The War in Ukraine and the Emergencies Act in Canada

Valentyna Konstantynovska, 79, holds a weapon during basic combat training for civilians, in Mariupol, Donetsk, eastern Ukraine. Photograph: Vadim Ghirdă/AP

Listening to the Debate on Motion to Confirm Declaration of Emergency in the House of Commons, two days ago, I could not believe the brazen lies and unblushing hypocrisy used by the Liberal and NDP politicians who supported the Declaration. I was shocked because at that point (on February 21) all border crossing blockades have already been cleared and the Ottawa Freedom Convoy peaceful protest was dispersed. The situation was under control and was achieved by the provinces prior to the “confirmation”, so, it seems, there was no need for federal martial law. Another reason why this situation was so unusual was the deliberate provocative and confrontational style of the government which antagonized the protesters instead of defusing the conflict politically. It looked as if the government needed to fuel the conflict and use force in order to justify the Emergencies Act.

During the vote on the Motion to Confirm the Declaration of Emergency, all MPs voted in party blocks: all Liberal and NDP members voted “Yea”, all Conservative and Block Quebecois members voted “Nay”. Seeing hundreds and thousands of Canadians supporting the Freedom Convoy throughout Canada, it is hard to believe that a majority of voters in every riding supported the party positions. It was obvious to me that the real reason for such a concerted effort to pass the Emergencies Act must have been different than what we were officially told. Could it be the situation in Ukraine and the game played by Russia?

Indeed, one of possible options is the assumption that the Emergencies Act was needed in preparation for a war with Russia. On February 22, just one day after its confirmation, Russia has recognized the Lugansk and Donetsk regions in Ukraine as independent states. According to the White House, Russian armed forces entered their territories and engaged in war operations against Ukrainian military. US president Biden and some NATO leaders have recently warned Russia of “serious consequences”, if such invasion were to take place. A week earlier Trudeau’s government has decided to send lethal weapons to Ukraine to help Ukrainian army fight with the Russians.

Considering the official narrative as a staring point, let’s look at the big picture and its obvious conclusions. First, facts on the ground as of February 22, 2022:

(Click to enlarge the image)

Situation on February 22, 2022:

  • Red: – Russia, including Crimea and Kaliningrad Region
  • Purple: – Belarus, Kazakhstan Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Western Syria (Countries allied with Russia)
  • Blue: – Western Ukraine and Moldova
  • Yellow: – Donetsk / Lugansk region in Ukraine and Eastern Syria – (Active war zones)
  • Green: – Eastern Ukraine, Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) and Georgia – (Countries most likely targeted by Russia).

In such a war theatre Russia would have three strategic objectives:

1. To establish a buffer zone between NATO and its territory and to prevent NATO’s military from moving their bases and weapons to Russia’s border – just like the US prevented Soviet bases and rockets to be installed in Cuba during the Cuban Crisis in October of 1962.

JFK’s speech on the Cuban Crisis, October 1962

Russia’s legitimate concerns about the security of its borders were repeatedly ignored by the West and remained unanswered. Since 1999, NATO forces have been moving eastward, towards Russia’s borders, in spite of promises made by the US and West Germany in 1990, [2] , [3] in exchange for Russia’s consent to the reunification of Germany. This promise was broken by NATO in 1999 (Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary joined NATO), in 2004 (Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia joined NATO), 2009 (Albania, Croatia joined NATO). Since 2014, (the Euro Maidan in Kiev), western countries began to insist on Ukraine’s accession to NATO. NATO began deploying US bases and military equipment in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, as well as in Turkey and Romania. Provocative war games were and still are taking place with US military units on Russia’s borders.

2. To protect its investments and its exports of energy resources to Europe. This includes old pipelines and the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline between St. Petersburg and Germany.

Russian pipelines (blue) and mostly projected Western pipelines (red)
(Click on the map to enlarge it)

Russia is also blocking projected western pipeline corridors and takeover of energy resources enabled by colour revolutions of the 1990s, the 9/11 operation, and consequent wars on terrorism (read: oil wars). These projected pipeline corridors are aimed at putting Russia’s pipelines to Europe out of business. This would be damaging to Russia’s economy.

3. To prevent a blockade and protect the waterway along the Gulf of Finland, connecting Russia’s Navy port in St. Petersburg with the Baltic Sea. This is also where the first segment of the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline is located. One of the Washington’s policy objectives is to prevent close economic and political ties between Russia and Germany, hence, the US’s desire to destroy the Nord Stream 2 project.

(Click to enlarge the image)

In January of 2022, large protests and violent riots shook Kazakhstan and forced president Tokayev to ask the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) for help in normalizing the situation in the country. CSTO troops (2300 soldiers) entered Kazakhstan and assisted its security forces in ending the riots. Over 100 protesters were killed, more than 2000 were wounded, about 80,000 were arrested. Tokayev returned to power but the power was practically handed to him by Russia.

Kazakhstan has strong economic and cultural ties with Russia and may be viewed as Russia’s potential ally. Kazakhstan houses Russia’s Baikonur Cosmodrome and site for testing liquid-fueled ballistic missiles. It also has large deposits of crude oil and natural gas along the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea.

“On January 21, President Vladimir Putin ordered troops into pro-Russian regions of eastern Ukraine. The following day, US President Joe Biden described the events underway in Ukraine as “the beginning of a Russian invasion” as he announced new sanctions to punish Moscow. /…/ Other Western nations also announced a tranche of sanctions against Russia, and Germany has stopped the progression of the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline following Moscow’s actions in eastern Ukraine.” – [CNN]

Meanwhile, on the same day, February 22, after talks in Moscow, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliyev signed a cooperation agreement and held a joint press conference , [2] . This is a significant development, considering that Azerbaijan has large oil reserves in the Baku area, with western and Japanese companies operating oil and natural gas production fields. Four of the major offshore fields are operated by ExxonMobil. As of March 2019, ExxonMobil’s largest shareholders include The Vanguard Group (8.15%), BlackRock (6.61%), and State Street Corporation (4.83%). ExxonMobil is one of the largest of the world’s Big Oil companies.

In 2020, Azerbaijan, with help from Turkey, won the war against Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding area, a pipeline corridor connecting Baku production fields and Turkey. Russia intervened and brokered peace talks. 2000 Russian peacekeepers stayed in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, following the end of hostilities. The question today is, “Did Russia outsmart the West?” Bringing Azerbaijan with its energy resources back into Moscow’s fold is worth more that all the sanctions caused by the “invasion” of Ukraine, where a real war has not began, yet.

The decades-long competition between Russia and Western countries for pipeline corridors and energy resources is presented HERE .This is an article I wrote in 2015 and did not have the time to update it with latest developments but it is fairly accurate as a reference material.

Related:

  • Victoria Nuland Admits Washington Has Spent $5 Billion to “Subvert Ukraine” – Victoria Nuland’s (US State Department) interesting speech to the Ukrainian community in the US. It looks like the US has taken an active part in creating the crisis in Ukraine, back in 2014. Especially Nuland’s remarks about the “wonderful” violent events in Kiev’s Maidan, as compared with “unacceptable” peaceful protests during the Freedom Convoy in Canada (Biden), 8 years later.
  • Jarosław Kaczyński przemawia w Kijowie – pro-US Polish top politician, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, inciting speach to the rioting protesters in Kiev’s Maidan, 2014.
This entry was posted in Canada, War. Bookmark the permalink.