Saab 35 Draken: The Fighter Built For World War III With Russia

Saab 35 Draken – Sweden Had a Cold War Fighter to Be Reckoned With – As Sweden now ponders joining NATO after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, it is illustrative to examine a Swedish Cold War airplane that was meant to stand up to the Soviets. Sweden was neutral during that era, but its military feared a spill-over effect if the Soviets violated Swedish air space in a menacing manner. Thus, the Saab 35 Draken fighter emerged with an interesting and innovative design.

This Airplane Started Off with a Unique Design

In the late 1940s, Sweden wanted a fighter-interceptor that was fast and could climb quickly against enemy bombers. The requirements called for a large weapons storage, long endurance, and the ability to take off from short runways. Swedish engineers and technicians had a brainwave on a new design feature. They arrived on a unique double delta wing design that made the Draken stand out among other fighters of its day. This was a leap forward in what was possible in fighter jets at the time.

Double Delta Wing Was Like No Other

Military Factory described the wing design as a “two paired delta wings” working in tandem. One pair set forward with a “sharper sweep angle” and the second pair with a more “gradual angle.” This was mated with a single vertical tail.

It Became a Fast Fighter

By the 1950s this design resembled a kite, and it kept that nickname, even though the translation of Draken is “dragon.” The wings provided speed and maneuverability plus the ability to carry more fuel and weapons. The air intakes with elliptical openings allowed one prototype in the mid-1950s to break the sound barrier on a climb, which showed that the design of the Draken was advantageous.

Superstalls Were Dangerous

However, sometimes the airplane “superstalled”, (a sudden loss of altitude due to instability) and the test pilots were forced to create maneuvers that would avoid these dangers. This learning curve came at a cost. There were 179-Draken superstalls that resulted in 35-crashes that ended up killing four pilots. Since the Draken was exported to Finland, Austria, and Denmark, more pilots had to be trained on how to avoid these treacherous losses of altitude.

Saab 35: Pilots Had to React Quickly

To finally answer the question of superstalls, pilots learned the “Cobra Maneuver,” which National Interest described as “a technically challenging aerobatic display in which a rapid lift of the nose causes an airplane to fly forward perpendicular to the ground. While a pilot faces the sky, they momentarily turn the airframe into an enormous airbrake and so rapidly slows down the airplane.”

651 of the planes were produced over the decades and it emerged as the main fighter-interceptor for the Swedish air force. It was the first European-built airplane to reach MACH Two. The Draken never faced combat but it likely would have performed well against Soviet fighters in a dogfight. It carried an array of weapons including cannons, bombs, and Sidewinder air-to-air missiles.

Despite the danger of superstalls, the Draken had a sterling reputation and Austria even kept them in service until 2005, which meant that they flew 50 years. The original Swedish designers probably had no idea that the radical double delta wings would display that much durability.

Now serving as 1945’s Defense and National Security Editor, Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare. He is an Emerging Threats expert and former U.S. Army Infantry officer. You can follow him on Twitter @BMEastwood.

Read More

"UK RAISES ALERT LEVEL" said comedian John Cleese

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent Russian threats and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved.” Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even “A Bit Cross.” The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. The Russians have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance.” The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from “Pissed Off” to “Let’s Get the Bastards.” They don’t have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender.” The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France’s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing.” Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides.”

The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.” They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbour” and “Lose.”

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from “No worries” to “She’ll be alright, Mate.” Two more escalation levels remain: “Crikey! I think we’ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!” and “The barbie is cancelled.” So far, no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.

John Cleese – British writer, comedian, actor and tall person

Read More

"Russia has fallen. Forever"

"Russia has fallen. Forever"

Time Magazine dedicated the cover of the bloody war to the Russian Federation

#unitedphotopress

Read More

Meet The XB-70: The Largest And Fastest Bomber Ever Was Designed To Hit Russia

The XB-70 had speed and size going for it so it would surely be able to strike Russia with nuclear weapons during the Cold War. And yet, the bomber was canceled as time and new technology made the XB-70 sadly obsolete: It was way back in the early 1960s when the U.S. Air Force developed the XB-70 Valkyrie—which was the largest and fastest bomber ever built.

However, the aircraft—nearly two hundred feet long, thirty-one feet tall at the tail, and with a maximum gross weight of five hundred twenty-one thousand pounds—was eventually deemed obsolete and shut down by next-generation enemy defense missiles and fast-rising costs to keep it afloat.

But in a last-ditch effort to save the plane, “the Air Force and contractor North American Aviation developed several alternate uses for the plane, including everything from launching intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) to space capsules,” according to defense and security writer Kyle Mizokami at Popular Mechanics.

There were also thoughts of transforming the XB-70 into a commercial aircraft that could rival the Anglo-French-built Concorde SST.

“The XB-70 was designed to fly high and fast, outracing enemy air defenses on the ground to hit targets across the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, advances in Soviet air defenses made the XB-70’s flight profile obsolete, while the Pentagon discovered the new, land-based ICBM could strike targets far more quickly and cheaply,” Mizokami writes.

“The XB-70 was also considered expensive, with each production bomber projected to cost an estimated $24.5 million, or $237 million today. The final production cost was significantly higher and likely sealed the Space Age bomber’s fate,” he continues.

In addition to the sky-high costs, the XB-70 was seen as a potential partner “with the very system that made it obsolete: the ballistic missile. The Valkyrie was envisioned as carrying one large Minuteman II ICBM in an internal weapons bay, or two smaller Skybolt missiles.”

Not Practical

This would surely offer improved flexibility for decision-makers during wartime, but, in the end, it wasn’t deemed practical to spend that amount of money to launch just one or two missiles.

Other ideas for the XB-70 were to transform it into a hypersonic launch aircraft or the first stage for a space-launching system.

“The Valkyrie could fly to altitudes of up to 72,000 feet, negating the need for any rocket-based system to fly that distance. Several proposals saw a smaller rocket, space plane, or other space-launch system mated to the former bomber,” Mizokami notes.

Commercial Use?

Finally, in regards to its commercial use, “the XB-70 could fit 80 passengers in airline-style seating, with the convenience of a ‘hot liquid buffet.’ Alternately, it could transport seventy-two medical patients, plus attending nurses. It was even pitched as a cargo transport, with a hinged cabin allowing the loading of cargo pallets. Needless to say, none of these ideas passed the cost-to-utility test, as the Valkyrie would’ve been the most expensive people-mover ever pressed into service.”

Read More

Meet The Saab S37 Viggen: The Fighter Jet Built For A War With Russia

An underside view of a Swedish Saab 37 Viggen fighter aircraft during Exercise BALTOPS

Sure, NATO and the US developed what seems like countless fighter jets to ensure it could win a war against Russia. And yet, Sweden also prepared for such a conflict as well. Enter the S37 Viggen: Throughout the Cold War, the Scandinavian nation of Sweden maintained a strict policy of neutrality yet still prepared for a possible war with the Soviet Union.

To help facilitate the policy, Stockholm also adhered to a strict policy of indigenous design, development, and production of its frontline military equipment – notably aircraft. At the end of the 1960s, Sweden began to develop a new multirole fighter that was designed from the outset to be “battlefield friendly.” In this case, the aircraft needed to be able to take off from short runways and in a pinch use Sweden’s large networks of highways and remote roads. Moreover, the new fighter needed to be easy to refuel and rearm by conscript-level troops.

Enter the S37 Viggen

The result was the Saab S37 Viggen or “Thunderbolt,” a single-seat, single-engine fighter that featured a low double delta wing with two canards equipped with flaps. Designed to replace the aging Saab J35 Draken, the Viggen’s first flight took place in 1967 and it entered service with the Swedish Air Force in 1971. It was also the first canard-designed aircraft to be mass-produced, and at its introduction, it was the most advanced fighter jet in Europe and remained so until the Panavia Tornado entered service in 1981.

Several distinct variants of the Viggen were produced and these include the AJ37, which was designed to fulfill a strike fighter role; the aerial reconnaissance SF37; the SH37 maritime patrol version; a two-seat trainer SK37 version; and the JA37 all-weather fighter-interceptor. From 1970 to 1990 some 329 of the Viggens were produced, and Sweden was the only operator. In November 2006, the platform was retired.

S37 Viggen: A Number of Notable Firsts

The Viggen was powered by a Volvo RM 8 turbofan, which was, in essence, a license-built version of the Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine that was used to power commercial airliners in the 1960s. An afterburner was added to the S37, while the airframe also featured a thrust-reverser, which could be used during landings. It was the first aircraft to feature both an afterburner and thrust-reverser – a feature later seen in the Tornado and the Concorde commercial airliner. With its limited short take-off and landing (STOL) abilities, the Viggen could operate from airstrips that were around 500 meters.

The aircraft had a maximum speed of Mach 2.1 (1,385 miles per hour), a maximum range of 2,000 km with internal fuel, and a service ceiling of 18,000 meters. The RM 8 engine provided a rate of climb of 203 meters per second.

Designed as a single-seat aircraft, the Viggen featured advanced avionics, which included a central computer and heads-up display to replace a human navigator. This included the CK 37 (centralkalylator 37), the world’s first airborne computer to utilize integrated circuits.

The fighter was a true warbird, and was armed with a 30mm Oerlikon KCA cannon, and was also fitted with six underwing/under-fuselage hardpoints, which could be used to carry air-to-air and air-to-surface ordnance. Typical weapons loaded include AIM-9 Sidewinders, AIM-120 AMRAAM and RB71 Skyflash missiles.

While Stockholm originally planned to produce 800 of the Viggen, the order was cut short due to costs and the fact that the aircraft wasn’t offered for export, despite it being proposed as a replacement for NATO’s F-104 Starfighter. Saab had initially marketed the aircraft around the world, but Swedish export laws were an issue – while the United States also blocked a potential sale to India by not granting an export license for the engine, as it used American technology, thus giving Washington a say.

While the Viggen was never used in combat, this aircraft would have been like a thunderbolt from the heavens had any pilot of the Viggen taken to the skies in anger.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites. He regularly writes about military small arms and is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.

Read More

Tens of thousands of Ukrainians are pouring towards neighbouring countries to flee the Russian invasion

António Cossa on the way with the refugies from Ukraine - United Photo Press

In the three days since the invasion began, more than 115,000 have crossed into Poland alone - some travelling for more than two days, others joining queues 15km (10 miles) long at border points.

Those fleeing are mostly women and children, as all Ukrainian men aged 18 to 60 are being told to stay and fight.

On 2 March, major urban centres in certain parts of Ukraine, such as Kharkiv (east), Kherson (south), Mariupol (south-east), and the capital Kyiv, witnessed the most intense clashes since the Russian military offensive began on 24 February. Settlements along the “contact line” in Donetska and Luhanska oblasts, such as Volnovakha, Shchastia and Stanytsia Luhanska, have been heavily impacted. Between 4 a.m. on 24 February and 2 March 2022, OHCHR recorded 802 civilian casualties in Ukraine, including 249 people killed. The human cost of ongoing clashes is likely much higher as access and security challenges make it difficult to verify the actual number of deaths and injuries.

In recent days, many cities have experienced relentless shelling that has caused significant damage to crucial infrastructure and further restricted access to vital services. Critical supplies, including food, medicine and basic hygiene items, are becoming increasingly scarcer in the hardest-hit areas, while dwindling cash reserves, empty ATMs and suspended money transfer services have greatly curtailed affected people’s ability to purchase basic goods even when markets are functioning and accessible.

Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) needs, especially in eastern Ukraine, continue to worsen as escalating tensions prevent urgently needed repair works from being carried out, while limited access makes it more difficult for partners to provide WASH assistance. In Mariupol, Sartana and Staryi Krym, around 470,000 people remain without access to water.

Stoppages in the water supply are also reportedly affecting the functioning of heating systems in certain locations amid freezing winter temperatures.

Moreover, the health needs generated by the ongoing conflict are particularly acute. The World Health Organization (WHO) says it has received several unconfirmed reports of attacks on hospitals and health infrastructure. There are critical shortages of oxygen and other critical drugs and medical supplies, as conflict-related injuries and COVID-19 infections place increasing strain on the already-weak healthcare system. With millions of people now on the move, the conditions on the ground are ripe for the spread of COVID-19, potentially triggering a double health emergency that could overwhelm the health system.

Refugees flee across EU borders as Russian attacks continue. António Cossa - United Photo Press

In Kyiv, thousands of people continue to pack overcrowded train stations in an attempt to flee the capital as Russian troops advance towards the city, limiting the movement of people and essential goods in and out of the city. On 2 March, debris from a powerful explosion reportedly landed close to the central railway station in Kyiv used to evacuate thousands of women and children. The level of damage and number of civilian causalities have yet to be confirmed.

The most affected areas of the country are facing a full-blown humanitarian crisis. Increasing numbers of people are trapped in cities under constant attack, as wide-scale evacuations have not been possible in certain locations.

As clashes escalate, a growing number of people are being displaced every day within Ukraine and across international borders, increasing the scope and scale of the ongoing crisis into neighbouring countries. one million people have fled Ukraine over the last week – the equivalent of more than 142,000 people on average per day – a number that will likely increase as constant violence and destruction of homes displaces more people.

The situation of third country nationals from countries in Africa and South Asia and other ethnic minority groups in Ukraine, including the Roma population, is particularly concerning, as there have been numerous reports of discrimination and even violence against these vulnerable groups. The Roma population lack civil status documents, limiting access to critical services, including education and health, and potentially humanitarian assistance as many Roman internally displaced people were not registered prior to the current escalation in conflict.

Antonio Cossa

United Photo Press Photojornalist 

Read More

Calamity, Again – An Anne Applebaum essay on Putin

Like the Russian tsars who preceded him — like Stalin, like Lenin — Putin also considers “Ukraine” a threat. Not a military threat, but an ideological threat.

My God, calamity again!

It was all so peaceful, so serene;

We had just started to break the chains

That hold our people in slavery

When stops! Once again the blood of the people

It's pouring…

The poem is called ‘Calamity Again’. The original version was written in Ukrainian in 1859, and the author, Taras Shevchenko, did not speak metaphorically when he wrote about slavery. Shevchenko was born into a family of serfs—slaves—on an estate in what is now central Ukraine, in what was then the Russian empire. Taken from his family as a child, he followed his master to St. Petersburg, where he learned painting and also began writing poetry. There, impressed by his talent, a group of other artists and writers helped him buy his freedom.

When Shevchenko wrote 'Calamity Again' he was universally recognized as Ukraine's most prominent poet. He was known as Kobzar or “The Troubadour” — a name taken from his first collection of poems, published in 1840 — and his words defined the particular set of memories and emotions that we would now describe as Ukraine’s “national identity.” His language and style are not contemporary. However, it suddenly seems important to introduce this 19th-century poet to readers outside Ukraine, because it suddenly seems important to make this same set of memories and emotions tangible to an audience that won't read Shevchenko's romantic ballads. Much has been written about Russian views of Ukraine; many speculated about Russian objectives in Ukraine. The President of Russia, on Monday, February 21, informed us in an hour-long speech that he thinks Ukraine should not exist. But what does Ukraine mean to Ukrainians?

The Ukrainians emerged from the medieval state of Kyivan Rus—the same state from which the Russians and Belarusians also emerged—to, at some point, become, like the Irish or Slovaks, a colony of other empires. In the 16th and 17th centuries, Ukrainian nobles learned to speak Polish and participated in Polish court life; later, some Ukrainians strove to be part of the Russian-speaking world, learning Russian and aspiring to positions of power first in the Russian empire, then in the Soviet Union.

However, during these same centuries, a feeling of “Ukraine” also developed, linked to the peasantry, serfs and farmers who could not or did not want to assimilate. The Ukrainian language, as well as Ukrainian art and music, were preserved in the countryside, despite the fact that Polish or Russian is spoken in the cities. Saying “I am Ukrainian” was once a statement about status and social position as well as ethnicity. “I am Ukrainian” meant that people deliberately defined themselves against the nobility, against the ruling class, against the merchant class, against the townspeople. Later it could mean that people were defining themselves as being against the Soviet Union: Ukrainian resisters fought the Red Army in 1918 and then again in the last days of the Second World War and the early years of the Cold War. Ukrainian identity was anti-elitist, before the term anti-elitist was commonly used, often furious and anarchic, occasionally violent. In fact, some of Shevchenko's poetry is very angry and very violent.

In the 19th century, Ukrainian patriotism, as it could not be expressed through state institutions as Italian or German patriotism at the same time, was expressed through voluntary, religious and charitable organizations, early examples of what we now call “civil society”. ”: study and self-help groups that published newspapers and magazines, founded schools and Sunday schools, promoted literacy among peasants. As they gained strength and supporters, Moscow came to see these popular Ukrainian organizations as a threat to the unity of imperial Russia. In 1863 and again in 1876, the empire banned Ukrainian books and persecuted Ukrainians who wrote and published them. Shevchenko himself spent years in exile.

Still, “Ukraine” survived in the villages and grew stronger among intellectuals and writers, remaining powerful enough to persuade Ukrainians to make their first state proposal at the time of the Bolshevik revolution in 1917. ensuing civil war, the Bolsheviks immediately realized that Ukraine should have its own republic within the Soviet Union, run by Ukrainian communists. Ukrainian distrust of authority, especially Soviet authority, remained. When, in 1929, Stalin began the forced collectivization of agriculture throughout the Soviet Union, a series of rebellions broke out in Ukraine. Stalin, like the Russian imperial aristocracy previously, began to fear that he might, as he put it, “lose” Ukraine: he feared that even the Ukrainian communists would not want to obey his orders. Shortly afterwards, members of the Soviet secret police organized teams of activists to go from house to house in rural Ukraine, confiscating food. About 4 million Ukrainians died due to the famine that followed. Mass arrests of Ukrainian intellectuals, writers, linguists, museum curators, poets and painters followed.

Simple lines cannot be drawn between the past and the present. There are no direct analogies; no nation is forced to repeat its past. But the experiences of our parents and grandparents, the habits and lessons they taught us, shape the way we see the world, and it is perhaps no accident that at the end of the 20th century, Stalin's greatest fear happened and Ukrainians once again organized, this time successfully, a popular civic movement that achieved independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. It is perhaps no accident that many Ukrainians have remained suspicious of the state, even their own state, in the years following. Because the state — the government, the rulers, the “power” — had always been “them” and not “us”, there was no tradition of Ukrainian civil service or military service; there was no tradition of public service. If the cancer of corruption, which afflicted all the weary, cynical and exhausted former republics formed in the wreckage of the Soviet Union, was particularly virulent in Ukraine, this is part of the explanation.

But in the long tradition of their parents and grandparents, millions of Ukrainians continued to resist both corruption and autocracy. And precisely because it opposed post-Soviet kleptocracy, “Ukraine” in the 21st century has become intertwined with aspirations for democracy, freedom, rule of law, integration in Europe. At the beginning of the 21st century, Ukrainians began to oppose the post-Soviet system, linked to Russia by financial interests, and began once again to intervene for something more just and honest.

Twice, in 2005 and 2014, Ukrainian self-organized street movements toppled kleptocratic and autocratic leaders who, backed by Russia, had tried to “steal” Ukrainian elections and overturn the rule of law. In 2005, Russia responded with a renewed effort to interfere in Ukrainian politics. In 2014, Russia responded with an invasion of Crimea and several attacks on cities in eastern Ukraine. The only successful attacks were in the far east, in Donbas, because the “separatist” movement created by Russia could be supported by the Russian army.

But Ukraine's character remained unchanged. In 2019, 70% of Ukrainians once again voted against the system. A complete stranger has become President: a Jewish actor born in eastern Ukraine, with no political experience but a long history of making fun of those in power — the kind of humor that Ukrainians value most. Volodymyr Zelensky was known for playing an oppressed professor who speaks out against corruption and is filmed by a student. In the television series, this footage goes viral, the professor accidentally wins the presidency, and then everyone — his nasty boss, his unfriendly family, wealthy strangers — is suddenly sycophantic. Zelensky, the actor, makes fun of them, tricking them. The Ukrainians wanted Zelensky, the real-life President, to do the same.

During the election campaign, Zelensky also vowed to end the war with Russia, the ongoing and debilitating conflict along the border with eastern Ukraine that has claimed more than 14,000 lives in the past decade. Many Ukrainians expected him to achieve this too. The President tried to establish links with the inhabitants of the occupied areas of Crimea and Donbas; he asked for meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin; however, he continued to seek Ukrainian integration with the West.

And then, calamity again.

It was all so peaceful, so serene;

We had just started to break the chains

That hold our people in slavery

When stops! Once again the blood of the people

It's pouring…

Ukraine is now under brutal attack, with tens of thousands of Russian troops pouring through its eastern provinces, along its northern border and along its southern coast. For, like the Russian tsars who preceded him — like Stalin, like Lenin — Putin also considers “Ukraine” a threat. It is not a military threat, but an ideological threat. Ukraine's determination to become a democracy is a real challenge to Putin's nostalgic imperial political project: the creation of an autocratic kleptocracy, in which he is all-powerful, within something akin to the former Soviet empire. Ukraine undermines this project solely for its existence as an independent state. Fighting for something better, for freedom and prosperity, Ukraine becomes a dangerous rival. For if Ukraine were to succeed in its decades-long struggle for democracy, rule of law and European integration, then Russians might ask: why not us?

I am not romantic about Zelensky, nor do I have any illusions about Ukraine, a nation of 40 million people, among them the same percentages of good and bad, brave and cowardly people, as anywhere else. But at this moment in history, something unusual happens there. Among those 40 million, a significant number — at all levels of society, across the country, in all fields of activity — aspire to create a fairer, freer and more prosperous country than they have ever inhabited in the past. Among them are people willing to dedicate their lives to the fight against corruption, to the deepening of democracy, to remain sovereign and free. Some of these people are willing to die for these ideas.

Conflict will be important to all of us in ways we cannot yet understand. In the long struggle between autocracy and democracy, between dictatorship and freedom, Ukraine is now the front line — and our front line too.

#unitedphotopress 

Anne Applebaum
“The Atlantic” Journalist, writer, author of “The Twilight of Democracy”

Read More

THE WAR HAS A NAME - VLADIMIR PUTIN

All our abstract sobs, all pacifist slogans (for peace and for all that is good) are just verbiage if we do not understand who unleashed the war. Talking that all sides are to blame for the war is hypocrisy. This war has an instigator, BUT HE IS NOT ONE.

Remember the meeting of the Security Council? How did the ghoul methodically, one by one, call his accomplices and smear them with blood on camera, and they were shaking with fear, being anointed?

I do not blame them at all, I myself would have behaved in their place.

But the fact is that we are all smeared with blood here. You can, of course, consider that self-condemnation is a painful reaction to stress, but my memory is very good and my head works, despite emotions. I understood everything long ago and did not condemn myself on February 24th.

They constantly write to me here about Donetsk children killed by Ukrainian shells, saying that I don’t feel sorry for them. So, thinking about the notorious collective responsibility, I recall Dostoevsky, this remark by Porfiry Petrovich:

- You killed...

Who killed the children, saving whom from the evil fascists, Russian soldiers are now burning Kharkov, Chernigov and Kyiv?

YOU killed them, WE ALL killed them.

Everyone who supported Putin, albeit with reservations. Everyone who rejoiced at KRYMNASh. All those who made fun of the "ridiculous language" of a small neighboring country. All those who "did not interfere in politics." All those who repeated the terrible news from the Donbass, without giving them any assessment.

I want to learn more about this news, since I myself was involved in this.

In 2014, I worked as a designer in a good RR magazine, whose editor-in-chief, very kind and smart Vitaly L., a native of Donetsk land, turned it into a “mouthpiece of Donbass”.

The transformation happened almost instantly, and I did not notice how I was already typesetting the weekly sheets of Donetsk letters from the selfless journalist Marina A.

Well, I didn't notice. I noticed everything. I read all these terrible (and true!) stories about Donetsk children, old people (Putin is currently “protecting” them), militias, dogs, and I understood that, perhaps, there is not a drop of lies in them from beginning to end, but in general, these artless stories were the most terrible lies.

It was a deception of "objective" journalism, when only facts are allegedly presented without any conclusions, but, in fact, there is an interchange of cause and effect.

“Children are dying from Ukrainian shells, so the militiaman Ivan could not help but go to war,” and all this with direct speech, right from the scene, was obtained at the risk of life.

And it's all true. And the children are dying, which is terrible, and the militiaman Ivan did not lie, and the journalist Marina is fearless.

But the cause is confused with the effect, again they forgot to tell us who started the war, who is the aggressor country, and who is the victim. They forgot to remind you that there are no bloodless invasions of foreign territory, and in order for the Ukrainian projectile to fly in this direction, it was first necessary to arrange a wonderful spring holiday in the Crimea, then “go to the Voentorg” for weapons for the militias in the East. We were not told what any alteration of the borders is fraught with, they did not even hint, for the slow-witted, what they would do with the armed separatists on the territory of the Russian Federation itself.

It would be boring to read all this, but the touching personal story of the militiaman Ivan and his dog, who left the hut and went to fight, is interesting to us.

No, besides stories, they told something: about the dehumanization of the Donbass (Ukrainians consider them eastern subhumans), about the Ukrainian ultra-right (it is necessary to show their stripes with swastikas), but again, they forgot to remind how many fascists there are in Ukraine and what percentage they receive in the elections .

This was not a “crucified boy” of federal channels, not an obvious lie, but a more terrible kind of lie that cannot be refuted, which lies only in the subtext, in the reason and purpose of the text, and not in its words.

And, even without believing in the Russian World, it was necessary to take note and conclude that “not everything is so simple” - yes, Putin is not perfect, but the “other side” is also no better.

All this, one way or another, was a “blood libel”, which should inevitably raise the degree of hatred and cause an influx of new “Ivans” leaving their native huts to die for the Russian World.

And it was a vicious circle - as the Russian World advanced (or actively defended), there were more and more tortured children, "angels of Donbass", and the children, in turn, were raised on the flag for the further offensive of the Russian World.

No one explained why, where the Russian World did not come, Russian people did not die, but simply lived.

The kindest Vitaly fed everyone with pies from Donetsk, the selfless Marina took pictures of children and dogs and sent reports, and I, a modest performer, arranged texts and photos into a simple layout of the Actual heading.

What prevented me from leaving the magazine as soon as everything started? Fear of losing a job, promiscuity in ways of earning? 

A little bit of both, but the main thing is a complete misunderstanding that any of my actions will have consequences. The action seemed so small, I was too easily replaced to feel like a significant link in this chain.

Yes, of course, I went to all the rallies, I always expressed my position openly and it was disgusting to make up these reports, but I felt like a victim, not an accomplice.

And the work of hell was being done, the “blood libel” was getting stronger and one day, while relaxing in a village near Ryazan, I heard from the light room, where the TV was comfortably blinking news, the remarks of those sitting at evening tea: “a bomb should have been dropped on Ukraine long ago” and the calm affirmative answer of those chewing mouth

Then I probably thought for the first time that I didn’t want not only to typeset some magazines, but also to live in Russia.

So who killed these children? 

Ukrainians who considered Russians subhuman (there were such), careless Ukrainian artillerymen (for sure there were), irresponsible Ukrainian politicians (I'm sure they were)?

No, guys, after all, it was the one who invaded a foreign country, sent in troops and brought equipment, conducted constant propaganda in the Russian Federation, collecting cannon fodder, the one who commanded the actions of the separatists from the outside (as Girkin tells about it), the one who who interviewed and photographed them, who published touching reports about them, who made up these reports, received a salary and paid taxes to the budget. That is, WE.

Surely this will be read by those who did all this out of duty and conviction, and those who, on the contrary, are completely clean (“we did not choose them”).

I will tell everyone - we are still TOGETHER. Together we will roar. Together we will meet the corpses of Russian soldiers. Together we will learn about terrorist attacks in the Moscow metro. Together we will receive our share of grief and hatred, regardless of beliefs and degree of guilt.

We are all - both accomplices and victims, we are in this position, even if they did not ask us, we were put in this position, but this does not change anything.

Ivan Grigoriev

#НетВойне / #No war 

Read More

Putin’s Historic Miscalculation May Make Him a War Criminal

The West condemns Russia’s aggression as “barbaric” and “horrific,” as Biden warns that conflict could drag on for weeks or months.

In the eyes of the world and almost certainly history, Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine on Thursday was an epic miscalculation, drawing comparisons to Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein for cold-blooded aggression that could challenge the world order and change its borders. The Russian leader appeared almost delusional in a pre-dawn speech from the Kremlin announcing a “special military operation” to “protect” Donbas, the eastern region where Russian-backed separatists have waged a war for eight years. Putin, instead, immediately ordered Russian tanks into Ukraine and air strikes on the capital and more than a dozen cities in a country of forty million people. “Peace on our continent has been shattered,” the nato secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg told reporters. “We now have war in Europe on a scale and of a type we thought belonged to history.” Putin’s “reckless” attack risks “countless innocent lives,” Stoltenberg warned.

Putin is now, at minimum, a pariah condemned by leaders across the world. “Putin is the aggressor. Putin chose this war,” President Biden said in a speech to the nation announcing new sanctions on Russian financial institutions and élites. He charged that Putin “has much larger ambitions than Ukraine.” “He wants to, in fact, reëstablish the former Soviet Union,” Biden said. “His ambitions are completely contrary to the place where the rest of the world has arrived.” In one of a flurry of statements reflecting outrage globally, the European Commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, called Russia’s act “barbaric” and dismissed its justifications as “cynical.” In a tweet, the British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, said he was appalled by Putin’s “horrific” decision to pursue “a path of bloodshed and destruction.” Putin’s military offensive put him on the diplomatic defensive. The French President, Emmanuel Macron, called the attack “a turning point” in history that will have a profound and lasting impact across the continent.

Putin may now also qualify as a war criminal, according to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. War crimes include willful killing and extensive destruction of property “not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.” The term has been inconsistently interpreted and unevenly applied to leaders or countries—including to the U.S. and its officials—who have initiated aggression for reasons considered unjustified. In Ukraine, Putin’s “war of choice” has clearly violated international law through his invasion of a sovereign country and attempt to oust its government. After an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting, on Wednesday, the Secretary-General, António Guterres, warned that the Russian invasion could be the “worst war” of the century “with consequences not only devastating for Ukraine, not only tragic for the Russian Federation” but for the entire world.

Putin has lied at every stage of the Ukraine crisis, insisting last year that he had no military ambitions in Ukraine even as he steadily amassed a force of nearly two hundred thousand troops on three fronts. During a joint press conference with the German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, last week, Putin played down the prospect of war. “Do we want this or not? Of course not,” he said, in response to a question. “That is exactly why we put forward proposals for a process of negotiations.” As he spoke, however, his military was setting up field hospitals near the Ukrainian border stocked with fresh blood supplies. “You don’t need blood unless you plan on starting a war,” President Biden noted on Tuesday.

Putin’s invasion is based on wild accusations, including a claim that he needed to “denazify” Ukraine, a country led by President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is, in fact, Jewish. Putin vowed to end the “humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime,” when, in fact, separatists backed by Russia have for years waged a war in eastern Ukraine. Putin also claimed that the Kyiv government sought to acquire nuclear weapons when, in fact, Ukraine, once the third-largest nuclear power, denuclearized after the Soviet Union collapsed and it became an independent country again. He described the government in Kyiv as a “junta,” even though it was democratically elected in 2019. And Zelensky, in fact, won in a landslide with seventy-three per cent of the vote, defeating thirty-eight others who ran for President.

In a plaintive final appeal, Zelensky spoke directly to the Russian people, hours before the attack. “You are being told this is a plan to free the people of Ukraine,” Zelensky said, in an official video in Russian. “But the Ukrainian people are free.” He implored Russian citizens to embrace peace. “Many of you have visited Ukraine. Many of you have relatives here,” he said. “You know our character, you know our people, and you know our principles. You know what we value. . . . Hear us.”

Putin was, in fact, the one who sparked the crisis with an erroneous—even fictional—claim that Ukraine would soon gain membership in nato. Joining the Western military alliance is an aspirational goal for Ukraine, which it enshrined in a constitutional amendment in 2019. But nato’s leadership has openly said that Ukraine does not yet qualify for membership. It would have to introduce and enact multiple reforms that may be years away.

To counter Putin’s paranoia, the Biden Administration has offered detailed proposals to enhance security for Russia. They included offers on arms control as well as limits on military exercises. Putin’s response has been defiant. He demanded that Ukraine never join nato and the Western military alliance roll back its membership to its 1997 level. As Russian forces advance across the country, Putin’s goal now appears to be regime change by military force—a step that he criticized the U.S. for taking in Iraq. In a reflection of his paranoia, Putin even suggested that the invasion of Ukraine was to protect Russia from the U.S. “For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation,” he said. And he brazenly reminded the world, “Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states.”

Russia experts and former U.S. officials increasingly question Putin’s stability, especially as he has surrounded himself with like-minded advisers and yes-men who encourage his ambitions to rewrite history. “Putin believes that in historical terms, as in Peter the Great and so on, blood will be forgotten and his legacy as the uniter of the ‘Russian lands,’ no matter the cost, will remain,” Nina Khrushcheva, an international-affairs professor at the New School in New York and the great-granddaughter of former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, told me. She said the Russian leader appears to “have lost all grip on reality, more so than I was willing to admit only yesterday.” She added, “I didn’t think he was suicidal, but he clearly is, and is taking the world and us with him.” She described Putin as a “ruthless megalomaniac with a giant imperialist agenda” akin to Stalin and Mao.

Others compared him to Hitler. “There are many parallels between Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939 and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022,” Michael McFaul, the former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, who is now at Stanford University, tweeted on Thursday. Putin no longer appears to be a rational actor on the international stage, experts say. “I hate comparing people to Hitler, but Putin’s crazy talk is making it hard to avoid,” Stephen Sestanovich, a Russia expert at Columbia University, told me. “Did he think forcing all of his advisers to stand up on television and say, in such obvious discomfort, that they agreed with him would make the decision for war look careful and deliberate? My Russian friends suggest something different—is this guy losing it?”

Russian forces may make military progress in the short term. Biden acknowledged that the weeks or months ahead will be hard on Ukrainians, with a spillover on the world and its markets. But Putin is betting his political future on whether Russia can prevail long-term in Ukraine. “Putin’s gamble seems to be that he can be in charge of what comes next, how far and wide this spreads,” Karen J. Greenberg, the director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law School, told me. “That is a foolish lack of appreciation for the power nato and the other countries have to contain his incursion—and in that lies his miscalculation.”

Holding Ukraine, given its vast size and population, will be a challenge militarily and politically. Russia has the largest land army in Europe, but it would need to send in many more troops than it already has to occupy the entire country, which is roughly the size of Texas. The Ukrainian government has called up reservists and promised weapons to civilians to form a public resistance force. They could create an insurgency challenging Russian control of part or all of Ukraine, experts predict. “It’s impossible to hold on the long term,” Marie Dumoulin, director of the wider Europe program at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told me. “Whether we’re in for a long and bloody war, or whether there will be a contest inside of Russia against this decision, but I don’t see it as a realistic goal to control Ukraine.” Russia can not prevail, Biden said. “In the early days of this conflict, Russia propaganda outlets will keep trying to hide the truth and claim success for its military operation against a made-up threat,” he said. “But history has shown time and again how swift gains in territory eventually give way to grinding occupations, acts of massive mass civil disobedience, and strategic dead ends.” The first day of the invasion was just that—the first day.

Robin Wright

Read More