By Phil Goff

Like many others, I was appalled and astounded by the dishonest comments made about the situation in Ukraine by the Trump Administration.

As one untruthful statement followed another like something out of a George Orwell novel, I increasingly felt that the lies needed to be called out.

I found it bizarre to hear President Trump publicly label Ukraine’s leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy a dictator. Everyone knew that Zelenskyy had been democratically elected and while Trump claimed his support in the polls had fallen to 4 percent it was pointed out that his actual support was around 57 percent.

Trump made no similar remarks or criticism of Russia’s Vladimir Putin and never does. Yet Putin’s regime imprisons and murders his opponents and suppresses democratic rights in Russia.

Then Trump made the patently false accusation that Ukraine started the war with Russia. How could he make such a claim when the world had witnessed Russia as the aggressor which invaded its smaller neighbour, killing thousands of civilians, committing war crimes and destroying cities and infrastructure?

That President Trump could lie so blatantly is perhaps explained by his taking offence at Zelenskyy’s refusal to comply with unreasonable and self-serving demands such as ceding control of Ukraine’s mineral wealth to the US. What was also clear was that Trump was intent on pressuring Ukraine to capitulate to Russian demands for a one sided “peace settlement” which would result in neither a fair nor sustainable peace.

It is astonishing that the US voted with Russia and North Korea in the United Nations against Ukraine and in opposition to the views of democratic countries the US is normally aligned with, including New Zealand.

Withdrew satellite imaging
It then withdrew satellite imaging services Ukraine needed for its self defence in an attempt to further pressure Zelenskyy to agree to a ceasefire. No equivalent pressure has yet been placed on Russia even while it has continued its illegal attacks on Ukraine.

Trump and Vance’s disgraceful bullying of Zelenskyy in the White House as he struggled in his third language to explain the plight of his nation was as remarkable as it was appalling.
What Trump was doing and saying was wrong and a betrayal of Ukraine’s struggle to defend its freedom and nationhood.

Democratic leaders around the world knew his comments to be unfair and untrue, yet few countries have dared to criticise Trump for making them.

Like the Hans Christian Anderson fairy tale, everyone knew that the emperor had no clothes but were fearful of the consequences of speaking out to tell the truth.

As New Zealand’s High Commissioner to the UK, I had on a number of occasions met and talked with Ukrainian soldiers being trained by New Zealanders in Britain. It was an emotionally intense experience knowing that many of the men I met with would soon face death on the front line defending their country’s freedom and nationhood.

They were extremely grateful of New Zealand’s unwavering support. Yet the Trump Administration seemed to care little for that country’s cause and sacrifice in defending the values that a few months earlier had seemed so important to the United States.

The diplomatic community in London privately shared their dismay at Trump’s treatment of Ukraine. The spouse of one of my High Commissioner colleagues who had been a teacher drew a parallel with what she had witnessed in the playground. The bully would abuse a victim while all the other kids looked on and were too intimidated to intervene. The majority thus became the enablers of the bully’s actions.

Silence condoning Trump
By saying nothing, New Zealand — and many other countries — was effectively condoning and being complicit in what Trump was doing.

It was in this context, at the Chatham House meeting, that I asked a serious and important question about whether President Trump understood the lessons of history. It was a question on the minds of many. I framed it using language that was reasonable.

The lesson of history, going back to the Munich Conference in 1938, when British Prime Minister Chamberlain and his French counterpart Daladier ceded the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, was clear.

Far from satisfying or placating an aggressor, appeasement only increases their demands. That’s always the case with bullies. They respect strength, not weakness.

Czechoslovakia could have been part of the Allied defence against Hitler’s expansionism but instead it and the Czech armaments industry was passed over to Hitler. He went on to take over the rest of Czechoslovakia and then invaded Poland.

As Churchill told Chamberlain, “You had the choice between dishonour and war. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”

The question needed to be asked because Trump was using talking points which followed closely those used by the Kremlin itself and was clearly setting out to appease and favour Russia.

A career diplomat, trained as a public servant to be cautious, might have not have asked it. I was appointed, with bipartisan support, not as a career diplomat but on the basis of political experience including nine years as Foreign, Trade and Defence Minister.

Question central to validity, ethics
“The question is central to the validity as well as the ethics of the United States’ approach to Ukraine. It is also a question that trusted allies, who have made sacrifices for and with each other over the past century, have a right and duty to ask.

The New Zealand Foreign Minister’s response was that the question did not reflect the view of New Zealand’s Government and that asking it made my position as High Commissioner untenable.

The minister had the prerogative to take the action he did and I am not complaining about that for one moment. For my part, I do not regret asking the question which thanks to the minister’s response subsequently received international attention.

Over the decades New Zealand has earned the respect of the world, from allies and opponents alike, for honestly standing up for the values our country holds dear. The things we are proudest of as a nation in the positions we have taken internationally include our role as one of the founding states of the United Nations in promoting a rules-based international system including our opposition to powerful states exercising a veto.

They include opposing apartheid in South Africa and French nuclear testing in the Pacific. We did not abandon our nuclear free policy to US pressure.

In wars and in peacekeeping we have been there when it counted and have made sacrifices disproportionate to our size.

We have never been afraid to challenge aggressors or to ask questions of our allies. In asking a question about President Trump’s position on Ukraine I am content that my actions will be on the right side of history.

Phil Goff, CNZM, is a New Zealand retired politician and former diplomat. He served as leader of the Labour Party and leader of the Opposition between 11 November 2008 and 13 December 2011. Goff was elected mayor of Auckland in 2016, and served two terms, before retiring in 2022. In 2023, he took up a diplomatic post as High Commissioner of New Zealand to the United Kingdom, which he held until last month when he was sacked by Foreign Minister Winston Peters over his “untenable” comments.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In this the sixth episode of A View from Afar for 2023 political scientist Dr Paul G. Buchanan and Selwyn Manning present a two-part episode to analyse what to make of New Zealand Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins’ bilateral meetings with People’s Republic of China’s President Xi JinPing and other leaders of the PRC.

In part one, Paul and Selwyn also consider how the PRC-NZ trade relationship is seen in the eyes of New Zealand’s security partners.

Then, in the second half of today’s podcast, Paul and Selwyn analyse the most recent events in Russia – events that have taken shape since Wagner Commander Yevgeny Prigozhin’s pronounced intent to mobilise his mercenaries against the Russian Federation’s top two military heads, and, while doing so, pronounced that the Kremlin’s decision to invade Ukraine was based on falsehoods.

What should we expect next? What is the real state of Putinism? What do the political and power elites in Russia make of President Vladimir Putin’s handling of the matter?

Weeks prior to this event happening inside Russia, Paul and Selwyn analysed the question: How stable is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hold on power? It’s a question that all those who watch Russian affairs have now been confronted with.

In this episode Paul and Selwyn unpack the complexity, look at what has changed as opposed to what has been said.

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recordings of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

In this the sixth episode of A View from Afar for 2023 political scientist Dr Paul G. Buchanan and Selwyn Manning will present a two-part episode to analyse what to make of New Zealand Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins’ bilateral meetings with People’s Republic of China’s President Xi JinPing and other leaders of the PRC.

In part one, we will also consider how the PRC-NZ trade relationship will be seen in the eyes of New Zealand’s security partners.

Then, in the second half of today’s podcast, Paul and Selwyn will analyse the most recent events in Russia – events that have taken shape since Wagner Commander Yevgeny Prigozhin’s pronounced intent to mobilise his mercenaries against the Russian Federation’s top two military heads, and, while doing so, pronounced that the Kremlin’s decision to invade Ukraine was based on falsehoods.

What should we expect next? What is the real state of Putinism? What do the political and power elites in Russia make of President Vladimir Putin’s handling of the matter?

Weeks prior to this event happening inside Russia, Paul and Selwyn analysed the question: How stable is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s hold on power? It’s a question that all those who watch Russian affairs have now been confronted with.

In this episode Paul and Selwyn will unpack the complexity, look at what has changed as opposed to what has been said, and consider the effect Russian instability has on NATO and BRICS aligned states.

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE:

Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

To interact during the live recording of this podcast, go to Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/

Remember to subscribe to the channel.

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Youtube.com/c/EveningReport/
• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

RECOGNITION: The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication. Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category.

You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

PODCAST: In this the second episode of A View from Afar podcast for 2023, political scientist Dr Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning analyse the question:

• How stable is Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin’s regime?

PAUL AND SELWYN look at this question from a number of angles, and, reveal shifts within the regime’s control and structure that may surprise many in the West.

In this episode Paul deep dives into the dynamics between the mercenary Wagner Group’s commander Yevgeny Prigozhin, his relationship with Putin, the Kremlin, and the estrangement from Russia’s military generals and Putin appointees.

Paul and Selwyn consider: What is going on here? What is Prigozhin’s end-game? Does he have the support of Putin? Or is that support conditional on successes on the Ukraine conflict frontline?

And Selwyn digs into the pillars of power in the Russian Federation, in particular:

• Putin as the head of Russia’s personalised autocracy
• The Putin-era Oligarchs
• Russia’s State military
• And the rise of Private armies and militia.

Then Paul take us, contextually and comparatively, through all of this complexity so we can more accurately assess the big question: How stable is Putin’s regime?

INTERACTION WHILE LIVE: Paul and Selwyn encourage their live audience to interact while they are live with questions and comments.

They recommended the audience does so via EveningReport’s YouTube channel, as Facebook has undergone significant changes. Here’s the link: Youtube (remember to subscribe to the channel).

For the on-demand audience, you can also keep the conversation going on this debate by clicking on one of the social media channels below:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here, also YouTube podcasts and the Podcast hosts below.

RECOGNITION:

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

Papuan Governor Lukas Enembe had an hour-long meeting with Russian Ambassador Lyudmila Vorobyeva, accompanied by the director of the Russian Centre for Science and Culture in Jakarta this week. On the table, an invitation for President Vladimir Putin to visit Papua later this year.

The governor also had his small team with him — Samuel Tabuni (CEO of Papua Language Institute), Alex Kapisa (Head of the Papua Provincial Liaison Agency in Jakarta) and Muhammad Rifai Darus (Spokesman for the Governor of Papua).

As a result of this meeting, social media is likely to run hot with heated debate.

This isn’t surprising, considering Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, hotly condemned in the West.

Speculation is rife whether Indonesia — as chair of the G20 group of nations — will invite President Putin to attend the global forum in Bali later this year.

Governor Enembe is not just another governor of another province of Indonesia — he represents one of the biggest settler-colonial provinces actively seeking independence.

Considering Enembe’s previous rhetoric condemning harmful policies of the central government, such as the failed Special Autonomy Law No.21/2021, this meeting has only added confusion, leaving both Indonesians and Papuans wondering about the motives for the governor’s actions.

Also, the governor has invited President Putin to visit Papua after attending the G20 meeting in Bali.

Whether President Putin would actually visit Papua is another story, but this news is likely to cause great anxiety for Papuans and Indonesians alike.

So, what was Monday’s meeting all about?

Papuan students in Russia
Spokesperson Muhammad Rifai said Governor Enembe had expressed deep gratitude to the government of the Russian Federation for providing a sense of security to indigenous Papuan students studying higher education in Russia.

He thanked the ambassador for taking good care of those who received scholarships from the Russian government as well as those who received scholarships from the Papua provincial government.

The scholarships were offered to Papuan students through the Russian Centre for Science and Culture, which began in 2016 and is repeated annually.

Under this scheme, Governor Enembe sent 26 indigenous Papuans to the Russian Federation on September 27, 2019, for undergraduate and postgraduate studies.

As of last year, Russia offered 163 places for Papuan students, but this number cannot be verified due to the high number of Indonesian students seeking education in Russia.

The ambassador also discussed the possibility of increasing the number of scholarships available to Papuan students who want to study in Russia. Governor Enembe appreciates  this development as education is a foundation for the land of Papua to grow and move forward.

The governor also said Russia was the only country in the world that would be willing to meet Papua halfway by offering students a free scholarship for their tuition fees.

Along with these education and scholarship discussions, Rifai said the governor wanted to talk about the construction of a space airport in Biak Island, in Cenderawasih Bay on the northern coast of Papua.

The governor was also interested in the world’s largest spaceport, Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, which is still operating today and he hoped to gain insight from the Russian government.

Building a Russian cultural museum in Papua
As part of strengthening the Russia-Papua relationship, Governor Enembe asked the Russian government to not only accept indigenous Papuan students, but to also transfer knowledge from the best teachers in Russia to students in Papua.

As part of the initiative, the governor invited Victoria from the Russian Centre for Science and Culture to Papua in order to inaugurate a Russian Cultural Centre at one of the local universities.

However, Governor Enembe’s desire to establish this relationship is not only due to Russian benevolence toward his Papuan students studying in Russia.

The Monday meeting with the Russian ambassador in Jakarta and his invitation to President Putin to visit Papua were inspired by deeper inspiration stories.

The story originated more than 150 years ago.

Governor Enembe was touched by the story he had heard of a Russian anthropologist who lived on New Guinea soil, and who had tried to save New Guinean people during one of the cruellest and darkest periods of European savagery in the Pacific.

Indigenous hero

His name was Nikolai Nikolaevich Miklouho-Maclay (1846 –1888) — a long forgotten Russian messianic anthropologist, who fought to defend indigenous New Guineans against German, Dutch, British, and Australian forces on New Guinea island.

His travels and adventures around the world — including the Canary Islands, North Africa, Easter Island, China, Thailand, Malaysia, Australia, the Philippines, and New Guinea — not only expanded his knowledge of the world’s geography, but most importantly his consciousness. This made him realise that all men are equal.

For a European and a scientist during this time, it was risky to even consider, let alone speak or write about such claims. Yet he dared to stand in opposition to the dominant worldview of the time — a hegemony so destructive that it set the stage for future exploitation of islanders in all forms: information, culture, and natural resources.

West Papua still bleeds as a result.

His campaign against Australian slavery of black islanders — known as blackbirding — in the Pacific between the 1840s and 1930s, and for the rights of indigenous people in New Guinea was driven by a spirit of human equality.

On Sunday, September 15, 2013, ABC radio broadcast the following statement about Nikolai Miklouho-Maclay:

He was handsome, he was idealistic and a mass of disturbing contradictions. He died young. That should have been enough to ensure his story’s survival – and it was in Russia, where he became a Soviet culture hero, not in the Australian colonies where he fought for the rights of colonised peoples and ultimately lost.

ironic and tragic
The term Melanesia emerged out of such colonial enterprise, fuelled by white supremacy attitudes. As ironic and tragic as it seems, Papuans in West Papua reclaimed the term and used it in their cultural war against what they consider as Asian-Indonesian colonisation.

It is likely that Miklouho-Maclay would have renamed and redescribed this region differently if he had been the first to name it, instead of French explorer Jules Dumont d’Urville (the man credited with coining the term). He arrived too late, and the region had already been named, divided, and colonised.

In September 1871, Nikolai Miklouho-Maclay landed at Garagassi Point and established himself in Gorendu village in Madang Province. Here he built a strong relationship with the locals and his anthropological work, including his diaries, became well known in Russia. The village where he lived has erected a monument in his name.

Miklouho-Maclay’s diaries of his accounts of Papuans in New Guinea during his time there have already been published in the millions and read by generations of Russians. The translation of his dairies from Russian to English, titled Miklouho-Maclay – New Guinea Diaries 1871-1883 can be read here.

C.L. Sentinella, the translator of the diaries, wrote the following in the introduction:

The diaries give us a day-to-day account of a prolonged period of collaborative contact with these people by an objective scientific observer with an innate respect for the natives as human beings, and with no desire to exploit them in any way or to impose his ideas upon them. Because of Maclay’s innate respect, this recognition on his part that they shared a common humanity, his reports and descriptions are not distorted to any extent by inbuilt prejudices and moral judgements derived from a different set of values.

In 2017, the PNG daily newspaper The National published a short story of Miklouho-Maclay under the title “A Russian who fought to save Indigenous New Guinea”.

The Guardian, in 2020, also shared a brief story of him under title “The dashing Russian adventurer who fought to save indigenous lives.” The titles of these articles reflect the spirit of the man.

After more than 150 years, media headlines emphasise his legacy. One of his descendants, Nickolay Miklouho-Maclay, who is currently director of Miklouho Maclay Foundation in Madang, PNG, has already begun to establish connections with local Papuans both at the village level and with the government to build connections based on the spirit of his ancestor.

Enembe seeks Russian reconnection
Governor Enembe believes that Nikolai Miklouho-Maclay’s writings and work profoundly influence the Russian psyche and reflect how the Russian people view the world — especially Melanesians.

This was what motivated him to arrange his meeting with the Russian ambassador on Monday. The Russians’ hospitality toward Papuan students is connected to the spirit of this man, according to the governor.

It is a story about compassion, understanding, and brotherhood among humans.

The story of Nikolai Miklouho-Maclay is linked to the PNG side of New Guinea. However, Governor Enembe said Nikolai’s story was also the story of West Papuans too now — because he fought for all oppressed and enslaved New Guineans, Melanesians, and Pacific islanders.

Nikolai Miklouho-Maclay’s ideas, beliefs and values — calling for the treatment of fellow human beings with dignity, equality and respect — are what are needed today.

This is partly why Governor Enembe has invited President Putin to visit Papua; he plans to build a cultural museum and statue in honour of Nikolai Miklouho-Maclay.

“The old stories are dying, and we need new stories for our future,” Governor Enembe said. “I want to … share more of this great story of the Russian people and New Guinea people together.”

Yamin Kogoya is a West Papuan academic who has a Master of Applied Anthropology and Participatory Development from the Australian National University and who contributes to Asia Pacific Report. From the Lani tribe in the Papuan Highlands, he is currently living in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning analyse how New Zealand and other nations are providing intelligence expertise in the defence of Ukraine.

But are the SIGINT and TECHINT operations a part of the NATO partnership, or, a part of the Five Eyes intelligence network’s operations – where the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand share resources to acquire and coordinate global and targeted intelligence.

Does confirmation from New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern that New Zealand has deployed seven Defence intelligence officers to the United Kingdom and Belgium underscore a direct involvement against Russia and in defence of Ukraine by other independent nations like New Zealand?

• What will the intelligence, including geo-spacial analysis, most likely be used for and how would it be derived and delivered?
• How has western intelligence assisted Ukraine in this war and also in the targeting of Russian generals who were identified and killed during hostilities in Ukraine (ref. Washington Post)?
• How significant has Open Source Intelligence been in the Russia Ukraine war (to date) including the use of citizen acquired video and data and its dissemination to offensive and defensive operations in the conflict?
• And why is SIGINT and TECHINT proving to be more important than ever in this specific conflict?

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning will unpack why the west is losing a strategic deterrence advantage against Russian Federation president Vladimir Putin.

In this episode Buchanan and Manning will analyse whether deterrence, in its various forms, is an effective tool against aggressive authoritarian opponents and specifically why NATO and the United States is at a disadvantage when attempting to use deterrence to gain leverage over Putin and the Russian offensive occurring against Ukraine and its peoples.

We know about the rules and conventions that prevent NATO and the United Nations from defending Ukrainians on Ukraine territory. But what of the Responsibility to Protect principles, RTPs designed to defend vulnerable and helpless populations? The RTP principle was invoked against Serbia and Kosovo in the late 1990s and led to NATO forces bombing Belgrade. Why is it not being used for humanitarian principles in 2022?

Also, Buchanan and Manning will examine the concepts of shatter and peripheral zones when it comes to war, and why Central Europe is the core shatter zone of past and present global conflict.

• You are invited to lodge questions and comments via the social media links below, either prior to or during the live recording.
• Join Paul and Selwyn for this LIVE recording of this podcast while they consider these big issues, and remember any comments you make while live can be included in this programme.

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

New Zealand’s leading daily newspaper today contrasted the “reckless self-expression” of anti-covid mandates protesters and the dangers confronting the people of Ukraine fighting for their survival as an independent nation in the face of a brutal four-day-old invasion by its neighbour Russia.

Critising the rhetoric by protesters against the so-called “draconian” and “authoritarian” covid-19 rules in this country, the New Zealand Herald today mocked the anti-mandates protest in the Parliament grounds in the capital Wellington entering its third week, saying “attacks on people and their freedom are real and dangerous in a country under Russian assault”.

The newspaper said public gatherings carried extra risk in a pandemic. However, while a rally to draw attention to a desperate invasion far away was “at least understandable, the anti-mandate protests [in Wellington and Auckland] seem to be more about reckless self-expression”.

In an editorial, the paper said “noticing contrasts between two different situations” could provide clarity.

“The Russian invasion of Ukraine has instantly put claims from a minority of people opposed to covid-19 restrictions around the world in perspective.

“These people have argued that common coronavirus health requirements during the pandemic are attacks on their personal freedom.

“They have talked and written about oppression, coercion and risks over complying with health measures meant to help people survive a frequently deadly and dangerous coronavirus.”

‘Particularly unpersuasive’
Now, said the Herald, these views “sound particularly unpersuasive”.

“As footage and reporting from Ukraine shows, oppression is having armoured vehicles from a neighbouring country roll down your roads.

“Loss of freedom is having to hide in shelters to avoid military strikes from the air or having to walk with your belongings to the border for safety.

“Risk is potentially dying or being injured when your apartment building is hit by a missile.”

What was happening in Ukraine was also what happened in less publicised conflicts around the globe, said The Herald.

“Its harrowing pictures and eyewitness accounts, its timing in the third year of the pandemic, and its unfolding impact, [have] shaken the world.

“Civilians, who if they were elsewhere might be only fighting off a covid infection, are having to handle improvised weapons in Kyiv or join 120,000 others who have already fled to neighbouring countries, according to United Nations estimates.”

Protests against Moscow’s aggression
Protests condemning Moscow’s aggression and expressing support for Ukrainians have taken place in New Zealand and in different countries, including in Russia where almost 3000 people have been arrested.

“In New Zealand, there have been protests against the war at the same time as ongoing demonstrations by people who see vaccination mandates, social distancing, vaccine passports and mask-wearing as an imposition on their rights,” said The Herald.

“There’s been a lot of rhetoric with covid-19 of ‘draconian” and ”authoritarian” rules,” said the newspaper.

“In reality, complying with some restrictions for a period of time, which have involved adjusting goals and behaviours and dealing with economic issues, has meant this country has survived a challenging situation pretty well so far compared with others.

“It has hit harder for some groups in society than others. Yet a lot of people are still finding it fairly easy to cope, with vaccination shots, boosters and masks, even with omicron case numbers soaring to dizzying heights and New Zealand’s death toll rising again.”

“Russian citizens know about authoritarianism. On Friday thousands of Russians bravely took to the streets to denounce their government’s invasion.

“Those citizens in Moscow, St Petersburg and other cities knew the risk they were taking and at least 2700 have reportedly been arrested.

Mass displays of dissent not tolerated
“President Vladimir Putin’s government does not tolerate mass displays of dissent. Opponents of the regime have been poisoned and killed. The country’s main opposition leader Alexei Navalny is imprisoned.”

“These rebels on Friday had a cause: objecting to war, the violation of a country’s sovereignty and the deaths, hardship, and displacement being inflicted.”

The newspaper said that anti-war rallies and anti-mandate protests took place in New Zealand on Saturday despite omicron cases hitting 13,000 and deaths from the pandemic reaching 56 — far lower than in most other countries.

“Police said officers outside Parliament were spat on. Protesters have been seen ignoring social distancing and avoiding masks and the Ministry of Health said people attending are coming down with covid.

“Hospitals around the country were reporting visits from people who had been at the Parliament site,” said the newspaper.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Analysis by Keith Rankin.

Yesterday I watched Kenneth Branagh’s recent movie, Belfast. A wonderful ‘biopic’ of that fraught city in 1969/70. It brought back memories of my own brief visit there in April 1976, when I rode into town on my trusty Honda – past Carrickfergus Castle. Then parked, and walked along Donegal Place, to City Hall, before returning to my motorcycle and catching the ferry to Liverpool.

Belfast represents the epitome of a Victorian industrial city, which gives it certain touristic qualities today. Belfast in 1976 was not exactly a tourist destination then, however. It was a city under British military occupation. I was in a war zone.

The story in the movie related to Branagh’s childhood at the beginning of ‘The Troubles’. His family rented a council house in a zone with a mixed Catholic and Protestant population, making the nearby streets ‘ground zero’ for the incipient conflict. The Protestant fundamentalists wanted to cleanse the neighbourhood of Catholics.

Branagh’s father, William, was an indebted FIFO (fly-in fly-out) worker, working in England. William Branagh was very frustrated by the swelling sectarian violence, implicit and explicit. In relation to William’s confrontation with the prominent local protestant bigot, the soundtrack (which, by the way, heavily featured local ‘lad’ Van Morrison) twice alluded to the imagery of the classic 1952 western High Noon, through that movie’s title song:

I do not know what fate awaits me
I only know I must be brave
And I must face a man who hates me
Or lie a coward, a craven coward
Or lie a coward in my grave

My thoughts immediately turned to Volodymyr Zelenskyy; and to the way that the mainstream media – always looking for the drama, though often at the expense of the news – is framing the Ukraine-Russia conflict as a battle for Kyiv between two men, Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin.

Casablanca

Afterwards, the other movie that my thoughts turned to, was Casablanca. Filmed on a budget in a Los Angeles studio in 1941/42, at around the time of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour, Casablanca became a classic movie; ostensibly a three-way love story with an exotic African setting involving an American, a Norwegian, and (reflecting the birthplace of the film’s director) a Hungarian. The movie, however, was really about France. Three Frances: free France, occupied France, and (puppet) Vichy France. And the real start of the movie was the ambiguous French police prefect, Captain Louis Renault (played by Claude Rains).

I watched Casablanca for the second time just last month. Hooray for DVDs. The drama of France and Paris is easily matched to the present drama of Ukraine and Kyiv. Indeed, Kyiv looks like a cool city which, like Paris in April 1940, would once have been great to drive through in a sports car with one’s lover. (Earlier this month, I watched on Netflix: Winter on Fire, Ukraine’s Fight for Freedom; where we saw the 2013/14 protest occupation, which finished on a bloody note and did eventually achieve regime change from within.)

Casablanca was actually a perfectly timed piece of soft-propaganda, that played a major role in turning American sentiment in favour of joining the war in Europe. Does it foretell anything about how events in and beyond Ukraine may play out?

Certainly, we can imagine a ‘fall of Kyiv’ much as the fall of Paris in May 1940. We can imagine Ukraine being split into an ‘occupied territory’ in the centre, east, and south; and a puppet regime in the west (Belarus Two?). And we can imagine a Ukrainian resistance much like the French resistance, and liaising with a ‘free Ukraine’ administration, administratively based in NATO Europe. (When in London in the 1970s, I worked at Wool House, which overlooked the building that was the political headquarters of Free France. When the French President made a state visit, he – Valery Giscard d’Estaing – paid homage there to the French resistance movement. From my seventh-floor window, the top of his bald head was almost directly below!)

Eastern Europe

There is an apparent ‘spirit of Ukraine’ emerging that is catching the imagination of ‘the West’. We in the West are belatedly overcoming our stereotypical view of Eastern Europe; a view that has led many in New Zealand to almost completely ignore Eastern Europe, easily the most adversely affected part of the world during the Covid19 pandemic. As much as we do not want to admit it, until a week-or-so-ago, we in the West – ignorantly and implicitly – regarded Eastern Europe and Eastern Europeans as inferior. Re Covid19, we did not believe we had anything to learn from their experiences. We laughed at Novak Djokovic and his anti-vaccine antics. We saw his country, Serbia, as corrupt. (I would like to hear, in the mainstream media, views on the Ukraine conflict from Serbia. It was Russia’s historical alliance with Serbia which started World War One.)

Will we change our presumptions about Eastern Europe? Will we look at the whole region with fresh eyes?

I am not hopeful. We still hear next-to-nothing about the post-Soviet nations in the western media; let alone the Eastern European countries in the European Union. Bulgaria, on the Black Sea – much less populous than Ukraine, but also with some similarities – is now entering a new wave of excess-death covid mortality. Worst-affected in the whole world, nearly one in 100 residents of this European Union nation have died as a result of the covid pandemic. And it’s far from over yet, as post-covid (distinct from long-covid) sets in.

And what about poor landlocked Moldova, a post-Soviet country with three million people (ten percent of whom live in the breakaway state of Transnistria); a country on Ukraine’s southwest border? We need Moldovan perspectives on the Ukraine crisis, now! There is no present impediment to media access to Moldova (except access to Transnistria). Inasmuch as anyone in the west considers Moldova at all, it has been given to seem like a southern version of Belarus. Television news’ maps have shown that a small part of the Russian military build-up was on Moldovan territory, but with no explanation.

In this news story published in the New Zealand Herald – Furious Russian president reportedly ‘holed up in mountain lair’ – the first map has Moldova sitting under an inset of Kyiv (just as Aotearoa New Zealand often sits under the label of world maps) – and the second map, while showing Ukraine’s other neighbours – completely ignores Moldova. (This second map at least acknowledges the existence of Odessa/Odesa, Ukraine’s third largest city, and one of the world’s principal grain-exporting seaports. I have not heard anything on the news about how that city is faring, despite it being listed as being a victim of last Thursday’s initial Russian assault. It looks like the Russian forces may have been defeated there. That should be news. Odessa is a victim of the media’s obsession with Kyiv. According to this website, you can still book a day-tour from Odessa to Transnistria.)

The best maps of war-afflicted Ukraine that I have seen are these ones from El Pais: The Russian attack in maps: Troops cross the Ukrainian border.

An important part of what Putin’s Russians want to achieve would appear to be the military control of the Black Sea, a quest to turn that sea into a Russian lake, much as the United States once envisaged the Pacific Ocean as an American lake. (And as King Cnut 1,000 years ago regarded the North Sea as a Danish lake.) So any map of the western-aligned neighbours of Russia/Ukraine needs to include Turkey. And any meaningful discussion of what Russia wants needs to include a much fuller narrative than we are getting about the importance to Russia of the Black Sea. (Turkey, as a NATO member bordering the Soviet Union, was an understated put important player in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis; that crisis being a useful political analogy to the present crisis. Turkey’s attachment to NATO is somewhat peripheral these days.)

Kaliningrad

I have still yet to hear anything in the mainstream media about Kalinigrad. In practice, it must already be a NATO hostage. Signs are that the Baltic Sea is becoming a NATO lake. (We may also note that the most vociferous anti-invasion protests within Russia would appear to be in St Petersburg, the former capital of imperial Russia, also on the Baltic Sea.) I would have thought that the western mainstream media would be making a beeline for Kaliningrad, Vladimir Putin’s Achilles’ Heel. Not only can ‘the west’ accentuate Kaliningrad’s detachment from the rest of Russia, Kaliningrad also forms the basis for an inconvenient (for Russia) history lesson that Berlin might like to teach Moscow. And, I suspect that for many residents of Kaliningrad, any political detachment from Russia might be regarded more as liberation than incarceration.

East Prussia was once an important symbolic territory of Prussian nationalism.

What Putin really wants

As a nostalgic nationalist, Vladimir Putin sees Kyiv as the foundational capital of ‘Russia’; founded by the Kievan Rus’ much as Rome was founded by Romulus. Other countries have their sentimental sites and capital cities. China has Xian, its ancient capital, site of the Terracotta Army. Israel has Jerusalem; and the Masada. The Danes have their Viking capital of Roskilde, on Zealand. The Greeks have Olympia and other sites. Australia has Botany Bay and Circular Quay. Serbia has its Kosovo Myth (1389), which was the basis for the nationalist putsch against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo; an event that precipitated the NATO bombardment of Serbia in 1999.

This means that Russia – as in Putin’s Russia – will be unlikely to pull back unless Kyiv (and territories to the south and east of Kyiv; and probably Moldovan Transnistria) are incorporated into Russia, much as Crimea has already been incorporated into the Russian Federation. Beyond that, anything will be negotiable, including the Russian versus Prussian status of Kaliningrad. Indeed, I believe that if the desired Ukrainian territory is incorporated into Russia, then Mr Putin will neither be concerned about NATO on his subsequent doorstep, nor concerned with going further to reinstate a Russian empire based on Soviet Union boundaries. He would have completed his historical mission.

Such a Russia – were it to be created and recognised – could even evolve into a liberal country within a generation. Indeed, Napoleon used highly illiberal means while creating a liberal Europe. I suspect that, in the school history textbooks, Vladimir Putin would rather be compared to Napoleon Bonaparte than to Adolf Hitler.

High Noon

What Vladimir Putin wants is not acceptable to most of the rest of the world. That’s not good news, in the sense that the present conflict could become an order of magnitude nastier than it is at present. I sense that Putin has already gone too far now to back down (unless forced by military means to back down). Further, while not necessarily a majority Russian view, amongst conservative Russians their foundational myths are widely held. Any political removal of Putin – and we know that Nikita Khrushchev was the victim of a palace coup in 1964, after Cuba – will not necessarily spell the end of Putin’s historical mission.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy seems prepared to face ‘the man who hates him’. The drama is compelling. Will it be Tragedy or Comedy?

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says New Zealand joins its international partners in condemnation of Russia’s attack on Ukraine and has immediately taken a range of measures against the Russian government.

Giving a statement today about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Ardern said Russia began a “military offensive and an illegal invasion” yesterday.

Russian President Vladimir Putin declared war on Ukraine and launched a full-scale land, sea and air attack on the country.

Putin said his goal was the “demilitarisation and denazification” of Ukraine, but US President Joe Biden has asserted the evidence clearly showed Russia was the aggressor and it had no evidence for its justifications.

New Zealand has joined with the United Nations in launching economic sanctions against Russia.

Ardern said: “The UK’s Ministry of Defence communicated this morning that more than 80 strikes have been carried out against Ukrainian targets and that Russian ground forces are advancing across the border on at least three axis from north and northeast, and south from Crimea.

“There are reports of attacks in a range of locations around Ukraine, including heavy shelling in eastern Ukraine and fighting in some areas, including around airports and other targets of strategic importance.

‘Unthinkable’ loss of lives
“By choosing to pursue this entirely avoidable path, an unthinkable number of innocent lives could be lost because of Russia’s decision,” she said.

New Zealand called on Russia to do what was right and immediately cease military operations, and permanently withdraw to avoid a “catastrophic and pointless loss of innocent life”, she said.

The invasion posed a significant threat to peace and security in the region and would trigger a humanitarian and refugee crisis, she said.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s media briefing today. Video: RNZ

Russia had demonstrated a disregard for diplomacy and efforts to avoid conflict in the lead-up to the attack, she said, and “must now face the consequences of their decision to invade”.

As a permanent UN Security Council member, Russia has “displayed a flagrant disregard for international law and abdicated their responsibility to uphold global peace and security” and now must face the consequences, Ardern said.

New Zealand has immediately imposed measures in response which include targeted travel bans against Russian officials and other individuals associated with the invasion. They will be banned from obtaining visas to enter or transit New Zealand.

Secondly, this country is prohibiting the export of goods to Russian military and security forces.

Blanket ban a ‘significant step’
“While exports from New Zealand under this category are limited, a blanket ban is a significant step as it removes the ability for exporters to apply for a permit and sends a clear signal of support to Ukraine,” she said.

Finally, New Zealand has suspended bilateral ministry consultations until further notice.

Ardern says there will be a significant cost imposed on Russia for its actions. New Zealand will also consider humanitarian response options, she said.

“Finally our thoughts today are with the people in Ukraine affected by this conflict. Decades of peace and security in the region have been undermined.

“The institutions built to avoid conflict have been threatened and we stand resolute in our support for those who now bear the brunt of Russia’s decisions.”

She again called for Russia to cease military actions and return to diplomatic negotiations to resolve the conflict.

During questions from journalists, Ardern said New Zealand was not constrained by being unable to launch autonomous sanctions.

Additional measures
“There are additional measures that we can take. Obviously already you’ll see those targeted travel bans, we do have the ability to extend those as required and as those involved with this activity grows,” she said.

“We also have the ability to continue to restrict the amount of diplomatic engagement that we have … and obviously the autonomous sanction regimes that have been proposed in the past don’t for instance cover situations of human rights violations.”

Ardern admitted there were some limitations on economic sanctions New Zealand could impose, but the government continued to get advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the tools that could be used and “we want them all to be on the table”.

The measures New Zealand has imposed are limited but send a very clear message.

“What this does say is that there’s no ability to apply or seek to export … this is a blanket ban,” she says.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Having watched Vladimir Putin’s somewhat rambling speech on Al Jazeera yesterday, I think we can be sure that he does have a clear ambition to create an empire based on the ethnic concept of the Viking ‘Rus’ (refer my recent Living with Ambiguity); a concept that would ideally (for Putin-supporting Russians) encompass modern Russia, Ukraine and Belarus as its identity core.

Having noted that, such an empire can be formal or (as in the American style of imperialism) informal. Explicitly, Putin does not subscribe to the Wilsonian concept of nations and nationalism (a concept of territorial fundamentalism; ref my recent Nations, Territories, and Conflict). What he – and possibly most Russians – clearly will not tolerate is a Ukraine playing a regional role comparable to the role that Cuba was trying to play in 1962.

We may note that this Russian perspective on Ukraine is fully comparable with Thomas Jefferson’s 200-year-old perspective on the lands that became Canada, and Adolf Hitler’s more recent perspective towards Austria.

Now that Mr Putin has recognised the Donetsk and Luhansk ‘People’s Republics’ as independent nations – giving them the client-status in his eyes – much as he sees Belarus – what may be next? (And note that yesterday’s action would be a small-scale equivalent of the United States formally recognising Taiwan as a fully independent nation state.)

This latest development puts the Donetsk and Luhansk ‘republics’ (separatist ‘Donbas’) into the same basket as Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This contrasts with Crimea which is recognised by Russia as a full province of the Russian Federal state.

(As an aside, Ukraine reported 427,000 Covid19 cases in the last two weeks, equivalent to 3,720 daily cases in New Zealand. And Ukraine recorded 3,250 covid deaths in that period, equivalent to 28 daily deaths with covid in New Zealand. At the end of November, Ukraine had lost one in 250 of its population to covid, based on ‘excess death’ data. Worse than the USA, but not as bad as Russia.)

Political Geography influences Military Strategy

One

Attention will most likely next turn to the effectively annexed Sea of Azov, which includes the important Ukrainian (and Azov) seaport city of Mariupol, itself in Ukrainian-held Donetsk. Present Russian decrees would appear to regard all of Donetsk as newly-recognised Russian-aligned territory (ie based on 2014 claimed borders). The Azov situation places more pressure on Odessa, as Ukraine’s principal seaport.

Soon enough, however, attention will soon turn to Transnistria, a largely unrecognised state sandwiched between Moldova and Ukraine. The international community recognises Transnistria as a part of the former Soviet Republic of Moldova. Transnistria today operates as a fully-independent, Russian-aligned, nation state. Transnistrian death statistics are reported separately; for example ourworldindata.org report excess covid deaths separately for Moldova and Transnistria.

I noted yesterday morning that Al Jazeera, which normally maps Crimea and all of Donbas as part of Ukraine, mentioned Russian troops in Moldova, on Ukraine’s southwestern border. I am sure that western-leaning Moldova would take exception to that. (The impression given was that Moldova is a Russian-aligned state comparable to Belarus.)

When it comes to military strategy, Robert McNamara once noted the importance of having empathy (but not sympathy!) for your adversary. From a Putin/Russian mindset, the formal recognition of Transnistria could have important benefits.

Moldova (including or excluding Transnistria) is effectively a landlocked country, but close to the delta of the Dniester River. (‘Nistria’ is a transliteration of ‘Dniester’.) There is a salient of Ukraine – within Odessa oblast – that can only be entered by road from Odessa City either through Transnistria or via the Pidyomnyy Mist (Zatoka) Bridge which guards the Dniester estuary. That part of Ukraine seems to be an obvious military target that would give Transnistria access to the Black Sea. Control of that salient would also facilitate a Russian blockade of Odessa, thereby strangling Ukraine’s international commerce.

The international media would do well to pay attention to Transnistria, a place that even Al Jazeera doesn’t seem to have heard of.

Two

Most people – and certainly most mainstream media – seem to be minimally aware of the Russian ‘semi-enclave’ of Kaliningrad. (Kaliningrad has Baltic Sea access to Russia – St Petersburg – but land access only through NATO territory.)

Kaliningrad – formerly Königsberg – was once the heart and principal seaport of East Prussia. It was a proud part of imperial Germany. After Word War One, East Prussia became a German semi-enclave, internationally separated from the rest of Germany by the ‘Polish Corridor’ to the Baltic Sea. This piece of geographical politics – the Polish Corridor – became one of the flashpoints for the 1939 German invasion of Poland that started World War Two (WW2) in Europe. After WW2, the German population of Königsberg was entirely replaced by Russian people.

Kaliningrad – a critically important naval port in Soviet times – is only accessible to the rest of Russia by land through two other countries. It remains important, because, unlike St Peterburg, it is ice-free in winter. The most practical land route from Moscow to Kaliningrad is through Belarus and Lithuania.

I watched Al Jazeera’s Witness program Waiting for Invasion about military conscription in Lithuania. Certainly, Lithuania is at least as inspired to resist Russia as is Ukraine. But Lithuania has fewer than three million people, and the three Baltic states combined have less than seven million inhabitants. All three Baltic states are NATO members.

Russia will be worried about Kaliningrad developing its own separatist leanings; ie a desire for separation from Russia. Putin’s rejection of territorial fundamentalism is unlikely to extend to showing sympathy for Kaliningrad independence. While it’s unlikely that Russia would attack Lithuania – and hence NATO – any time this year, if NATO were to attack Russia militarily, then it would seem likely that a Russian invasion of Lithuania would be a consequence. As well as the not inconsiderable issue of national pride – or ‘prestige’ as we used to call it – Russia would claim its need for land access to its Baltic fleet. And Russia would be wanting to shore up the loyalty of Kaliningrad’s people.

Conclusion

The kind of military strategy that I have pinpointed would seem to be a logical extension of any failure to eventually resolve the present Ukraine crisis in a manner that would be acceptable to Vladimir Putin’s Russia. We can already see that Belarus will never be allowed – at least in Putin’s Russia, and probably not after that either – to contemplate any alliance other than its present arrangement.

Further, Transnistria is located strategically for Russia to place an economic and military stranglehold over Ukraine. And, if NATO responds militarily, Russia is likely to swiftly take steps to secure its Baltic enclave, and at the same time physically isolate the Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

PS

In light of recent riots (and Russian intervention) in Kazakhstan – ref Kazakhstan unrest: ‘If you protest again, we’ll kill you’ (BBC, 21 Jan 2022) – it is likely that Russia will seek to cement its ties with that country, also with Uzbekistan, and that an important area of future conflict will be oil-rich Turkmenistan, arguably the weirdest (and least known) country in the world today.

*******

Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning will discuss whether sanctions will be effective in deterring Russian president Vladimir Putin from a full invasion of Ukraine and indeed cause Russian military to return to the Russian side of the Ukraine border.

Or, alternatively, does the Russian Federation now have a momentum and the support of a coalition of authoritarian governments that will render sanctions ineffective?

Are we witnessing the advent of what we will call: the progression of global bipolarity?

Join Paul and Selwyn for this LIVE recording of this podcast while they consider these big issues, and remember any comments you make while live can be included in this programme.

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.