The Ukraine-Russia War
A Prevention of Peace

Last Updated: 5 July, 2024 (partly, many updates sill pending)

Topic: What is this Issue Concerning?

Although the Ukraine Civil war goes back regionally to 2014, and although that is the cause for what followed, our presentation is primarily concerned with the February 2022 incursion and entry by Russia into that war, which made the conflict one of direct international involvement.

What is the potential impact from this issue to life on Earth?

Although war is always horrific, there would have at least been limits to the destruction caused by a civil war in a non-nuclear country even in a worst case scenario. Unfortunately, with the involvement of opposing nuclear superpowers (NATO and Russia), the Ukraine War could escalate into into a world war involving nuclear weapons. To this point it's worth mentioning that: the fighting is already on, the nuclear powers on both sides are so heavily invested that it's difficult for them to back away, and there are no peace negotations; this is much worse than the Cuban missile crisis (which had no fighting and much peace negotiation which ultimately solved it). It doesn't help that neither side is willing to accept a return to the pre-Russian-invasion borders: Ukraine because they want Crimea back (which Russia's held peacefully since 2014 following a referendum there), and Russia because they won't abandon the 4 new separtists regions after they completed a formal referenndum to join Russia in September 2022 with nearly 100% voting to do so.

A widespread nuclear war would have catastrpophic implications or life on Earth now and for many years to come.

Perhaps the strangest part of this situation is that Russia keeps warning of and preparing for the therat of nuclear war, while NATO countries don't seem to consider it realistic, assuming that Russia would never do that. Example articles:

That said, even as a local war there is already great loss of human and animal life in Ukraine for this conflict, which shows no signs of ending or reducing:

Overview Resources

  1. February 6th, 2024 Tucker interviews Vladimir Putin in Moscow, Russia. . Related articles:

What's Prevented the Worst from Happening So Far?

So far, although Russia has been fighting on one side with their own troops, NATO has not sent its own troops, claiming not to be a direct party of the conflict.

Is it getting better or worse?

Worse. Unfortunately, both sides are getting only more involved (and no peace talks are happening): the weapons being sent into the war are stronger and stronger, with NATO being drawn increasingly into the conflict, sending everything but troops, and some reports that they are actually sending troops already.

More recently (December 2023), now that Ukraine is clearly losing, the issue has come up more clearly about claims on the entirety of Ukraine and direct confrontation between NATO and Russia:

  1. 8 Dec, 2023: "Nuclear" bomb from Russia: "We will decide with a referendum the annexation of the whole of Ukraine" - Will the "New Russia" Army continue the war? [computer translated]

  2. 6 Dec 2023: WWIII Extortion! Biden Regime Threatens To Deploy U.S. Troops to Fight Russia Unless Congress Passes $100 Billion Ukraine War Funding

  3. 8 Dec 2023: Even Washington Post admits, Kiev is losing

  4. 23 September 2023: FLASH TRAFFIC: GERMAN ARMY TANK CREW CAUGHT OPERATING TANK IN UKRAINE, ATTACKING RUSSIAN ARMY

  5. 23 Mar, 2023: Ukrainian special forces getting military targets from CIA satellite – Times

  6. 1 Dec, 2022: US and NATO directly involved in Ukraine conflict – Lavrov

  7. 16 Oct, 2022: Ukraine attacks Donetsk with American missiles – mayor. This will be interpreted by Russia as a direct attack on Russian soil.

Initiation of this Present Conflict:

  1. The Sides and Who's On Them:

    1. Which countries have not taken a side in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

    2. Ukraine invasion: China abstains from voting on UN Security Council resolution condemning Russia

  2. The Russian military entered the Donbas region on 24 February, 2022, calling it a 'special military operation'.

  3. Most experts, and the world in general, didn't see this coming:

    1. 16 Feb, 2022: Why Putin won’t invade Ukraine

    2. 9 FEb, 2022: No, Russia will not invade Ukraine

  4. Who was Skeptical: UK urges Russian action to back up denial it plans to invade Ukraine

  5. Who was Right: The United States defense officials, including president Biden, was the main organization which warned of the danger:

    1. 3 Feb, 2022: U.S. Exposes What It Says Is Russian Effort to Fabricate Pretext for Invasion

    2. 28 Jan, 2022: Russia Has Enough Troops Near Ukraine for Full Invasion, Pentagon Says

    3. 12 Feb, 2022: U.S. and allies tell citizens to leave Ukraine as Russia could invade 'at any time'

    4. 12 Feb, 2022: In Phone Call, Biden Warns Putin of ‘Severe’ Costs of Invading Ukraine

    5. 17 Feb, 2022: US Ramps Up Ukraine Warnings as Russia Denies Invasion Plans

    6. 17 Feb, 2022: Biden expects Russia to invade Ukraine in "next several days"

    7. Feb. 18, 2022: U.S. Warns of Imminent Russian Invasion of Ukraine With Tanks, Jet Fighters, Cyberattacks

    8. Feb 21, 2022: Russian attack on Ukraine could be ‘hours or days’ away, national security adviser says

  6. Russia Lied About True Intentions behind Troop Buildup: In the weeks leading up to the invasion, Russian officials were repeatedly questioned about their intentions regarding the buildup of Russian troops at the border with the Ukraine, two which, until they invaded, they were adamant that they have no intention of invading the Ukraine and were only doing military exercises.

    1. 27 Jan, 2022: 'Russia has no plans to invade Ukraine or any other country,' says Moscow's ambassador to the EU

    2. 29 Jan, 2022:

    3. Russia accuses US of 'using' Ukraine

    4. 15 Feb, 2022: Russia confirms ‘partial’ withdrawal of troops from Ukraine border

    5. 16 Feb, 2022: Russia has "no intention" to invade Ukraine, deputy U.N. ambassador says

    6. Feb 16, 2022 Video: Russia has "no intention" to invade Ukraine, deputy U.N. ambassador says

    7. 16 Feb, 2022: Russia adds 7,000 troops to Ukraine border, despite claims it would withdraw some forces, U.S. says

    8. 18 Feb, 2022: Russia has no intention to attack Ukraine: deputy FM

    9. February 20, 2022: Russian ambassador insists Kremlin has "no such plans" for invading Ukraine despite troop build-up

    10. 24 Feb, 2022: Putin attacked Ukraine after insisting for months there was no plan to do so. Now he says there's no plan to take over.

  7. How Russia has Justified Its Military Involvement:

    8. Their argument is that they need to defend the ethnically Russian people of the separtist regions from being slaughtered by the Government they are trying to separte from, as well as not tolerating Ukraine's direction to join NATO and thereby put NATO bases and missiles right at the Russian border even very close to Moscow.

    They point out that the Minsk peace agreements, whcih were supposed to give the separtist regions self-government, were not honoured by the Ukraine government. European officials who brokered the deal have since admitted that those agreements were only made to give Ukraine time to arm up, rather than actually be implemented.

    It's admitted by both sides that, before the February 2022 entry by Russia, Russia was interested in a ceasefire regarding the civil war in the Donbas region.

    Interestingly, Russia's label of the 24 February 2022 incursion into Ukraine as a 'Special Mmilitary Operation' is not mere euphamism for invasion, because there is a framework of invitation behind it. The entry ws under recognition of the separtist regions and a treaty with them. The assemblies of the contested regions invited Russia in under a treaty. To be invited in is not the same as being invaded. These separtist regions had moral authority, having already voted for independence in 2014, and were supposed to have been given self-governance under the Minsk agreements which Ukraine did not honour.

  8. Western Establishment has justified their military involvement by:

    1. Framing the 24 February 2022 incursion by Russia simply as brutal or unprovked aggression, ignoring that the war's actually been on since 2014 and NATO has been supporting the other side also since about that time. For example, Canada has been training Ukrainian troops since 2014 underOperation Unifier.

    2. A secondary reason NATO gives to justify military support for Ukraine is allegation that the Russians (alone) are committing war crimes (eg. cruelties to civilians).

      3. However both sides claim this and the claims came long before the Russian invasion: when the Ukraine Government was attacking civilians following their successful referendum to separate.

      Since Russian war crimes have gotten vastly more attention, we will present articles on Ukranian ones:

    3. A third reason NATO gives to justify military support for Ukraine is defending democracy

  9. On the Ukraine side, the ware seems to be an arrangement between Ukraine and NATO for to fight Russia where Ukraine supplies as many lives as needed (typically by conscription), and NATO supplies as much money and weapons as needed

  10. What are the personal incentives of the parties involved?

    11. NATO seems to want Ukraine in NATO and presumably to put their missiles right up to the Russian border, very close to Moscow, basically at Russia's throat, to use as leverage against them.

    Russia refuses to allow Ukraine to join NATO and put missiles at the border with Russia, in much the same way that USA president John F Kennedy refused to allow nuclear missiles in Cuba and threatened war.

    Russia is also less than enthusiastic about allegd illegal bioweapons research in Ukraine.

    1. Russia says Ukraine is littered with U.S.-financed bioweapons labs

    2. Pentagon ran bioweapons labs in 25 countries, including Ukraine… yet no global outcry against the USA for funding covid gain-of-function crimes against humanity

    3. Russia makes new claims on US-financed biolabs in Ukraine

    4. US violated UN treaties on biological weapons by funding bioweapons labs in Ukraine

Background to the Present Conflict:

Howevermuch the Ukraine war might be presented as starting from Russia's incursion on 24 February 2022, that's not when the foreign interference, or fighting, in this war started.

This is a war of Western versus Russian influence in Ukraine.

The USA seems to be trying to prevent any other country from becoming strong enough to threaten thir influence. They seem to be alarmed about Russia, as the biggest threat to USA world dominance, since it has developed and deployed advanced weaponry.

The West seems to want Ukraine to be part of NATO, to put bases and missiles there, even very close to Moscow, to threaten Russia, as a knife against its throat (putting armaments that close drastically reduces the time they have to correctly identify and effectively defend against a suprise attack). Russia will no more tolerate NATO bases on their border than president John F Kennedy would tolerate Soviet missiles in Cuba.

Ukraine being not only on the border with Russia, and close to Moscow, but having an internal geographic divide of ethnically-Ukranian and etnically-Russian peoples, it was ripe for this USA-Russia battle of influence to play out there.

This war started at latest in 2014, as a civil war inside Ukraine, fomented by foreign interference, followed by military support from both NATO and Russia; it did not begin with a 2022 invasion by Russia.

Strange Properties of the Present Conflict:

  1. Ukraine is not a NATO member and so NATO is under no obligation to support them militarily.

    2. Ukraine chose to delay their entry into NATO in 2010. Wikipedia article here.

  2. Although Ukraine is no treaty ally of NATO, NATO has been aiding them against Russia almost as though they were. For example:

  3. The Ukraine Government has repeatedly demanded support from Western countries to fight Russia, with a strange assumption of entitlement.

    4. This demandingness makes sense if Ukraine really is only following the direction of the West in waging a proxy war.

  4. NATO has put helping Ukraine at a higher priority than helping its own People.

    5. They style their help of the Ukraine government, and in some ways Ukrainians, as a higher priority than helping their own citizens: massive handouts for the former with little or nothing for the latter.

  5. NATO has been depleting its own ammunition stockpiles to the point of threatening its own security:

  6. NATO has been supporting Ukraine to the point of dangerously depleting their own defenses:

  7. NATO has been sending increasingly heavy types of weapons into the war, while insisting they are not directly parties to the conflict.

    8. For example, NATO nations refused to send Ukraine tanks earlier, for fears that supplying heavy weapons might be seen as direct parties to the conflict. Later, they're not only sending heavy battle tanks but DU ammunition and starting to send warplanes as well. (Isn't that a kind of self-admission of direct involvement?)

  8. NATO has promised to send F-16 fighter jets even though Russia has made clear enough that will mean war with NATO. These jets are capable of carrying nuclear bombs. Russian officials have pointed out both that any F-16 taking off to attack them from a NATO country will be seen as an attack on Russia from that country, and that they won't be looking under individual F-16s to see if they're currently carring nuclear bombs or not but simply consider them all nuclear threats due to their nuclear weapon carrying ability.

  9. NATO has decided to send depleted uranium (DU) ammunition (to Ukraine for use against Russia)

    10. It happens to fit the tanks they have donated.

    It is radioactive with a very long half-life.

    Russia considers it crossing the line into nuclear weapons. Although the direct use of DU in this application is merely for its armor-penetrating ability, it does have radiactive fallout which lasts a very long time. Specifically, when the munition impacts it creates radiactive dust which can blow over a very wide area and has a very long half-life.

    Articles:

  10. NATO has been sending internationally banned weapons into the war:

  11. Civilian gas piplelines were sabotaged and no one has claimed or been assigned responsibility.

    12. No one has claimed responsibility for the blasts, but it is thought that only a state actor would have the expertise required, and specifically alleged that the US is responsible:

    Regardless of which state is responsible, it is very disturbing that any Government would commit such an atrocity and not take responsibility for it.

    These underwater pipelines supplied natural gas from Russia to Germany in a mutually beneficial arrangement: Russia received a strong revenue, and Germany received a reliable source of cheap energy for many important uses.

    One of these important uses was fertilizer, made by BASF, which has had to shut down for lack (or expense) of natural gas. It's thought it can never be restarted, and that this will have catastrophic consequences for food production which relied on that fertilizer.

    To destroy them just before the cold season is tantamount to murder as many Germans could have died if the following winter was very cold (fortunately it was not).

  12. NATO military aid for for Ukraine seems to be going unaccounted for, even NATO weapons ending up on the black market, and NATO countries doesn't seem to mind:

    13. Now it seems that the arms have reached their way to Hamas, arming them against Israel-USA: Article 23 October, 2023: Home War Monitor Israel-HamasShock video for Israel: Hamas armed with AT4, Javelin, NLAW via Ukraine – Washington Post: “Deadly surprise awaits IDF in Gaza”. In other words, the weapons are poised to be used against the USA who sent them.

  13. Western Leaders and Mainstream Media have been Mindlessly Deceiving their People into Believing that Russia is no Serious Threat: a 'Paper Tiger' they say

    14. Example articles:

  14. Ukraine has been using very aggressive conscription tactics

  15. NATO doesn't seem to mind Ukraine attacking Separtist or Russian nuclear power plants

    16. Article 29 Oct, 2023: Moscow reveals details of Ukrainian attack on nuclear power plant

  16. The Ukraine Forces have neo-Nazi ideologies and NATO tolerates or celebrates it.

    17. The Ukranian forces have serious Nazi leanings (neo-Nazi), and it's quite outrageous for Canada to support them militarily knowing that.

    As for Ukranian president Zelensky, he is no hero: he concealed from his own people detailed knowledge of Russia's plans for their special military operation, saying he would lose money if he had warned Ukranians.  Instead he assured them, up to January 2022, of a peaceful year ahead.

    In donating a tremendous amount of arms to an immoral regime, we should consider: is it possible that, after this war ends, all the weapons we've given them could be used to intimidate or harm parties we didn't intend to be intimidated or harmed?  In other words, even if the Ukraine War ended now, isn't it possible that those weapons will come back to haunt us or our allies?

  17. Ukraine president Zelenky's goals are not merely be to get Russian troops out of Ukraine, or back to borders before this crisis, but to retake Crimea and actual regime change in Russia.

    18. Meanwhile Russia has made clear its willingness to use nuclear weapons if Ukraine tries to re-take Crimea.

    What Crimeans want is ignored, although they seem quite peaceful since being annexed by Russia, which happened following their referendum.

  18. Ukraine president Zelensky isn't admitting the failure of his counter-offensive and seems to be coming more and more out of touch with reality

  19. The Ukraine War seems intended to last for many years, but that hasn't stopped the West from making unlimited commitments of support, and without putting the question to voters in referendum

Why there is a Risk of Escalation to a Broader NATO-Russia War:

  1. Many prominent people have been raising Public alarm over the Ukraine War escalating into a broader region, even a world war, to the point that it's hardly considered newsworthy anymore. Examples include:

    1. 19 Mar, 2023: Poland may end up ‘joining’ Ukraine conflict – diplomat

    2. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres

    3. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg

    4. USA President Joe Biden

    5. Dmitry Medvedev (Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation)

    6. ex-President Trump

    7. The famous Doomsday clock is now closer to 'midnight' (human extinction) than it's ever been in its history, specifically because of the Ukraine War.

     

  2. Both sides have and are threatening the use of nuclear weapons, as well as prominent third-party observers warning about it.

  3. Russia has powerful super-weapons, some of which no nation is known to have a defense for.

    4. Russia has more nuclear weapons than all of NATO combined, hypersonic missiles deployed, underwater apocalyptic weapons, a nuclear cruise missile (which can fly for years), and even a mutually assured destruction (MAD) defense system.  These weapons were generally designed to bypass existing defenses.  In particular, they have fifty new RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missiles (named ‘SATAN-II’ by NATO), which stand 116 feet tall, fly at 16,000 mph (Mach 21), and carry up to either 10-15 (depending on the report) nuclear warheads (with independent targeting) or 24 hypersonic cruise missiles. Russia still has the largest nuclear bomb.

    Russia's weapons, especially their weapons of mass destruction, are generally more numerous and advanced that NATO's, not to mention having a strong manufacturing base and their own vast natural resources:

Fundamental Questions:

  1. What do the people who live in the contested region want?

    2. Too few seem to be asking that question regarding the Ukraine war.

    The People of the eastern parts of Ukraine rejected the illegal replacement of the elected president in 2014.

    The People of the Donbas region voted for independence from Ukraine by referendum in 2014 (and again in 2022).

    The Donbas republics, as well as two more, have in September 2022 (besides 2014) held referendums of overwhelming support to join Russia (Donetsk 99.23%, Lugansk 98.42%, Zaporozhye 93%, and Kherson 87%), and Russia has formally annexed them in late 2022.

    Interestingly, peace for the separatist regions of Ukraine was never achieved under Ukrainian rule but only under Russian rule.  The result of the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea was peace but there was continual war in Donbas being left behind within Ukraine. This is strong evidence that these ethnic Russian peoples really do want to be with Russia, and not in Ukraine, regardless of referendum criticisms, since they rebel against Ukrainian rule but not against Russian rule.

    Although the referendums were called 'sham', by he West, before they even happened, the West didn't offer independent observers, or offer to repeat the referendum. In fact the West actually threatened anyone who participated in the election, even independent observers visiting from other nations, with prison (example article: EU threatens foreign observers over Donbass referendums ). The West offered no option to the people of that region to decide their fate, despite that we are supposedly the most democratic.

  2. It is a widely accepted principle of human rights that a People should have the right to self-determination.

    3. For example, this is what principle the United States is founded on, since it broke away from British rule.

    Article: The Dangers of Ukrainian Revanchism.

  3. Why should the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine want to separate?

    4. We only need to see the laws which the Ukrainian Government has been oppressing the Russian-speaking population with (even the ones not trying to separate). There is a language law restricting any other language but Ukrainian. There is a race law denying human rights for anyone of Slavic origin (ethnic Russians).  The Government even uses the Law to persecute the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

    As for daily quality of life, it was basically a genocide being carried out against the separtist regions by the Ukraine government. Why would they not want to leave!?

  4. What do the people of the rest of Ukraine want?

    5. It should suffice to say that they elected Ukraine president Zelensky on a promise that he would stop the fighting and make peace with Russia: even to negotiate with Putin directly. In office, however, he did the exact opposite: he actually made it illegal to negotiate peace with president Putin.

    The death toll on Ukraine is extreme. Why should the West Ukranians care if some of East Ukraine joins Russia? Most people just want to get on with their lives and not be conscripted into war, especially one where they don't benefit. Russia wasn't trying to invade West Ukraine at all when this started.

  5. Did Russia invade Ukraine?

    6. Not if you reconize people's right to self-determination. As already discussed, they voted to separate in 2014 and they were attacked. Russia ulatimately decided to defend them, at the invitation of their elected representatives, because they are not only next-door, but ethnically Russian and this was the original basis of their persecution in Ukraine. You might call this a legal reason relative to the separtist regions.

    Moreover there was a clear failure of Ukraine to uphold the Minsk agreements ensuring self-governance, which is a legal reason against Ukraine.

    Moreover Russia, for its own defense, didn't want NATO putting missiles in Ukraine (on the border with Russia and close to Moscow), which is a major threat to their sovereignty and which they claim to have had assurances against such expansion of NATO a long time ago.

Fundamental Criticisms:

  1. Russia should not be portrayed as a natural enemy of the West.

    2. In particular, the assertion that Putin cannot be allowed to win seems accepted by the Western Public without asking why.

    Russia was an ally of the West in WWII, offered an alliance with the West a few times since WWII, and seeing any nation as a natural enemy works strongly against world peace. Peace requires a worldview where we believe coexistence is possible.

  2. Peace Talks Should be Happening and Mandatory for Aid

    3. Although peace talks are normally a component of any large conflict in modern times, especially those involving many nations, and should have been a requirement for third-party help, the West has layed no such requirement on the Ukraine government, which is reported to have rejected many peace and peace talk opportunities, even to the point of making it a law that peace talks may not happen.

  3. Ukrainian presedient Zelensky is no hero to his people, however he may be touted as one by Western nations.

  4. Ukrainian presedient Zelensky is no defender of freedom of expression

  5. Ukrainian presedient Zelensky is actually no champion of democracy

Where is this going?

Although peace is possible at any time, the way things are shaping up:

  1. Russia seems will win in Ukraine, and settle it on whatever terms they dictate, if the West does not get directly involved.

  2. The West doesn't want to allow Putin to win in Ukraine, and therefore seems to be preparing towards direct invovlement against Russia.

  3. Earlier, when Ukraine support was in decline, were hints that Ukraine might switch sides and fight with Russia against NATO. Then NATO would be fighting against the weapons it supplied Ukraine with. Maybe this is a lesson learned in sending your own troops instead of weapons to someone who is not a treaty ally.

  4. More recently, the West has redoubled its Ukrain support and seems willing to get more involved no matter the costs to anyone. As of 3 March 2024, Canada and France have proposed sending NATO troops into Ukraine, to which Russia has reacted with fierce warning of nuclear holocaust.

  5. If the West gets directly involved, it will be unavoidably far bigger than a Ukraine war: a world war. NATO has border with Russia such as through its new member Finland. In addition tot hat, war would likely be fought over the oceans.

  6. NATO and Russia being nuclear powers, it is difficult to see how a direct war between them doesn't go nuclear.

SUGGESTIONS FOR ACTIVISM: What can you do about it

For those in the West, we suggest:

  1. Stop hating Russia just because your Government leads you to. Hate is a destructive foundation to build your thinking on. Russia doesn't want missiles at their border any more than president Kennnedy wanted them in Cuba. Understand this and you can understand that peace is possible on a promise of a deminiltarized Ukraine. Instead the West is arming Ukraine to the teeth.

  2. Insist on peace talks. Stop pretending that war is the only option.

  3. Care about what the people of the region want. Do not dismiss multiple referendums in the separtist regions too easily, especially without offering replacements.

  4. Write your elected represenatives to Withdraw NATO Military Support for Ukraine. Sending humanitarian aid is OK, though, but sending weapons and no peace negotiators into someone else's war is deeply immoral.

  5. Sign a Petition:

NEWS UPDATES (by date):
Back to Homepage
Flag Counter