International
Is Russia at War With Ukraine, or With the West?
 |
|
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock this week, on entering a “new era of nefariousness”:
I say clearly and across the Atlantic, what is right and what is wrong shall never be irrelevant to us. No one wants and no one needs peace more than the Ukrainians and Ukraine. The diplomatic efforts of the U.S. are of course important here. But such a peace must be just and lasting and not just a pause until the next attack… We will never accept a perpetrator-victim reversal. A perpetrator-victim reversal would be… the end of security for the vast majority of countries. And it would be fatal for the future of the United States.
Baerbock’s declaration that a “perpetrator-victim reversal” (a Täteropferumkehr, I’m reliably informed) would be “fatal” to the U.S. was historic. It was accompanied by a promise that “as transatlantacists,” Europeans must “stand up for our own interests, our own values, and our own security.” Although new leaders are ready to take the reins in Germany, she said, there can be no waiting for the transfer of power. Immediately, “Germany must take the lead at this historic milestone.”
A few years ago Baerbock pleaded for patience with a British conservative who demanded to know why Germany wasn’t providing Leopard tanks to Ukraine.
Now, with Donald Trump cutting off weapons deliveries and shutting down access to ATACMS missiles, Baerbock’s speech is an expression of more enthusiastic European support for continued fighting.
The war in Ukraine is often called a proxy conflict between Russia and the West or Russia and the U.S., but it increasingly looks more like a fight between Baerbock’s “transatlanticists” and those who believe in “spheres of influence.” In preparing Racket’s accompanying “Timeline: The War in Ukraine,” I found both sides articulated this idea repeatedly.
In January, 2017, as he was preparing to relinquish his seat to Mike Pence, Joe Biden alluded to the recent election of Donald Trump in a speech at Davos. Describing the “dangerous willingness to revert to political small-mindedness” of “popular movements on both the left and right,” Biden explained:
We hear these voices in the West—but the greatest threats on this front spring from the distinct illiberalism of external actors who equate their success with a fracturing of the liberal international order. We see this in Asia and the Middle East… But I will not mince words. This movement is principally led by Russia.
Biden even then lumped Trump and Putin together, as enemies of the “liberal international order.” Russian counterparts like Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, meanwhile, spoke of a “post-West world order” where diplomatic relations would be based on “sovereignty” and the “national interests of partners.” These are two fundamentally irreconcilable worldviews. Was conflict inevitable, or could peace have held if Russia didn’t strike in 2022?
There’s no question who invaded whom. Hostilities began in February, 2022 with an angry speech by Vladimir Putin and bombs that landed minutes later in Ukraine. Little discussion of the “why” of the war took place in the West, however.
Phrases like “unprovoked aggression” became almost mandatory in Western coverage. Politico interviewed a range of experts and concluded that what Putin wanted was “a revanchist imperialist remaking of the globe to take control of the entire former Soviet space.” This diagnosis of Putin’s invasion as part of a Hitlerian quest for Lebensraum and a broader return to national glory might have merit, but it was also conspicuously uncontested. A differing article by University of Chicago professor John Mearshimer declaring the crisis “the West’s fault” made him, as The New Statesman just put it, “the world’s most hated thinker.” Few went there after.
Russians and Ukrainians don’t have the typical profiles of ancient warring tribes. They have a deeply intertwined history, with citizens of both countries retaining many of the same customs, jokes, and home remedies, while living in the same crumbling Soviet buildings, with fondness for the same cabbage soup and moonshine. There are huge numbers of mixed/bilingual families and many famous cultural figures (including my hero Nikolai Gogol) are claimed by both countries. They’ve fought before, but what jumped out reviewing this “Timeline” is how much it seemed that these old Slavic neighbors mostly fall out now over attitudes toward the West.
It’s hard looking back not to be struck by the superior tone of bodies like the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), whose “reviews” of Ukrainian and Russian elections often read like zoological descriptions of inferior species. Same with a tsk-tsking report by a mission of visiting IMF economists in 2013, who were appalled by Ukrainian energy subsidies that were among of the few popular remnants of Soviet life.
These imperious Western assessments of childlike Slavs, and the panic and shame of some local officials before such foreign judgments, recall familiar satires in Russian literature (The Government Inspector comes to mind). Nationalists in both countries balked at this “advice,” and by the late nineties some came to the conclusion that the cost of cooperation with the West was greater than the benefit. These dynamics accelerated after the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the Maidan events of 2013-2014, which Russians still see as a West-backed coup and the beginning of the current war. Russians will say “first blood” was drawn in military operations against Donbass protesters around the same time. Those in the West will point at the 2014 annexation of Crimea as the beginning of territorial war.
The idea of Germany “taking the lead” in a war to secure the primacy of “transatlanticists” worries me more than trying to pronounce Täteropferumkehr. However, whether or not you think Baerbock is right, and a peace deal now would be a worthless “pause,” depends a lot on how you read this history. What do you think, and why?
MxM News
Quick Hit:
Senior Trump advisor Massad Boulos says the U.S. is brokering a peace deal between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda that will be paired with “Ukraine-style” mineral agreements to stabilize the war-torn region.
Key Details:
-
The U.S. wants Congo and Rwanda to sign a peace treaty and, on the same day, finalize critical mineral supply deals with Washington. Boulos told Reuters that both deals are expected within two months.
-
Rwanda’s side of the treaty involves halting support for M23 insurgents, while the DRC has pledged to address Rwanda’s concerns about the Hutu-dominated FDLR militant group.
-
DRC President Tshisekedi has floated the idea of giving the U.S. exclusive access to Congolese minerals in exchange for help against M23. “Our partnership would provide the U.S. with a strategic advantage,” he wrote in a letter to President Trump.
Diving Deeper:
According to a Thursday report from Reuters, President Donald Trump’s administration is accelerating efforts to finalize a dual-track strategy in central Africa—pushing for a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, while simultaneously brokering “Ukraine-style” mineral deals with both nations.
Massad Boulos, Trump’s senior adviser on Africa, told Reuters that the administration expects the mineral agreement with Congo to be signed on the same day as the peace treaty, followed shortly by a separate deal with Rwanda. “The [agreement] with the DRC is at a much bigger scale, because it’s a much bigger country and it has much more resources,” Boulos explained, while noting Rwanda’s potential in refining and trading minerals is also significant.
The DRC and Rwanda have set a tight timetable, agreeing to exchange draft treaty proposals on May 2nd and finalize the accord by mid-May. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to preside over the next round of negotiations in Washington.
Rwanda’s cooperation hinges on its withdrawal of support for M23 rebels, who have taken over key territories in eastern Congo. These insurgents have even paraded through captured towns alongside Rwandan troops, prompting international condemnation. In return, Congo has committed to addressing Rwanda’s longstanding concern over the presence of the FDLR—a militant group composed largely of Hutu fighters accused of plotting to overthrow Rwanda’s Tutsi-led government. The FDLR has been active in the region for years and remains a major point of contention.
The instability in eastern Congo—home to over a hundred armed groups—has prevented investors from tapping into the country’s vast mineral wealth. The DRC holds an estimated $24 trillion in untapped resources, including cobalt, copper, lithium, and tantalum, all essential for advanced electronics, renewable energy systems, and defense applications. Boulos emphasized that no deal will go forward unless the region is pacified: “Investors want security before they invest billions.”
Reports suggest M23 has seized control of major mining operations, funneling stolen minerals into Rwanda’s supply chain. Though the UN’s peacekeeping mission, MONUSCO, was designed to stabilize the region, it has been ineffective during this latest wave of violence. President Tshisekedi asked the mission to withdraw last year, and several countries—including South Africa, Malawi, and Tanzania—are now pulling their peacekeepers after M23 captured the regional capital of Goma in January.
Red Cross teams began evacuating trapped Congolese soldiers and their families from rebel-held areas on Wednesday. At least 17 UN peacekeepers have been killed so far this year.
In a March letter to President Trump, President Tshisekedi made his case for a strategic partnership, offering exclusive U.S. access to Congo’s mineral wealth in exchange for American support against the insurgency. “Your election has ushered in the golden age for America,” he wrote, describing the proposed deal as a “strategic advantage” for the United States.
Boulos, who has longstanding business ties in Africa, quickly visited the DRC following the letter and began working to finalize the terms of the proposed agreement.
From The Center Square
By
The U.S. Treasury Department is cracking down on Mexican cartel crude oil smuggling in Texas and along the southwest border.
The department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control on Thursday (OFAC) sanctioned multiple Mexican nationals and Mexico-based entities involved in a drug trafficking and fuel theft network connected to the Mexican cartel, Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG).
In February, the Trump administration designated CJNG and other Mexican cartels and transnational criminal organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) and Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT).
Crude oil smuggling, “huachicol,” is interconnected with “a slew of criminal activities, including fentanyl trafficking,” and a range of violent crimes. It’s considered “the most significant non-drug revenue source for Mexican cartels and other illicit actors,” OFAC said. The thieves, “huachicoleros,” use a variety of means to steal fuel and crude oil from Mexico’s state-owned energy company, Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), including bribing and threatening Pemex employees, illegally drilling taps into pipelines, stealing from refineries and hijacking tanker trucks.
Their operations are facilitating “rampant violence and corruption across Mexico, and undercutting legitimate oil and natural gas companies in the United States,” OFAC states.
Stolen fuel is sold on the black market in Mexico and Central America through unregulated roadside fuel stops and cartel-controlled gas stations.
It’s also smuggled into the U.S. by brokers who label it as “waste oil” or hazardous material to evade detection. Stolen crude oil is then sold and shipped to oil and natural gas companies and refineries in Texas and nationwide, as well as to Japan, India, Africa and other countries, investigators found. It’s sold at a significant discount and the illicit proceeds are sent back to the FTOs and SDGTs.
According to law enforcement estimates, the U.S.-based importers earn roughly $5 million for each oil tanker shipment of crude oil to foreign jurisdictions, with multiple tankers leaving Texas ports every month. Most purchasing the shipments are likely unaware they’ve been stolen, OFAC states.
Those sanctioned this week include CJNG leader Mexican national Cesar Morfin Morfin (a.k.a. Primito) of Tamaulipas, for his alleged role in transporting, importing and distributing narcotics, including fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine, and marijuana, and fentanyl and methamphetamine precursor chemicals sourced from China into the U.S.
Primito’s older brother, Alvaro Noe Morfin, was also sanctioned for his alleged role in CJNG narcotics trafficking. Both Primito brothers are on a 10 Most Wanted list in Texas and Tamaulipas, published by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the Mexican government.
Their younger brother, Remigio Morfin, was also sanctioned for alleged drug trafficking, operating out of Hidalgo, Mexico.
Mexican national Cesar Morfin was also sanctioned for his role in CJNG drug trafficking, as were two of his family members and business associates, who are linked to CJNG fuel theft, OFAC said. However, he’s allegedly now focused primarily on stealing crude oil, OFAC said.
As Trump administration border security efforts shut down illegal entries, Primito’s network refocused their efforts to smuggle crude oil into the U.S., OFAC said. “Given his control over port of entry bridges between the Tamaulipas and Texas border regions, Primito also charges fees to any trucks moving crude into the United States via these routes.” He and his subordinates also allegedly falsify official customs documents to facilitate cross-border smuggling of stolen crude oil, investigators allege.
In addition to the sanctions, OFAC and several federal agencies issued an alert to U.S. financial institutions urging them to vigilantly detect, identify and report suspicious activity that might be connected to stolen crude oil smuggled by FTOs and SDGTs.
“In recent years, fuel theft in Mexico, including crude oil smuggling, has become the most significant non-drug illicit revenue source for the Cartels and enables them to sustain their global criminal enterprises and drug trafficking operations into the United States,” the alert states.
The alert provides an overview of methodologies and financial typologies associated with cartel crude oil smuggling, includes red flag indicators and reminds financial institutions of Bank Secrecy Act reporting requirements.
Since the Trump administration designated Mexican cartels and transnational criminal organizations as FTOs and SDGTs in February, the Treasury Department has sanctioned 11 individuals and six entities affiliated with the Sinaloa Cartel, La Nueva Familia Michoacana, and the Beltran Leyva Organization.
Last September, OFAC also sanctioned nine Mexican nationals and 26 Mexico-based entities linked to CJNG fuel theft activities, including senior CJNG member Ivan Cazarin Molina (a.k.a. El Tanque).
Premier Danielle Smith responds to election of Liberal government
In Defeat, Joe Tay’s Campaign Becomes a Flashpoint for Suspected Voter Intimidation in Canada
Former Australian state premier accused of lying about justification for COVID lockdowns
Major automakers push congress to block California’s 2035 EV mandate
-
Alberta2 days agoIt’s On! Alberta Challenging Liberals Unconstitutional and Destructive Net-Zero Legislation
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoThe Last Of Us: Canada’s Chaos Election
-
2025 Federal Election3 hours agoMark Carney vows to ‘deepen’ Canada’s ties with the world, usher in ‘new economy’
-
Business1 day agoCanada urgently needs a watchdog for government waste
-
Business11 hours agoTop Canadian bank ditches UN-backed ‘net zero’ climate goals it helped create
-
Health3 hours agoRFK Jr. orders placebo safety trials for all new vaccines in major policy decision
-
Alberta1 day ago‘Existing oil sands projects deliver some of the lowest-breakeven oil in North America’
-
Business1 day agoOverregulation is choking Canadian businesses, says the MEI