All sorts of officials accuse Russia of aggression in
Ukraine. Is this true? It is not. It is fiction. It is a big lie. It is a
specious claim, an absurd claim, a ridiculous claim, an unreal claim. Russia
and Russians have been involved in certain respects in Ukraine, but by no
sensible stretch of the imagination can such involvements be termed
aggression. If there were an actual war aggression, it could not be hidden
because the scope of a typical war aggression is very large. The photographic
evidence for it would be overwhelming. No such evidence has been provided by
Russia’s accusers. Even more importantly, it would have to be shown that the
attack was an unprovoked offensive attack, and not a defensive operation.
This too has not been proven by Russia’s accusers.
My concern here is the fiction being
propagated. It borders on madness. It plays into the hands of the worst kinds
of warmongers. It blinds everyone concerned. It is irrational. It establishes
an aura of public lies and myths that results in great mischief and worse. It
is producing awful results that can become far worse. The lie happens to
revolve around demonizing Russia but my purpose is not to choose sides in the
Ukrainian-Russian problems but to keep the U.S. out of the matter. It is to
defang the lie.
What do actual war aggressions look like? Below are some
notable examples. It’s a quick brush treatment based on sources easy to find.
I haven’t consulted military histories to get precise figures. We do not need
pinpoint accuracy to get the main idea, which is that war aggressions are
large affairs, and the role of Russia in Ukraine cannot possibly qualify. It
will be immediately apparent to any rational observer that Russian
involvement in Ukraine, whatever it is or has been, doesn’t even remotely
resemble an attack on Ukraine or the kind of attack in force that defines
real war aggressions.
It is not unknown to human herd behavior to find that
wildly inaccurate myths and irrational beliefs can be widely propagated
through a large population and acted upon. The myth of Russian aggression in
Ukraine is a prime example.
North Korea attacked South Korea. On June 24, 1950, “…the
North Koreans attacked with
over 90,000 troops and 150 tanks.” Also, “By mid-1950, North Korean
forces numbered between 150,000 and 200,000 troops, organized into 10
infantry divisions, one tank division, and one air force division, with 210
fighter planes and 280 tanks, who captured scheduled objectives and
territory, among them Kaesong, Chuncheon, Uijeongbu, and Ongjin. Their forces
included 274 T-34-85 tanks, some 150 Yak fighters, 110 attack bombers, 200
artillery pieces, 78 Yak trainers, and 35 reconnaissance aircraft.”
What has Russia done in Ukraine that compares to this?
Germany attacked Poland from the north, south and west in September, 1939. “On September
1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland. The Polish army was defeated within weeks of
the invasion. From East Prussia and Germany in the north and Silesia and
Slovakia in the south, German units, with more than 2,000 tanks and over
1,000 planes, broke through Polish defenses along the border and advanced on
Warsaw in a massive encirclement attack.” Another source says that 2,315
planes were assigned to the operation: “Aircraft played a major role in the
campaign. Bombers also attacked cities, causing huge losses amongst the
civilian population through terror bombing and strafing. The Luftwaffe forces
consisted of 1,180 fighters, 290 Ju 87 Stuka dive bombers, 1,100 conventional
bombers (mainly Heinkel He 111s and Dornier Do 17s), and an assortment of 550
transport and 350 reconnaissance aircraft.[44][45] In total, Germany had
close to 4,000 aircraft, most of them modern. A force of 2,315 aircraft was
assigned to [Operation Fall] Weiss.”
Germany’s attack was a genuine war aggression.
The United States attacked Iraq on March on March 19,
2003. Iraq made no armed attack on the U.S. This was a genuine U.S. war
aggression. “Four countries participated with troops during the
initial invasion phase, which lasted from 19 March to 9 April 2003. These
were the United States (148,000), United Kingdom (45,000), Australia (2,000),
and Poland (194).” Also, “A U.S. Central Command, Combined Forces Air
Component Commander report, indicated that, as of 30 April 2003, there were a
total of 466,985 U.S. personnel deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom. This
included USAF, 54,955; USAF Reserve, 2,084; Air National Guard, 7,207; USMC,
74,405; USMC Reserve, 9,501; USN, 61,296 (681 are members of the U.S. Coast
Guard); USN Reserve, 2,056; and US Army, 233,342; US Army Reserve, 10,683;
and Army National Guard, 8,866.”
The scope of this war aggression, like that of North Korea and Germany,
was huge. Aggressive wars are big events. A state does not usually launch an
aggression unless it intends to win and to win typically requires substantial
forces unless the opponent is very much smaller. We will see that even
against Panama, the U.S. used a lot of manpower.
In addition, the 2003 attack on Iraq was preceded by bombing against Iraq
air defenses during 2001-2002 and by CIA special forces infiltration. “CIA
Special Activities Division (SAD) Paramilitary teams entered Iraq in July
2002 before the 2003 invasion. Once on the ground they prepared for the
subsequent arrival of US military forces. SAD teams then combined with US
Army Special Forces to organize the Kurdish Peshmerga.”
In 2011, NATO attacked Libya. Libya had made no armed attack on NATO
countries. This war aggression has been termed a “military intervention” in the wikipedia article. This war
involved an air and missile campaign, naval forces and a naval blockade, CIA
operatives and British and French special forces on the ground. “Nato aircraft – piloted by the US, France and UK – flew
around 18,000 armed sorties during the brief campaign, firing 7,600 missiles.
A tiny proportion of these armed missions – 250 in total – were flown by
drones. US Predators flew 145 strike sorties, according to a Department of
Defense briefing published in October 2011.”
The NATO forces that attacked Libya were substantial. Over 212 aircraft
were involved from non-U.S. sources. The numbers of U.S. aircraft do not
appear in the wikipedia article: “The United States deployed a naval force of
11 ships, including the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge, the amphibious
transport dock USS Ponce, the guided-missile destroyers USS Barry and USS
Stout, the nuclear attack submarines USS Providence and USS Scranton, the
cruise missile submarine USS Florida and the amphibious command ship USS
Mount Whitney.[141][142][143] Additionally, A-10 ground-attack aircraft, B-2
stealth bombers, AV-8B Harrier II jump-jets, EA-18G Growler electronic
warfare aircraft, and both F-15E[144] and F-16 fighters were involved in
action over Libya.[145] U-2 reconnaissance aircraft were stationed on
Cyprus.[146] On 18 March, two AC-130Us arrived at RAF Mildenhall as well as
additional tanker aircraft.[citation needed] On 24 March 2 E-8Cs operated
from Naval Station Rota Spain, which indicated an increase of ground
attacks.[citation needed] An undisclosed number of CIA operatives were said
to be in Libya to gather intelligence for airstrikes and make contacts with
rebels.[147] The US also used MQ-1 Predator UAVs to strike targets in Libya
on 23 April.”
Other naval forces were also involved. Again, without researching exact
numbers of bombs dropped, missiles launched, and so on, by no stretch of the
imagination can Russian involvement in Ukraine be compared even to this
Libyan “military intervention”.
Finally, there is one more recent U.S. invasion that is all but forgotten.
The U.S. attacked Panama on December 20, 1989. Panama had not attacked the
U.S. What was the scope of this aggression?
“The military incursion into Panama began on 20 December 1989, at 1:00
a.m. local time. The operation involved 27,684 U.S. troops and over 300
aircraft, including C-130 Hercules tactical transports flown by the 317th
Tactical Airlift Wing (which was equipped with the Adverse Weather Aerial
Delivery System or AWADS) and 314th Tactical Airlift Wing, AC-130 Spectre
gunship, OA-37B Dragonfly observation and attack aircraft, C-141 Starlifter
and C-5 Galaxy strategic transports, F-117A Nighthawk stealth aircraft flown
by the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing, and AH-64 Apache attack helicopter.”
War aggressions involve unprovoked attacks with massed forces of
substantial size. They are quite often preceded by political issues, demands
and sometimes by military clashes. The attacks are clear and unambiguous.
None of these characteristics occur with Ukraine and Russia. The ways in
which the conflict arose is quite different. Russia hadn’t been making
demands on Ukraine as Germany was making on Poland, or as the U.S. was making
on Iraq.
Beyond noting the size and scope of actual war aggressions such as the
sample provided above, the moral element needs to be considered in order to
show that an invasion is an aggression and not done in self-defense. The U.S.
justifications in the Panama case are every bit as flimsy as those in the
Iraq and Libya cases.
“The official U.S. justification for the invasion was articulated by
President George H. W. Bush on the morning of 20 December 1989, a few hours
after the start of the operation. Bush listed four reasons for the
invasion:[20]
“Safeguarding the lives of U.S. citizens in Panama. In his statement, Bush
claimed that Noriega had declared that a state of war existed between the
U.S. and Panama and that he threatened the lives of the approximately 35,000
U.S. citizens living there. There had been numerous clashes between U.S. and
Panamanian forces; one U.S. Marine had been killed a few days earlier.
“Defending democracy and human rights in Panama.
“Combating drug trafficking. Panama had become a center for drug money
laundering and a transit point for drug trafficking to the U.S. and Europe.
“Protecting the integrity of the Torrijos–Carter Treaties. Members of
Congress and others in the U.S. political establishment claimed that Noriega
threatened the neutrality of the Panama Canal and that the U.S. had the right
under the treaties to intervene militarily to protect the canal.
But, if some defender of the U.S. chooses to accept one or more of these
justifications in order to say that the U.S. invasion of Panama was not an
aggression, then by the same token, that defender cannot say that Russian
activity in eastern Ukraine is aggression. Russia can say with some
justification that it is defending the lives of ethnic Russians in eastern
Ukraine from the bombardments and attacks by Ukrainian forces from the west.
Russia is providing a sanctuary for many thousands of refugees. Russia can
claim that it is defending democracy, self-determination and human rights in
eastern Ukraine.
This entire discussion of aggression and its characteristics has made no
mention of the U.S. meddling in Ukraine that helped bring down a government
and then helped a new and aggressive government to take office. The U.S.
engaged in subversion. Russia has likewise been accused of subversion in
Ukraine. Subversion is not aggression. Subversion doesn’t involve armed
attacks. It uses different methods to transform, alter or replace the
social-political system. Subversion is a different matter and more difficult
to assess, especially when two major states like the U.S. and Russia are
involved. It is beyond the scope of this blog.
My main concern is the idea that Russia has engaged in aggression. My
concern is with documents like this one titled “Preserving Ukraine’s Independence,
Resisting Russian Aggression: What the United States and NATO Must Do.” This
report calls for substantial U.S. intervention in Ukraine. It is put out by 8
men and women with all sorts of Washington and official connections:
Ivo Daalder, President, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, and former
U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO
Michele Flournoy, Chair, Center for a New American Security, and former
Under Secretary of Defense
John Herbst, Director, Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center, the Atlantic Council,
and former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine
Jan Lodal, Distinguished Fellow and former President, the Atlantic
Council, and former Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
Steven Pifer, Senior Fellow, the Brookings Institution,
and former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine
James Stavridis, Member of the Board, the Atlantic
Council, Dean, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, and
former Supreme Allied Commander Europe
Strobe Talbott, President, the Brookings Institution, and
former Deputy Secretary of State
Charles Wald, Member of the Board, the Atlantic Council,
and former Deputy Commander, U.S.European Command
They have no problem in recommending that the U.S. and
NATO arm the Ukrainian forces and become heavily involved in attempting to
rescue its economy. They have no problem in pointing the finger of guilt at
Russia, and no problem in speaking of Russian aggression. Their presumption
of Russian aggression leads them to call for “military support to deter
further aggression”.
The U.S. government should no more involve America in
Ukraine over Russia’s role than the Kremlin should have hypothetically
involved Russia in Panama over the role of the U.S. Big nuclear powers
shouldn’t be confronting one another in the backyard of the other. That is no
way to face the world’s more serious problems.
Russian aggression is a pretext for increased U.S.
involvement in Ukraine, which is a foolish policy that should be avoided no
matter what justifications for meddling are concocted. Russian aggression is
an imaginary pretext. The learned and experienced men and women who are
relying on this argument and making recommendations based on this fiction are
not thinking clearly about the meaning of aggression and about supposed
Russian aggression. There is no Russian aggression and there hasn’t been any
Russian aggression.
