When multiple nations are engaged in armed struggle, as in war, it is necessary to listen to the “arguments” of both sides. If we want to get closer to neutrality, we should not rely on information from only one side. In this sense, I feel that the information that is being spread so much now, that Russia may invade Ukraine, is “disinformation” itself, meaning “deliberate and inaccurate information.

First, the Washington Post made a fuss based on a leak from the U.S. government, which was followed by the New York Times and other leading mass media, and the Japanese media followed suit, spreading information as if there was a high possibility of a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

However, if we want to achieve “true journalism,” we need to think calmly about this issue from multiple perspectives, including information from Russia, rather than relying only on one-sided information from the U.S. side. In this article, I would like to deliver a discussion with the conscience of journalism, with the meaning of encouraging the Japanese mass media, which is unable to do even such a natural thing.

 

Fact Checking

In my article “How Should We Interpret the U.S.-Russian Summit: The True Composition of the U.S.-Russian Summit: What We See When We Consider Ukraine as “Taiwan” for Russia,” published on December 24, 2021 (https://webronza.asahi.com/politics/articles/2021121700003.html). In my article “How should we interpret the U.S.-Russia summit: The true composition of the summit as Ukraine is seen as Russia’s “Taiwan”” (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/russia-ukraine-invasion/2021/12/03/98a3760e-546b-11ec-8769-2f4ecdf7a2ad_story.html), I mentioned that the “Washington Post” was disinformation. This is because information based on “intelligence documents obtained by U.S. officials and the Washington Post” cannot be considered “true.

And that’s not all. I also pointed out that the source of this disinformation may be Victoria Nuland, Deputy Secretary of State. She was in direct charge of Ukraine’s diplomacy as Assistant Secretary of State at the time of the Ukraine crisis that surfaced in 2013-2014, and is known as a person who is accustomed to manipulating information using mass media (for details, see my books “Ukraine Gate” and “Ukraine 2.0”, both published by Shakai Hyoron-sha). For more information, please refer to my books “Ukraine Gate” and “Ukraine 2.0” (both published by Shakai Hyoronsha). Nuland’s husband is Robert Kagan, also of Jewish descent, a so-called “neoconservative” (neo-conservative or neoconservative) commentator. The neocons are known to have used the Jewish mass media network to manipulate information at the time of the Iraq War and to have sent out one-sided and distorted information to the world to justify the war. This is why we are concerned that Nuland may also be a person who can manipulate information by using inappropriate means.

 

Don’t forget the Gulf of Tonkin Incident!

I would like to emphasize that we should not forget the history of several wars in which the U.S. government deliberately started wars with inaccurate or even outright false information.

　The closest is the Iraq War started by George W. Bush. The aforementioned neocons led the Iraq War. At the time, the neocons started the war on the grounds of (1) the close relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, (2) the existence of weapons of mass destruction, and (3) the overthrow of an undemocratic dictatorship. However, the evidence presented by the neocons for (1) and (2) was later found to be a complete lie. The war was waged on the basis of fabricated evidence.

Another thing to remember is the fact that Lyndon Johnson, who was promoted from vice president to president after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, made up the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in August before the presidential election on November 3, 1964. Believing in the “domino theory” that if Vietnam becomes socialist, the surrounding areas will become socialist one after another, he created a pretext for participating in the Vietnam War, in part to win the presidential election that was just around the corner. There, they claimed to be defending themselves against the growing socialism. The mass media fully cooperated with this movement and justified our participation in the Vietnam War. Johnson was then elected president.

Perhaps the current phase is very similar to the time of this Democrat-born Johnson. For the unpopular and aging President Joe Biden, a war in Ukraine before the midterm elections in the fall of 2022 would make a Democratic midterm victory in the “divided” United States a dream come true. This would increase his own chances of re-election.

There is a perfect example. On Saturday evening, January 22, 2022, the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office (a combination of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development) announced that President Vladimir Putin is planning to install a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine. But this abrupt announcement is disconcerting. There is a strong suspicion that Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is under pressure to resign amid the Downing Street party scandal over violations of coronavirus regulations, is using the distraction as a distraction.

The “New York Times” of January 23, 2022 said, ” Even Saturday’s announcement about a possible coup in Ukraine appeared timed to grab headlines in the Sunday morning papers and airtime on the news shows. Britain rarely declassifies intelligence in this manner, unlike the United States, though it has done so before on issues involving Russia ” (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/23/world/europe/uk-russia-ukraine.html). In other words, there is a strong possibility of deliberate information manipulation by the government. There is no denying the possibility that unabashed disinformation was planted by Johnson.

In the past as well as in the present, we should not believe what we are told by the U.S. or British governments. This is a fundamental principle of journalism.

 

A sober analysis by a US think tank

In the article I mentioned above, I wrote the following:

 

The wise reader would probably raise an eyebrow if I suddenly told him that there are plans to attack Ukraine. It is true that even now, in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine, forces seeking to secede from Ukraine are fighting the Ukrainian government with the support of Russia. That said, Russia is unlikely to suddenly invade the whole of Ukraine. The only thing that might happen is that Russian troops might “invade” the Donbass region to secure the safety of the region, where many people hold Russian passports, due to the intensifying fighting in the region.

In fact, a report by the Institute for the Study of War, a U.S. think tank, published in December 2021, says almost the same thing as the author’s point. The report, “Putin’s Possible Course of Action in Ukraine,” can be found in Part 1, “Strategic Misdirection: An Alternative Framework for Understanding Russia’s Moves in Ukraine,” at https: https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Ukraine%20Invasion%20Forecast%20Series%20Part%201%20ISW%20CT%20December%202021.pdf and Part 2, “Putin’s Military Options” (https://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Ukraine%20Invasion%20Forecast%20Series%20Part%202%20ISW%20CT%20December%202021.pdf). It is made up of two parts.

First, here are some of the conclusions of the report.

 

There are good reasons to question Putin’s seriousness about preparing for an invasion, despite the ostentatious military measures he has taken to get ready for one. (Part1, p. 8)

 

Russia is very unlikely to invade unoccupied Ukraine on a large scale this winter even though the Russian military is completing preparations that could support such an undertaking. (Part1, p. 10)

 

However, the close look at what such an invasion would entail presented in this report and the risks and costs Putin would have to accept in ordering it leads us to forecast that he is very unlikely to launch an invasion of unoccupied Ukraine this winter. Putin is much more likely to send Russian forces into Belarus and possibly overtly into Russian-occupied Donbas. He might launch a limited incursion into unoccupied southeastern Ukraine that falls short of a full-scale invasion. (Part2, p.8)

 

As can be seen from these statements, even if Russia might send Russian troops into some areas of Ukraine, such as parts of the Donbas that are already partially occupied by Russia, it is extremely unlikely that Russia would invade the other overwhelming parts (unoccupied areas) that are not under the influence of Russian troops.

 

How did it all start?

On January 21, 2022, at a press conference following a meeting of U.S. and Russian foreign ministers in Geneva, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said, “We’ve heard Russian officials say that they have no intention of invading Ukraine.  In fact, Minister Lavrov repeated that to me today.” (https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-at-a-press-availability-12/).

In spite of this, what does it mean that reports are being made as if there will be a full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces?

On November 22, 2021, the U.S. news agency “Bloomberg” reported that “The U.S. has shared intelligence including maps with European allies that shows a buildup of Russian troops and artillery to prepare for a rapid, large-scale push into Ukraine from multiple locations if President Vladimir Putin decided to invade, according to people familiar with the conversations ” (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-21/u-s-intel-shows-russian-plans-for-potential-ukraine-invasion). However, the source of the information has not been disclosed. The information described a scenario in which Russian forces would enter Ukraine via Crimea, the Russian border, and Belarus, and about 100 battalion tactical groups (potentially about 100,000 soldiers) would be deployed to operate in rough terrain and frozen conditions, covering large areas and preparing for a prolonged occupation. Based on this information, it is believed that the “Washington Post” reported the “Russian invasion plan” in a spectacular manner.

In fact, on November 20, before this Bloomberg report, a Ukrainian “Military Times” organization reported that “Russia has amassed more than 92,000 troops around Ukraine’s border and is preparing for an attack by the end of January or early February” (https://www.militarytimes.com/flashpoints/2021/11/20/russia-preparing-to-attack-ukraine-by-late-january-ukraine-defense-intelligence-agency-chief/). The report tells of an interview with Kirillov Budanov, Director of the Ukrainian Defense Intelligence Service. The Russian attack plan, he said, involved air, artillery, and armor strikes, followed by airborne attacks in the east, amphibious assaults in Odessa and Mariupol, and a small-scale invasion of neighboring Belarus. However, this is only an assumption of an attack from Russia by the Ukrainian military. In the article, he also said, “Our assessment is almost the same as that of our American colleagues,” which leads us to speculate that apparently the self-serving assumptions of the Ukrainian Defense Intelligence Service were brought to the attention of the U.S. intelligence community and were received as if they were the Russian invasion plan itself. That’s why on January 22, 2022, Russia’s Novaya Gazeta reported, “On the eve of the Military Times interview, a map was handed to an American reporter. In fact, we should consider that the active stage of preparations for negotiations began with this interview”.

 

The Aims of the U.S. Government

From what we have seen so far, we can see that the information that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could happen any time soon is nothing more than baseless speculation. So why is the U.S. government reacting so hysterically to a “Russian plan to invade Ukraine” that appears to be based only on assumptions made by Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence Agency?

The primary goal is to provoke Ukrainian military action in the Donbas. If the fighting in the Donbas intensifies and Russian troops are deployed there, the U.S. government will have a chance to break away from the situation of division in the country. As mentioned above, this would be very convenient for the Biden administration as it prepares for the mid-term elections.

The second aim would be to increase the US government’s involvement in Ukraine from the standpoint that changes to the Minsk agreements, which the Ukrainian government is trying to destroy, are unavoidable. This would mean, at the very least, the retaking of the Donbas region from Russia, which would inevitably make the Minsk agreements unnecessary.

This explanation is nothing more than speculation on the part of the Russians. However, we must also listen carefully to the Russian side’s argument. After all, both the U.S. and U.K. governments spew disinformation with impunity. And that’s not all. There are many politicians, bureaucrats, academics, and media people who spread such disinformation like a loudspeaker without questioning it. The important thing is to remember that there are “landmines” of disinformation everywhere.

For example, The Economist also seems to be spreading disinformation: in its January 22, 2022 issue, in connection with the Russian military buildup on the Ukrainian border, it explains that “In recent weeks, Russia has mobilised reservists and dispatched troops and missiles from as far away as the North Korean border (https://www.economist.com/europe/what-are-russias-military-options-in-ukraine/21807240). By not stating where the troops are being sent, it seems to be an attempt to obscure the fact that this deployment is related to the officially announced military exercises between Belarus and Russia (“Union Resolute”), which will take place from February 10 to 20.

An article in Russia’s Vedomosti (January 18, 2022), “Russia to test troops from Far East in Belarus,” reported that the exercise will be conducted by redeploying troops from Russia’s Eastern Military District throughout Russia, and that Russian troops have already arrived in Belarus and will be managed by the district headquarters (The Russian troops have already arrived in Belarus and will be managed by a team from the district headquarters (in Khabarovsk) （https://www.vedomosti.ru/politics/articles/2022/01/18/905358-rossiya-proverit）. In other words, the issue of the invasion of Ukraine is not directly related to the movement of troops from the Far East. By writing the aforementioned, it seems to me that they are trying to give the impression that an invasion of Ukraine by Russia is very near.

 

Belarus deserves attention now.

However, the movement of the Russian military in Belarus is worthy of attention. This is because, in predicting future geopolitical developments, the areas to the east and west of Belarus, i.e., Russia and Poland, and the areas to the north and south, i.e., Ukraine, Lithuania, and Latvia, are places where the interests of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Russia collide.

According to the Institute for the Study of War report mentioned earlier, Putin aims to (1) effectively reintegrate Russia and Belarus through the mechanism of a federal state, (2) reintegrate the Belarusian armed forces into the Russian Federation Armed Forces (RFAF), (3) station Russian military units in Belarus, and (4) use Russia’s most advanced air defense system to create a fully integrated air defense network covering Belarus and Russia. (3) station Russian military units in Belarus, and (4) use Russia’s most advanced air defense system to build a fully integrated air defense network covering Belarus and Russia. Already, Putin has dispatched the Russian Air Force to Belarus, and in 2021 Russia and Belarus will begin joint patrols in Belarusian airspace.

On the other hand, Belarus is increasing its security on the Ukrainian border: on December 8, 2021, a ceremony was held to inaugurate the Orehovo frontline base of the Brest Border Guard, which guards southern Belarus, and it was announced that two more border frontline bases will be opened on the border with Ukraine by the end of the year (see document [https://gpk.gov.by/news/gpk/132292/]).

In addition, President Aleksandr Lukashenko has made some worrisome statements: on November 30, he intends to visit Crimea, according to an interview with Russia’s RIA Novosti (https://ria.ru/20211130/krym-1761508843.html). In response, the Reuters news agency (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/belarus-leader-u-turn-says-annexed-crimea-is-legally-russian-ria-2021-11-30/) even reported that Lukashenko had reversed his public position by stating that the Crimean Peninsula is legally Russian territory. On the same day, in response to a question by the international news agency Russian Segodnya (about the possibility of deploying nuclear weapons in Poland), Lukashenko is reported to have said, “Yes, then I will propose to Putin to return the nuclear weapons to Belarus” (Source[https://www.belta.by/president/view/lukashenko-ne-iskljuchaet-razmeschenija-v-belarusi-rossijskogo-jadernogo-oruzhija-472331-2021/]).

On November 29, in a speech to senior defense ministry officials, Lukashenko said (see document [https://president.gov.by/ru/events/coveshchanie-po-voprosam-voennoy-bezopasnosti]):

 

I have no information that Russia is planning an attack on Ukraine. I have no information that Russia is planning an attack on Ukraine, but if there were such a plan, the Belarusian military, including myself, would have known about it. We should have been informed. But, as I have said many times, the facts are on the table. If we start another war in the Donbas or anywhere else on the border with Russia, Belarus will not be silent. And it is clear whose side Belarus will be on.”

It is noteworthy here that before the “Washington Post” made a fuss about Russia’s plan to invade Ukraine on December 3, Lukashenko implicitly, if not negatively, mentioned the plan that was supposedly floated by the head of Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence Service. This statement raises the suspicion that the invasion plan is merely a guess or assumption by Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence Service. That is why Lukashenko did not take it seriously.

In any case, Belarus is still considering holding a referendum on constitutional reform on February 20 or 27, 2022, the day the military exercises end. The future of the boisterous dictator Lukashenko is considered to be as important to Putin as, or even more important than, Ukraine.

However, information about these regions tends to be distorted by disinformation. What is important is to realize that this disinformation is not only spread by Russia, but also by the U.S. government and the influential mass media in the West. In any case, both Japanese and foreign journalism need to be more diligent in their search for facts, or they will lose the trust of many people.