Nothing to negotiate

 

Jerusalem Post Letters to the Editor, June 12, 2023 

 

Amotz Asa-El, in “Mr. Putin: Stop this war” (June 9), demonstrates that he does not understand who Putin is. Otherwise, after what Putin has done to the Ukrainians, Asa-El would not write: “One meeting, Mr. President, one meeting with Ukraine’s leader can stop the bloodbath and reboot your situation. One meeting, after which the two of you will jointly order a ceasefire, launch a humanitarian rescue operation, and start diplomatic talks that will take years to produce peace but minutes to undo war.”

Zelensky will not negotiate with Putin for the similar reason Netanyahu will not negotiate with Iran – there is nothing to negotiate about. Iran wants to destroy Israel, Putin wants to destroy Ukraine. Ukraine knows that unless Russia withdraws to the 1991 borders, nothing will have changed and Putin would just wait until he is ready to attack again.

Perhaps Asa-El does not realize what the Russian general staff has been considering. Yuri Fedorov is one of the best military experts and what he said was shocking. The Russians had decided to use more drastic means to stop the Ukrainian counteroffensive since they realized that they cannot stop the Ukrainians by military means.

Freezing Ukrainians in the winter by destroying their electrical infrastructure and forcing them to negotiate on Russia’s terms did not work. The other crazy idea, which has been under consideration for more than a year, is to attack the cascade of hydroelectric dams on the Dnieper by using passenger airliners like the Il-62 or Tu-154, not in use because of the sanctions, fill them up with 18 tons of explosives and target the dams.

Dictators should not be appeased. Churchill spent his wilderness years 1929-1939 trying to get the message across. Some have still not heard it 80 years on.

MLADEN ANDRIJASEVIC

Beersheba

New Russian school textbook with a chapter on the war in Ukraine

History of Russia

1914 - beginning of the 21st century

The following is the text of 5 pages from the new textbook on the history of Russia for grades 10-11 taken from the chapter on the war in Ukraine . It will be taught starting  from the next academic year.  I think it is quite educational for us in the West to understand their version of history. You can judge its accuracy yourselves. 

I used image to text  https://www.imagetotext.info/ru/image-to-text  and corrected the google translate. Source:   

https://www.svoboda.org/a/vyshel-shkoljnyy-uchebnik-istorii-s-glavoy-o-voyne-v-ukraine/32430674.html 

Page 192 

…from Maidan, besieged by armed thugs, who were openly supported by the authorities, died in a fire in the House of Trade Unions. The Ukrainian army, special forces, foreign mercenaries, and punitive battalions were thrown into the South-East of Ukraine. Residents of Donbass organized a rebuff to the invaders. In the course of the unfolding struggle, Donetsk and Luhansk regions declared independence. The Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and the Lugansk People's Republic (LPR) emerged. The number of victims of the intra-Ukrainian conflict amounted to many thousands of people, and hundreds of thousands of refugees.

The government of P.A. Poroshenko took a tough anti-Russian line, cutting off ties with Russia. The conflict was brought to a halt by the conclusion of the Minsk Agreements, according to which the Ukrainian authorities pledged to stop hostilities, grant Donbass a special constitutional status and guarantee the rights of its inhabitants.

In 2019, Poroshenko suffered a crushing defeat in the presidential election from V.A. Zelensky, who, however, pursued a policy that differed little from the previous one. The Minsk agreements were still not implemented.

4. The crisis around Ukraine in 2022 and the special military operation. Since the beginning of 2022, global and Russian politics have undergone global changes related to the crisis around Ukraine, opening a new page in history.

They were based on the desire of the United States to maintain its dominance in conditions when their economic, political, and moral positions were noticeably weakening against the backdrop of the rise of new centers of power. The United States has taken a course to undermine the positions of states capable of challenging their hegemony. Among them, Russia and China came to the fore in American doctrinal documents.

Constantly increasing pressure on our country, the United States, where J. Biden came to power in 2021, and their European vassals were rapidly moving NATO's military infrastructure to our borders, although this was expressly prohibited by the Founding Act of Russia-NATO in 1997. More and more new sanctions were imposed against Russia on far-fetched pretexts, an ongoing economic and information war was waged.

Page 193

Ukraine began to be used as the shock fist of the West aimed against Russia.

Ukraine  appeared during the presidency of P.A. Poroshenko and V.A. Zelensky to be under full external control from Washington. On the territory of Ukraine there were American and British military installations.  NATO  military instructors  

were preparing its armed forces to conduct military operations against the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, against our country. Western countries and local nationalist circles carried out intensified indoctrination in an anti-Russian vein. There was a glorification of Nazism, torchlight marches of fascist organizations became regular. Nazi criminals S. Bandera V. and others were exalted as national heroes of Ukraine, the central streets of cities were named after them. The neo-Nazi gangs "Azov", "Aidar", "Donbass" and others became part of the armed forces of Ukraine. The EU was turned into a springboard for a NATO attack on our country. For eight years, with the full approval of the West, daily shelling of the peaceful cities of Donbass continued, from which thousands of people died. Kyiv defiantly refused to implement the Minsk agreements signed by him.

Moscow put forward a number of demands that were designed to normalize Russia's relations with the West: not to bring American and other NATO troops and weapons to the brink of our country; not to expand NATO to the East, as all Western leaders promised in the late 1980s and early 1990s; refrain from admitting Ukraine to NATO; withdraw American tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe to national territory. Western countries and Ukraine responded with a categorical and arrogant refusal.

In January 2022, Moscow became aware of the preparations for a large-scale military operation in early March to seize Donbass and Crimea by Ukrainian troops with Western support. Russia was forced to take preventive measures.

On February 15, the State Duma voted in favor of an appeal to V.V. Putin with a request to consider the issue of recognizing the DNR and LNR. On February 21, the president issued decrees recognizing the DPR and LPR, and also signed treaties of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance with the republics. On February 22, the treaties were ratified by both chambers of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and the parliaments of the DPR and LPR. And on February 24, a special military operation (SMO) began: Russian troops entered the territory of Ukraine. The main objectives of the operation were to rid the DPR and LPR of daily shelling, ensure their sovereignty, demilitarize and denazify Ukraine.

Page 194

In the operation professional units of the Russian Armed Forces, Ros Guards, staffed by contract servicemen, as well as volunteers who had experience in combat operations took part. 

From the first days of the SMO, the overwhelming superiority of our Armed Forces in the air and at sea became apparent.  The latest high-precision weapons systems were used, which made it possible to strike at Ukrainian and NATO military infrastructure facilities deep in enemy territory. The production facilities of the Ukrainian military-industrial complex, enterprises for the production of fuels and lubricants, and military airfields were destroyed.

The Russian Armed Forces, fighters of the people's militia of the DPR and LPR demonstrated high courage, heroism, successfully solving the combat tasks assigned to them.

The first Heroes of Russia during the SMO  were the tank commander, senior sergeant Crimean Yuri Nimchenko, whose crew was the first to reach the border of the North Crimean Canal. When establishing control over the canal, the company commander of a separate coastal defense brigade, Senior Lieutenant Anton Starostin, distinguished himself.

In Penza, they are proud of the commander of the anti-aircraft missile division, Captain Alexei Pankratov, who shot down several enemy aircraft and attack drones. Major Viktor Dudin from Komsomolsk-on-Amur on his Su-35 won a lot of air duels with Ukrainian fighters. Primorye was glorified by Aleksey Bernhard, commander of the marine brigade of the Pacific Fleet, which broke through the 

Page 195 

defense in depth near Volnovakha which  played a big role in the capture of Mariupol. The commander of a tank company, Captain Alexei Levkin, personally destroyed many tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.

Paratrooper Senior Lieutenant Nurmagomed Gadzhimagomedov was awarded the title of Hero of the Russian Federation posthumously. He while seriously wounded, continued to fire until the last bullet. And once surrounded, he blew himself up and the Ukrainian militants surrounding him with a grenade. A street in Makhachkala was named after the hero.

 The titles of Hero of Russia and Hero of the DPR were also posthumously awarded to the commander of the legendary “Sparta” battalion of the people’s militia of the DPR, Vladimir Zhoge. He died covering the evacuation of women and children. The post of commander of "Sparta" took over his father - Artyom Zhoga

After the start of the SMO against Russia, the West imposed unprecedented sanctions. In direct violation of any wild norms, a significant part of our gold and foreign exchange reserves denominated in dollars and euros was frozen, Russia was cut off from international payment systems and deprived of the POSSIBILITY to make currency payments, a ban was introduced on a wide range of export-import operations, Russian property in Western countries was subjected to confiscation. Essentially, it was an outright robbery. Hundreds of Western companies left the Russian market. Thousands of Russian citizens and enterprises were under sanctions.

The goals were openly set “to tear the Russian economy to shreds”, cause hunger and a shortage of goods in us, give rise to people’s indignation, mass protests, achieve the overthrow of the government and the collapse of Russia to pieces.

To support the anti-people Kyiv regime, tens of billions of dollars were thrown, a huge amount of the most belted Western weapons, long-range guns that destroyed peaceful neighborhoods in the Donbass. The West acted, in fact, as the strategic rear of the Zelensky regime, hoping to force Kyiv to conduct military operations "to the last Ukrainian”.

The plans of Western strategists have completely failed. Our country has rallied in support of its Armed Forces and the goals of the liberation military operation. Support for VV Putin exceeded 80%.

The Russian economy withstood the most severe blows largely due to 

government measures to stabilize the financial system, support for domestic 

Page 196 

industry, import substitution, the creation of its own system of trade payments, and the use of national currencies between. folk accounts. By switching to selling natural gas to unfriendly countries only for rubles, the government significantly strengthened the exchange rate of the national currency.

External assistance to the Kyiv regime did not allow it to radically change the balance of forces on the battlefield, which was inexorably shifting in favor of our Armed Forces.

The plans for the international isolation of our country also failed. Sanctions against it were imposed only by the United States and its vassal countries, whose total population is noticeably less than 1 billion people, or 1/8 of the world's population. The largest states of the world, including our BRICS partners, which account for up to 45% of the world's inhabitants, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, have lent Russia a shoulder in a difficult situation. Not a single country in Africa, Latin America, the Islamic world has joined Western sanctions, where the years of Western colonial domination are well remembered and the true nature of the conflict around Ukraine is realized.

Russian export deliveries and import flows were quickly redirected from West to East, towards the most dynamically growing centers of the modern world (up to 60% of all world economic growth in the 2010s was accounted for by two countries of the world, China and India, each of which has a population of about 1.4 billion people). Our friendly countries have been able to receive a growing amount of Russian energy, food and other export products on favorable terms.

On the contrary, unfriendly states were among the first to suffer from the sanctions they themselves imposed on Russia. They resulted in an acute shortage of energy resources and a sharp rise in prices for them, a record surge in inflation for all groups of goods in 40 years, a fall in stock markets, an increase in protest movements, a fall in the authority of the authorities and government crises. In addition, our retaliatory measures have frozen the assets of Western companies in Russia, introduced large-scale personal sanctions.

This is not the first time our country has to fight with another contender for world domination. And she always came out of this test with honor, gaining victories over the forces of the united West. So it will be this time.

Our cause is right! The enemy will be defeated! Victory will be ours!

Why Russian elites do not understand the West?

 

Evan Gershkovich 

It is not only thugocracy. It is just plain shooting yourself in the foot. You could not make your cause more despised in the West than by antagonizing 38 top editors of news organizations  This clearly demonstrates how the Russian elite have  absolutely no understanding of the West. Why don’t they understand anything?   Who else but Orwell could better explain why this happens -  ‘The purpose of Newspeak was  to make all other modes of thought impossible. “ They cannot think in these categories. They do not know what they mean. 

A quote from:

Appendix.

The Principles of Newspeak

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word FREE still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to DIMINISH the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.

Be wary of paramilitaries

 

Regarding the agreement between Ben-Gvir and Netanyahu. 

“The government will approve at its next meeting a decision to form a National Guard and subjugate it to National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, in exchange for Ben-Gvir's party, Otzma Yehudit, promising not to leave the government over Netanyahu's intention to postpone the legislation of the first judicial reform bill.”

This is dangerous. Here is a quote from chapter 6, page 42,  of Timothy Snyder’s booklet “On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century”:

Be wary of paramilitaries

When the men with guns who have always claimed to be against the system start wearing uniforms and marching with torches and pictures of a leader, the end is nigh. When the pro-leader paramilitary and the official police and military intermingle, the end has come.

Is judicial reform more important than the Iranian nuclear threat? Has Bibi taken leave of his senses?

                        

Benjamin Netanyahu has been one of the few politicians who really understood the magnitude of the Iranian nuclear threat. Primarily because he had met with Bernard Lewis who explained to him the danger.  As Ari Shavit wrote in his article in Haaretz from 2012:   

A few years ago Netanyahu held an in-depth discussion with Middle East expert Bernard Lewis. At the end of the talk he was convinced that if the ayatollahs obtained nuclear weapons, they would use them. Since that day, Netanyahu seems convinced that we are living out a rerun of the 1930s     

Colonel Richard Kemp in 2015: 

There are striking similarities between the objectives of Churchill's speech nearly 75 years ago and Netanyahu's today; both with no less purpose than to avert global conflagration. And, like Churchill's in the 1930s, Netanyahu's is the lone voice among world leaders today.

Netanyahu at the 2018 United Nations General Assembly:

Now imagine the danger of hundreds of nuclear weapons in the hands of a vast Iranian Islamist empire, with the missiles to deliver them anywhere on earth.

The Iranian nuclear threat is real. It is not a figment of Bibi’s imagination. Michael Oren , Dore Gold , Benny Gantz  and Efraim Inbar   have all been predicting in the last few years that Israel was about to attack the Iranian nuclear sites.

On February 24 , 2023 Iran acknowledged that it had enriched uranium to 84 percent  purity. Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress on Thursday, March 23, 2023: 

 “From the time of an Iranian decision…Iran could produce fissile material for a nuclear weapon in less than two weeks, and would only take several more months to produce an actual nuclear weapon,”

And yet in last night’s speech to the nation Bibi did not mention Iran even once! 

What the demonstrators should be saying is:   

We want the government to slow down/postpone the judicial reforms and pay attention to the Iranian nuclear threat! The main purpose of a government is to protect its citizens from outside attack. To paraphrase Churchill, unless the government  takes care of the Iranian threat it will have committed an act of abdication of duty without parallel and worse, doom us all.    

 

Discussing Bernard Lewis’s warning on Iran and MAD with ChatGPT :)

Since nobody wants to discuss what Bernard Lewis had been saying for

years, I finally found someone to talk to.

Bernard Lewis has a warning on MAD and Iran. He said " For people with this mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an inducement...".  Why is the world ignoring what this scholar and historian of the Middle East said? 

Bernard Lewis was a well-known scholar and historian of the Middle East who passed away in 2018. He was known for his expertise in Islamic history and culture, and his views on contemporary issues in the Middle East were widely respected.

In his writings, Lewis expressed concerns about Iran's nuclear program and its potential to destabilize the region. He warned that Iran's leaders might not be deterred by the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), which is the idea that two nuclear-armed countries would not launch a first strike against each other because they know that the other side would retaliate with overwhelming force, resulting in mutually assured destruction.

Lewis argued that for some leaders in Iran, the prospect of MAD might not be a deterrent but an inducement. In other words, these leaders might believe that a nuclear exchange with Israel or the United States would be a desirable outcome, either because they believe they would emerge victorious or because they believe it would hasten the arrival of the Islamic messiah.

However, it is important to note that while Lewis was a respected scholar, his views were not universally accepted, and there are other experts who hold different opinions on the issue. Furthermore, geopolitical and strategic considerations are complex, and the situation in the Middle East is constantly evolving, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution to these challenges.

Overall, the world is not necessarily ignoring what Bernard Lewis said, but rather engaging in a robust debate about how best to address the challenges posed by Iran's nuclear program and its role in the region.

 

It is possible that Bernard Lewis's quote on MAD and Iran is not as widely known or cited as some of his other ideas, such as his contributions to the field of Middle Eastern studies. However, it is worth noting that the debate on Iran's nuclear program and its potential implications is ongoing, and many scholars and policymakers have expressed concerns about the issue.

In terms of political leaders citing Lewis's views on MAD and Iran, I do not have access to current political speeches or statements to provide a specific example. However, it is possible that some policymakers and experts have taken Lewis's ideas into consideration in their assessments of the situation in the Middle East.

Regarding experts who disagree with Lewis's views, there are a range of opinions on the issue. For example, some analysts argue that the Iranian regime is rational and would not launch a nuclear attack on Israel or the United States because it would result in the destruction of Iran itself. Others point to the fact that Iran has not yet developed nuclear weapons, and argue that there is still time for diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring them. Still, others argue that the best way to deal with Iran's nuclear program is through a combination of economic sanctions, diplomacy, and deterrence.

Ultimately, the issue of Iran's nuclear program is complex, and there are a variety of opinions on the best way to address it. It is important for policymakers and experts to consider a range of perspectives and engage in constructive dialogue to find the most effective solutions.

 

Could you name some of the experts who disagreed with Bernard Lewis on his stand on MAD and Iran?   

There are a number of experts who hold different views on the issue of MAD and Iran, and I can provide some examples:

Kenneth Waltz, a prominent international relations scholar, argued that nuclear proliferation can have a stabilizing effect on international relations, as it can deter aggression and reduce the likelihood of war. He also argued that the fear of MAD is a powerful deterrent, and that Iran's leaders would be rational enough to avoid a nuclear conflict.

Scott Sagan, another prominent scholar of international security, has argued that the concept of MAD can be effective in deterring nuclear war, but that it requires clear communication and credible signaling between the nuclear-armed states. He has also noted that the situation in the Middle East is particularly complex, as there are multiple actors with different interests and incentives.

Trita Parsi, an expert on Iran and the founder of the National Iranian American Council, has argued that Iran's leaders are rational actors who are motivated by a desire for security and regional influence, rather than a desire for martyrdom. He has also noted that Iran has consistently denied that it seeks to acquire nuclear weapons, and that the international community should engage in diplomacy to address the issue.

These are just a few examples of the range of views on the issue of MAD and Iran. It is worth noting that the situation is complex and there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and that experts may have different opinions based on their own expertise and analysis.

 

All these examples you mention are people who think that Iranian leaders are rational.  From what do you conclude that Iranian leaders are rational when Mahdi Khaliji, an Iranian Shi’ite scholar... has noted that there are apocalyptic hadiths [received Shi’ite traditions] that the Mahdi will not return unless one-third of the world population is killed and another third die?  Ahmadinejad and his followers believed man can actively create the conditions for the Mahdi’s arrival in the here and now. Do you consider that rational? 

It is important to note that the term "rational" is often used in different ways in political and social sciences. In the context of international relations, it generally means that political actors are seeking to achieve their objectives in a strategic and cost-effective manner, based on a rational calculation of costs and benefits. However, this does not necessarily mean that their goals or beliefs are always objectively rational or based on empirical evidence.

Regarding the specific issue of apocalyptic beliefs in Iran, it is true that some Iranian leaders and religious figures have expressed beliefs in the return of the Mahdi and the end of the world. However, it is worth noting that these beliefs are not necessarily unique to Iran or to Shi'ite Islam, and that they do not necessarily imply a desire for self-destruction or the destruction of others.

Furthermore, it is important to distinguish between religious beliefs and political objectives. While some Iranian leaders may hold apocalyptic beliefs, it does not necessarily follow that they would seek to bring about the end of the world through military means or by launching a nuclear attack. In fact, most experts on Iran agree that the Iranian regime is primarily motivated by a desire for security and regional influence, rather than a desire for martyrdom or the end of the world.

Ultimately, the situation in Iran is complex, and it is important to avoid simplistic or reductionist views of the country or its leadership. The best approach is to engage in constructive dialogue and diplomacy, based on a realistic understanding of the interests and perspectives of all parties involved.

 

But Bernard Lewis disagreed, and he believed that Iranian apocalyptic beliefs would trump political objectives, at least for some leaders like Ahmadinejad, and  yet there had never been a serious discussion on this  point. Why? Why was Bernard Lewis's quote ignored? After all, he was a respected scholar. 

It is possible that Bernard Lewis's quote on MAD and Iran has not received as much attention as it deserves because the issue of nuclear proliferation and the role of MAD in deterring nuclear war is a complex and highly technical topic, and it is not always easy to communicate the nuances of the debate to a wider audience. Additionally, there are many experts who hold different views on this issue, and it can be difficult to weigh the evidence and arguments in a balanced and objective way.

Regarding the specific issue of Iranian apocalyptic beliefs, it is worth noting that there has been some debate among scholars and policymakers about the extent to which these beliefs may influence Iranian decision-making on nuclear issues. Some experts have argued that Iranian leaders are primarily motivated by a desire for security and regional influence, while others have expressed concern that apocalyptic beliefs may override rational calculations of cost and benefit.

Ultimately, it is important for policymakers and analysts to take a balanced and nuanced approach to understanding Iranian motivations and objectives

The US has lost patience with Iran, but not with Abbas

 

Letters to the Editor, Jerusalem Post, February 1, 2023  

Flex its muscles

Yonah Jeremy Bob writes (“US finally lost patience,” January 31), that “the US has lost patience with the Islamic Republic and is willing in one way or another to flex its muscles and, according to foreign sources, give more support to Israel to do so.”

The US has lost patience with Iran. It’s about time. But the US has not lost patience with PA head Mahmoud Abbas. The Reuters headline reads: “Blinken reaffirms need for two-state solution after talks with Netanyahu.”

Again?! The Sisyphean cycle is starting again. Somehow democracies never seem to understand totalitarian ideologies in time and the consequences are many – 9/11, Afghanistan, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and the never-ending jihad against Israel.

It’s time for a new approach, says Robert Spencer in his book The Palestinian Delusion: The Catastrophic History of the Middle East Peace Process.

The problem is that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken will never read it.

MLADEN ANDRIJASEVIC

Beersheba