How the West Brought War to Ukraine Benjamin Abelow
Free PDF format book, endorsed by Noam Chomsky
Available in English, French or German.
"How the West Brought War to Ukraine", written by Benjamin Abelow, praised by Jack Matlock, John Mearsheimer, Chas Freeman, Douglas McGregor, Richard Sakwa, Kristen Mehta, Gilbert Doctorow & Robert Kennedy Jr.
This is a concise but useful history to NATO's implementation war with Russia. It provides much of the background necessary to understand why this war was very much avoidable but made inescapable by the political actions of the NATO collective. While its brevity prevents it from going into details or considerations for all sources on the matter, it is a very readable work that quickly delivers the most important arguments about the many Western provocations against Russia.
The American abandonment of diplomacy in the Middle East has allowed its clients to pretty much do what they want leading to an ongoing realignment in the region, says Chas Freeman.
Time was, the countries of the Middle East relied on the United States for patronage, protection, and guidance. Suez taught Israel, Britain, and France that without Washington’s acquiescence, their policies could not succeed. Egypt’s defection showed Russia the limits of its ability to compete for clients in the region. It was U.S. leadership that enabled Israel, Egypt, and Jordan to end the state of war between them.
The standing of the United States in the region derived in part from its centrality to diplomacy aimed at finding a formula for peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians and acceptance of Israel’s legitimacy by its Arab neighbors. Except on issues related to Israel, many Arab governments followed America wherever it led. The collapse of the Soviet Union erased Russian influence in the Middle East, as it did elsewhere.
To recall this history is to underscore the extent of the geopolitical changes that have occurred so far this century. The United States no longer enjoys primacy in the Middle East. The former colonial powers need American military support to intervene in the region, but the countries of the region itself now act independently, confident that they can gain American backing for whatever they do. They do not seem to be wrong about this, judging from U.S. backing for Israel’s wars on its neighbors, Gulf Arab efforts to topple the Asad government in Syria, and the ongoing devastation of Yemen by Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E.
In this century, the U.S.-managed “peace process” between Israelis and Palestinians served as a distraction while Israel evicted Palestinians from their homes, annexed their lands, and denied them self-determination. The ever less credible “peace process” ended by severely damaging U.S. diplomatic standing in the region and beyond it. Unilateral U.S. recognition of an undivided Jerusalem as Israel’s capital capped what had come to be seen as the world’s longest–running diplomatic farce.
In the absence of strategy, a desire to sustain relationships in the region by supporting clients’ actions drives U.S. policy. The clients themselves have moved beyond relationship-driven diplomacy and are into transactionalism. The extent to which the U.S. now follows rather than leads its client states in the region is reflected in the Trump administration’s obeisance to Israeli and Saudi hostility to Iran and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA—Iran nuclear deal.)
Meanwhile, minimal commitments of force accompanied by deft diplomacy have enabled Russia to exploit the Syrian tragedy [having been invited into Syria by Damascus] to become the most sought-after external actor in the region’s affairs. Turkey, once outside the region and Russia’s NATO enemy, is again part of the Middle East, this time cooperating with Russia there more often than not. Egypt, Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are all cultivating ties with Moscow. Their objective is to correct over-reliance on the United States by diluting it. The same purpose inspires their efforts to build markets in China and India and to enlist Chinese and Indian support for their foreign policies.
EUA planejam invasão do Irã no fim de semana. Consequências Devastadoras | Embaixador Chas Freeman
Neste vídeo, Pascal Lottaz entrevista o embaixador Chas Freeman para analisar o conflito em andamento entre os Estados Unidos/Israel e o Irã, um mês após o início das hostilidades. Freeman descreve a estratégia do Irã como uma tática de 'rope-a-dope' (resistir à punição enquanto exaure o oponente), destacando que, apesar dos danos físicos, a estratégia iraniana permanece intacta (0:48 - 1:15).
Pontos principais da discussão:
Impacto Militar e Reputacional: Freeman argumenta que a guerra foi desastrosa para a postura militar global dos EUA, exaurindo estoques de munição (como os mísseis Patriot) e enfraquecendo a capacidade de resposta em outras áreas, como Taiwan (1:54 - 2:18, 5:44 - 6:08).
Geopolítica e Petróleo: O Irã transformou o Estreito de Hormuz em um 'pedágio', com pagamentos sendo feitos em yuan chinês, acelerando o afastamento do dólar como moeda de reserva (8:23 - 9:02).
Ameaça de Invasão: Freeman alerta para o risco de uma invasão terrestre dos EUA no fim de semana para capturar infraestruturas importantes, como a Ilha de Kharg ou as ilhas em disputa com os Emirados Árabes Unidos (Abu Musa), visando cortar a receita de petróleo do Irã (9:33 - 10:42, 12:29 - 14:15).
Falha da Diplomacia: As tentativas de negociação por parte de aliados dos EUA (Witkoff e Kushner) têm sido ignoradas pelo Irã, que não busca um cessar-fogo, mas sim a incapacitação de Israel e a remoção da presença militar dos EUA no Golfo (17:28 - 17:41, 25:21 - 25:46).
Diplomat american: „Trump credea că Iranul este un teatru al unui singur actor”
Chas Freeman – Diplomat și cercetător american, fost ambasador.
Cât de bine este gândită și calculată campania care se desfășoară acum în Orientul Mijlociu?Fiodor Lukianov, președintele prezidiului Consiliului pentru Politică Externă și de Apărare și redactor-șef al revistei Rusia în politica globală, a discutat cu Chas Freeman, iar fragmente din interviu au fost difuzate în emisiunea „Revista…
How the West fell for its own propaganda - Ambassador Chas Freeman
Neutrality Studies - Pascal Lottaz, Associate Professor for Neutrality Studies at Kyoto University’s Faculty of Law & Hakubi Center, Japan
"Today I would like to share another brilliant talk of Ambassador Chas Freeman with you. This one was recorded as part of a Zoom event on 20th February 2025 by Mr Eddie O'Brien of the Thinking Center, an Irish civil society organization. The video is a Q&A type of roundtable with Ambassador Freeman and all of his insights are, as always, very much worth listening to. Among other positions, Ambassador Freeman served as US Assistant Secretary of Defense, as US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and he was Richard Nixon's principal interpreter during his 1972 visit to China, which led to the normalization of US-China relations."
Chapters
00:00 Intro
02:02 Was the Russian invasion unprovoked?
07:18 Was America and Western Europe part of the provocation?
13:38 Was the lack of diplomacy astonishing to someone like you?
15:38 Does the west not see the value of diplomacy?
20:00 What is the role of "Empathy" vs. "Sympathy" in diplomacy?
28:12 How does Israel have so much lobbying power over the US government?
34:52 Is there a genocide taking place in Palestine?
37:13 So, where are we headed?
Ukraine – Die ganze Geschichte | Von Botschafter Chas Freeman
Der ehemalige US-Botschafter Chas Freeman erklärt sachkundig die gesamte Geschichte, Ursachen und Auswirkungen des Ukraine-Krieges und zerstört das gängige Narrativ über einen "unprovozierten" Krieg. Der Ukraine-Krieg war durchaus vermeidbar, aber die US-Neocons entschieden sich dafür, Kiew in den Abgrund zu stoßen, um einen blutigen Stellvertreterkrieg im Namen ihrer größenwahnsinnigen Weltherrschaftsphantasien zu führen. Was bedeutet das für die Ukraine, Russland und Europa in den kommenden Jahren? Hören Sie dem Botschafter zu, der einen prägnanten Überblick über die Lehren aus dem Stellvertreterkrieg in der Ukraine gibt.
