact, ICRC President, Peter Maurer, who visited Russia, was accused of being in bed with the former.

    In Moscow, Guterres and President Vladimir Putin discussed proposals for humanitarian assistance and evacuation of civilians from conflict zones, especially in the port city of Mariupol where thousands of civilians, Ukrainian troops and non-state far-right combatants remain holed up in the Azovstal steel mill. Guterres said possible war crimes – a refrain of Ukraine and its supporters – will require independent investigation for effective accountability. He proposed the establishment of a tripartite Humanitarian Contact Group comprising Russia, Ukraine and the UN “to look for opportunities for the opening of safe corridors, with local cessations of hostilities, and to guarantee that they are actually effective”.

    The UN scribe raised the energy and food crises the war has caused adding: “This comes on top of the shock of the continued COVID-19 pandemic and uneven access to resources for recovery, that particularly penalize developing countries around the world. So, the sooner peace is established, the better – for the sake of Ukraine, Russia, and for the world.” Guterres who had repeatedly called for ceasefires said: “But it is my deep conviction that the sooner we end this war, the better – for the people of Ukraine, for the people of the Russian Federation, and those far beyond.” But he had no ceasefire plans nor any for a negotiated settlement.

    He was merely a “messenger of peace.” On April 28, Guterres crossed into Ukraine visiting the Kyiv suburbs of Borodianka, Bucha and Irpin, claimed places of war crimes, where he said the “horrific scenario demonstrates something that is, unfortunately, always true: civilians always pay the highest price”.

    He added: “I fully support the International Criminal Court and I appeal to the Russian Federation to accept to cooperate with the International Criminal Court.”

    As in Russia, while he seemed worried about the war and its effects, he did not press for a ceasefire or immediate peace talks. Yet he knew that the war is devastating for humanity. When he flew to Senegal, Guterres told the African continent that its twin challenges of COVID-19 and climate change have with the Ukrainian War, become threefold.

    He emphasised that the war is aggravating a “triple food, energy and financial crisis”, which could push more people into hunger and result in socio-political crises. Guterres is aware that the combatants in Ukraine, their backers and cheerleaders do not want an immediate end to the war, so despite his personal belief, he is not pushing for peace. All he does is make loud lamentations about the war. In the Niger Republic where he arrived on May 2, his theme was about terrorism in the region.

    Referring to the terrorism in the Tillabéri, Tahoua and Diffa in the northwest, south and southeast of the Niger Republic, and cross border attacks in the Maradi region by terrorists operating from Nigeria, Guterres told President Mohamed Bazoum, that “peace, stability and prosperity in Niger and across the Sahel remains an absolute priority for the United Nations.”

    The UN says in Niger where 80 per cent of the populace depends on agriculture, a combination of climate change and terrorism has forced many off the farms and that 15 per cent of its 25 million people, will require humanitarian assistance in 2022.

    The situation in Nigeria raised the issue of how much the UN and its leadership know and how the state can control access.

    Guterres had visited Borno State this Tuesday and interacted with displaced persons and repentant Boko Haram members.

    Based on this and what he saw, he said: “I want to congratulate the Governor for what I see today. I want to strongly appeal to the international community to understand Borno as a state of hope, to support humanitarian action in Borno, to recognise the enormous challenges that Borno faces with climate change and Boko Haram activities, and to invest in Borno of hope.”

    While this is commendable, the question is why other major areas of terrorism, especially Plateau and Benue states where terrorists, mainly from outside the country, occupy countless towns and villages, pillaging, murdering and seizing the homesteads of the people, were not on the schedule of the UN scribe.

    Just like Borno, these states are devastated with many living for years now in Internally Displaced Peoples camps. Does the Nigerian Government not want these states and their terror victims to be assisted by the UN? Why is the government exhibiting the terrorist activities in the North East for the world to assist while seemingly keeping those in the North Central under wraps?

    This raises the issue of whether during visits to countries, the UN Secretary-General should meet only with governments while leaving out non-state actors. Can this be part of the problem; that the UN scribe is a chief servant with many masters who happen to be the governments of member states? Does humanity need a UN that is faithful to state agents rather than to the human race?

  • War of Words: Israel attack Russia over Adolf Hitler ‘Jewish’ comment

    War of Words: Israel attack Russia over Adolf Hitler ‘Jewish’ comment

    Israel has taken a swipe at Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov for claiming Adolf Hitler had Jewish origins.

    Israel describes the comments by Russia as “unforgivable” falsehood that debased the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust.

    Leaders from several Western nations denounced the foreign minister’s comments and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy accused Russia of having forgotten the lessons of World War II.

    Israel foreign ministry has summoned the Russian ambassador in Israel to come with and tender an apology on behalf of his country.

    Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said via a statement. ”Such lies are intended to accuse the Jews themselves of the most horrific crimes in history that were committed against them,” Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said in a statement.

    “The use of the Holocaust of the Jewish people for political purposes must stop immediately,” he added.

    Lavrov made the assertion on Italian television on Sunday when he was asked why Russia said it needed to “denazify” Ukraine if the country’s own president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, was himself Jewish.

    “When they say ‘What sort of nazification is this if we are Jews’, well I think that Hitler also had Jewish origins, so it means nothing,” Lavrov told Rete 4 channel, speaking through an Italian interpreter.

    “For a long time now we’ve been hearing the wise Jewish people say that the biggest anti-Semites are the Jews themselves,” he added.

    Zelenskiy, in his nightly video message, noted Moscow has been silent since Lavrov’s comments.

    “This means that the Russian leadership has forgotten all the lessons of World War II” he said. “Or perhaps they have never learned those lessons.”

    U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken weighed in later on the comments by his Russian counterpart saying it was “incumbent on the world to speak out against such vile, dangerous rhetoric.”

    The German government’s anti-Semitism commissioner, Felix Klein, said Lavrov’s remarks mocked the victims of Nazism and “shamelessly confront not only Jews but the entire international public with open anti-Semitism.”

    Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi called the top Russian diplomat’s comments obscene, while Canada’s Justin Trudeau expressed disbelief.

    Dani Dayan, chairman of Yad Vashem, Israel’s memorial to the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust, said the Russian minister was spreading “an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory with no basis in fact”.

     

  • WAR: Poland ignores Russia’s threat, supplies weapons to Ukraine

    WAR: Poland ignores Russia’s threat, supplies weapons to Ukraine

    One of Russia’s neighbouring countries Poland has sent weapons to Ukraine to prosecute the war with Vladimir’s Putin country despite it warnings not to do so.

    Earlier Russia had sent series of warnings to western world especially in the European Union that supplied lethal weapons to Ukraine in the ongoing war, would face the consequences of such action.

    The Polish government had, however, ignored this previous warning by Russia and proceeded to send military aid to Ukraine.

    Poland was reported to have sent neighbouring Ukraine military equipment which included dozens of infantry fighting vehicles and the 2S1 Carnation self-propelled howitzers, drones, Grad multiple rocket launchers, and Piorun (Thunderbolt) man-portable air defence systems.

    It was gathered that over 200 T-72 tanks over the past few weeks, reports, quoting Polskie Radio, Poland’s national public-service radio.

    Mateusz Morawiecki the Polish prime minister made this disclosure last week.

     

  • Veto: UN dribbles self in search of relevance – By Owei Lakemfa

    Veto: UN dribbles self in search of relevance – By Owei Lakemfa

    The United Nations Assembly, UNGA, deliberations and resolution on the veto power that was held on Tuesday, April 26, 2022, was two years in the making but was all hot air without substance.

    It was a poor stage drama with a linear plot. The event was like a dog sharpening its teeth over two years for a great bite, only to realize it is toothless. The veto truth stood naked, but the 81 members who moved Tuesday’s motion preferred to wrap it in layers of beautiful words and an inelegant top lace resolution which even the movers cannot explain.

    The General Assembly meeting was a waste of time, its resolution an exercise in self dribble and self deceit gave the mistaken impression that it was moving to address the veto issue while in reality it was engaged in mere motions without movement.

    What the world needs, are not exhibition matches but a reversal of the veto provision that would give power to the General Assembly in line with democratic practices where the vote matters; where the minority will have its say while the majority, it’s the way. To ensure the UN is not misused, resolutions can be carried out or reversed by two-thirds of the Assembly. A case where one country’s vote is greater than the votes of 192 countries combined is unsustainable.

    A situation where three European brothers: Russia, France and neighbouring Britain can team up with their first cousin, the United States, and China, the lone voice from Asia, to dictate to the world, cannot continue. In fact, to show that the Security Council is essentially a European racket, there was a 22-year period from 1949 when following its revolution, China was denied its seat in the Council.

    The veto which essentially grants five countries proprietorial rights over the world body was inserted into the UN Charter at birth in 1945 after the collapse of the 1919 League of Nations. The League had collapsed under its own weight of vengeance against Germany leading to the second European war which was christened the Second World War, WWII. Then, most of the world was under European colonial occupation and the colonized were simply thrown into a war they knew nothing about. It was of no comfort to the colonized whether their oppressors were German, Belgian, Dutch, Briton, American or French.

    The five countries which awarded themselves the veto when the UN was founded are often presented as the gallant victors who saved the world from Hitlerite Germany. The truth, however, is that China, which was under Japanese invasion, was not in a position to declare war against Germany. Russia, Britain and France were initially allies of Hitler, while the US was too timid to join WWII until 27 months into the conflict.

    Britain under Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain sought to appease Germany in the 1930s to the extent of allowing it to seize territories. Britain in fact, regarded Hitlerite Germany as an ally with which it could go into a military alliance to destroy its main enemies: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, USSR (now inherited by Russia) and Imperial Japan.

    The overwhelming populace of France and their government, supported Hitler and fought on the German side for four-fifth of WWII before switching sides. France which fought the allied forces, including outside Europe, only turned against Germany when it was obvious the latter was losing the war.

    The US in the first two years of WWII declared it was neutral and its Congress refused to support either side of the war until December 7, 1941 when Japan was said to have attacked Pearl Harbour. Even at, it was against Japan it declared war and did not enter WWII until after Germany and Italy declared war on it for attacking their ally, Japan. One week before WWII started, the USSR declared its neutrality by signing the August 23, 1939 “Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”. Also known as the Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact, the agreement which was planned to last for 10 years was a written guaranteed peace between both countries and a pledge not to aid the enemy of either side.

    So effectively, the USSR was neutral in WWII until June 22, 1941, when Germany unilaterally terminated the agreement by invading it. While the USSR suffered the highest casualty rate in the war with 20-25 million dead, it inflicted the greatest casualties on Germany by killing 76 per cent of the total German military fatalities in WWII.

    In the case of China, it was invaded by an ally of Germany, Japan, from July 7, 1937 –to September 9, 1945; so it merely tried to survive during WWII.

    So the claims that the five permanent members earned their pips saving the world and guaranteeing world peace are not exactly correct. The simple fact is that they were those at the table when the UN was being founded while most of the world either lay in ruins or were colonies.

    It was assumed that unless the five agreed, the UN was doomed; so they were empowered to make decisions that would be binding on all members, including levy war. On the over 200 occasions the veto had been applied, it had been abused; used merely to further political, economic or racial interests such as maintaining minority White rule in Zimbabwe, Apartheid in Namibia and South Africa and Israeli genocide in Palestine.

    This Tuesday’s vote was primarily a farce because it in no way challenged the suffocating veto power; it essentially asks the member wielding the veto to explain its actions which in any case can neither be legally challenged nor overturned.

    If under the new resolution, the General Assembly meets within 10 workdays to listen to why a veto was used and debates it while being aware it has no power to reverse it, is it to exhibit its impotence or a mere moral challenge? Even the Liechtenstein’s U.N. ambassador, Christian Wenaweser, who led 80 co-sponsors of the resolution, hinted at its impotence when she admitted that all it aims to achieve is “to promote the voice of all of us who are not veto holders, and who are not on the Security Council, on matters of international peace and security because they affect all of us”.

    Such exercise in futility is like a dog barking at its owner; what can it do, bite? In any case, even if a dog is to bite, it must have teeth that the General Assembly does not have. Only the death of veto power can transform the United Nations from a rubber stamp assembly to a body reflecting the wishes of most of humanity.

  • British defence minister backs Ukraine strikes on Russian sites

    British defence minister backs Ukraine strikes on Russian sites

    A British defence minister has backed Ukrainian strikes on military targets behind Russian lines, even if the weapons used had been supplied by Britain.

    Armed Forces Minister James Heappey said on Tuesday that there was “every chance’’ that Moscow’s forces would be repelled with the support being supplied to Kiev by allies.

    But he dismissed Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s claim that Western allies were pouring oil on the fire by providing Ukraine with firepower.

    Heappey said of course Britain backed reported strikes on fuel depots in Russia.

    He told Times Radio “it is completely legitimate for Ukraine to be targeting Russia’s depth in order to disrupt the logistics that if they weren’t disrupted will directly contribute to death and carnage on Ukrainian soil.’’

    And the minister said it was not necessarily a problem if British-donated weapons were used to hit sites on Russian soil.

    He said after accepting weapons being supplied by allies to Ukraine and they had the range to be used over borders.

    “There are lots of countries around the world that operate kits that they have imported from other countries.

    “When those bits of kit are used we tend not to blame the country that manufactured it, you blame the country that fired it,’’ he added.

    The comments mark a further strengthening of Britain’s position, as allies shifted from caution against antagonising Russian President Vladimir Putin to supplying more and more lethal aid.

    Lavrov had warned that the threat of nuclear conflict should not be underestimated.

    He accused NATO forces of pouring oil on the fire by providing weapons, as he warned against provoking “World War III.’’

    But Heappey told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the chances of nuclear warfare were vanishingly small.

    He told Lavrov to reflect on the reason there was a war in Ukraine was that Russia invaded, telling Sky News.

    “All of this noise from Moscow about somehow their attack on Ukraine being a response to NATO aggression is just utter, utter nonsense.’’

    Heappey had said there was every chance that the Ukrainians would see off the Russians in the invasion, arguing that Moscow’s victory in the east of Ukraine was not inevitable.

    “We’ll see a conflict between two forces that are much more evenly balanced, where the Ukrainians have the advantage of defensive positions that have been dug in and prepared over the last eight years.

    “And that’s going to make it an extraordinarily difficult nut for the Russians to crack.

    “And with all the support that the Ukrainians are getting from around the world, there’s every chance the Ukrainians can see them off.’’

  • War: Russia warns U.S. against sending more arms to Ukraine

    War: Russia warns U.S. against sending more arms to Ukraine

    Russia on Monday warned U.S. against sending more arms to Ukraine.

    The country’s ambassador to Washington warned that large Western deliveries of weapons were inflaming the conflict and would lead to more losses.

    Russia’s Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine has killed thousands of people, displaced millions more and raised fears of a wider confrontation between Russia and the U.S., by far the world’s two biggest nuclear powers.

    The U.S. has ruled out sending its own or NATO forces to Ukraine but Washington and its European allies have supplied weapons to Kyiv such as drones, Howitzer heavy artillery, anti-aircraft Stinger and anti-tank Javelin missiles.

    Anatoly Antonov, Russia’s ambassador to the U.S., said such arms deliveries were aimed at weakening Russia but that they were escalating the conflict in Ukraine, while undermining efforts to reach some sort of peace agreement.

    “What the Americans are doing is pouring oil on the flames.”

    “I see only an attempt to raise the stakes, to aggravate the situation, to see more losses,” Antonov told the Rossiya 24 TV channel.

    Antonov, who has served as ambassador to Washington since 2017, said an official diplomatic note had been sent to Washington expressing Russia’s concerns, and that no reply had been given.

    “We stressed the unacceptability of this situation when the United States of America poured weapons into Ukraine, and we demanded an end to this practice,” Antonov said.

    The interview was replayed on Russian state television throughout Monday.

    U.S. President, Joe Biden, pledged 800 million dollars in more weaponry for Ukraine on Thursday and said he would ask Congress for more money to help bolster support for the Ukrainian military.

    President Vladimir Putin says the “special military operation” in Ukraine was necessary because the U.S. was using Ukraine to threaten Russia and Moscow, who had to defend the persecution of Russian-speaking people.

    Putin said Ukraine and Russia were essentially one people, describing the war as an inevitable confrontation with the U.S., which he accused of threatening Russia by meddling in its backyard and enlarging the NATO military alliance.

    Ukraine added that it was fighting an imperial-style land grab and that Putin’s claims of genocide were nonsense.

    Zelenskiy has been pleading with U.S. and European leaders to supply Kyiv with heavier arms and equipment.

    Putin warned in February that there would be no winners in a conflict between NATO and Russia, which had the world’s biggest arsenal of nuclear warheads.

  • [Watch] Russian State TV declares World War III

    [Watch] Russian State TV declares World War III

    Russian state television has declared that World War III has already started after the sinking of its naval vessel Moskva in the Ukraine war.

    Though Russia said this was damaged after a fire, Ukraine claimed the credit of destroying the flagship vessel of Moscow’s Black Sea Fleet through its Neptune missile.

    But the sinking of the ship led to meltdown on the Kremlin’s main propaganda mouthpiece Russia 1. Presenter Olga Skabeyeva made the chilling statement, informing the viewers that “what it’s escalated into can safely be called World War III” and insisted “that’s entirely for sure.”

    Watch the video:

    “Now we’re definitely fighting against Nato infrastructure, if not Nato itself. We need to recognise that,” Skabeyeva further said, according to Metro.

    A guest on the show compared the sinking of Moskva to an attack on Russian soil, despite Kremlin insisting that it went down because of a fire.

    The man was reminded that instead of calling it a war, the government-approved phrase to be used for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is “special military operation”.

    The clip of the show is going wildly viral on social media.

    “They are poking the bear (pardon the pun) but in this case the NATO bear,” a Twitter user commented.

    “They’ve lost 500 tanks, another 2,000 other vehicles, 82 aircraft, 18,000+ soldiers and a battlecruiser. NATO hasn’t even arrived yet. It is fair to say that this war against NATO is not going well for Russia,” another user tweeted.

    On another state-run television channel, an anchor argued that Ukraine was doing the West’s bidding by carrying out “yet more provocations, bloody, horrible, completely unthinkable.”

    Olesya Loseva, the host of Vremya Pokazhet on Channel One, said the West was now supplying “zillions of weapons” to Ukraine.

    Meanwhile, Russian news agencies reported late on Thursday that warship Moskva sank in rough weather while being towed back to port.

    NDTV

  • War: Russia threatens Finland, Sweden over decision to join NATO

    War: Russia threatens Finland, Sweden over decision to join NATO

    Vladmir Putin’s Russia has threatened to deploy nuclear weapons should Finland and Sweden join the US led military alliance, known as North Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO)

    The prime minister of Finland, Sanna Marin mentioned that the country is considering joining NATO, saying that they will reach a decision soon on that.

    Finland shares a 1,300-km (810-mile) border with Russia and also a next door neighbour to Sweden.

    Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev mentioned that Russia would have to strengthen its defence by shoring up its land, naval and air forces in the Baltic Sea in the situation these two Scandinavian nations join NATO.

    Medvedev also explicitly raised the nuclear threat, saying there could be no more talk of a “nuclear-free” Baltic – where Russia has its Kaliningrad exclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania.

    “There can be no more talk of any nuclear-free status for the Baltic, the balance must be restored,” said Medvedev, who was president from 2008 to 2012.

    “Until today, Russia has not taken such measures and was not going to,” Medvedev said. “If our hand is forced, well take note it wasn’t us who proposed this,” he added.

  • Putin’s Hellish War Upon Ukraine Evokes Memories Of America’s Anti-War General Tecumseh Sherman – By Dennis Onakinor

    Putin’s Hellish War Upon Ukraine Evokes Memories Of America’s Anti-War General Tecumseh Sherman – By Dennis Onakinor

    As the Russian war machine continues to unleash death, destruction, and misery upon Ukraine, following President Vladimir Putin’s February 24th “Special Operation” that has so far witnessed thousands of civilian casualties (especially children, women, the elderly and infirm), humanity is once again reminded that war, irrespective of efforts by the 1949 Geneva Convention to humanize its conduct, is an aberration symbolizing the descent of man into the abyss of abasement and bestiality. And, as the American Civil War hero, General Tecumseh Sherman, aptly stated about a century and half ago, “war is hell” where unimaginable cruelties and barbarities occur.

    Unfortunately, humanity is often quick to succumb to the lure of militarism and war in order to resolve inevitable conflicts arising from self-aggrandizing power-struggles. President Putin provides the latest example, having unwisely resorted to a demonstration of Russian military might, rather than seek a diplomatic solution to the long-running Russo-Ukraine crisis.

    Steeped in Russian nationalism and irredentism, Putin is, undoubtedly, a “student” of the 19th Century theoretical school of General Carl von Clausewitz, which holds that “war is a continuation of politics by other means.” But, events in Ukraine have shown that he hasn’t properly digested Clausewitz’s war-diplomacy nexus, developed when war was fought by infantry soldiers armed with Dane guns and bayonets hence, its destructiveness was insignificant compared to present-day armed conflicts featuring various types of lethal weapons.

    There is no gainsaying the fact that the Russian military (2nd only to the US’) boasts some of the world’s most technologically-advanced lethal weapons, including those of mass-destruction – biological, chemical, and nuclear. In light of this situation, it is predictable that a Russian invasion force can wreak unprecedented havoc on a militarily inferior Ukraine, in a manner that the world is currently witnessing in the cities of Bucha, Chernihiv, Kharkiv, Kyiv, Mariupol, etc.

    Putin, a trained lawyer and a Soviet-era KGB spy, may have heard of General Tecumseh Sherman and his American Civil war exploits, even though he is not likely to be an admirer of the war hero. For, while General Sherman eventually turned a pacifist, who denounced war, Putin is a militarist who glorifies war as demonstrated in the events leading up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and subsequent actions.

    An apostle of the concept of “Total War,” General Sherman is reputed for originating the aphorism “War is hell.” Paradoxically revered and hated for his brutal war tactics, he won the decisive Georgian campaign of 1864, which heralded the Union army’s eventual triumph over the secessionist Confederate forces in the American civil war of 1861 – 1865. Interestingly, in the post-war period, he stridently denounced war as a barbarous and cruel affair. An extract from a personal letter written in May 1865 reads:

    “I confess, without shame, I am sick and tired of fighting – its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families … it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated, that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation … I declare before God, as a man and a soldier, I will not strike a foe who stands unarmed and submissive before me, but would rather say – ‘Go, and sin no more’ …”
    In his capacity as the Commanding General of the US’ Army, Sherman, on June 19, 1879, addressed graduating students of the Michigan Military Academy, thus:

    “I have been where you are now and I know just how you feel. It’s entirely natural that there should beat in the breast of every one of you a hope and desire that someday you can use the skill you have acquired here. Suppress it! You don’t know the horrible aspects of war. I’ve been through two wars and I know. I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes. I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is hell!”

    Perhaps, prior to launching his self-styled “Special Operation” in Ukraine, President Putin might have done well to learn a few lessons on the horrors of war from General Sherman. Alas, the world is now coming to terms with the fact that Putin disdains pacifism and glorifies militarism, and that he firmly believes in the example of Russian power rather than the power of Russian example.

    With benefit of hindsight, Yours Sincerely now conveniently asserts that the US and its NATO allies should have paid close attention to the military swagger of President Putin, especially after March 2014, when he annexed the Ukrainian city of Crimea and stirred up separatist revolts in the Donbas region, thus occasioning the breakaway Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics – both of which he formally recognized on February 21, 2022, three days before launching the ongoing war.

    Had NATO subjected Putin’s utterances to close scrutiny, it would have realized that his aggressive Russian irredentist militarism was bound to spark off a major conflagration in Europe, sooner than later. Of specific note was his address to the Russian Federal Assembly on March 1, 2018, during which he gloated about Russia’s development of hypersonic weapons that were unrivalled in terms of speed, maneuverability, precision, and lethality:

    “Countries with high research potential and advanced technology are known to be actively developing so-called hypersonic weapons … Of course this kind of weapon provides substantial advantages in an armed conflict. Military experts believe that it would be extremely powerful, and that its speed makes it invulnerable to current missile and air defence systems, since interceptor missiles are, simply put, not fast enough. In this regard, it is quite understandable why the leading armies of the world seek to possess such an ideal weapon. Friends, Russia already has such a weapon.”

    In a bellicose and overconfident tone, amidst cheers from the audience, he issued a veiled threat to the US and its NATO allies:
    “I hope that everything that was said today would make any potential aggressor think twice … Now we have to be aware of this reality and be sure that everything I have said today is not a bluff ‒ and it is not a bluff, believe me …”
    Again, on December 24, 2019, in a meeting with Russia’s top military brass, Putin enthused that Russia’s hypersonic weapons was a game-changer in terms of global military rivalry, noting that the US was now playing catch-up. Gleefully, he announced that one of the missiles, the “Avangard,” had an intercontinental range and can fly at 20 times the speed of sound:

    “Now we have a situation that is unique in modern history when they are trying to catch up to us … Not a single country has hypersonic weapons, let alone hypersonic weapons of intercontinental range … It’s not a chess game where it’s OK to play to a draw … Our technology must be better.”
    Suffice to say that in its ongoing onslaught on Ukraine, Russia has twice deployed hypersonic missiles: On March 19, 2022, it reportedly used a “Kinzhal” missile, which flies at 10 times the speed of sound, to destroy a fuel depot in the city of Mykolaiv; and a similar missile to destroy an underground arms deport in the village of Deliatyn on March 20, 2022.

    In an article titled “President Putin and The Resurgence of Global Geopolitical Gangsterism,” published in THENEWSGURU on March 1, 2022, Yours Sincerely likened Putin’s disdain for diplomacy to the hawkish militarism of former US’ Presidents Reagan, Bush (Sr.) and Bush (Jr.), all of whom respectively oversaw various military operations in Grenada, Libya, and Nicaragua; Panama; Afghanistan and Iraq. But, as Putin’s barbaric and brutal war upon Ukraine now shows, the American trio deserves commendation (ironically though) for having taken the trouble to minimize both military and civilian casualties during the said operations.

    It’s a truism that Putin firmly believes in Russia’s deployment of devastating firepower in order to overcome enemy forces in a war situation. In 1999 – 2000, Russian troops bombarded the regional capital city of Grozny into submission as they sought to flush out tenacious Chechen Islamist rebels from Chechnya region. Also, in the Syrian civil war, Russian intervention forces literally reduced to rubble the rebel-held cities of Aleppo, Homs, Hama, etc. in order to turn the scales in favour of embattled President Bashir al-Assad. In light of the foregoing, Russia’s ongoing bombardment of Ukrainian towns and cities is not unexpected.

    Some analysts opine that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is designed to test the plausibility of his claims to Russia’s global military superiority. But, the reality is that Russia’s scotched earth tactics involving the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets, including residential buildings, hospitals, schools, churches, etc., has only served to detract from that vaunted claim. More so, it has revealed the Russian authoritarian leader’s true identity: a barbarian of the wickedest type.

    Like Adolf Hitler’s, Putin’s aggressive nationalism and irredentist militarism cannot be pacified through peaceful overtures. He must be defeated militarily, so as to realize that barbaric militarism is an aberration in a 21st Century globalized society. Hitler-type aggressors understand only the language of counter-aggression; pacifism signifies weakness.

    Meanwhile, the West, especially the US, would do well to also show high-level concern towards violent conflicts in Africa, where irreconcilable ethnic and religious antagonisms often boil over into war. In truth, Africa’s wars are much more brutal and barbarous than Putin’s ongoing hellish war on Ukraine: witness the unending bloodletting in Congo, Sudan, South Sudan, Libya, Ethiopia, etc.
    In any case, as pacifists such as General Sherman have rightly pointed out, “war is hell,” and its only antidote is avoidance. Vladimir Putin and other war-mongers of his ilk must be made to learn this vital lesson.

    Dennis Onakinor, a global affairs analyst, writes from Lagos – Nigeria. He can be reached via e-mail at dennisonakinor@yahoo.com

  • 2 Ukrainian helicopters shot down

    2 Ukrainian helicopters shot down

    The Russian military has shot down two Ukrainian combat helicopters, according to Defence Ministry spokesperson, Igor Konashenkov.

    Konashenkov said the Russian forces fired on 81 military targets on Thursday, with Moscow intensifying its attacks on Ukraine.

    On Thursday, the military reported the targeting of 29 objects the day before.

    As well as the Mi-8 and Mi-24 combat helicopters, the targets hit on Thursday included Ukrainian military command posts and bases, as well as heavy artillery and rocket launchers in the Donbas, Konashenkov said.

    In addition, Russia’s Black Sea Fleet had destroyed a training camp for “foreign mercenaries” near Odessa, he said.