Daily Archives: February 1, 2024

It was bitterly cold. Soldiers huddled together wearing heavy winter jackets and black, Army-issued beanies underneath their helmets. The engines of Humvees and trucks hummed collectively, a cacophony of noise that drowned out conversations. The battalion convoy was ready to step off from Germany for a NATO exercise in Latvia. My battalion commander approached as I hopped into my Humvee. Somewhat jokingly, over the din of running engines and soldiers preparing to move out, he asked, Which day do you think it is going to happen? I think Friday. I responded, My bet is on Wednesday, sir. The date was February 13, 2022.

Both of our guesses missed the mark, but not by much. The following week, on Thursday, Russia began its invasion of Ukraine, kicking off the war that has raged for nearly two years.

During the six-day convoy I read a book that I had started in December 2021 as the Russian military buildup along the border with Ukraine continued. Titled Appeasing Hitler, the historical work by Tim Bouverie provides insight into the rationale behind the British policy of appeasement in the period leading up to World War II. It also serves as a cautionary tale of the appeasement strategys failure. A policy premised on acquiescing to a tyrants demands in the hopes of avoiding war accomplished the opposite. Instead, appeasement served to increase Hitlers appetite for conquest and contributed to the eruption of the most destructive conflict in human history.

There have been many comparisons between Russian President Vladimir Putins words and those of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s since the onset of Russias full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Both asserted the importance of reclaiming historical lands, protecting their respective countries ethnic populations living in the near abroad, and the fact that their aggressive actions were defensivethat they were the victims instead of the aggressors. And although it is understandable why many compare Putins invasion of Ukraine to the actions of Adolf Hitler in the lead up to World War II, Bouveries Appeasing Hitler provides an opportunity for a different comparison, to a much lesser-known war.

The Italo-Abyssinian War of 1935 is an obscure conflict, overshadowed by the world war that would shortly follow. However, the parallels between Benito Mussolinis invasion of Abyssinia (modern-day Ethiopia) and Putins invasion of Ukraine are striking. Historical comparisons are inherently imperfect. We cannot replicate the political, economic, social, and technological conditions that existed in the past. However, we can extract and examine themes and notable decisions in history to provide the foundation for important lessons for todays leaders. A reexamination of the Italian conquest provides such lessons that underscore mistakes to avoid and the possible consequences the West faces if support for Ukraine falters.

First, however, a basic understanding of Italys imperial war is necessary. Before Mussolini and Hitler officially formed an alliance, Italy actually worked alongside Britain and France in the early 1930s. Mussolinis Italy even joined the Stresa Front in April 1935 alongside Britain and France to counter Nazi Germanys Versailles Treaty violations. But despite pledging to maintain peace in Europe, Mussolini had other intentions in Africa. Disregarding warnings of an Italian offensive in late 1934 and early 1935, the British government refused to confront Mussolini. Britain viewed Nazi Germany as the threat of the future and believed Italy was a crucial ally.

Britain and Frances refusal to deter Italian aggression threatened more than the sovereignty of Abyssinia. Following World War I, the League of Nations emerged and introduced a new age of international law. The league, which Abyssinia had joined in 1923, provided the protection of Article 16. This article stipulated that all members would join in common action against states that made war against another member.

The British political leadership, however, did not want to embroil Britain in a war with Italy. Britain, they argued, had no vital interests at stake. Thus, convinced neither France nor Britain would intervene, Mussolini launched the invasion of Abyssinia in October 1935.

In November 1935, France and Britain sought a negotiated end to the conflict that would have ceded the majority of Abyssinian territory to Italy. News leaked of this backdoor diplomacy and league members were outraged. France and Britains fiasco meant the death of the credibility of the league and the abandonment of Abyssinia to its fate at the hands of a stronger power. By May 1936 Italian forces entered Addis Ababa and declared victory.

Throughout the entire Italian-Abyssinian conflict, there was one keen observer: Adolf Hitler. He watched as the authority of the League of Nations vanished before his eyes. Most importantly, he witnessed Italy use aggression to achieve political goals and face no severe consequences.

As we return to the present day, one may argue that the United States now fits Britains role as the declining global power. The specter of a looming global threat is no longer Germany, but China. Vladimir Putins Russia, challenging international norms, is Mussolinis Italy. The state sovereignty threatened is not Abyssinias, but Ukraines. It is not the League of Nations at risk, but the pillars of the US-led postWorld War II orderthe United Nations, NATO, and even the international norms that have ruled since the conclusion of World War II.

We can draw numerous lessons from the Italian-Abyssinian debacle: from the necessity of major global powers abstaining from negotiating away the sovereignty of smaller states, to the importance of conventional military deterrence in complicating the political calculations of would-be aggressors, to the need for preemptive and sustained economic punishments for aggressor states in violation of international norms and laws. But there is one main lesson that is most important and applicable to our world today.

A successful deterrence now may prevent the next aggressor. Hitler watched gleefully as the League of Nations self-imploded. Mussolinis success in Abyssinia emboldened Hitler along his path toward European domination. The primary modern comparison that comes to mind is the threat of China and President Xi Jinping deciding to employ military force to reclaim dominion over Taiwan. By understanding the dynamics in play in 1935, it becomes clear that if the United States and other members of the international community want to deter aggression against the island, then it is in their collective security interest to continue to support Ukraine. But the China-Taiwan scenario is far from the only risk. Other potential aggressors, such as Iran and North Korea, are also watching to see whether Ukraines international supporters will remain steadfast over the long term.

Turning specifically to the United States, the debate continues in Washington with respect to passing a new aid package for Ukraine. There are legitimate reservations within Congress on passing this funding. Concern over the accountability of aid provided to Ukraine is reasonable and the desire to have an end-game strategy for the conflict is understandable. But the fear that continued aid to Ukraine will only increase the likelihood of direct conflict between NATO and Russia misses the mark. It is the absence of continued aid, which would precipitate a weakened Ukraine and potential collapse that enables a larger Russian victory, that raises the risk of a NATO-Russia, US-China, or other large-scale war. The only lesson Vladimir Putin and other potential aggressors will learn from an end to US aid to Ukraine and a complete Russian victory in Ukraine is that aggression works and that authoritarian systems can outlast the West.

Britain declared it had no vital interests at stake in Abyssinia. Some argue the same with respect to US interests in Ukraine today. But maintaining support for Ukraine through the continuation of military and economic aid may not only guarantee a more just peace in Ukraine; it may also help prevent the next, larger war from occurring.

First Lieutenant Dean D. LaGattuta is a 2020 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, majoring in political science and minoring in Eurasian studies. He serves as a military intelligence officer in the United States Army.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.

Image credit: kremlin.ru, via Wikimedia Commons

Go here to read the rest:

Putin Isn't Hitler, He's Mussoliniand Ukraine Is His Abyssinia - Modern War Institute - West Point

In a post on his Telegram channel, the anti-war candidate said, It will be very difficult for the CEC and the current authorities to say, I didnt even notice the elephant! Nadezhdin wrote.

His long-shot presidential bid comes at a time when most Russian opposition figures are jailed or exiled. Nadezhdins anti-war stance has, however,nudged many Russians into backing his campaign as the Kremlin continues to wage full-scale war on Ukraine.

Long lines of people willing to support the Putin critic have formed at his campaign offices across Russia. Speaking to POLITICO,Nadezhdin attributed his success to a number of miracles including his volunteers activities and support from influential Russian opposition figures in exile.

The CEC will review the signatures submitted by hopeful candidates within 10 days. Alexander Kynev, a Moscow-based independent political analyst, told POLITICO he thought it was unlikely that Nadezhdin would be allowed to stand for election, as thats too big a risk for the Kremlin.

Presidential campaigns in Russia are known for the participation of so-called spoiler candidates whom Putin can easily knock down. This time, however, appears different as the spoilers drop out of the race one by one even before it starts.

Andrei Bogdanov, a veteran spin doctor, submitted his papers on Wednesday but then immediately announced he wouldnt run. Bogdanov, who previously ran for president in 2008 and gained 1.3 percent of the vote, cited an undisclosed foreign bank account as the reason for his withdrawal. Formally, this mistake bars him from the being on the ballot.

See more here:

Putin challenger submits 105000 signatures backing his election campaign - POLITICO Europe

Russian President Vladimir Putin is still planning to visit Turkey in February, the first time he has entered a NATO member state since launching his war on Ukraine in February 2022.

"Yes a visit is being organized," Putin's foreign affairs adviser in the Kremlin Yuri Ushakov told the news agency Interfax on Monday.

A date has not yet been announced.

The war in Ukraine will be a major topic of the talks, which Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoan is likely to take part in.

Putin has been named a war crimes suspect by the International Criminal Court in The Hague and has largely avoided travelling abroad since the start of the war.

The 71-year-old faces a presidential election in March which he is almost certain of winning, but political commentators say he wants to show he can still be a statesman on the world stage.

Although there is an international arrest warrant out for him, there is no indication Turkey would arrest him.

Read this article:

Putin to visit Turkey in February, Kremlin says - Yahoo News

Alexander Lukashenko, self-proclaimed President of Belarus, has claimed at a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin that Ukraine and Baltic countries "could cooperate with Russia instead of seeking a better life abroad".

Source: Lukashenko and Putin at a meeting in St Petersburg, as reported by the Pul pervogo Telegram channel and Russian media outlet Interfax

Quote from Lukashenko: "I thought which country could provide such opportunities to such a country as Belarus? We do not see any issues with Russia No [other] country would be able to treat Belarus the way you do.

So Im thinking: what prevents Ukraine and the Baltic countries from cooperating with us like this? This is our world, we have been building it for several decades, we won that horrible war [WW2 ed.] together. So lets move in this direction. But no, they dont want to, they seek a better life abroad."

Details: Lukashenko also said that he thinks Ukraine will "come back" to Russia and Belarus.

At the opening of a monument in Leningrad Oblast to mark the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Leningrad from the siege, Lukashenko said "it would be great if someone from Ukraine was standing here too".

"Three Slavic nations have suffered. But they are absent. What can we do? Its their choice to take a different path. But I think they will come back to us. They will have no other option," Lukashenko said.

Putin, in his turn, claimed at the beginning of the meeting with Lukashenko in the Konstantinovsky Palace in St. Petersburg that they would discuss the war against Ukraine.

"Of course, today during our conversation I will inform you in detail about what is happening in the special military operation zone," Putin told Lukashenko.

Support UP or become our patron!

Original post:

Belarusian President complains to Putin that Ukraine and Baltic countries "seek better life abroad" video - Yahoo News

The July 2022 delivery to Ukraine of the sophisticated American HIMARS multiple rocket launcher offered ironclad evidence that the United States would, in President Joe Bidens words, stand with Ukraine as long as it takes to repel Russias aggression.

But these days, concerns are growing in Ukraine that the U.S. and some Western partners are tiring of the war Russian President Vladimir Putin launched nearly two years ago.

Americas robust support for Ukraine has resonated across Europe and beyond. Yet as Congress holds up new aid, and Ukraines supplies dwindle, comes a question: Has the U.S. support shifted from as long as it takes to as long as we could?

As Congress sits on a $60 billion Ukraine aid package that Mr. Biden first proposed in October, the idling of air defense systems due to a lack of ammunition is increasingly exposing Ukrainian cities to Russian missile strikes. Some military experts foresee rapidly deteriorating Ukrainian battlefield positions and even accelerating territorial losses in coming months.

Moreover, some predict dire consequences if Washingtons abandonment of Ukraine solidifies a global perception that the U.S. is an exhausted and divided superpower that no longer stands by its word.

Theres no question that for at least a year, Putins strategy has been to wait out the U.S. and Europe, says Mark Cancian at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. So if we turn our back on Ukraine now it will be vindication of his thinking that in a conflict, the U.S. and NATO will eventually get tired.

Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines of the war with Russia were jubilant when HIMARS, the U.S. Armys coveted multiple rocket launcher, arrived on the battlefield in July 2022.

Not only was the launcher considered light-years ahead of the mostly Soviet-era equipment that the Ukrainians had at their disposal. But perhaps even more important, delivery of the sophisticated American weaponry offered ironclad evidence that the United States would, in President Joe Bidens words, stand with Ukraine as long as it takes to repel the Russian aggression.

As recently as last week, a HIMARS rocket attack obliterated a group of elite Russian drone pilots operating in Ukraines eastern Donetsk province.

Americas robust support for Ukraine has resonated across Europe and beyond. Yet as Congress holds up new aid, and Ukraines supplies dwindle, comes a question: Has the U.S. support shifted from as long as it takes to as long as we could?

But these days, the HIMARS is also becoming a symbol of something else.

Amid stalled U.S. assistance, and a trickling supply of arms and ammunition, the launchers are reminders of how the U.S. and some Western partners are tiring of a war Russian President Vladimir Putin launched two years ago next month.

As Congress sits on a $60 billion Ukraine aid package that Mr. Biden first proposed in October, the idling of air defense systems due to a lack of ammunition is increasingly exposing Ukrainian cities to Russian missile strikes. And soldiers are running dangerously low on the ammunition that has enabled them to hold off the Russians.

For Ukraine, the outlook is increasingly sobering with some military experts foreseeing rapidly deteriorating battlefield positions and even accelerating territorial losses in coming months.

Moreover, some predict dire consequences if Washingtons abandonment of Ukraine serves to solidify a global perception that the U.S. is an exhausted and divided superpower that no longer stands by its word.

Theres no question that for at least a year, Putins strategy has been to wait out the U.S. and Europe, so if we turn our back on Ukraine now it will be vindication of his thinking that in a conflict, the U.S. and NATO will eventually get tired, says Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps officer and a senior adviser with the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

And it wont just be Moscow, he says. I think the Chinese, too, will conclude that if a war goes long, the U.S. will give up. The lesson for them and probably the Iranians might then be, he adds, if they start a war, they will have the advantage of endurance on their side.

Not everyone agrees with the notion that a U.S. shift on Ukraine from as long as it takes to as long as we could will have significant global implications.

Rajan Menon, director of grand strategy at Defense Priorities, a realist foreign policy think tank in Washington, says he finds those concerns about China far-fetched.

The Chinese, he says, are going to look at the balance of forces in their region and what the costs will be of launching a war, and less at how long the Americans stuck it out with Ukraine.

Yet virtually everyone from Kyiv and Western European capitals to Washington seems to agree on one thing. A drying up of U.S. military assistance would spell disaster for Ukraines aspirations of taking back and reestablishing sovereignty over any more of the nearly 20% of the country that Russia still occupies.

For months, congressional Republicans have tied up President Bidens request for supplemental Ukraine aid in a battle over spending and toughening security measures at the southern border. A bipartisan solution to the border-Ukraine funding dispute floated by Senate leaders took another blow last week when former President Donald Trump called on his forces not to approve the proposal.

Susan Walsh/AP

House Speaker Mike Johnson exits the White House in Washington, Jan. 17, 2024, following a meeting that President Joe Biden convened to underscore Ukraine's security needs. Mr. Johnson declared last week that a bipartisan solution to a southern border-Ukraine funding dispute floated by Senate leaders would be dead on arrival in the House.

Speaker Mike Johnson declared Friday the plan would be dead on arrival in the House.

European political and military leaders including British Conservatives who hoped to hold some sway with Trump-supporting Republicans have been knocking on congressional doors in recent weeks with the message that not just Ukraines survival but Western Europes freedom is on the line.

Definitely the leadership and the engagement of the U.S. in the long term, but also in this very important phase, is paramount, says a European official in Washington. The supplemental [U.S. funding] is a must-have to continue not only on the ground, the official adds, but as a show of Western resolve ... to make [Mr. Putin] understand that he will not win.

Mr. Menon, who has just returned from his fourth visit to wartime Ukraine, says that for the first time he found a mood of great pessimism not over their will or ability to fight this war with Russia, but over how they are now hostage to [U.S.] politics.

The lack of ammunition is one factor in Ukraines shift to what military experts dub an active defense meaning a hunkering down along defensive lines, with aerial attacks (weaponry permitting) aimed at disrupting Russian logistics lines.

But a halt to U.S. aid would mean that deliveries of munitions and weaponry would shrink even further, Colonel Cancian says with the worst-case scenario being a collapse of Ukraines fighting capabilities, perhaps even this year.

The ammunition and artillery delivered in January 2024 is already one-third of what it was in the summer of 2023, he says. Without a quick change, thats going to be down to 8% by June, he adds. Thered be a pulling back [from defensive lines], and eventually youd see a collapse.

Countering that grim picture is the more hopeful scenario offered by some analysts that Europe is taking steps to at least partially make up for the U.S. shortfall.

Britain, perhaps Ukraines most stalwart supporter right now, has pledged additional billions in assistance. France, too, is stepping up, with President Emmanuel Macron recently announcing more air defense missiles and other munitions for Ukraine as he prepares to conclude a bilateral security pact when he visits Kyiv next month.

Still, few analysts foresee Europe making up for the U.S. anytime soon.

Ive been arguing for a while now that Europe should prepare to take over the main support for Ukraine ... but the Europeans keep moving really slowly, says Sven Biscop, director of the Europe in the World program at Egmont The Royal Institute for International Relations in Brussels. So now we are in a situation where if U.S. military support were to suddenly evaporate, it would create a huge hole in Ukraines arsenal.

And that, Dr. Biscop says, would very likely mean an intensification of fighting, as it would encourage Russia to go on the offensive.

As we saw from Putins recent statements, he still feels he can win, he says, but only on the condition of a collapse of [Western] support. So every time the Russians get signals from the U.S. and Europe that our resolve is wavering, he adds, Putin feels hes right right about us losing interest, and right about his eventual victory in Ukraine.

More here:

In Ukraine and Europe, a concern: Has Putin outlasted the US? - The Christian Science Monitor

A pro-war symbol and one of President Vladimir Putins favorite quotes have been chosen as the official logo and slogan of the 2024 presidential election, in what observers say is an effort to indirectly influence the public to vote for the incumbent leader.

The Central Election Commission (CEC) announced Monday that the Latin letter V in the colors of the Russian flag alongside the words Together we are strong vote for Russia! would be used to promote the March 17 election.

The letter V, which first appeared on tanks headed toward Ukraine in early 2022, has since been used by Russian officials to signify support for the invasion while Putin often uses the phrase Together we are strong at public events.

The presidential administration knew in advance that the CEC would propose a war-related logo design, The Moscow Times has learned.

The Kremlin conveyed its wishes to the CEC in advance. [The logo] had to be clearly linked to the special military operation, a source close to the presidential administration told The Moscow Times, using the Kremlins term for the war.

Putin in particular was keen to use this symbolism, added the source, who requested anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss election preparations.

The symbol and slogan were chosen to indirectly show that the votes primary purpose is to re-elect the boss [Putin], two Russian government officials told The Moscow Times by phone.

This phrase is associated with the president. For Russia, we have only Vladimir Putin. All the other candidates are not real competitors to him, pose no threat, one of the officials said, requesting anonymity.

The slogan, though not a direct act of campaigning for Putin, can be seen as an indirect promotion of his candidacy because he often says it, independent election observers told The Moscow Times.

The letter V, which only became a public symbol after the invasion of Ukraine, is likewise an implied endorsement of the aggression against Ukraine that Putin launched, independent election expert Roman Udot said.

"Even if the CEC believes that the majority of citizens support the operation, one should not forget about the minority, whose rights the CEC should also take into account," Udot told The Moscow Times.

The Moscow Times has sent a request for comment to the CEC and is waiting for a response.

Since Putins inauguration over 20 years ago, Kremlin political consultants have painted him as a strongman.That image remains his trademark to this day.

But since the 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, Putin has also repeatedly invoked the theme of Russian unity against the unjust intrigues of the West.

These populist phrases and quotes often make their way onto the Putin merchandise commonly seen in Russian online stores and gift shops.

He has said the quote chosen as the CEC's slogan Together we are strong! several times in recent years, such as in 2018, when he spoke from a podium in annexed Sevastopol.

"We have become stronger because we are together!" he said in the fall of 2022 after the Kremlin claimed to have annexed Ukraines Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions.

The phrase was also heard at last months ceremonial meeting in the Kremlin, where Putin agreed to run for a fifth presidential term.

"The military on the frontlines asked me to tell you, dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, to stay with us, because together we are strong, and with you, we will win, you are our president," one of the ceremonys participants told Putin.

Today, one can buy a refrigerator magnet bearing this phrase, with a photo of young Putin against a background of the Russian flag and the double-headed eagle.

A passport cover priced at just over $2 shows Putin with a clenched fist and a tense expression as he speaks at a pro-Kremlin rally in Moscow. A similar badge is on sale for just 20 cents.

The Russian version of AliExpress sellsan army-green T-shirt bearing the same phrase along with Putin's image flanked by two servicemen wearing tactical clothing and carrying rifles as a military helicopter flies overhead.

The CEC is required by law to inform voters about the election, Russian election lawyer Oleg Molchanov told The Moscow Times.

He said that he saw no sign of favoritism for Putin in the CECs chosen slogan.

It is up to the CEC to decide how exactly to inform [the public]. This is often done with a single slogan, Molchanov said. Its quality is subjective. Any slogan will be liked by some, and disliked by others. Some people might see a call to action, which is not prohibited by law, others might not.

Konstantin Kostin, a former senior Kremlin official who now heads a foundation close to the Kremlin, also said he did not see an effort to influence the public to vote for Putin in the campaign branding.

The objective of the campaign is to stimulate turnout. The idea together plus appealing to the patriotic consensus, Kostin told The Moscow Times.

Putin has always exploited the theme of strength, said political analyst Abbas Gallyamov, a former Putin speechwriter turned exiled critic.

So we can assume that the current slogan was deliberately invented for the CEC to indirectly strengthen Putin's position and create a sense of a lack of alternatives, Gallyamov told The Moscow Times.

In Russian elections at all levels, official information campaigns often resemble those of candidates from the ruling United Russia party sometimes to the point of confusion, David Kankia, an elections analyst at independent election monitor Golos, told The Moscow Times.

The same political consultants will often produce campaign posters for election commissions and United Russia candidates at the same time, Golos co-chair Andrei Buzin said.

From the legal standpoint, there is probably no violation, Kankia said. But from the point of view of common sense, there is.

As you may have heard, The Moscow Times, an independent news source for over 30 years, has been unjustly branded as a "foreign agent" by the Russian government. This blatant attempt to silence our voice is a direct assault on the integrity of journalism and the values we hold dear.

We, the journalists of The Moscow Times, refuse to be silenced. Our commitment to providing accurate and unbiased reporting on Russia remains unshaken. But we need your help to continue our critical mission.

Your support, no matter how small, makes a world of difference. If you can, please support us monthly starting from just $2. It's quick to set up, and you can be confident that you're making a significant impact every month by supporting open, independent journalism. Thank you.

Go here to see the original:

Russian Election Authorities Pick Pro-War Symbol, Putins Favorite Slogan for Presidential Campaign Promo - The Moscow Times