Burns is right on the mark. Everything happening today was fostered by behaviors and relationships from when the Iron Curtain fell. Many of us on the ground were ready, willing, and able to serve as conduits to a healthy US-Russia-Ukraine-East/Central European world. The G.H.W. Bush administration was not interested in much more than nuclear weapons and allowing American business to secure many new markets. I won't say the USA is 100% to blame, but 95% might be too low. Had the US been "better" engaged and openminded (and willing to open its wallet slightly) there might never been a Putin, NATO expansion would not be a thing, and so many of the other problems we see today (globally) would have only been found in dystopian novels and films.
Thank you for this insight. It rings true, and has deep roots. In 1991, the Reaganesque treatment of the dissolution of the "Evil Empire" USSR overlooked the dire needs and situations of individual Russians. The dominant narrative in Washington became the victory of capitalism over communism, not democracy over totaliarianism. Capitalism was set free and glorified, but without support for strengthening the rule of law. The dark side of unbridled capitalism, organized crime and cronyism, quickly gained control. The US seriously erred by punishing the Russian people and not stepping in with stronger strategic assistance to help rebuild institutions and a new legal framework. The US could have had the relationship that we now share with Germany and Japan, but chose a hands-off, humiliating victory lap instead. Washington got the capitalism in Russia that it wanted, but in the process set up deep resentments and division that are finally playing out today in Ukraine and western Europe. Not surprisingly, the same capitalism over democracy priorites are still at work in US politics today, leading to similar unrest. Putin and Russia are now the ones gloating.
Very well put. I would just add that we can't forget the role that American "economic advisors", and their deeply flawed economic theories played in creating the misery and resentment in Russia during the 90s. They thought a fire sale of public assets would create a new entrepreneurial class, whose investment, innovation and dynamism would seamlessly transition the country to capitalism. But this new class was more interested in asset stripping than productive investment, using their connections with the criminal underworld to amass more wealth and power. All the "reform" process did was create the very oligarchic power structures that have a stranglehold on the country today.
Jews Albright and Clark (pictured in the link below) had NATO bomb Serbia so the IMF Jews could make loans for rebuilding and get control of Serbian iridium assets… while Saudi non-profit NGOs kept the KLA terrorists well fed and well-armed… Just like ISIS in Syria… their Zionist bedfellows on Wall Street want Ukraine for GMO grain crops . . . Monsanto (now Bayer), Genentech, ADM, etc., are all buying land with the help of the Jews at the IMF by giving the Ukrainian “Dill” idiots debt relief . . . https://cwspangle.substack.com/i/85711501/sodom-hussein-obama
Jewish U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D), great grandson of Jacob Schiff (who funded Bolshevism, Leon Trotsky, and the October Revolution from Wall Street) is following in his great grandfather’s footsteps by illegally trafficking weapons with Igor Pasternak (seated behind John Kerry in the link below), funding foreign conflicts abroad... and trying to get Syria for the oil pipelines by blaming the Russians for another false flag... https://cwspangle.substack.com/i/85711501/schiffty-schitty-kike-adam-schiffs-collusion-with-oligarch-ukrainian-arms-dealer-exposed
Sodom Hussein Obama's mentor Zbigniew Brzezinski (Mika’s father, next to Nasty Pelousy in the link below) was the monster in the Carter administration who armed and financed the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets... after the Mujahedeen were armed with sophisticated weapons, the Soviets left, the result was the USA got 911, and women now can walk 3 paces behind the donkey, the Mujahedeen evolved into the Taliban, who evolved into Al-Qaeda, who evolved into ISIS/ISIL/Daesh... Brezinski, for all practical purposes, can be called the ‘Grandfather of ISIS’... https://cwspangle.substack.com/i/85711501/sodom-hussein-obama
Agree with much of what you say. 1991 was Bush and Bush oversaw the end of the USSR. That year I was in Ukraine with him, I don't really think he understood what was going on in a meaningful way. We are living his errors in judgement now.
Don't be fooled by Russian disinformation. Contrasting views on NATO expansion are worthy of debate, but they have little or no relationship to the current Russia-Ukraine conflict.
In particular, Peter Beinart's analysis ignores the fact that Putin would still be threatening Ukraine today even if NATO had barred Ukraine from entry. The real reason Putin wants Ukraine is that he thinks it has no right to exist at all, and is instead a sub-national part of Russia -- a view he propounded in a historically illiterate 7,000-word essay on the subject. Here is Timothy Snyder's dismantling of Putin's arguments: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/01/28/putin-russia-ukraine-myths/
Putin's deepest fear, however, is that Ukraine, left to its own devices, will turn into a true democracy that will call into question the legitimacy of his own rule in Russia. This is why he is attacking Ukraine now.
Those who push the "NATO expansion is at fault" argument should recall that Ukraine was a neutral nation in 2014 when Putin attacked, and at that time only about 13% of Ukrainians were in favor of joining NATO. The issue then was not NATO membership, but a closer relationship with the EU. Putin jerked Yanukovych's leash, Yanukovych backed off, and the Ukrainian people wouldn't have it. They threw him out and Putin invaded. The current Russian disinformation campaign claiming that NATO expansion is the root cause of the current conflict is just a convenient smokescreen designed to legitimize Putin's decades-long designs on Ukraine.
Finally, please note the fact that Putin has a tendency to attack those countries who are not yet members of NATO. That is one of the reasons why, after years of war with Russia, a large majority of Ukrainians have changed their minds and now want to join NATO. If you were in their position, wouldn't you?
The EU trade agreement on the table before the Maidan revolution called for Ukraine to choose between trade with Russia or the EU, essentially an ultimatum. It's language also propped the door wide open for NATO membership. As a response, Putin offered a tripartite agreement that opened up trade with both east and west, which was rejected by the EU. The EU offer was rejected by Yanukovych, on the grounds that the terms for receiving loans were too stringent. Not an unreasonable explanation, given how IMF 'help' has played out around the world, but probably not the only reason. At any rate, the subsequent protests in Kiev were mostly peaceful, until Ukrainian far right factions got involved, and Yanukovych, the elected president, was forced to step down. This was a coup, unless one is in complete denial as to what a coup is, and it was supported, at least with words, by the US. Phone conversations indicate that US officials had chosen who they wanted to take the reins in Ukraine. While Putin's intentions may not be entirely honorable, the prevailing narratives - "they threw him (Yanukovych) out and Putin invaded" - gloss over a much more complex reality of western Ukraine's extremist, ultra-nationalist, and well armed militias and their abuse of Russian-speaking peoples in eastern Ukraine. If Putin had wanted to invade all of Ukraine at the time, he could have done so easily. Instead, he confined military action to those parts of Ukraine that have large minorities or a majority of Russian-speaking peoples.
You make a great apologist for Putin. Congratulations. To say that I disagree with your analysis would be understating things, but thanks for the thought that went into your reply.
Wow, an impressive display of intellectual dishonesty. Mike responded to your comment by further contextualizing the situation, adding the crucial background of the 2014 conflict. You may agree or disagree, (I myself am not wholly in agreement), you could challenge his interpretation of the facts, and provide a counter argument of your own. However what you cannot do, assuming you're trying to retain some dignity, is simply smear the commenter as "an apologist for Putin," without addressing any of the substantial points raised in his comment.
To ignore the role of the extreme right in the 2014 revolution/coup/change of government, and stick to a simplistic narrative of Putin=bad, is to bury your head in the sand and ignore a very important element of the political dynamic. It's even more troubling to not recognize the telephone call in which US ambassadors discussed who they wanted to put in power in the new government. These are not "Putin talking points" they are simply the facts of the matter.
You can acknowledge those facts, and still remain very critical of Putin's role in the conflict. However throwing a little tantrum when someone brings them up, then resorting to lazy ad hominems instead of analysis, just shows you're not ready to have an intellectual discussion in good faith about this topic.
ZeMo. You are the one who is engaging in intellectual dishonesty and ad hominems. If you will reread my comments more carefully, you will note that I addressed all of Mike's points. If you don't agree with my analysis, that's on you.
I would also note that your criticisms have to be the most ill-timed in history. I would ask you to turn on the TV or pick up the nearest newspaper and face reality. Putin is invading Ukraine even as I write this, with the intention of taking over the entire country and decapitating the democratically-elected leadership. The time for diplomacy over -- as a retired diplomat, I recognized this early on. Putin is in his own world, and inventing his own reasons for taking Ukraine. The sum and substance is that he wants what he wants. You can negotiate with yourself as much as you like. It will have no effect on the real world.
There's no way you "addressed all of Mike's points" in your initial post.
His comment was a response that was only published after your first post.
In his reply, Mike brought up some detailed and relevant factual points that weren't included in your initial post, and your only answer back was to straw-man him: "You make a great apologist for Putin." Followed by "Congratulations." (/sarc!)
And then you concluded with this: "To say that I disagree with your analysis would be understating things. But thanks for the thought that went into your reply."
If you want to engage in an honest debate, try actually citing some facts in your response. Either that, or just condense your response to one phrase: "I don't like what you said and can't be convinced otherwise." Perhaps you should also explain why you are entering a debate whose last comment was over a year ago. That's what trolls do.
In addition, perhaps you should take your own self-criticism to heart. As you state in your Personal Note: you "have a posting problem."
Why is it that anyone who doesn't go along with the narrative that Putin is pure evil, bent on colonizing all of Eurasia, or that the US may have played some part in the present state of affairs, is quickly labeled a Putin apologist, or a dupe of Russian propaganda? This seems to be the reflexive reaction from the Russia haters to anyone who suggests that the situation is more complicated than a simplistic narrative of blame everything on Russia. It reminds me of the leadup to the US invasion of Iraq, when anyone who suggested that Saddam Hussein possibly did not have WMD's, or that he was not a suicidal maniac who would use them, was characterized as supporting the terrorists.
Why? Because that’s all they have. Name calling. They don’t feel confident addressing the argument on its own terms or attempting an honest refutation. They’ve got nothing. Facts and logic aren’t going their way.
The primary tenet of the current Russian disinformation effort is that the Russia-Ukraine crisis is caused by NATO expansion east. This is incorrect, and a gross misstatement of fact designed to obscure Putin's current intention to absorb Belarus and Ukraine into the new "Soviet Union-lite" he is attempting to create. By buying into the "NATO is a fault" argument, you are carrying Russia's water and obscuring the truth.
In addition, your description of the EU-Ukraine negotiations tacitly admits that the dispute was about whether Ukraine should join the EU or the Russian-dominated Eurasian Economic Union. You say that NATO membership was clearly on the table, but neglect to say that if that was the case, CSTO membership was as well. Neither case is true. Ukraine was officially neutral and an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians did not want to join any alliance at that time -- an opinion that was changed by the Russian attack in 2014.
You also misstate the course of the Euromaidan Revolution of Dignity, parroting Russian talking points about far-right wing groups dominating the protests (untrue) and the war in Donbass (untrue), and the U.S. picking Ukraine's next leaders (also untrue). On the latter point, allow me to remind you that the Nuland-Pyatt conversations were intercepted by the Russian intelligence services, edited, and first published in Russia. I've reviewed the transcripts of those calls, and while the language was undiplomatic and ill-advised, it was not the conversation of kingmakers behind the scenes selecting the next Ukrainian government. They played no such role, and you know it.
Also, you neglect to note that the EU had worked out a settlement between the protestors and Yanukovych on February 21, but his Berkut militia deserted him, his Russian snipers stood down, and the Ukrainian Rada vote 328-0 to remove him from office. He took fright and left Kyiv, attempting to rally political support first in Kharkiv, then in Donetsk, and, finally Russian-controlled Sevastopol. Eventually, he left for Moscow. Once again, you are ignoring what actually happened and following the line promoted by Russian disinformation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#:~:text=Protests%20originally%20erupted%20in%20November,closer%20ties%20with%20Russia%20instead.
Finally, your argument that Russia could have overrun all of Ukraine in 2014 is pitiful. You are defending an aggressor because the first time out Russia only bit off a portion of Ukraine and was good enough to leave the rest of it to Ukrainians. That's not an argument, it's simply a Russian disinformation talking point.
There are many more points I could make, but those are the main ones.
Fuck you and your Jewish god, you filthy kikesucking Zionist ass-whore . . .
The recently ousted Speaker of the US House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy, who took at least a dozen votes to get elected speaker, traveled to Israel immediately upon his election, declaring to the Israeli Knesset that the USA is steadfastly committed to supporting Ukraine in their war against Russia.
It has become so painfully obvious, especially where you have someone like Nikki Haley wagging her finger and shouting down Vivek Ramaswamy in a presidential debate on live national television when the questions of this Ukrainian war against Russia and any mention of Israel are concerned, that the United States government has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the American Israeli Political Action Committee.
The tragedy in Ukraine has many causes and not a few culprits. The real issue now is how to stop the war. Balance of power politics, oil and arms manufacturing interests, nationalism militate against peace. If we let fear, greed, anger, and wishful thinking drive our policies we will succumb to nuclear war before climate change burns us.
"Aren't you pathetic? Hating your own country so much, tsk, tsk, and using English, eating American food and biting back. Are you living in a big villa entertained by the CCP now?"
Peter, I agree with your characterization of the degree of US culpability for current Russian hostility.
But you don't seem to acknowledge any agency on the parts of the post-Soviet states. I.e how should the US deal with post-Soviet states' populations' desire for greater economic and military ties with the West over Moscow?
The US could have told them that it needed to stick by its (i.e. Bush41/Baker) pledge to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand "one inch to the east" (of Germany). This would have left these states with the same status as other European states, such as Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Austria and Ireland, that are not members of NATO. Does anyone consider these states to be Russian satellites or vassal states, or part of a Russian "sphere of influence", just because they are not members of NATO? (The EU is another matter; there was no pledge about possible expansion of the EU.)
NATO first expanded to three eastern/central European states (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic) in 1999. Russians took (and take) this as a fundamental breach of trust. Putin came to power the following year.
Alternatively, NATO (and the EU) could also have offered membership to Russia (or, at least, a path to membership), as Putin actually proposed in 2000, but he was spurned.
I agree that if the West offered post-Soviet states EU membership rather than NATO membership that would be less antagonizing to Russia. But for Putin to become a member of the EU would require changes to the Russian state that Putin is ... unlikely to agree to for obvious reasons. (For example, he prefers assassinating political enemies to beating them at the ballot box.)
My question remains. If the populations of these democratic, post-Soviet states want NATO membership - because they have a legitimate fear of being invaded by Russia, why should Russia have a perpetual veto over them?
Do Russians have reason to believe NATO member countries such as Poland have, or will ever have, any reason to invade Russia? Or is this all just down to Russian nationalism/disliking feeling like a faded empire?
First, Portugal under the Salazar dictatorship was a founding member of NATO in 1949, Turkey since 1955, and Greece under a military junta from 1967 to 1974 remained a member of NATO. So democratic credentials are hardly a requirement for membership in NATO.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, if there had not been NATO expansion, and the US and NATO had been more forthcoming with Russia, there might have been less distrust on the Russian side, and Russia might have evolved in more democratic directions. Indeed, Putin might not have come to power at all.
There are no doubt people in Finland and Sweden who have a legitimate fear of being invaded by Russia, but so far they have considered it wiser, and in their best interests, not to join NATO. Perhaps they could also have persuaded the post-Soviet states of the wisdom of this, and linked with them in a more extended non-aligned zone.
Bear in mind that Russia has indeed experienced several invasions from the west in the previous two centuries: first from Napoleon, then from Germany in WW1, then from the US and allies against the Bolsheviks, and then again from Germany in WW2. Might there be "legitimate fear" on both sides?
I understand Turkey, Greece, and Portugal were not paragons of democracy when admitted to NATO, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Putin gaining EU membership.
I'm also aware of Russia's history of invasion, but that doesn't answer my question of whether Russians have reason to believe NATO member countries such as Poland have, or will ever have, any reason to invade Russia. (Genuine question, not a rhetorical question.)
I agree that the US-driven expansion of NATO in the 90's was strategically unwise in terms of kicking Russia while it was down, but again, do the opinions of the affected post-Soviet states' populations matter in this equation, or not? Why, or why not?
Not trying to 'win' an argument here, just genuinely curious.
I don't want to evade your questions, so let me answer briefly as follows:
1. As far as I am aware, Poland on its own does not have any reason to invade Russia. But Poland was a route for the invasion of Russia by Germany twice in the last century (and by France once in the century before that). Might Poland be a route for the invasion of Russia again, or possibly even a participant in a NATO invasion of Russia?
2. Yes, I certainly agree that "the opinions of the affected post-Soviet states' populations matter", and I can (somewhat) sympathize with their desire to be members of NATO. But, as I tried to suggest, I think that, upon reflection, they might have been persuaded of the wisdom of following the examples of Finland and Sweden (and Austria, Switzerland and Ireland), and therefore remaining outside of NATO. In any case, although it is currently being suggested that NATO has an "open door policy" for membership, this seems to be contradicted by the pledge of Bush41 and others to Gorbachev, with the reunification of Germany, that NATO would not expand "one inch to the east" (of Germany).
I note that, despite the essay that led off this discussion, many commenters continue to personalize the issues just in terms of Putin. If you want to personalize it, consider the following questions:
- Why did Yeltsin - a man who apparently had some democratic instincts - appoint Putin, an ex-KGB officer, as his prime minister and heir-apparent? Could this, just possibly, have had anything to do with the expansion of NATO (to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic) the previous year?
- Why do many Russians apparently continue to support Putin? They must be somewhat aware of his heinousness (of which I have no doubt). Yet, despite this, or perhaps even because of it and their experience over the past twenty years, it seems that they still genuinely entrust him to protect their security.
Under Yeltsin, there was a botched privatization process (on the advice and urging of the West) that brought about the rise of the oligarchs and deepened widespread privation. Despite this, there was a brief period under Yeltsin, and perhaps the early Putin, when Russia was pleading to join the West, but was generally spurned and rebuffed. Is it any wonder that Russia is now looking east? What alternative does it have? Is there still time to turn a corner on this?
Burns is right on the mark. Everything happening today was fostered by behaviors and relationships from when the Iron Curtain fell. Many of us on the ground were ready, willing, and able to serve as conduits to a healthy US-Russia-Ukraine-East/Central European world. The G.H.W. Bush administration was not interested in much more than nuclear weapons and allowing American business to secure many new markets. I won't say the USA is 100% to blame, but 95% might be too low. Had the US been "better" engaged and openminded (and willing to open its wallet slightly) there might never been a Putin, NATO expansion would not be a thing, and so many of the other problems we see today (globally) would have only been found in dystopian novels and films.
Volodymyr Zelensky is an Israeli operative . . . Ukraine’s Azov Regiment Visits Israel: ‘Mariupol is our Masada’ . . . https://nationalvanguard.org/2022/12/ukraines-azov-regiment-visits-israel-mariupol-is-our-masada/
.
Why Do the Ukrainians Allow Their Country to Be Completely Run by Jews? . . . https://russia-insider.com/en/why-do-ukrainians-allow-their-country-be-completely-run-jews/ri27010
.
Zelensky, Biden, Satanism, War, Greed, Theft, Propaganda, Domestic Spying, International Intrigue, Treason, Sedition, FTX, Ukraine, Israel . . . https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/zelensky-biden-satanism-war-greed
.
Documents leaked from Soros’ “Open Society Foundation” show how the Jewish billionaire behind Hillary Clinton gave orders to the State Department and manipulated media coverage of events in Ukraine . . . https://nationalvanguard.org/2016/09/documents-show-soros-ran-us-foreign-policy-on-post-coup-ukraine/
.
How Christine Lagarde, Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland Funded a Massive Ukrainian Ponzi Scheme . . . https://russia-insider.com/en/how-christine-lagarde-clinton-and-nuland-funded-massive-ukrainian-ponzi-scheme/ri27390
.
Jewish Corruption in Ukraine . . . by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D. . . . https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2023/02/17/jewish-corruption-in-ukraine/
Thank you for this insight. It rings true, and has deep roots. In 1991, the Reaganesque treatment of the dissolution of the "Evil Empire" USSR overlooked the dire needs and situations of individual Russians. The dominant narrative in Washington became the victory of capitalism over communism, not democracy over totaliarianism. Capitalism was set free and glorified, but without support for strengthening the rule of law. The dark side of unbridled capitalism, organized crime and cronyism, quickly gained control. The US seriously erred by punishing the Russian people and not stepping in with stronger strategic assistance to help rebuild institutions and a new legal framework. The US could have had the relationship that we now share with Germany and Japan, but chose a hands-off, humiliating victory lap instead. Washington got the capitalism in Russia that it wanted, but in the process set up deep resentments and division that are finally playing out today in Ukraine and western Europe. Not surprisingly, the same capitalism over democracy priorites are still at work in US politics today, leading to similar unrest. Putin and Russia are now the ones gloating.
Very well put. I would just add that we can't forget the role that American "economic advisors", and their deeply flawed economic theories played in creating the misery and resentment in Russia during the 90s. They thought a fire sale of public assets would create a new entrepreneurial class, whose investment, innovation and dynamism would seamlessly transition the country to capitalism. But this new class was more interested in asset stripping than productive investment, using their connections with the criminal underworld to amass more wealth and power. All the "reform" process did was create the very oligarchic power structures that have a stranglehold on the country today.
Jews Albright and Clark (pictured in the link below) had NATO bomb Serbia so the IMF Jews could make loans for rebuilding and get control of Serbian iridium assets… while Saudi non-profit NGOs kept the KLA terrorists well fed and well-armed… Just like ISIS in Syria… their Zionist bedfellows on Wall Street want Ukraine for GMO grain crops . . . Monsanto (now Bayer), Genentech, ADM, etc., are all buying land with the help of the Jews at the IMF by giving the Ukrainian “Dill” idiots debt relief . . . https://cwspangle.substack.com/i/85711501/sodom-hussein-obama
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Jewish U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D), great grandson of Jacob Schiff (who funded Bolshevism, Leon Trotsky, and the October Revolution from Wall Street) is following in his great grandfather’s footsteps by illegally trafficking weapons with Igor Pasternak (seated behind John Kerry in the link below), funding foreign conflicts abroad... and trying to get Syria for the oil pipelines by blaming the Russians for another false flag... https://cwspangle.substack.com/i/85711501/schiffty-schitty-kike-adam-schiffs-collusion-with-oligarch-ukrainian-arms-dealer-exposed
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Sodom Hussein Obama's mentor Zbigniew Brzezinski (Mika’s father, next to Nasty Pelousy in the link below) was the monster in the Carter administration who armed and financed the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviets... after the Mujahedeen were armed with sophisticated weapons, the Soviets left, the result was the USA got 911, and women now can walk 3 paces behind the donkey, the Mujahedeen evolved into the Taliban, who evolved into Al-Qaeda, who evolved into ISIS/ISIL/Daesh... Brezinski, for all practical purposes, can be called the ‘Grandfather of ISIS’... https://cwspangle.substack.com/i/85711501/sodom-hussein-obama
Agree with much of what you say. 1991 was Bush and Bush oversaw the end of the USSR. That year I was in Ukraine with him, I don't really think he understood what was going on in a meaningful way. We are living his errors in judgement now.
Volodymyr Zelensky is an Israeli operative . . . Ukraine’s Azov Regiment Visits Israel: ‘Mariupol is our Masada’ . . . https://nationalvanguard.org/2022/12/ukraines-azov-regiment-visits-israel-mariupol-is-our-masada/
.
Why Do the Ukrainians Allow Their Country to Be Completely Run by Jews? . . . https://russia-insider.com/en/why-do-ukrainians-allow-their-country-be-completely-run-jews/ri27010
.
Zelensky, Biden, Satanism, War, Greed, Theft, Propaganda, Domestic Spying, International Intrigue, Treason, Sedition, FTX, Ukraine, Israel . . . https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/zelensky-biden-satanism-war-greed
.
Documents leaked from Soros’ “Open Society Foundation” show how the Jewish billionaire behind Hillary Clinton gave orders to the State Department and manipulated media coverage of events in Ukraine . . . https://nationalvanguard.org/2016/09/documents-show-soros-ran-us-foreign-policy-on-post-coup-ukraine/
.
How Christine Lagarde, Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland Funded a Massive Ukrainian Ponzi Scheme . . . https://russia-insider.com/en/how-christine-lagarde-clinton-and-nuland-funded-massive-ukrainian-ponzi-scheme/ri27390
.
Jewish Corruption in Ukraine . . . by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D. . . . https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2023/02/17/jewish-corruption-in-ukraine/
But "suicidal nationalism" nailed it.
But "suicidal nationalism" nailed it.
Don't be fooled by Russian disinformation. Contrasting views on NATO expansion are worthy of debate, but they have little or no relationship to the current Russia-Ukraine conflict.
In particular, Peter Beinart's analysis ignores the fact that Putin would still be threatening Ukraine today even if NATO had barred Ukraine from entry. The real reason Putin wants Ukraine is that he thinks it has no right to exist at all, and is instead a sub-national part of Russia -- a view he propounded in a historically illiterate 7,000-word essay on the subject. Here is Timothy Snyder's dismantling of Putin's arguments: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/01/28/putin-russia-ukraine-myths/
Putin's deepest fear, however, is that Ukraine, left to its own devices, will turn into a true democracy that will call into question the legitimacy of his own rule in Russia. This is why he is attacking Ukraine now.
Those who push the "NATO expansion is at fault" argument should recall that Ukraine was a neutral nation in 2014 when Putin attacked, and at that time only about 13% of Ukrainians were in favor of joining NATO. The issue then was not NATO membership, but a closer relationship with the EU. Putin jerked Yanukovych's leash, Yanukovych backed off, and the Ukrainian people wouldn't have it. They threw him out and Putin invaded. The current Russian disinformation campaign claiming that NATO expansion is the root cause of the current conflict is just a convenient smokescreen designed to legitimize Putin's decades-long designs on Ukraine.
Finally, please note the fact that Putin has a tendency to attack those countries who are not yet members of NATO. That is one of the reasons why, after years of war with Russia, a large majority of Ukrainians have changed their minds and now want to join NATO. If you were in their position, wouldn't you?
The EU trade agreement on the table before the Maidan revolution called for Ukraine to choose between trade with Russia or the EU, essentially an ultimatum. It's language also propped the door wide open for NATO membership. As a response, Putin offered a tripartite agreement that opened up trade with both east and west, which was rejected by the EU. The EU offer was rejected by Yanukovych, on the grounds that the terms for receiving loans were too stringent. Not an unreasonable explanation, given how IMF 'help' has played out around the world, but probably not the only reason. At any rate, the subsequent protests in Kiev were mostly peaceful, until Ukrainian far right factions got involved, and Yanukovych, the elected president, was forced to step down. This was a coup, unless one is in complete denial as to what a coup is, and it was supported, at least with words, by the US. Phone conversations indicate that US officials had chosen who they wanted to take the reins in Ukraine. While Putin's intentions may not be entirely honorable, the prevailing narratives - "they threw him (Yanukovych) out and Putin invaded" - gloss over a much more complex reality of western Ukraine's extremist, ultra-nationalist, and well armed militias and their abuse of Russian-speaking peoples in eastern Ukraine. If Putin had wanted to invade all of Ukraine at the time, he could have done so easily. Instead, he confined military action to those parts of Ukraine that have large minorities or a majority of Russian-speaking peoples.
You make a great apologist for Putin. Congratulations. To say that I disagree with your analysis would be understating things, but thanks for the thought that went into your reply.
Wow, an impressive display of intellectual dishonesty. Mike responded to your comment by further contextualizing the situation, adding the crucial background of the 2014 conflict. You may agree or disagree, (I myself am not wholly in agreement), you could challenge his interpretation of the facts, and provide a counter argument of your own. However what you cannot do, assuming you're trying to retain some dignity, is simply smear the commenter as "an apologist for Putin," without addressing any of the substantial points raised in his comment.
To ignore the role of the extreme right in the 2014 revolution/coup/change of government, and stick to a simplistic narrative of Putin=bad, is to bury your head in the sand and ignore a very important element of the political dynamic. It's even more troubling to not recognize the telephone call in which US ambassadors discussed who they wanted to put in power in the new government. These are not "Putin talking points" they are simply the facts of the matter.
You can acknowledge those facts, and still remain very critical of Putin's role in the conflict. However throwing a little tantrum when someone brings them up, then resorting to lazy ad hominems instead of analysis, just shows you're not ready to have an intellectual discussion in good faith about this topic.
ZeMo. You are the one who is engaging in intellectual dishonesty and ad hominems. If you will reread my comments more carefully, you will note that I addressed all of Mike's points. If you don't agree with my analysis, that's on you.
I would also note that your criticisms have to be the most ill-timed in history. I would ask you to turn on the TV or pick up the nearest newspaper and face reality. Putin is invading Ukraine even as I write this, with the intention of taking over the entire country and decapitating the democratically-elected leadership. The time for diplomacy over -- as a retired diplomat, I recognized this early on. Putin is in his own world, and inventing his own reasons for taking Ukraine. The sum and substance is that he wants what he wants. You can negotiate with yourself as much as you like. It will have no effect on the real world.
There's no way you "addressed all of Mike's points" in your initial post.
His comment was a response that was only published after your first post.
In his reply, Mike brought up some detailed and relevant factual points that weren't included in your initial post, and your only answer back was to straw-man him: "You make a great apologist for Putin." Followed by "Congratulations." (/sarc!)
And then you concluded with this: "To say that I disagree with your analysis would be understating things. But thanks for the thought that went into your reply."
In other words, you got nothing.
If you want to engage in an honest debate, try actually citing some facts in your response. Either that, or just condense your response to one phrase: "I don't like what you said and can't be convinced otherwise." Perhaps you should also explain why you are entering a debate whose last comment was over a year ago. That's what trolls do.
In addition, perhaps you should take your own self-criticism to heart. As you state in your Personal Note: you "have a posting problem."
Why is it that anyone who doesn't go along with the narrative that Putin is pure evil, bent on colonizing all of Eurasia, or that the US may have played some part in the present state of affairs, is quickly labeled a Putin apologist, or a dupe of Russian propaganda? This seems to be the reflexive reaction from the Russia haters to anyone who suggests that the situation is more complicated than a simplistic narrative of blame everything on Russia. It reminds me of the leadup to the US invasion of Iraq, when anyone who suggested that Saddam Hussein possibly did not have WMD's, or that he was not a suicidal maniac who would use them, was characterized as supporting the terrorists.
Why? Because that’s all they have. Name calling. They don’t feel confident addressing the argument on its own terms or attempting an honest refutation. They’ve got nothing. Facts and logic aren’t going their way.
Seems to me that you are the one doing the name-calling. I put forward a rational argument relying on facts. Why don't you do the same?
I was against the 2003 Iraq war. Also, I see elements of Russian disinformation contained in your original answer.
Which "elements of Russian disinformation" exactly?
The primary tenet of the current Russian disinformation effort is that the Russia-Ukraine crisis is caused by NATO expansion east. This is incorrect, and a gross misstatement of fact designed to obscure Putin's current intention to absorb Belarus and Ukraine into the new "Soviet Union-lite" he is attempting to create. By buying into the "NATO is a fault" argument, you are carrying Russia's water and obscuring the truth.
In addition, your description of the EU-Ukraine negotiations tacitly admits that the dispute was about whether Ukraine should join the EU or the Russian-dominated Eurasian Economic Union. You say that NATO membership was clearly on the table, but neglect to say that if that was the case, CSTO membership was as well. Neither case is true. Ukraine was officially neutral and an overwhelming majority of Ukrainians did not want to join any alliance at that time -- an opinion that was changed by the Russian attack in 2014.
You also misstate the course of the Euromaidan Revolution of Dignity, parroting Russian talking points about far-right wing groups dominating the protests (untrue) and the war in Donbass (untrue), and the U.S. picking Ukraine's next leaders (also untrue). On the latter point, allow me to remind you that the Nuland-Pyatt conversations were intercepted by the Russian intelligence services, edited, and first published in Russia. I've reviewed the transcripts of those calls, and while the language was undiplomatic and ill-advised, it was not the conversation of kingmakers behind the scenes selecting the next Ukrainian government. They played no such role, and you know it.
Also, you neglect to note that the EU had worked out a settlement between the protestors and Yanukovych on February 21, but his Berkut militia deserted him, his Russian snipers stood down, and the Ukrainian Rada vote 328-0 to remove him from office. He took fright and left Kyiv, attempting to rally political support first in Kharkiv, then in Donetsk, and, finally Russian-controlled Sevastopol. Eventually, he left for Moscow. Once again, you are ignoring what actually happened and following the line promoted by Russian disinformation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity#:~:text=Protests%20originally%20erupted%20in%20November,closer%20ties%20with%20Russia%20instead.
Finally, your argument that Russia could have overrun all of Ukraine in 2014 is pitiful. You are defending an aggressor because the first time out Russia only bit off a portion of Ukraine and was good enough to leave the rest of it to Ukrainians. That's not an argument, it's simply a Russian disinformation talking point.
There are many more points I could make, but those are the main ones.
Fuck you and your Jewish god, you filthy kikesucking Zionist ass-whore . . .
The recently ousted Speaker of the US House of Representatives Kevin McCarthy, who took at least a dozen votes to get elected speaker, traveled to Israel immediately upon his election, declaring to the Israeli Knesset that the USA is steadfastly committed to supporting Ukraine in their war against Russia.
It has become so painfully obvious, especially where you have someone like Nikki Haley wagging her finger and shouting down Vivek Ramaswamy in a presidential debate on live national television when the questions of this Ukrainian war against Russia and any mention of Israel are concerned, that the United States government has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the American Israeli Political Action Committee.
https://cwspangle.substack.com/p/oh-how-fond-they-are-of-the-book
The tragedy in Ukraine has many causes and not a few culprits. The real issue now is how to stop the war. Balance of power politics, oil and arms manufacturing interests, nationalism militate against peace. If we let fear, greed, anger, and wishful thinking drive our policies we will succumb to nuclear war before climate change burns us.
"Aren't you pathetic? Hating your own country so much, tsk, tsk, and using English, eating American food and biting back. Are you living in a big villa entertained by the CCP now?"
In addition to Burns, Perry, Pifer and Hill, consider also Ambassador Jack Matlock:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/02/15/the-origins-of-the-ukraine-crisis-and-how-conflict-can-be-avoided/
Peter, I agree with your characterization of the degree of US culpability for current Russian hostility.
But you don't seem to acknowledge any agency on the parts of the post-Soviet states. I.e how should the US deal with post-Soviet states' populations' desire for greater economic and military ties with the West over Moscow?
The US could have told them that it needed to stick by its (i.e. Bush41/Baker) pledge to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand "one inch to the east" (of Germany). This would have left these states with the same status as other European states, such as Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Austria and Ireland, that are not members of NATO. Does anyone consider these states to be Russian satellites or vassal states, or part of a Russian "sphere of influence", just because they are not members of NATO? (The EU is another matter; there was no pledge about possible expansion of the EU.)
NATO first expanded to three eastern/central European states (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic) in 1999. Russians took (and take) this as a fundamental breach of trust. Putin came to power the following year.
Alternatively, NATO (and the EU) could also have offered membership to Russia (or, at least, a path to membership), as Putin actually proposed in 2000, but he was spurned.
I agree that if the West offered post-Soviet states EU membership rather than NATO membership that would be less antagonizing to Russia. But for Putin to become a member of the EU would require changes to the Russian state that Putin is ... unlikely to agree to for obvious reasons. (For example, he prefers assassinating political enemies to beating them at the ballot box.)
My question remains. If the populations of these democratic, post-Soviet states want NATO membership - because they have a legitimate fear of being invaded by Russia, why should Russia have a perpetual veto over them?
Do Russians have reason to believe NATO member countries such as Poland have, or will ever have, any reason to invade Russia? Or is this all just down to Russian nationalism/disliking feeling like a faded empire?
First, Portugal under the Salazar dictatorship was a founding member of NATO in 1949, Turkey since 1955, and Greece under a military junta from 1967 to 1974 remained a member of NATO. So democratic credentials are hardly a requirement for membership in NATO.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, if there had not been NATO expansion, and the US and NATO had been more forthcoming with Russia, there might have been less distrust on the Russian side, and Russia might have evolved in more democratic directions. Indeed, Putin might not have come to power at all.
There are no doubt people in Finland and Sweden who have a legitimate fear of being invaded by Russia, but so far they have considered it wiser, and in their best interests, not to join NATO. Perhaps they could also have persuaded the post-Soviet states of the wisdom of this, and linked with them in a more extended non-aligned zone.
Bear in mind that Russia has indeed experienced several invasions from the west in the previous two centuries: first from Napoleon, then from Germany in WW1, then from the US and allies against the Bolsheviks, and then again from Germany in WW2. Might there be "legitimate fear" on both sides?
I understand Turkey, Greece, and Portugal were not paragons of democracy when admitted to NATO, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Putin gaining EU membership.
I'm also aware of Russia's history of invasion, but that doesn't answer my question of whether Russians have reason to believe NATO member countries such as Poland have, or will ever have, any reason to invade Russia. (Genuine question, not a rhetorical question.)
I agree that the US-driven expansion of NATO in the 90's was strategically unwise in terms of kicking Russia while it was down, but again, do the opinions of the affected post-Soviet states' populations matter in this equation, or not? Why, or why not?
Not trying to 'win' an argument here, just genuinely curious.
I don't want to evade your questions, so let me answer briefly as follows:
1. As far as I am aware, Poland on its own does not have any reason to invade Russia. But Poland was a route for the invasion of Russia by Germany twice in the last century (and by France once in the century before that). Might Poland be a route for the invasion of Russia again, or possibly even a participant in a NATO invasion of Russia?
2. Yes, I certainly agree that "the opinions of the affected post-Soviet states' populations matter", and I can (somewhat) sympathize with their desire to be members of NATO. But, as I tried to suggest, I think that, upon reflection, they might have been persuaded of the wisdom of following the examples of Finland and Sweden (and Austria, Switzerland and Ireland), and therefore remaining outside of NATO. In any case, although it is currently being suggested that NATO has an "open door policy" for membership, this seems to be contradicted by the pledge of Bush41 and others to Gorbachev, with the reunification of Germany, that NATO would not expand "one inch to the east" (of Germany).
I note that, despite the essay that led off this discussion, many commenters continue to personalize the issues just in terms of Putin. If you want to personalize it, consider the following questions:
- Why did Yeltsin - a man who apparently had some democratic instincts - appoint Putin, an ex-KGB officer, as his prime minister and heir-apparent? Could this, just possibly, have had anything to do with the expansion of NATO (to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic) the previous year?
- Why do many Russians apparently continue to support Putin? They must be somewhat aware of his heinousness (of which I have no doubt). Yet, despite this, or perhaps even because of it and their experience over the past twenty years, it seems that they still genuinely entrust him to protect their security.
Under Yeltsin, there was a botched privatization process (on the advice and urging of the West) that brought about the rise of the oligarchs and deepened widespread privation. Despite this, there was a brief period under Yeltsin, and perhaps the early Putin, when Russia was pleading to join the West, but was generally spurned and rebuffed. Is it any wonder that Russia is now looking east? What alternative does it have? Is there still time to turn a corner on this?