Connect with us

Latest

Analysis

News

Ukraine hammered in Avdeevka as Trump meets Tymoshenko

As Ukraine’s army suffers heavy losses in Avdeevka, on the eve of a conversation with Ukraine’s President Poroshenko, US President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian opposition leader Yulia Tymoshenko, in a sign he may be looking for alternatives.

Alexander Mercouris

Published

on

7,064 Views

Though the fog of war sometimes lies heavy on fighting in eastern Ukraine, the latest clashes are something of an exception, with a reasonably clear picture of what happened trickling through (the Wikipedia entry on the battle follows the Ukrainian line, and is wrong and should be disregarded).

A Ukrainian attempt to advance towards Donetsk encountered fierce resistance and was driven back with heavy losses, with fears at one point that Ukrainian troops in the town of Avdeevka would find themselves encircled by the militia in what in eastern Ukrainian military parlance is called a “cauldron” as has happened repeatedly in the past.  Though on Russian urging the militia appears for the moment to be holding back from doing this – with latest reports suggesting the fighting may be finally dying down – it seems the Ukrainians were caught in the open and suffered heavy losses from shelling, though the exact number of their casualties as always is hard to judge.

As regularly happens in the fighting in Ukraine, Ukrainian casualties were made worse by the Ukrainian leadership’s refusal to allow their troops to pull back.  On the contrary they seem to have urged their troops to go on attacking even as more and more of them were being killed, and even as the whole Ukrainian position in Avdeevka became threatened.

Anyone who has followed the fighting in Ukraine since it began in earnest in July 2014 will be familiar with this pattern.  Ukraine’s repeated defeats – in the so-called ‘Southern Cauldron’ and in Ilovaisk in 2014, and in Donetsk airport and in Debaltsevo in 2015 – were not the result of numerical inferiority, lack of equipment, or lack of courage or discipline on the part of Ukraine’s troops.  They were the result of the chronic amateurism and incompetence of Ukraine’s high command – first and foremost of President Poroshenko himself – with such professional military leaders as Ukraine has mistrusted and apparently sidelined, so that decisions to attack are made which repeatedly draw the Ukrainian troops into traps.

It seems that for all the brave talk of a revival of Ukraine’s army nothing fundamental has changed, with Ukraine’s leadership unable to learn from its past mistakes.

The fighting, which President Poroshenko seems to have started with the intention of shoring up his support in Ukraine and the West, may in fact have undermined his support in both places.  Poroshenko’s approval rating in Ukraine was apparently hovering at a (probably overstated) level of around 13% before the attack.  As talk of the heavy casualties suffered to no effect as a result of this latest attack feeds through to Ukrainian society – which it will – it is likely such popularity has he has left will fall further.  The fact that he is now calling for a referendum on NATO membership and that his special forces have carried out another murder attack on a militia leader in Lugansk are clear signs that he is trying to divert attention away from his latest military debacle.

Perhaps of even greater concern to Poroshenko is that in the US there are clear signs that the Trump administration is looking for alternatives to him as it tries to find a way to break the impasse.  Not only has Trump delayed his first conversation with Poroshenko as President until today – a full week after the call between Trump and Putin – but on the eve of the call Trump met in Washington with Poroshenko’s long-time enemy and political rival the former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.

Such meetings between the US President and an opposition leader are unusual to say the least, and the fact that Trump chose to meet Tymoshenko on the eve of his talking to Poroshenko frankly looks like a snub, and one which can only cause Poroshenko deep alarm.

In saying this I should say that the fact this meeting took place is far more important than anything about sanctions Trump is supposed to have said during the meeting.  I say this because the US journal Politico is reporting that Trump is supposed to have assured Tymoshenko during the meeting that the sanctions on Russia would not be lifted whilst Russia’s “aggression” against Ukraine continues.  In reality Trump is unlikely to have deviated from the official line in a first meeting with someone like Tymoshenko, and he is unlikely to feel strongly bound by anything he said to her on such a subject.

Frankly the meeting between Trump and Tymoshenko gives an impression of Trump and his aides sizing up Tymoshenko to see if she is fit to take over from Poroshenko in whom they appear to have little confidence.  The fact that Poroshenko and his oligarch backers went out of their way during the recent US election to back Hillary Clinton – to the point of undermining the position of Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort – will of course have done Poroshenko no favours with Trump and his team at all.

Whether Tymoshenko really is the solution to breaking the impasse in Ukraine’s crisis is another matter.  As a businesswoman and political leader, and as Ukraine’s Prime Minister, Tymoshenko proved to be fiercely competitive and confrontational, as well as incompetent and corrupt, though in the case of the latter no more so than every other Ukrainian politician.  Her popularity has risen in recent months as Poroshenko’s has fallen, and is now roughly the same as his, which is to say that she is not actually very popular within Ukrainian society at all.

Tymoshenko is nonetheless widely seen as intelligent, and as Ukraine’s Prime Minister she did manage to forge a reasonable working relationship with Putin and the Russians, even if she seems to have done so principally in order to strengthen her position in Ukraine’s internal conflicts.  There are even rumours that Putin personally preferred Tymoshenko for Ukraine’s President over Viktor Yanukovych, whom Putin is said to have mistrusted.

Whether or not Trump’s interest in Tymoshenko is misplaced the mere fact he is speaking to her does however suggest – as I have said – that he is looking for options, and that he may be thinking of dumping Poroshenko, who after all he has personal reasons not to like.

If so it may also show that Trump senses that without some sort of resolution to the Ukrainian crisis – if only a temporary one which puts the conflict on ice – his hopes of a sustained improvement in US-Russian relations may prove stillborn.

One way or the other, what with the debacle in Avdeevka and Tymoshenko’s meeting with Trump, Poroshenko has a great deal to think about as he prepares for his own talk with Trump later today.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of

Latest

US media suffers panic attack after Mueller fails to deliver on much-anticipated Trump indictment

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

RT

Published

on

By

Via RT


Important pundits and news networks have served up an impressive display of denials, evasions and on-air strokes after learning that Robert Mueller has ended his probe without issuing a single collusion-related indictment.

The Special Counsel delivered his final report to Attorney General William Barr for review on Friday, with the Justice Department confirming that there will be no further indictments related to the probe. The news dealt a devastating blow to the sensational prophesies of journalists, analysts and entire news networks, who for nearly two years reported ad nauseam that President Donald Trump and his inner circle were just days away from being carted off to prison for conspiring with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.

Showing true integrity, journalists and television anchors took to Twitter and the airwaves on Friday night to acknowledge that the media severely misreported Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia, as well as what Mueller’s probe was likely to find. They are, after all, true professionals.

“How could they let Trump off the hook?” an inconsolable Chris Matthews asked NBC reporter Ken Dilanian during a segment on CNN’s ‘Hardball’.

Dilanian tried to comfort the CNN host with some of his signature NBC punditry.

“My only conclusion is that the president transmitted to Mueller that he would take the Fifth. He would never talk to him and therefore, Mueller decided it wasn’t worth the subpoena fight,” he expertly mused.

Actually, there were several Serious Journalists who used their unsurpassed analytical abilities to conjure up a reason why Mueller didn’t throw the book at Trump, even though the president is clearly a Putin puppet.

“It’s certainly possible that Trump may emerge from this better than many anticipated. However! Consensus has been that Mueller would follow DOJ rules and not indict a sitting president. I.e. it’s also possible his report could be very bad for Trump, despite ‘no more indictments,'” concluded Mark Follman, national affairs editor at Mother Jones, who presumably, and very sadly, was not being facetious.

Revered news organs were quick to artfully modify their expectations regarding Mueller’s findings.

“What is collusion and why is Robert Mueller unlikely to mention it in his report on Trump and Russia?” a Newsweek headline asked following Friday’s tragic announcement.

Three months earlier, Newsweek had meticulously documented all the terrible “collusion” committed by Donald Trump and his inner circle.

But perhaps the most sobering reactions to the no-indictment news came from those who seemed completely unfazed by the fact that Mueller’s investigation, aimed at uncovering a criminal conspiracy between Trump and the Kremlin, ended without digging up a single case of “collusion.”

The denials, evasions and bizarre hot takes are made even more poignant by the fact that just days ago, there was still serious talk about Trump’s entire family being hauled off to prison.

“You can’t blame MSNBC viewers for being confused. They largely kept dissenters from their Trump/Russia spy tale off the air for 2 years. As recently as 2 weeks ago, they had @JohnBrennan strongly suggesting Mueller would indict Trump family members on collusion as his last act,” journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted.

While the Mueller report has yet to be released to the public, the lack of indictments makes it clear that whatever was found, nothing came close to the vast criminal conspiracy alleged by virtually the entire American media establishment.

“You have been lied to for 2 years by the MSM. No Russian collusion by Trump or anyone else. Who lied? Head of the CIA, NSA,FBI,DOJ, every pundit every anchor. All lies,” wrote conservative activist Chuck Woolery.

Internet mogul Kim Dotcom was more blunt, but said it all: “Mueller – The name that ended all mainstream media credibility.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Canadian Lawmaker Accuses Trudeau Of Being A “Fake Feminist” (Video)

Rempel segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career

Published

on

Via Zerohedge

Canada’s feminist-in-chief Justin Trudeau wants to support and empower women…but his support stops at the point where said women start creating problems for his political agenda.

That was the criticism levied against the prime minister on Friday by a conservative lawmaker, who took the PM to task for “muzzling strong, principled women” during a debate in the House of Commons.

“He asked for strong women, and this is what they look like!” said conservative MP Michelle Rempel, referring to the former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, who has accused Trudeau and his cronies of pushing her out of the cabinet after she refused to grant a deferred prosecution agreement to a Quebec-based engineering firm.

She then accused Trudeau of being a “fake feminist”.

“That’s not what a feminist looks like…Every day that he refuses to allow the attorney general to testify and tell her story is another day he’s a fake feminist!”

Trudeau was so taken aback by Rempel’s tirade, that he apparently forgot which language he should respond in.

But Rempel wasn’t finished. She then segued to Trudeau’s push to quash an investigation into allegations that he once groped a young journalist early in his political career. This from a man who once objected to the continued use of the word “mankind” (suggesting we use “peoplekind” instead).

The conservative opposition then tried to summon Wilson-Raybould to appear before the Commons for another hearing (during her last appearance, she shared her account of how the PM and employees in the PM’s office and privy council barraged her with demands that she quash the government’s pursuit of SNC-Lavalin over charges that the firm bribed Libyan government officials). Wilson-Raybould left the Trudeau cabinet after she was abruptly moved to a different ministerial post – a move that was widely seen as a demotion.

Trudeau has acknowledged that he put in a good word on the firm’s behalf with Wilson-Raybould, but insists that he always maintained the final decision on the case was hers and hers alone.

Fortunately for Canadians who agree with Rempel, it’s very possible that Trudeau – who has so far resisted calls to resign – won’t be in power much longer, as the scandal has cost Trudeau’s liberals the lead in the polls for the October election.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Why Joe May be Courting Stacey

Joe Biden has a history on compulsory integration dating back to the 1970s that Sen. Jesse Helms called “enlightened.”

Patrick J. Buchanan

Published

on

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via The Unz Review:


Of 895 slots in the freshman class of Stuyvesant High in New York City, seven were offered this year to black students, down from 10 last year and 13 the year before.

In the freshman class of 803 at The Bronx High School of Science, 12 students are black, down from last year’s 25.

Of 303 students admitted to Staten Island Technical High School, one is African-American.

According to The New York Times, similar patterns of admission apply at the other five most elite high schools in the city.

Whites and Asians are 30 percent of middle school students, but 83 percent of the freshman at Bronx High School of Science, 88 percent at Staten Island Technical and 90 percent at Stuyvesant.

What do these numbers tell us?

They reveal the racial composition of the cohort of scientists and technicians who will lead America in the 21st century. And they tell us which races will not be well represented in that vanguard.

They identify a fault line that runs through the Democratic Party, separating leftists who believe in equality of results for all races and ethnic groups, and those who believe in a meritocracy.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has expressed anger and frustration at the under-representation of blacks and Hispanics in the elite schools. But Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the state legislature have ignored his pleas to change the way students are admitted.

Currently, the same test, of English and math, is given to middle school applicants. And admission to the elite eight is offered to those who get the highest scores.

Moreover, Asians, not whites, are predominant.

Though 15 percent of all middle school students, Asians make up two-thirds of the student body at Stuyvesant, with 80 times as many slots as their African-American classmates.

The egalitarian wing of the Democratic Party sees this as inherently unjust. And what gives this issue national import are these factors:

First, the recent scandal where rich parents paid huge bribes to criminal consultants to get their kids into elite colleges, by falsifying records of athletic achievement and cheating on Scholastic Aptitude Tests, has caused a wave of populist resentment.

Second, Harvard is being sued for systemic reverse racism, as black and Hispanic students are admitted with test scores hundreds of points below those that would disqualify Asians and whites.

Third, Joe Biden has a history on compulsory integration dating back to the 1970s that Sen. Jesse Helms called “enlightened.”

Here are Biden’s quotes, unearthed by The Washington Post, that reflect his beliefs about forced busing for racial balance in public schools:

“The new integration plans being offered are really just quota systems to assure a certain number of blacks, Chicanos, or whatever in each school. That, to me, is the most racist concept you can come up with.

“What it says is, ‘In order for your child with curly black hair, brown eyes, and dark skin to be able to learn anything, he needs to sit next to my blond-haired, blue-eyed son.’ That’s racist!

“Who the hell do we think we are, that the only way a black man or woman can learn is if they rub shoulders with my white child?

“I am philosophically opposed to quota systems. They insure mediocrity.”

That was 44 years ago. While those views were the thinking of many Democrats, and perhaps of most Americans, in the mid-’70s, they will be problematic in the 2020 primaries, where African-Americans could be decisive in the contests that follow Iowa and New Hampshire.

Biden knows that just as Bernie Sanders, another white male, fell short in crucial South Carolina because of a lack of support among black voters, he, too, has a problem with that most loyal element in the Democratic coalition.

In 1991, Biden failed to rise to the defense of Anita Hill when she charged future Justice Clarence Thomas with sexual harassment. In the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was a law-and-order champion responsible for tough anti-crime legislation that is now regarded as discriminatory.

And he has a record on busing for racial balance that made him a de facto ally of Louise Day Hicks of the Boston busing case fame.

How, with a record like this, does Biden inoculate himself against attacks by rival candidates, especially candidates of color, in his run for the nomination?

One way would be to signal to his party that he has grown, he has changed, and his 2020 running mate will be a person of color. Perhaps he’ll run with a woman of color such as Stacey Abrams, who narrowly lost the 2018 governor’s race in Georgia.

An ancillary benefit would be that Abrams on the ticket would help him carry Georgia, a state Donald Trump probably cannot lose and win re-election.

Wrote Axios this morning:

“Close advisers to former Vice President Joe Biden are debating the idea of packaging his presidential campaign announcement with a pledge to choose Stacey Abrams as his vice president.”


Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending