A neutral Ukraine would have prevented this mess

Another excellent interview with Alexander Mercouris (the first part was posted in my article All governments lie – so does the media. Who should you trust?). He gives a good history of the importance of neutrality in efforts to prevent war.

This issue is relevant to the current NATO-Russia conflict in Ukraine – both in terms of the events leading up to the war and the possibilities of ending the conflict.

Ukraine was founded as an independent permanently neutral state

This is not generally known as our media continually presents us with the argument that Ukraine has a right to join NATO. It ignores that for most of its independent life, Ukrainians have actually been opposed to joining NATO.

In fact, Ukrainian independence, according to early documents passed in their Parliament (the Verkhovna Rada) rejects such participation in military alliances.

The Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine specifically states:

“The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles: to accept, to produce and to purchase no nuclear weapons.”

Of course, since then the membership of NATO has been raised in Ukraine – in response to NATO’s moves to offer membership. But this resulted from the continuous political debate between the Ukrainian political forces that wished to adhere to the founding principles, wanting to develop an ethnically diverse state, and to develop friendly relations with their neighbours, and those political forces influenced by ultranationalists which wished to see Ukraine develop as a, ethnically and linguistically monolithic state, that was hostile to its largest neighbour, the Russian Federation.

Since independence, these two forces have alternated in government with, for example, decisions to declare the wartime Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera a national hero, followed by decisions of the next government to remove that status. Ambitions to join NATO followed similar fortunes although polls heavily influenced, of course, by ethnic Russians living in the east who rejected the idea, have generally shown the population was opposed.

I think neutrality would have offered a lot for Ukraine’s development and its survival as an independent state. It could have developed friendly relations with all its neighbours and benefited from trade.

But this was not to be.

The political crisis of 2013/2014 with the Maidan demonstration in the centre of Kiev culminated in the overthrow of the democratically elected president and his government. This is despite the EU-brokered agreement between the president and opposition parties to solve the crisis with an early election and the development of a new constitution with guarantees of language rights to ethnic minorities. The coup was carried out by a relatively small, ultranationalist/neo-Nazi element of the demonstrators.

A civil war was inevitable and attempts of European powers to resolve that conflict peacefully and preserve the territorial integrity of the country were formulated in the Minsk Agreements. Unfortunately, these agreements were cynically used (as admitted by Merkel, Macron and Poroshenko) to buy time for the rearmament of Ukraine and a military solution to the wishes of the Donbass region for independence. The Minsk Agreement got unanimous international support from the UN Security Council. I sometimes wonder if the New Zealand government, which was a member of the Security Council at the time, understood the real agenda behind the Minsk Agreements.

Another lost chance was the rejection by the USA and Western Europe of any proper discussion of the Russian draft treaties aimed at overcoming the problems of security in Europe and the expansion of NATO, specifically of the proposals for Ukrainian membership of NATO.

I discussed these lost opportunities in my article Ukraine war – a failure of honest diplomacy and reason. Two other relevant articles are You can’t understand Ukraine without acknowledging its deep divisions and Ukraine war – a shocking failure of our mainstream media.

So it’s interesting to look back and realise what could have been. Alexander Mercouris discusses the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Austria in 1955 and its establishment as a neutral state. He also discusses an earlier lost opportunity – the rejection of proposals for the withdrawal of troops from Germany after the war and its establishment as a united and neutral country.

Of course, we do not know what Ukraine’s situation will be after this current conflict is resolved. But I hope that it will at last, and far too late, be established as a neutral state.

Reality bites – especially in a war

I heard this lovely statement by Andrei Martyanov recently – “reality is interesting but it bites.” In a recent Youtube programme, Ray McGovern produced a similar statement – “Reality can smack people in the back of the head.”

These statements give me hope. I am so used to seeing people relying on a comfortable narrative without acknowledging evidence – reality. In fact, this seems to have become a habit for our mainstream media in recent years. This is why our media has gotten used to promoting misinformation and disinformation (and cynically accusing others of doing it) in place of news and political analyses.

But such reliance on comfortable narratives instead of evidence cannot last. Eventually, these lies get exposed and this can’t come soon enough for me.

Western politicians fooled by false beliefs

Western politicians fell into the trap of believing their own narratives, their own disinformation and propaganda when it came to Ukraine. History shows that it is simply a recipe for defeat.

Consider the economic war the US and NATO launched against the Russian Federation. They were so used to promoting false narratives like those of John McCain that “Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country.”  That the country was very weak economically and that it could be brought to its knees by US/NATO sanctions.

After these were introduced in 2022 US President Biden declared that the Russian Ruble had become rubble – only to be proven wrong very quickly. The White House declared that US/NATO sanctions would “isolate Moscow from the global economy“ and would “impose severe cost on the Russian economy, both immediately and over time.” The aim of the US/NATO sanctions was to “further increase Russia’s economic isolation“

But none of this has happened. On the whole, the economic and financial indicators for Russia are going well. The country has reacted well to sanctions and in most areas (automobiles are an example) the ordinary citizen is not affected.

The War in Ukraine

While it is always difficult to reveal reality during wartime (the first victim of war is truth) there is also now a growing realization in the West that what we have been told about the progress of the war in Ukraine has been largely false. Until now our political and our mainstream media have given us a diet of wishful thinking and rosy propaganda. Ukraine is winning. The Russian military faces huge losses. Russia is running out of missiles, planes and shells. And this next big Ukrainian offensive will lead to Rusia’s defeat. Although the specifics of that defeat are never provided.

The awful reality is now beginning to surface – aided in part by recent leaks from the US military. The real Ukrainian losses are huge. The Ukrainians are concerned about shortages of shells. They have lost most of their air defences. Having lost most of the original military hardware they now rely on weapons and hardware supplies from NATO countries – and the NATO stocks themselves are getting low.

There is now talk of a probable Ukrainian defeat and the need to get peace negotiations going to minimize losses.

Reality is beginning to surface – not with all commentators yet but more and more with time. But the truth hurts, and many will continue to hold on to the false hope that “their side” will continue to win.

War is a serious business and political leaders should never go into that business relying on wishful thinking or false beliefs. This business is so serious that leaders should look for objective facts and analysis. The lives of many, many people are at stake.

But the politicians in the US and other NATO countries have committed the cardinal sin of believing in their own propaganda. This will have consequences for them.

Reality does indeed bite.

Where are Ukrainian refugees going? – an update

A temporary tent camp set up for Ukrainian refugees in Donetsk, in Russia’s Rostov region near the Russian-Ukrainian border, June 22, 2014 (Reuters/Eduard Korniyenko). Source: How Unrest in Ukraine Is Sending a Wave of Refugees to Russia

In August I discussed Ukrainian refugee data in my post “You can’t understand Ukraine without acknowledging its deep divisions“ and how this illustrates the deep divisions in the country. Unless these divisions are acknowledged and all the data considered one simply cannot understand the problems.

Ignoring the refugees from the Donbass and eastern Ukraine, who mainly fled to the Russian Federation, distorts the situation. Unfortunately, our media often falls into that trap.

Also, ignoring the refugees from those areas who fled between 2014 (when the civil war broke out) and February 24 2022 (the date used by the UN for the start of the refugee problem) misrepresents the situation. Our media persists with this fundamental mistake that the Ukrainian conflict started on February 24 thi\us purposely misrepresenting the Russo-Ukraine war.

Here I update the UN figures for refugees. The data is mainly for November 2002, although there is some variation (e.g. the data for the Russian Federation is for October 2022). I have also corrected my mistake of not including the refugees in the period 2014 and February 24, 2022.

The tables below for the refugees since February 2014 are taken from the UN – Ukraine Refugee Situation. However, the pie charts below are more complete as I have included an estimate of the number of Ukrainian refugees fleeing to the Russian Federation in the period between 2014 and 2022. This estimate is 1.5 million. I don’t know if this includes the estimated 120,000 who fled to the Russian Federation in the period just before the 24th of February 2024. This was caused by an increase in Ukrainian attacks on civilian areas just before the invasion.

Ukrainian refugees since 2014

This pie chart shows a fact our media ignores – Russia is bearing the main costs of supporting Ukrainian refugees – 48% of the refugees fled to the Russian Federation. This is understandable if one thinks about it. The war is taking place mainly in the east and south of Ukraine. This is where homes are being destroyed and lives are under threat. The people here are mainly Russian, ethnically. They have close ties with Russia including family ties. It is natural that most of the refugees from these areas will flee to Russia

Ukrainian refugees since February 24, 2022

Even considering the data only for those fleeing since the start of the Russian-Ukrainian war in February 2022 we see that Russia is still bearing the major brunt of the refugee problem. Russia has received 38% of these refugees – more than any other country.

There are problems in Western Europe because refugees are not always welcome. But this is unlikely to be the case in the Russian Federation because the refugees speak the same language and have the same cultural and religious background. Family ties are also common.

But the Russian Federation is obviously bearing most of the economic costs of the Ukrainian refugee problem. Russia also has the cost of restoration of housing and facilities destroyed by the war in the areas they have liberated and annexed.

Some of the new housing being built in Mariupol where most houses were destroyed during the early weeks of the war.

UN data for refugees in Europe since February 24, 2022

Fake news about Ukrainian refugees

The main misrepresentation is that Ukrainian refugees are fleeing mainly to rich western countries and that Western Europe is bearing the main burden. This is obviously not true but is a common theme in western media. (For example, Number of refugees entering Europe grows as power is cut in Ukrainian towns, or Ukrainian refugees: Challenges in a welcoming Europe which lists the “top ten countries hosting Ukrainian refugees” but purposely excludes Russia).

The other common distortion is to claim that refugees hosted by Russia were forcefully deported (eg –Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians forced to Russia, U.S. claims). This is ridiculous but is one of the more fanciful claims disseminated by the authorities in Kiev which are often uncritically picked up by the western media.

*NOTE

It is hard to find complete figures for the refugees fleeing the country between 2014 and 2022 so I have used the commonly accepted estimate. I will update this post when I get my hands on the relevant data from reliable sources. So far, the UN data I have found has been for only individual years.

The refugee numbers are increasing all the time. The recent evacuation of Kherson will mean an increase in the number of refugees in the Russian Federation. The current attacks on services like water and electricity throughout Ukraine will increase the number of refugees fleeing to Western Europe. This parallels the situation in Donbass where such attacks on essential services since 2014 (as well as the indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas) has caused many refugees to flee to the Russian Federation.

Most recently the authorities in Kiev have claimed that the entire population of Ukraine will have to move to other countries in winter because of the Russian destruction of electricity and water services. This claim is extreme and obviously aimed at involving NATO forces directly in the conflict by threatening Europe with the problem of increasing refugee numbers. There is no doubt that the destruction of essential services will lead to more emigration.

There are also rumours of the outbreak of civil unrest in Odessa as civilians oppose the poor response of the city administration to the loss of civilian services. It is possible such civil unrest will spread and this may also promote emigration and an increase in refugee numbers.

Finally, we should never forget the large number of refugees that have been settled within the country who must be supported by Ukrainian institutions and international humanitarian agencies.

How is the war going?

The war in Ukraine is dragging on and many people have lost interest in it. But those who want to follow the progress of the war, and possibly speculate on how it will finish, must find it hard to find objective information. Like all wars, there is so much fake news, disinformation, and outright wishful thinking on the part of analysts.

I basically ignore articles in the news media and instead attempt to follow direct information from war correspondents and journalists. A few video channels provide largely objective information summaries with maps which enables viewers to get an overall idea of the war’s progress,

Here are some YouTube channels I watch that are usually updated daily. I have ranked these with those I consider the best first.

Military Summary Channel

The guy running the Military Summary channel seems to be a military expert. His summaries often provide information like the number of battle groups in each area, which is lacking in other summaries. He also does get into speculating on the likelihood of impending battles. He comes across as very knowledgeable but objective

Defense Politics Asia

Defense Politics Asia is run by a guy from Singapore. He has a Singaporean sense of humour and is always checking and reevaluating his sources and information so often makes changes when he can get verification of a claim.

War in Ukraine

The War in Ukraine summaries of harder to understand, if only because his maps are less detailed. He does also provide extra information which I find sometimes good (like his analysis of the situation in Lithuania regarding the blockage of the Kaliningrad) and sometimes not so good like his analysis of the likely future wheat yields in Russia and how that would affect its economy).

New World Econ

New World Econ is a new channel for me, so I am still evaluating it. It seems good and does cover wider issues

Denys Davydov

Denys Davydov is a Ukrainian pilot and is clearly biased toward Ukraine so it comes across as a bit naive. Still worth watching because it does give an idea of what Ukrainians may be pinning their hopes on.

The economic war

There is also an economic war, based on the sanctions and their effect on the Russian economy and Western economies – particularly those of the NATO countries but also the rest of the world. It’s much harder to find convincing and objective information on this. I have my own sources, but I think it is up to readers to use the sources they feel most comfortable with.

War and the loss of young lives are horrible, but I think the economic war may end up being more important than the military war as its outcome will, in the long run, affect us all.

Why should Ukraine listen to lame duck Boris Johnson?

A rare exposure in Western media of the fact that many residents of the Donbass prefer Russian rule to Ukrainian ultranationalist rule.

I don’t know why anyone would take advice from UK’s lame duck Prime Minister and well-known buffoon Boris Johnson seriously, but he seems to go down well in Kiev. I cannot understand why.

Johnson is telling everyone who will listen that Ukrainian president Zelensky “must not be pressured by world powers into accepting a bad peace deal with Russia.” I guess Johnson isn’t the one who is suffering the direct effects of this war, but he ignores the fact that at this stage any peace deal will be bad for Ukraine – and with time the possible peace deals will only get worse. 

Any peace deal now will mean loss of territory. At this stage, any agreement will mean the loss of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. But wait any longer and loss of more territory seems inevitable. In this situation, the best peace deal is the one you can get now.

I suspect Russia is no longer interested in a deal, but the fact is the longer Ukraine waits the worse the deal will be. In fact, if sense had prevailed, the time to take a deal was years ago, in 2014 and 2015 when Ukraine and the break-away regions signed the Minsk Agreements. This would have guaranteed the country’s territorial integrity, laid the basis for constitutional reforms and gone a long way to solving the ethnic problems of the country.

Instead, Johnson is encouraging those Ukrainians who indulge in magical thinking. People who believe a military victory is possible for them. Magical thinking based on wishful thinking and belief in one’s own propaganda about the adversary. Magical thinking ignoring the facts on the ground (I think everyone now accepts Ukraine is losing this war – and losing badly). And magical thinking that indulges the fantasies of ultranationalists who dream about a mono-ethnic, mono-lingual country where minority rights have been eliminated.

Seriously?? pic.twitter.com/qbHSQJ3pZL

— Ken Perrott (@OpenParachute) June 26, 2022

And that is the problem. Since the overthrow of democracy in Ukraine with the coup in 2014, the NATO countries have pandered to, and even encouraged this ultranationalist dream. Not because those countries supported the thuggishness and danger to democracy of the ultranationalists, but because it coincided with and assisted their own dreams about European security. Dreams about regime change in Russia, if not the destruction and dismemberment of that country.

It is the magical thinking of the Ukrainian ultranationalist and the NATO ideologues which has led to this situation. Along the way, there have been a series of possibilities which should have been seized.

• The EU-brokered agreement between the Ukrainian President and all the opposition parties leading the Maidan demonstration provided for early democratic elections, public discussion and voting on a new constitution and guarantees of minority rights. This would have provided a basis for Ukraine moving toward EU membership.
• The Minsk Agreements – signed by the Ukrainian and separatist leaders and brokered by the Normandy countries – France, Germany and Russia. This would have guaranteed the territorial integrity of the country.
• The December 2012 detailed proposals of the Russian Federation to the USA and NATO provided a serious basis for a genuine discussion on the problems of European security and arms control. Important and outstanding problems needing diplomatic resolution

The recent history of Ukraine, and indeed Europe, has been one of ignoring opportunities and instead promoting fantasies of a mono-ethnic Ukraine and a dangerous NATO dominance in Europe

 

 

Censorship: Thinking you are right – even if you’re wrong

I posted this video four years ago – but repost it now because the message is still very valid (see Are you really right? and Warriors, scouts, Trump’s election and your news media). In fact, it’s more valid today than it was four years ago. Things have got worse – far worse than I expected they would.

To recap – Julia describes the two different mindsets required in fighting a war:

• The  “Warrior mindset” – emotively based and fixated on success. Not interested in stopping to think about the real facts or rationally analyse the situation.
• The “Scout mindset” – objective and rational, ready to consider the facts (in fact, searching them out) and logically consider possibilities.

Unfortunately the “warrior mindset” – emotively based and not considering the facts or rationally analysing the situation – may be required in war but now seems to be the standard approach in politics (maybe even in science for some people). The “scout mindset” is unfortunately rare – and actually disapproved of when it occurs. Things have got worse in that respect.

There is another unfortunate dimension to this. Just as people have become convinced that they themselves are the fountains of truth, and their opponents fountains of untruth, there is now the drive to censor. Many people are arguing that people they disagree with should be denied access to the media, especially social media. And they jump on the media when their opponents are given space.

Hell, the media itself is encouraging this. Nowadays we have silicon valley corporations, which control social media, determining who should have a voice. And some people who should know better are applauding them for this. Applauding selfishly because they want to see their discussion opponents denied a voice. This is not just cowardly but extremely short-sighted of them – what will they do when they, in turn, are denied a voice by these very same corporations?

Whatever happened to the old adage – “I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It?” I grew up thinking this was a widely approved ideal but now find the people who I had considered “right-minded,” “free thinkers,” and “liberals” have almost completely abandoned it. They seem to be the first in line to impose censorship and the last to complain when censorship happens.

The folly of censorship

Censorship, the attempt to close down a rational discussion, hardly gives the impression that the supporters of censorship have truth on their side. If anything it suggests they do not have the arguments and this, in effect, hands victory to the ones censored.

It is short-sighted and cowardly and does not close down the discussion – it simply moves it elsewhere. And usually to a forum in which the instigators or supporters of the censorship have little input. 

Censorship usually hands the moral high ground to the ones being censored – and cheaply as they have gained this without even having their ideas (rational or irrational) tested in meaningful discussion.

There is a lot of truth in the old saying that sunlight is the best disinfectant – and refusal to allow this only encourages bad ideas to proliferate unchecked.

That is not to say all the ideas being censored are “bad” – many plainly aren’t. But will those who censor or support censorship (or indulge in self-censorship –  another common problem with people I used to respect) ever know? In the end, the censors and their supporters simply end up living in their own silo or bubble, seemingly oblivious to many of the ideas circulating in society or the world. Ideas they could perhaps have learned something from. Even if the ideas one wishes to censor are based on misinformation or misunderstanding the exercise of debating them can teach things to both sides. Censorship, and especially self-censorship, prevents self-development.

Arbitrary or ideologically motivated censorship?

Often censorship by social media appears arbitrary, perhaps driven by algorithms. For example, Twitter recently blocked the official account of Russian Arms Control delegation in Vienna, engaged in negotiations on the Open Skies Treaty and other important issues. It was later reinstated – without explanation or apology – but followers were lost. Arbitrary or not, should such an important body, involved in negotiations critical for the whole planet, be censored?

Are those algorithm innocent or objective? These days we see social media like Twitter and Facebook employing staff with political backgrounds. Even people who have previously worked in, or still work in, bodies like the Atlantic Council which is connected with NATO. And the revolving door by which ex-politicians and intelligence staff get employed in the mainstream media is an open secret. These people openly describe information coming from “the other side” as “disinformation,” “fake news,” or “state-supported propaganda” so have no scruples about censoring it or otherwise working to discredit it (for example labelling news media as state-controlled – but only for the “other side” – eg RT, but not the BBC or Voice of America).

Ben Nimmo, a member of the Atlantic Council, and well-known for his aggressive political views, recently announced his move to Facebook

This biased approach to information or social discussion is strongly driven by an “official” narrative. A narrative promoted by military blocks, their governments and their political leaders. But even unaffiliated persons approaching social discussion can be, and usually are, driven by a narrative. A narrative that they often strongly and emotionally adhere to. Juna Galef’s “warrior mindset.” That is only human. It’s a pity, but probably few participants in social discussions get beyond this mindset and adopt the far more useful (for obtaining objective truth) “scout mindset” which is objective and rational, ready to consider the facts (in fact, searching them out) and logically considers possibilities.

But let’s face it. If you support censorship, or even instigate censorship in social media you control, how likely is it that you can get beyond the “warrior mindset?” The “scout mindset” by necessity requires open consideration of views and facts you may initially disagree with. Censorship, especially self-censorship, prevents that. It prevents personal growth.

Similar articles

 

Blatant misreporting of latest OPCW report on chemical weapons in Syria

BBC caught out promoting fake news about OPCW report

The Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) reports no evidence of banned chemical weapons use by the Syrian government in Douma last April. This conflicts with the strong claims of NATO states and most of the mainstream media at the time. It also shows that the illegal missile attacks by France, UK and USA (FUKUS) on Syria at the time (see The “heart of the Syrian chemical weapons programme” destroyed?) were completely unjustified.

While the NATO governments involved have yet to respond to the OPCW report (let alone make apologies for their actions) many mainstream media outlets seem determined to continue promoting fake news when it comes to Syria. Some major news outlets have completely misrepresented the OPCW findings.

OPCW has problems but got this one right

I have commented on some earlier OPCW reports on Syria and have found them unconvincing, biased or relying only on terrorist sources (see Another shonky OPCW chemical incident report on Syria and Chemical weapons use in Syria UN report flawed by political bias).

However, this one is a bit different. It is an interim report on the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma, Syria, last April. This incident got a lot of publicity with France, UK and USA declaring they had evidence which proved there had been an attack using sarin. This alliance (FUKUS) was sufficiently confident with their “intelligence” to order an illegal missile attack on several sites in Syria. (see The “heart of the Syrian chemical weapons programme” destroyed?)

This interim report is also different because the area of alleged attack was soon liberated by Syria and Syria, together with Russian Military Police and the UN Office for Project Services, was able to stabilise the area and enable inspectors from the OPCW to take samples and interview people in the buildings which had allegedly been attacked. A big difference to earlier reports which had relied only on “open sources,” and the testimony and samples provided by the White Helmets – a group affiliated with the jihadists and which actively campaigns against the Syrian states and has a history of false reporting.

While this is only an interim report some conclusions are clear (paragraph 2.5 in Summary):

“No organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected, either in the environmental samples or in plasma samples from the alleged casualties.”

Media coverage

I have yet to see any response from NATO governments, particularly those comprising the FUKUS attack group. A sharp contrast to their vociferous accusations at the time of the alleged incident.

However, it appears that much of the mainstream media, and some of the sources it relies on, will draw unwarranted conclusions from this interim report to support their narrative.  For example, Al Jazeera claims Interim OPCW report finds proof of chlorine used in Syria’s Douma.

That is an outright lie. It did not give any such proof or even make that claim.

There is also this from the BBC:

Again an outright lie – the report found nothing of the sort.

Reuters are going with Chemical weapons agency finds ‘chlorinated’ chemicals in Syria’s Douma. Mind you this headline is a “correction” – “(Corrects to “various chlorinated organic chemicals” instead of chlorine).” Technically correct but misleading.

Sky news is claiming Chemical attack confirmed in deadly Douma strikes, but OPCW finds no evidence of sarin. Again wrong. No evidence of sarin but also no evidence presented of any chemical attack at all.

ABC also misrepresented the OPCW report claiming Chlorine used in Syria’s Douma, no trace of nerve agent, Interim OPCW report finds.

The NZ Herald was more neutral in their report Watchdog reports on alleged Syria attack behind airstrikes.

On the other hand the Xinhua Chinese news agency correctly reported Various chlorinated organic chemicals found in samples from Douma attack sites: OPCW, and RT correctly reported Nerve agents not found in samples from Syria’s Douma – interim OPCW report saying (in its second sentence ““Various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples” from two locations in the Damascus suburb of Douma.”

And I get the impression most of the “alternative” media sources I see on social media are reporting the OPCW findings correctly. So what was that about “Fake News” and the strong recommendations we get to wear blinkers so that we do not see alternative news sources?

Bellingcat also misrepresents findings

Eliot Higgins, who runs the Bellingcat organisation which provides “open source” information often used by western governments and media, also misrepresents the OPCW report. His organisation is responsible for initiating the story that the MH17 flight was shot down in eastern Ukraine by a Russian BUK unit especially imported for the occasion (and exported immediately afterwards).  Bellingcat is also responsible for many of the claims of chemical weapons used by the Syrian government.

Higgins tweeted:

What is the basis for misleading reports of chlorine use

The OPCW report mentions chlorine only twice – in this paragraph describing the original open source and media reporting of the alleged incident (paragraph 3.1 in Background):

So, no evidence of chlorine use found by the OPCW team. Those making this claim will point, in justification, to the fact that “chlorinated organic chemicals” were found at a few of the examined sites (paragraph 2.5 in Summary):

“Various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from Locations 2 and 4, along with residues of explosive.”

Many of the commenters I have seen on social media who resort to this to prove their claims of chlorine use seem not to understand the chemical differences involved or to argue that traces of any chlorinated organic chemicals must mean chlorine had been present.

Surprisingly, the OPCW did not draw any conclusions from the presence of these chemicals and are still attempting to establish their significance. I would have thought their job was to show if the trace levels found were at all unusual for environmental samples.

As a chemist I do not find the OPCW detection of traces of these chemicals at all surprising. For example, the report mentions the presence of “dichloroacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid” in samples of concrete debris, wood fragments, a water tank wood support, and some clothing.  But these chemicals are common in drinking water and even groundwater (see the Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, Dichloroacetic Acid in Drinking-water ). Some of the chemicals found are common chlorinated compounds in treated wood (e.g. bornyl chloride and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol as mentioned in a footnote to Annex 3 of the OPCW interim report).

So, in fact, the identified chlorinated organic chemicals are what one may expect from such samples or especially samples taken from areas where explosives have been used.

This OPCW report is still of dubious scientific quality

I find a lot wrong with this OPCW report – but first the positive.

It followed (mostly) the OPCW guidelines for on-site inspection and sampling. This is a sharp contrast with the earlier OPCW reports on Syria where investigators relied on samples and testimony from jihadi affiliated groups like the White Helmets and their associates. This was possible because Douma had just been liberated and the Syrian Government and Russian Armed Forces made an immediate request for the OPCW to send their own observers to check media claims. (Although, given their willingness to trust jihadi-linked groups based in a terrorist-controlled area it does seem strange that the OPCW was unwilling to send their investigators to those areas and rely on terrorist guarantees for security in past investigations. Although, I am being sarcastic. Even in the case of Douma the OPCW team, was concerned about attacks from suicide bombers which seem to operate freely in the terrorist-held areas).

But have they learned?

In paragraph 5.1 describing their activities and timeline the OPCW say:

“Following reports in the media of the alleged incident on 7 April 2018, the Information Cell of the Secretariat immediately informed the FFM team and initiated a search of open-source information to assess the credibility of the allegation. The major sources comprised news media, blogs, and the websites of various non-governmental organisations. The assessment by the Information Cell was that the credibility of the allegation was high. Based on this information, the Director-General initiated an on-site investigation.”

Will the OPCW learn from this specific incident. In  previous reports they stopped at “The assessment by the Information Cell was that the credibility of the allegation was high” – and they would have this time of the Syrian, Russian and UN military had not provided them the security they required for onsite inspections.

The OPCW assessment was that the credibility of the jihadi-connected groups was “high.” Their own inspections showed they were mistaken. Will they be more careful with such claims in the future?

This question is important as NATO countries at the UN Security Council earlier this year effectively prevented adoption of mandatory on site inspections for UN-related chemical weapons investigations. At the OPCW the NATO countries have also pushed through a policy enabling the OPCW to go beyond its investigatory role and carry out a political role of apportioning blame.

The science is shonky

I find it incredible that the report should simply list identification of traces of chlorinated organic chemicals without either providing some sort of indication of the concentrations involved or comparing levels with measurements from  control samples – taken from areas outside the alleged attack area. This is a basic scientific mistake.

Those who wish to claim that the presence of chlorinated organics “proves” chlorine was used in this area could well be right. But only if the concentrations of these chemicals was much higher than normal for environmental samples.

I really can’t help thinking that this shoddy reporting of the science is a political trick enabling the report to be misrepresented. The OPCW is, after all, an international body and subject to the same sort of political manoeuvring we have come to expect from all such international bodies.

Interviews in country X!

The report states (paragraph 8.17:

“The FFM team interviewed a total of 34 individuals; 13 of these interviews were
conducted in Damascus and the remainder in Country X. Analysis of the testimonies is ongoing.”

Two issues for me here:

1: 13 interviews in Damascus – where most witness could have been found and 21 interviews in “Country x?” What this means is that more people from the defeated jihadi groups and their families were interviewed than those remaining in Douma who may have been less motivated to lie.

2: Country X! really? This is meant to be an intelligent report – not a spy thriller. There is absolutely no reason to be so coy about the location of the people interviewed. This is just childish.

I should note that the defeated “rebels”/terrorists and their families were given the opportunity to be transported to Idlib (still in terrorist hands). This has been a common feature of settlement agreements as areas are liberated. Of course, many choose to stay – even those who had been actively fighting with the militants. There is usually a provision for fighters to formalise their citizenship and even join the Syrian Army.

Many of the “rebel” fighters and members of affiliated organisations travel from Idlib into neighbouring Turkey – and further on. Why is the OPCW afraid to reveal the location of their interviewees in Turkey or other countries? Are they concerned this might reflect on the reliability of their testimony?

The warehouse and chemical production facility.

The Syrian government also asked the OPCW to investigate a chemical production facility and warehouse they had found deign liberation of East Ghouta and Douma. They believe these had been sued by terrorists to manufacture chemical contain weapons. (Similar facilities had been found in East Aleppo where terorists appeared to be adding chemicals to projectiles used in their “hell cannons.”

Only one paragraph was devoted to this inspection – paragraph 8.16: Warehouse and facility suspected of producing chemical weapons:

“At the warehouse and the facility suspected by the authorities of the Syrian Arab Republic of producing chemical weapons in Douma, information was gathered to assess whether these facilities were associated with the production of chemical weapons or toxic chemicals that could be used as weapons. From the information gathered during the two on-site visits to these locations, there was no indication of either facility being involved in the production of chemical warfare agents or toxic chemicals for use as weapons.”

That is all – no details. No inventory of chemicals held at the sites. No sign of what the warehouse and production facility was actually used for.

Now, I can accost the Syrians may have been completely wrong in their suspicions about these sites – after all that assessment was made by military officers on the ground in the heat of battle, not chemical weapons experts. But I find the lack of information frustrating, even suspicious.

Were any cylinders of chlorine present at these sites. After all, if politically motivated commenters and media wish to misinterpret the presence of normal traces of chlorinated organic chemicals in collected samples why should they not also be forced to consider stocks of chlorine held in terrorist controlled areas -even if their declared use was innocent.

Conclusions

At last, and OPCW report on Syria actually based on factual evidence, the samples and interviews collected by the OPCW on site. A great advance over earlier reports based on “evidence” from terrorist-connected sources and social media or “open sources.”

But I wish the OPCW was more serious in reporting their scientific findings. Reporting traces of chlorinated organic chemicals without any indication of concentrations and comparison with normal environmental samples is shoddy work laying their information wide open for misrepresentation and distortion. Given the current geopolitical struggles and the way international organisations can be manipulated, I can’t help feeling this shoddy reporting was possibly intentional.

Despite these weaknesses, I think this report shows what is possible. It does show that the military action taken by FUKUS last April was not only illegal it was either based on poor intelligence and, more likely, based on claims these governments knew to be false. It is always good to see such blatant political and military hypocrisy exposed.

However, the weaknesses in the report show that more must be done to improve the scientific quality of OPCW work and reduce political influence on that work. This aspect is important because the recent changes giving OPCW a role in apportioning blame for alleged attacks open up that organisation to being so politicised it will lose all credibility.

Similar articles

The “information war” and social media, or how to tell if you are a Kremlin troll

New NATO headquarters cost US$1.23 billion – yet they are worried about that you and I might be Kremlin Trolls because we comment on social media. Image credit: New NATO headquarters could run €1 billion

Well, what do you know? According to NATO, I must be a Kremlin Troll. I fit all four of the criteria they present in this film produced by  Stratcom  – the NATO Strategic Communication center of excellence of excellence.

1: Comments longer than 4 lines. I don’t think any of my comment have been less that 4 lines – verbosity plagues me, and always has.

2: Comments out of context. – I guess some people might say that about my comments. In fact, some people have questioned their relevance at times.

3: Comments openly aggressive and hostile. Must admit I mine are sometimes – but usually only after someone has called me a shill in the pay of Big Pharma or Big Fluoride. Or called me a Kremlin troll!

4: Comments have language errors. That certainly qualifies me. It might be that I am chronologically and/or optically challenged. Or maybe it is my erratic 1 finger typing, the lack of a backlit keyboard and laziness of spell checking. But I certainly qualify with that one.

So, that’s it. I am officially (according to NATO) a Kremlin troll. And it looks like NATO is now threatening to do background research on me (I am sure our SIS can help). Then they will label me. I guess the label is Kremlin troll. As if name-calling was a new phenomenon on social media.And then they will ignore me. If only – experience tells me that Big Brother organisations like this never ignore anyone.

But this is what the world has come to. An international military organisation, incredibly well-financed and armed, is worried about people like you and me who might be commenting on social media!

What the hell is that about? And why have they got their nickers in a twist about social media. It’s almost as if they feel they have lost the ability to control what people think and have set out on a programme of weeding out people who might not accept the official narrative.

Still, perhaps there is hope for me. there is another analysis which I prefer – described by Adam in his article 5 steps to becoming a Putin Agent. Of course, he is being satirical with his title (he says “‘Putin Agent’ sounds a bit better than ‘guy with informed opinions’”) but I do think his list describes me better than the NATO one.

Here is his list (and it is worth reading what he says abotu each point):

1. Be A Free Global Thinker
2. Question Authority, Question the ‘Experts’, Question EVERYTHING
3. Respect Other Nations
4. Don’t Be A Fanatic
5. Have A Sense of Humour 

Mind you, I picked up this article on Facebook via RussiaFeed. Whoops, that has  one of NATO’s keywords in its title which identifies it as a “fake news source.” Yes NATO has got into judging news sources and attempting to prevent us reading the “bad” ones as well as judging our social media comments.

This really does underline that NATO has adopted a new weapon in armoury – the “information war.”

Problem is, in this war NATO considers that you and I are the enemy.

Similar articles

 

Here we go again

Just when we seem to be making progress over Syria this has to happen. The US was starting to accept that the current elected president in Syria no long “has to go.” Peace talks are underway in Geneva.

And then President Bashar al-Assad had to torpedo all this progress by launching a chemical attack on little children in Idlib. What a fool.Well, if you believe that I guess you might believe anything.

Well, if you believe that I guess you might believe anything.

In the video above, the former British Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, presents a far more sensible analysis. He is imminently reasonable in his analysis – but unfortunately the same cannot be said for our mainstream media, leading European politicians and the representatives of NATO countries in the UN Security Council.

Lessons from Aleppo reporting

I think it disgusting for our media and these politicians to unquestioningly take at face value reports from Al Qaeda – the umbrella organisation for the “rebel”/”terrorist’ groups in Idlib, and their propaganda arms – the White Helmets and the Idlib Media Center. Hell, we saw all this before. The propaganda from the Jihadists in east Aleppo, propagated by the White Helmets and the Aleppo Media Center. Reports of chemical attacks, massacres, bombing the “last” schools and hospitals.

In the end, the Aleppo Media Center and the White Helmets left with the jihadist fighters under the surrender agreement and have now set up in Idlib.

Now independent reporters have access to the parts of Aleppo formerly held by the jihadis what do we find? Schools used as arms factories, remaining evidence of the chemicals they used to manufacture chemical weapons.

And the jihadis have used, and still use, chemical weapons in both Syria and Iraq. Yet, strangely, those events, while they sometimes are reported in our mainstream media, never get the NATO Ambassadors running to call UN Security Council Meetings.

Of course, I do not know what really happened in Khan Sheikhoun, Idlib. We really don’t yet have the facts – as UN officials have pointed out. It seems to me unreasonable to assume that the Syrian air force used chemical weapons in their attack on jihadis there. After all, the Syrian government gave up all their weapons, under US supervision, in 2013. And what could they possibly have to gain? They are doling so well, militarily, at the moment. They don’t need this sort of bad publicity.

Dogs returning to their own vomit

No, the Syrian government is not gaining from this event – but the “rebels”/”terrorists” are. And so are those who wish to torpedo the peace conference – or worse, organise a NATO military attack on Syrian armed forces and aerodromes.

But haven’t we seen all this before. isn’t this what was attempted in 2013 with the blaming oaf a similar chemical attack on the Syrian government. Isn’t this, as Peter Ford says, just like “dogs returning to their own vomit.”

Hopefully, other politicians have a memory – and a conscience. They will not be fooled by yet another attempt to justify intervention. To justify “regime change.”

Hopefully, they will, at least, have more sense than the current gung-ho politicians from NATO. Hopefully, they will refuse to pass judgement until they have some facts. Hopefully, they will not be so silly that they trust the word of Al Qaeda and its propaganda arms.

Similar articles

Anti-Syrian propaganda and the White Helmets

Victim of “rebel”/”terrorist” attack on government-controlled Aleppo. Our media rarely covers these and there are no White Helmets in sight. Source: Dr Tim Anderson

US Secretary of State, John Kerry, recently met with people from Syrian opposition groups – including the “first responders” – the White Helmets. Somebody recorded the discussion and it has now been leaked (see Audio Reveals What John Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors).

The discussion is quite revealing, for a number of reasons, including divisions within the US ruling political circles and Syrian opposition beliefs that the US is not doing enough for their cause. But here I will just concentrate on aspects relevant to the anti-Syrian propaganda our news media seems to be saturated with.

The propaganda

I think this is important because there is a section of the US political system lobbying for military intervention, such as attacking Syrian armed forces or  attempting to enforce a no-fly-zone. Kerry, who originally supported military intervention, pointed out that the US people did not have an appetite for this. However, as we saw with Libya, such an appetite can be promoted by carefully playing the card of suffering civilians (and especially children) and arguing for “humanitarian intervention.”

That is certainly happening at the moment. One could be excused for believing that the Syrian war is all about the government and their allies, the horrible “Russkies,” purposely attacking civilians, destroying civilian buildings and, particularly, burying young children in rubble.

This image is typical of what we are exposed to – and news services like Al-Jazeera seem to present variants of this image almost every day.

Typical media photo of White Helmet “first responders” rescuing children in a ‘rebel”/”terrorist” held area of Syria.

Of course, if this was the true intention of Syria and its allies the war would be over by now. But in fact, the Syrians and their allies are fighting armed “rebels”/”terrorists,” very many of them from outside the country. Armed and financed by external powers directly or indirectly. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, USA, UK and other NATO countries.

Civilian casualties, including children. may, at times, be an accidental by-product of this sort of war (what the US calls “collateral damage”) and can be caused by either side. But it is disingenuous to portray this as the intention of Syria and their allies. On the other hand, let’s not forget that terrorists very often deliberately target civilians, including children.

Aleppo has become the Middle Eastern Stalingrad. I sometimes wonder what sort of propaganda the German citizens at home were served with during the Stalingrad battle in World War II. Did they get images of children being pulled out of the rubble and hysterical complaints about those horrible Russians bombing and shelling the city indiscriminately – perhaps purposely bombing hospitals, schools and civilians? That sort of propaganda seem ludicrous to us now – but how different is it to what we are currently fed by most of our media?

And how often does our media cover the civilian casualties caused by “rebel”/”terrorist” attacks on areas under government control? Very rarely – and when they do we are often still left with the impression that the guilty parties are Syrians and Russians and not the terrorists. A recent classic example was UK newspaper, The Independent, report of the death of  a Syrian Olympic swimmer  and her brother in Aleppo (See Syrian swimmer and her 12-year-old brother killed by shelling in Aleppo). These deaths were originally reported as a result of Russian and Syrian bombing – but many readers protested because the swimmer was killed in the government-held part of Aleppo during a terrorist missile attack. The Independent backed away (slightly), adding this sentence:

“A number of commentators claimed the deaths were a result of a rebel-led attack, although those claims could not be verified.”

But their report still claimed the deaths occurred “amid a sustained assault on the city by pro-Assad forces backed by Russian warplanes.”

Images and videos  like those produced by the White Helmets are very effective. News readers are inclined to weep and it is hard not to empathise. After all, these are children. And the “first responders” rescuing them, the White Helmets, must be angels. Hell, they have even been recommended for the Noble Peace Prize and who would deny them that?

Well, I would – but more of that below.

Kerry’s concern about this propaganda

The Syrian opposition people referred Kerry to images videos like this as reasons for the US to become more involved – to impose a fly-free-zone in Syria. But  the US officials present pointed out that these images and videos were of no use to them. If these opposition people have video cameras around to film such events they should be filming the attack itself. Providing evidence that it is specifically the Syrians or Russians who are attacking civilians. These officials believed such information would be more useful to their cause.

The US officials also directed this critique at the White Helmet coverage of the attack on the humanitarian aid convoy in Aleppo province. A White Helmets’ spokesperson fronted images of burning trucks, claiming the attack was by Syrian helicopters, barrel bombs, and Russian bombers (he didn’t seem to want to miss anything out). But the officials’ response was that coverage was not useful – they need images of the attackers themselves. They need evidence of the munitions used.

Incidentally, the White Helmet spokesperson in this report leads a double life – see below.

As an aside, this plea for evidence, especially the munitions used, shows how hypocritical is the US claim it was the Russians who were responsible for the  attack on the aid convoy. Unfortunately, such unfounded (or at least evidence-free) claims from John Kerry and other US spokespersons are not new to us. But also, unfortunately, this claim is being used specifically to justify breaking off diplomatic negotiations on Syria and to argue for “Plan B” – the military option of a fly-free-zone or outright attacks on Syrian armed forces.

Who are the white Helmets?

This brief video from The Friends of Syria in Australia provides some information and background on the White Helmets organisation.

If nothing else, the fact that the group operates only in areas held by “rebels”/”terrorists” (despite claiming in its propaganda that it is neutral) is telling. The fact they receive funding from anti-Syrian governments including the US and the UK (despite claiming they don’t) is also telling. Their spokespeople also never seem to miss any chance to attribute all the damage and loss of life to “the regime,” barrel bombs and the Russians – often in hysterical tones.

I referred above to the White Helmet coverage of the humanitarian aid convoy attack. The image on the right is taken from the White Helmet report video. That on the left shows that the same guy is also involved in an armed “rebel”/”terrorist” group.

Armed “rebel”/”terrorist” in Aleppo dons white hat and becomes an unarmed member of “aid” group – the White Helmets – reporting the attack on the humanitarian convoy. Image Source Friends of Syria.

Investigators have published on-line a number of similar images portraying White Helmet people in action as “first responders” but also of the same people posing with rifles and along with other “rebels”/”terrorists.”

There are also plenty of images and videos online showing members of the White Helmet group cooperating with “rebels”/”terrorists” in demonstrations They are easily seen in groups where Al Nusra flags are flying. And this video shows a White Helmet member participating in the assault on a prisoner captured by “terrorists.”

And isn’t this revealing, although not surprising considering where the White Helmets are active. A spokesperson for the Al Nusra front (recognised by the UN as a terrorist group) describes the White Helmets as Mujahideens

Another charge sometimes laid against the White Helmets is that some of their videos are staged and involve actors. News media often reenact actions from wars (although they usually acknowledge their video is a reenactment). The report “White Helmet” “Save Aleppo” Protest Proves How Easy it is to Dress Up Actors as “War Victims” shows how easy it is to make such staged videos to promote as news.

Actors staging a typical White Helmet “rescue” during anti-Syrian protests in Europe.

Of course, that  charge is also easy to make and hard to prove. But there has been at least one official complaint to the BBC about them running videos of staged scenes in their programmes about Syria.

I find it suspicious that the White Helmets always seem to go into action with a sizable camera crew in attendance – or at least with mobile phones recording the events. And there seems to be a common elelementf a guy, wearing a white helmet and White Helmet logos or uniform, carrying a child and urgently rushing forward or away from the camera. I can’t help feeling such videos are contrived.

Contrived or not the White Helmets’ videos are certainly emotively picked. They know what works. And our media goes along with the game – ignoring the children and civilians injured and killed  by “rebel”/”terrorist” missiles in government-held areas.

The above video shows the aftermath of a “rebel”/”terrorist” attack in west Aleppo. Not a single White Helmet in sight!

Conclusion

The video and photographic propaganda promoted by the White Helmets is not “proof” of their claims – but it is very effective in  promoting a narrative. A narrative which can be used  to justify direct military attacks by the US and NATO on the Syrian forces and their allies. (Yes, the US and NATO  already illegally bomb Syria and have armed forces on the ground – but so far these have not intentionally been directed at Syrian forces).

That narrative fits in with the  agenda of a section of the US political establishment promoting “humanitarian intervention” aimed at regime change. It fits in with the often repeated chant of politicians in the US and other NATO countries that “Assad must go!”

We saw what this led to in Libya – it was disastrous. And considering the support Assad has in Syria this regime change, or attempted regime change, would be much worse.

Russia is deploying advanced S-300 and S-400 Air Defense systems in Syria. An attempted Libyan-style “regime change” by the US and NATO would be disastrous.

Similar articles