Disquiet at Davos and the Unsaid Fear of Failure – The First Shoots of a U.S. Ukraine Shift

By Alastair Crooke | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 30, 2022
Klaus Schwab, passionate for Ukraine, essentially configured the World Economic Forum (WEF) to showcase Zelensky and to leverage the argument that Russia should be kicked out of the civilised world. Schwab’s target was the assembled crème de la crème of the world’s business leaders assembled there. Zelensky pitched big: “We want more sanctions and more weapons”; “All trade with the aggressor should be stopped”; “All foreign business should leave Russia so that your brands are not associated with war crimes”, he said. Sanctions must be all encompassing; values must matter.
Disquiet ran through the Davos set: The WEF is high-octane globalist, right? Yet this Schwab line suggests a de-coupling ‘on stilts’. It precisely reverses interconnectedness. Plus, the western generals in charge are saying that this conflict may last not just years, but decades. What will this signify for their markets in parts of the world that refuse action against Russia, the moneymen were wondering?
It is unlikely that this whiff of disorientation is what Schwab had intended. Perhaps the latter was more aligned with Soros’ later intervention that a quick victory over Russia was needed to save the ‘Open Society’ and civilisation itself – and that this was intended as the WEF 2022 message.
The Davos ‘greater disquiet’ emerged however, from an unexpected quarter. Just before the WEF began, the NY Times had run a piece from the editorial team urging Zelensky to negotiate with Russia. It argued that such engagement implied making painful territorial sacrifices. The piece attracted indignant and angry push-back in Europe and the West, possibly because – albeit couched as advice to Kiev – its target was evidently Washington and London (the arch belligerents).
Eric Cantor, a former whip in the U.S. House of Representatives (a legislator well versed on Iran sanctions), also at Davos, questioned whether the West would be able to maintain a united front in pursuit of such maximalist aims as Zelensky and his Military Intelligence Chief have demanded. “We may not get the next vote”, Cantor opined (in wake of the $40 bn vote ostensibly earmarked for Ukraine).
Cantor said excluding Russia entirely would require secondary sanctions against other countries. This would place the West into a head on clash with China, India, and the almost 60 states which had refused to back a UN resolution denouncing Russia’s invasion. He warned that the U.S. may be in danger of overplaying its hand.
Then spoke the redoubtable Henry Kissinger, also at Davos. He warned the West to stop trying to inflict a crushing defeat on Russian forces in Ukraine, saying that such would have disastrous consequences for the long-term stability of Europe. He said it would be fatal for the West to get swept along in the mood of the moment and forget the proper place of Russia in the European balance of power.
Dr Kissinger said the war must not be allowed to drag on and came close to calling on the West to instruct Ukraine to accept terms that fall very far short of its current war aims: “Negotiations need to begin in the next two months, before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome”.
What is going on here? In a nutshell, we are seeing the first inklings of fractures appearing in the U.S. stance on Ukraine. The fissures in Europe are already very plain, both on sanctions and mission aims. But Cantor’s comment that “we may not get the next vote” needs further unpacking.
In an earlier piece, I argued that Senator JD Vance’s win in the Ohio primaries for a Senate seat could be telling. His candidature was backed by Trump, who later issued an ‘End the war’ call. Now the key tell-tale is Republican Senator Josh Hawley – ambitious and known to have leadership aspirations.
Early in the Ukraine war, Senator Hawley was calling Zelensky, lauding him highly and egging him on. But then he pivoted. Hawley subsequently blasted the $40 billion in proposed aid to Ukraine, after voting ‘no’ on the procedural vote to move forward with the aid package “as not being in America’s interests”.
At first, as some may recall, there were 6 House votes against the bill – then 60. And in the Senate, first there were zero then there were 11 votes. The Bill was rushed through as vote managers were concerned that the vote could crumble further.
What is going on? Well, the Republican ‘populist’ current, never enamoured at foreign aid, was shocked at the $ 40 billion for Ukraine when the U.S. lacked baby milk, (and itself had to rely on foreign baby milk aid). This political current is becoming more significant and having more impact as a result of a structural shift. Political candidates, and now even some U.S. think-tanks are turning to crowd-funding as a principal source of finance – moving away from the ‘established’ donors. Thus, the broad ‘anti-foreign entanglement’ sentiment is gaining heft.
Of course, the $40 billion is not all going to Ukraine. Not at all. According to the details of the Bill, the bulk will go to the Pentagon (for equipment already supplied by the U.S. and its allies). And a big chunk will go to the State Department, to fund all sorts of ‘helpful’ non-state actors and NGOs – i.e. it is a deep state budget with Ukraine packaging. The six billion allocated directly for new arms to Ukraine in fact comprises both training and weapons, so much of that will end in the pockets of states such as UK and Germany, giving ‘out of theatre’ training to Ukrainians in their own, or in neighbouring countries’ territory.
Eric Cantor, and other Americans at WEF may frame their disquiet over western objectives in ‘polite company’ as simply articulating their uncertainties over America’s grand strategy – whether the U.S. is trying to punish Russia for its aggression, or whether the goal is a subtler use of policy that gives the Kremlin a ‘route out of sanctions’, were it to changes course. But behind the narrative lies a darker fear. The unsaid fear of failure.
What does this mean? It means that the West’s ultimate war aims in Ukraine have so far been able to stay opaque and undefined, the details swept aside in the mood of the moment.
Paradoxically, this opacity has been preserved despite the public failure of the West’s first statement of aims – which was that the seizure of Russia’ offshore foreign reserves; the Russian bank expulsions from SWIFT; the sanctioning of the Central Bank; and the broadside of sanctions would, in and of itself alone, turn the rouble to rubble; cause a run on the domestic banking system; collapse the Russian economy; and provoke a political crisis that Putin might not survive.
In short, ‘victory’ would be quick – if not immediate. We know this, because U.S. officials and the French Finance Minister, Bruno Le Maire bragged about it publicly.
So confident in a quick financial-war success were these western officials that there seemed little need to invest deep strategic reflection on the aims or the course of the secondary Ukrainian military thrust. After all, a Russia already economically collapsed, with its currency ruined and its morale broken, would likely put up little or no fight as the Ukrainian army swept across Donbas and into Crimea.
Well, the sanctions have proved a bust and Russia’s currency and oil revenues are bountiful.
And now, western politicians are being warned in the media, and by their own military, that Russia is ‘close to a major victory’ in Donbas.
This is the unspoken fear disquieting Davos attendees – fear of another débacle, following that of Afghanistan. One made all the worse as the ‘war’ on Russia boomerangs into an economic collapse in Europe, and with NATO’s eight-year investment in building-up a successful proxy-army to NATO standards turning to dust.
This is what Kissinger’s comments – decoded – urge: ‘Don’t procrastinate’; get a quick deal (even an unfavourable one), but one that can be dressed up, and somehow spun as a ‘win’. But don’t wait, and let events lead the U.S. into yet another unmistakeable, undeniable débacle.
This is still ‘under the kitchen table talk’ in the U.S. for now, as the power of a narrative, invested with so much emotion, and bolstered by unprecedented info-war peer-pressure has masked such thoughts from public expression. Fractures nonetheless are beginning to be apparent. Something stirs – and Europe inevitably will follow wherever America leads. But for now, the hawks remain firmly in ‘the chair’ (in the U.S., in London, Poland, the EU Commission and in Kiev).
The big question, however, is why Moscow would take such a ‘way out’ (even if it was offered it). A compromise deal would be seen there as simply Kiev given the chance to regroup, and to try again.
Five killed by Ukrainian shelling of schools and residential buildings – Donetsk authorities

Samizdat | May 30, 2022
Ukrainian shelling of Donetsk has left at least five people dead, and 18 others injured, local authorities of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) said on Monday. According to local officials, a teenage girl is among the fatalities. The strikes damaged several civilian facilities in the city, including schools and residential buildings.
Preliminary reports allege that US-supplied artillery may have been used in the attacks. In one home, two 14-year-old girls were hurt, Mayor Aleksey Kulemzin said. One of them died while the other one was taken to hospital.
Three civilians were killed, and a dozen others injured at two schools, the mayor claimed. Two people were in serious condition, he added.
The headmistress of one of the schools, Olga Rachinskaya, told the media that many of the teachers “were lacerated with shrapnel”. She said the two workers who were killed were elderly.
“This is just an ordinary school. There is nothing military here, nothing,” she said. Luckily, Donetsk schools teach remotely, so students were not in the classrooms when the shells hit, according to the educator.
The DPR defense HQ said Ukrainian troops fired at least two Smerch rockets armed with cluster munitions and also used 155mm artillery in the shelling.
On Monday, Mayor Kulemzin speculated that the Ukrainian troops may have used US-supplied 155mm M777 howitzers in the assault. “This is heavy weaponry, most likely the American delivery,” he told Russian television when describing the attacks. He claimed some of the shell fragments discovered on the ground had markings in English.
The US and its allies have reportedly supplied about 100 towed artillery guns to Ukraine, ramping up their military aid with heavier kinds of weapons. Kiev may soon receive US-made multiple launch rocket systems too, adding them to the weapons from Soviet stockpiles that it currently possesses, according to media reports.
Commenting on the news coming from Donetsk on Monday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Ukrainian attacks on civilian infrastructure in DPR were “outrageous.”
“This is exactly what our warriors are fighting against. To make such things stop,” he said, branding the perpetrators “neo-Nazis”.
Russia attacked Ukraine state in late February, following its failure to implement the terms of the Minsk agreements, first signed in 2014, and Moscow’s eventual recognition of the Donbass republics of Donetsk and Lugansk. The German- and French-brokered protocols were designed to give the breakaway regions special status within the Ukrainian state.
The Kremlin has since demanded that Ukraine officially declare itself a neutral country that will never join the US-led NATO military bloc. Kiev insists the Russian offensive was completely unprovoked and has denied claims it was planning to retake the two republics by force.
Lavrov: Recent Sanctions Unlikely to Be Lifted, This Is What US Is Telling Allies Behind Closed Doors
Samizdat | May 29, 2022
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says that the latest Western sanctions against Russia were prepared long ago and are unlikely to be lifted.
“The speed with which they were introduced and their volume indicate that they were not created overnight, they were being prepared for quite a while. It is unlikely that these sanctions will be lifted,” Lavrov said in an interview with French broadcaster TF1.
“At least, the US, not publicly but during contacts with its allies, says that when all this [the crisis in Ukraine] is over the sanctions will remain anyway,” Lavrov added.
Lavrov noted that in the wake of these revelations, it’s clear the West’s main priority isn’t defending the Ukrainian regime, which he described as a mere “bargaining chip,” but about curbing Russia’s development. According to the diplomat, the US considers Russia an obstacle to its goal of establishing a unipolar world – a vision “which Washington proclaimed with the submissive consent of Europe.”
According to him, the West was also indifferent to the fact that Ukraine publicly refused to comply with the UN Security Council resolution urging the implementation of the Minsk Accords signed by France and Germany.
At the same time, Lavrov noted that liberating Donbass remains a top priority.
Russia launched a military operation last month with the stated goal of putting an end to war crimes committed by Ukrainian troops against civilians during an eight-year offensive against Donbass. President Vladimir Putin said that for eight years, people in Donbass have been subjected to what he called a “genocide” by the Kiev regime.
Poland Wants Billions From Brussels to Support Ukrainian Refugees
Samizdat – 28.05.2022
Over 3.6 million Ukrainians, equivalent to nearly 10 percent of Ukraine’s population, have fled to Poland in recent months, with millions more making their way to Russia, Romania, Germany, Hungary, Moldova, the Czech Republic, and other nations to escape the crisis in their home country.
Poland will need billions of additional euros from the European Union to help support the millions of Ukrainian refugees in the country, Deputy Minister of the Interior Pawel Szefernaker has indicated.
“From the very start we said that the aid we provide costs in the billions, not millions of euros. The European Union’s aid for countries which help refugees should also be counted in the billions – just as it was in the case of Turkey or Greece between 2015-2016”, Szefernaker said, speaking to the Polish Press Agency (PAP) on Saturday.
The official, who is tasked with coordinating Poland’s response to the refugee crisis, complained that the European Commission has yet to transfer any funds to assist the Polish government via its Recovery Assistance for Cohesion and the Territories of Europe (REACT-EU) programme. The fund was topped up with 3.4 billion euros to help members absorb Ukrainian refugees in April by the European Parliament, and is expected to be allocated to EU countries bordering Ukraine, as well as those whose refugee intake is greater than one percent of their total population.
PAP says Warsaw is expected to receive a 144.6 million euro payout from a 400 million euro tranche of funding allocated to five countries, including Poland, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic for refugee assistance. However, even that money has not yet been delivered, with an EC spokesperson saying the European Commission will discuss subsidy agreements with Warsaw “in the coming weeks.”
Szefernaker suggested a separate, new fund needs to be established by the EU to deal with the financial burden. “The measures referred to by the European Commission are not additional measures. These are resources shifted from various other funds that were already in the European Union’s budget”, he said.
The official noted that 95 percent of the remaining funds given to Poland by Brussels were committed to various other investments, and could not be redirected to help refugees.
Over 42 billion euros were earmarked for Poland from the bloc’s REACT cash pile last year, but was frozen over the Polish government’s intransigence on “LGBT-free” zones – municipalities where LGBT “propaganda” marches and other events are banned.
Poland has long been a net beneficiary when it comes to contributions to the EU budget, getting billions more euros than it pays into the bloc, which is funded mainly by Germany, France, Italy, and, until 2020, Britain.
Poland spent years battling Brussels in the mid-late 2010s over EU demands that the country take in refugees from Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and other countries turned into failed states by US and NATO interventions, with the European Commission finally dropping its “refugee quotas” initiative in 2020 amid Polish, Hungarian, and Czech intransigence.
When the Ukraine crisis exploded in February, Warsaw rushed to accept millions of Ukrainians with open arms, on top of millions more already working and living in the country. Since the 2014 Euromaidan coup, over two million Ukrainians have taken up roles in sectors of the Polish economy, ranging from construction and agriculture to logistics and housework, with Polish businessmen valuing them as a source of cheap but skilled labour.
Ukraine threatens “something could happen” to oil pipeline serving EU member Hungary
Samizdat | May 26, 2022
Ukraine has “a wonderful lever of pressure” on Hungary via the Druzhba – which translates to ‘Friendship’ – oil pipeline, Ukrainian energy minister adviser Lana Zerkal claimed on Thursday.
Speaking during an online discussion at the Kiev Security Forum, Zerkal criticized the policy of the Hungarian government, which is blocking a sixth round of EU sanctions, one which would ban Russian oil. The Western countries have been imposing harsh restrictions since late February, when Moscow launched its military attack on Ukraine.
In Zerkal’s opinion, Hungary is using the Russian military offensive as an instrument to achieve its own goals and thinks that now it “can demand anything” from the EU.
“Ukraine has a wonderful lever of pressure in its hands – it’s the Druzhba oil pipeline,” Zerkal said, adding that “something could happen” with Hungary’s separate line of Druzhba.
“And, in my opinion, it would be very appropriate if something happened to it. But, again, it is in the hands of the government and the president to make decisions on political issues, to decide if we really want to talk to [Hungarian President Viktor] Orban in a language that he understands and that he imposes on the EU, or if we are not ready for that yet,” Zerkal stressed.
Zerkal later took to Facebook to clarify “her humble opinion” that “caused a diplomatic scandal,” saying “facts are a stubborn thing.”
“But, to calm the situation, it is worth specifying that the official position of the Ministry of Energy of Ukraine on this matter is unchanged. Ukraine is a reliable transporter of energy carriers to Europe,” she stressed.
While Zerkal’s words have already started to spread through Hungarian media, Budapest is yet to comment on the issue.
In a letter to European Council President Charles Michel, seen by the Financial Times, Orban reportedly told the EU that a bloc-wide ban on Russian oil would cause serious problems for his country’s economy and thus “urgent investments” from Brussels were needed.
Hungary is almost entirely dependent on Russia for its gas imports and relies on Moscow for more than half of its imported oil. The country gets 65% of its oil through the Druzhba pipeline from Russia. Addressing possible sanctions against Russia’s oil, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto previously said that Budapest would back a ban on maritime shipments, but not on deliveries through pipelines.
Despite the lack of consensus within the EU, German Economy Minister Robert Habeck said on Monday that the bloc’s 27 member states “will reach a breakthrough within days” on an embargo. Any decision on EU sanctions must be made unanimously.
Ukraine has been consistently calling on the European countries to stop buying Russian energy resources, claiming that by doing so they are financing Moscow’s military offensive.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has accused European leaders of committing economic “suicide” by attempting to give up Russian energy.
Ukraine to get just 15% of $40-bln US aid, but must return entire sum, Duma speaker says
TASS | May 24, 2022
Russia’s State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin took to his Telegram channel to highlight that the US and its partners do not plan to provide real assistance to Ukraine.
Ukraine will only get 15% of the $40 billion promised by the US, he said.
“Washington and Brussels do not really intend to help Ukraine, or solve its economic and social issues. They only need Ukraine to fight Russia till the last Ukrainian,” Volodin said.
According to the recent aid to Ukraine legislation signed by President Joe Biden, 35% of the $40 billion is going to finance the US Armed Forces, he explained. Meanwhile, 45.2% of that amount is set to be spent on other countries, not Ukraine, while another 4.8% will be earmarked to support refugees, and restore the US diplomatic mission in Ukraine. “Ukraine will only receive 15% of the allotted sum,” the speaker revealed.
But Ukrainians will have to pay off the whole sum, he said. The US is aware that Kiev will not be able to service the debt in the future. “That is why they are seizing Ukraine’s last reserves, including grain, which is what we are seeing right now”.
Sen. Cruz, Gen. Milley, Zelensky Say Ukraine Is Vital to National Security
By Kyle Anzalone and Will Porter | The Libertarian Institute | May 23, 2022
As the costs of supporting Ukraine’s war effort soar well beyond $50 billion, high-level officials are seeking to sell Americans on even more military spending, with senators, generals and the Ukrainian president himself each insisting aid to Kiev is vital to American interests, amid rampant inflation, mounting shortages and monumental public debt in the US.
In a statement justifying a recent vote to send another $40 billion in assistance to Ukraine, Republican Senator Ted Cruz argued the move was essential not only for the security of the US, but to ward off a Chinese attack on Taiwan as well.
“If Putin wins in Ukraine, it will confirm for Xi that he can confidently invade Taiwan,” he said, referring to the Russian and Chinese heads of state.
“The reason we should support our Ukrainian allies is because it protects American national security, it keeps America safer, and it prevents our enemies from getting stronger, from threatening the safety and security of Americans, and from driving up the cost, the economic damage, to Americans,” Cruz added.
Following repeated appeals for additional Western arms, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is now warning that American troops may have to face down the Russians if they are not stopped in Ukraine, adopting a version of the ‘fight them over there…’ slogan popular during the US War on Terror.
“If we fall, if we don’t hold the line, Russia will proceed, attacking the Baltic states – Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia… The US military will have to go to Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, according to the fifth article, and they will have to fight there and die there,” he said in an interview with Axios on Monday, citing NATO’s Article 5 collective defense provision.
During his West Point commencement speech over the weekend, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley echoed similar sentiments regarding Ukraine, all while predicting that future wars would be fought against ‘great powers’ like Russia and China.
In a further callback to the Cold War, the top US military officer asserted that such powers would only be encouraged if acts of “aggression” are not met with a serious response.
“Yet again in Ukraine, we are learning the lesson that aggression left unanswered only emboldens the aggressor,” he said.
The three statements somewhat resemble the Cold War-era ‘domino theory,’ which contended that the presence of Communism in one country would quickly spread into neighboring states – a key public rationale behind US intervention in Vietnam. However, former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara acknowledged in 1995 that the theory did not play out as predicted, stating, “I think we were wrong. I do not believe that Vietnam was that important to the Communists. I don’t believe that its loss would have led – it didn’t lead – to Communist control of Asia.”
What it means that Hillary Clinton did it

By David Zukerman | American Thinker | May 22, 2022
The Wall Street Journal ran a scathing editorial on May 20, called “Hillary Clinton Did It“.
This editorial began: “The Russia-Trump collusion narrative of 2016 was a dirty trick for the ages — and now we know it came from the top — candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.” The editorial quickly explained: “That was the testimony Friday by 2016 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook in federal court [in Washington, D.C.], and while this news is hardly a surprise, it’s still bracing to find her fingertips on the political weapon.” (Also not surprisingly, The May 20 print edition of The New York Times did not include a story on Mook’s testimony.)
Mook’s testimony was heard at the trial of attorney Michael Sussman, charged with lying to the FBI in calling to their attention a story that Donald J. Trump, by means of connections with Russia’s Alfa Bank, was colluding with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The lie at issue was not the false claim about a Trump-Alfa connection, but the charge that Sussman brought this matter to the FBI as a good citizen, and not as a representative of the Clinton campaign.
As the Journal editorial noted: “Prosecutors say [Sussman] was working for the Clinton campaign.” The editorial pointed out, “Mr. Mook said Mrs. Clinton was asked about the plan [to call attention to the Trump-Alfa ties] and approved it. A story on the Trump-Alfa Bank allegations thus appeared in Slate, a left-leaning online publication.”
After that, the Journal explained how the Clinton campaign used the self-generated news of the investigation and the initial Slate article that came of it, both of which they had planted, as the basis for making tweet after tweet to the press about the Slate report to churn up mass coverage about it in the press and convince the public that the investigation was about something serious.
The concluding paragraphs of the editorial are worth quoting in full:
In short, the Clinton campaign created the Trump-Alfa allegation, fed it to a credulous press that failed to confirm the allegations but ran with them anyway, then promoted the story as if it was legitimate news. The campaign also delivered the claims to the FBI, giving journalists another excuse to portray the accusations as serious and perhaps true.
Most of the press will ignore this news, but the Russia-Trump narrative that Mrs. Clinton sanctioned did enormous harm to the country. It disgraced the FBI, humiliated the press, and sent the country on a three-year investigation to nowhere. Vladimir Putin never came close to doing as much disinformation damage.
The harm done to the United States by the perfidy of the Clintonistas cannot be overemphasized. That “three-year investigation to nowhere” represented the Clinton-Obama attempted takeover of the government. (Call it the COAT campaign.) With congressional Republicans unwilling to prevent the COAT campaign, the Trump administration was blocked from putting U.S.-Russia relations on a rational, mutually beneficial footing, to the point that, under the present Senate leadership, the specter of war with Russia is no longer an unthinkable thought. The COAT campaign succeeded in keeping the Ukraine pot boiling, with the water first heated by Obama’s stirring up of anti-Russian feelings in Ukraine, leading to the Maidan revolution that ousted the legitimately elected president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych.
EU president accuses Russia of energy ‘blackmail’
Samizdat | May 24, 2022
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Tuesday accused Russia of “blackmailing” the EU with its oil and gas exports. However, the bloc is in the process of voluntarily cutting itself off from these energy resources, and Moscow has blamed global food shortages on Western sanctions.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, von der Leyen said the EU would “accelerate” its transition to green energy “because of Russia’s blackmailing us with fossil fuels.”
Yet hours before she spoke, German Economy Minister Robert Habeck announced that the EU’s 27 member states would “reach a breakthrough within days” to ban Russian oil imports, upon which many EU states depend. Germany, for example, relies on Russia for around a quarter of its imported oil, while the bloc as a whole sources 27% of its oil from Russia.
Von der Leyen has also promised to reduce the EU’s reliance on Russian gas by 66% this year and eliminate it entirely by 2027, as part of a green energy plan announced last week. At present, 40% of the EU’s gas comes from Russia.
Since the start of its military operation in Ukraine in February, and throughout waves of successive EU and US sanctions, Russia has continued to sell its oil and gas to the EU. Moscow has demanded, however, that importers buy its gas in rubles. More than half of Gazprom’s foreign clients have already opened ruble accounts with the Russian energy giant, according to Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak.
Von der Leyen also accused Russia of using “food exports as a form of blackmail,” by allegedly blocking grain shipments out of Ukraine and refusing to export its own supply.
However, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Monday that the West’s economic sanctions are responsible for rising global food prices, and that Ukraine is free to export its crop through Poland. Peskov also accused Ukrainian naval forces of mining the Black Sea, making shipments “virtually impossible.”
Is the US conspiring to sink Russian Black Sea fleet ships?
By Drago Bosnic | May 24, 2022
On 20 May, in an exclusive for Reuters, the US government announced it would be providing advanced anti-ship and land-attack missiles to the Kiev regime, in yet another major escalatory move aiming to prolong the conflict and make it as bloody as possible for both sides. While some might dismiss such statements as simply being a part of the information, or more precisely, disinformation war, they should be taken extremely seriously, as it certainly wouldn’t be the first time the political West, with the US at its helm, delivered advanced weapons to the Kiev regime. To make matters worse, an adviser employed by the Ukrainian Ministry of Internal Affairs, Anton Gerashchenko, stated that the US will be “sinking Russian ships in the Black Sea.” His exact (now deleted) tweet stated:
“The US is preparing a plan to destroy the [Russian] Black Sea Fleet. The effective work of the Ukrainians on [Russian] warships convinced [the US] to prepare a plan to unblock the [Ukrainian] ports. Deliveries of powerful anti-ship weapons are being discussed.”
The Ukrainian official was referring to the aforementioned Reuters report on the US plan to provide the regime with the old “Harpoon” anti-ship missiles, as well as the newer and more advanced NSM (Naval Strike Missile), which can be used both as an anti-ship or land-attack weapon. The “Harpoon” is a subsonic, all-weather, over-the-horizon, anti-ship missile developed and manufactured by Boeing Defense, Space & Security (historically McDonnell Douglas) with a range of up to 220-250 km (depending on the source), costing around $1.5 million apiece. The NSM, also a subsonic missile, has a dual, anti-ship and land-attack capability. The missile’s exact range is classified, but it can go as far as 200 km or more, depending on the flight profile. It costs up to $2.2 million per unit.
Three State Department officials and two Congressional sources told Reuters that the White House was still working on the details for providing the Kiev regime with these advanced weapons. According to the sources, logistical issues and “the possibility the US would have to remove a launcher from one of its ships to send to Ukraine are current obstacles to completing the transfer”. Rather disturbingly, when responding to a question from Newsweek, the State Department did not deny it was working on a plan to target the Russian Black Sea fleet. “As the conflict is changing, so too is our military assistance to deliver the critical capabilities Ukraine needs for today’s fight as Russia’s forces engage in a renewed offensive in eastern Ukraine,” a spokesperson said.
However, the US DoD (Department of Defense) did issue a denial of the controversial claims made by the Ukrainian Internal Ministry’s official. “I can tell you definitively that that’s not true,” Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told reporters last Thursday. Still, the Pentagon’s denial refers only to the Ukrainian official’s claim the US was going to enable Ukraine to sink the Black Sea fleet and did not apply to the proposed anti-ship missiles transfer, which further adds to the confusion regarding this very serious issue.
It also remains unclear how Ukraine would be able to target Russian ships by itself. The US and NATO would either need to provide Ukraine with the necessary ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) capabilities or, worse yet, directly provide ISR information on the location and possible movement of Russian Black Sea fleet ships, which the Kremlin might see as an act of war. The US government, including US President Joe Biden, and the military continue to give controversial and ambiguous statements, oftentimes denying what was clearly stated by their colleagues, which greatly contributes to the atmosphere of distrust and exponentially increases the likelihood of an uncontrollable escalation.
Gerashchenko’s claims that the attack would help to open up Ukraine’s ports are both false and misplaced, as the Kiev regime was the party which released hundreds of sea mines, many of which drifted apart as far as the Bosphorus, over 600 km to the south of Odessa. Russia currently controls the Black Sea and maintains a blockade. However, the blockade is not aimed against civilian shipping, but possible major NATO arms deliveries to the Kiev regime forces. The United Nations has called for an easing of restrictions in the Black Sea to allow food exports from Ukraine to help alleviate global food shortages.
Russia offered a diplomatic solution. Last Thursday, the Russian government proposed lifting the blockage in exchange for the removal of sanctions. The Russian Foreign Ministry stated the problem clearly goes beyond the military blockade and includes Western sanctions which are restricting fertilizer exports. “You have to not only appeal to the Russian Federation but also look deeply at the whole complex of reasons that caused the current food crisis. [Sanctions] interfere with normal free trade, encompassing food products including wheat, fertilizers and others,” Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Rudenko said.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.


