Current Listing

I also read the Brookings educational article explaining the cooperation between the US, Russia and Ukraine when dismantling the past Soviet nuclear arsenal. All three parties knew it was a task that had to be done and I see it as a lesson to be remembered regarding the art of compromise.The fact that Ukraine came out of the deal with an assured security umbrella could be seen as a carrot for a future invitation to NATO, and therefore a worthwhile investment for the US, besides clearing the nukes from the newly formed sovereign country. As it turned out, Ukraine, being populated by several groups with some very contentious history has never been a model democracy and soon gained a reputation for corruption. No nukes, no brainer.

It seems a bit specious to say that for reasons of ego and Empire expansion, Russia fomented civil unrest in a neighboring country, which resulted in a civil war that lasted seven years, just so she could then invade with no apparent provocation and risk starting a world war. Granted, this is in fact something we, the US, has done numerous times so perhaps it’s natural to suppose that this was the case. If this supposition were true then the US would be treaty bound to defend Ukraine.

If on the other hand, we dig into the muddy buildup to the Maidan massacre, starting a few years before with contested elections, the Orange protests, covert and overt interference by NGOs and our State Department, culminating in the 2014 coup that sent the elected president Yanukovych, running and left Victoria Nuland’s hand picked, right, very right wing, as in Nazi crew in charge. By accepting the West’s “trade” agreements Ukraine cut trade and commerce with Russia and gave the West additional access to their internal affairs; military planning for one.

This new regime quickly enacted laws that repressed all things Russian which generated resistance, more repression and violence in a wave from west to east . The people of the Donbass drew the line and the Crimea cried out immediately for protection. (It should be understood that resisters were being killed). Since the whole Russian Black Sea fleet has been there forever, protection was close by; Crimea held a referendum, succeeded and just like that was accepted back into Russia. This constitutes an invasion of Ukraine which began the avalanche of sanctions imposed by the US and all her vassals.

Now we have Russians both east of the Donbass line and west, with family members in Russia, because there has always been free movement and trade between them, forever, and the military supplied by Kiev starts lobbing shells indiscriminately onto towns and cities of the Donbass. Those Russian speaking “Ukrainians” being shelled get military supplies from Mother Russia next door. There was nothing good about all this.

What followed was Minsk I and II, both led by Russia’s efforts with Germany and France, to help Ukraine find a peaceful settlement, a compromise that would give the Donbas fair representation in Kiev and maintain Ukraine’s national boundaries but both failed and were finally abandoned in 2021. Angela Merkal later admitted that the Minsk II treaty was purposely stalled to give Western support enough time to build up Ukraine’s military. It was never going to be signed.

During those seven years, over 14,000 men, women and children were killed in Donbas from western Ukraine’s constant bombing. During the same time, the collective west, led of course by the US, levies wave after wave of sanctions on Russia, turns the Putin is evil meter up to ten, and begins to seriously pour funds into Ukraine, all of which appears to Russia as existential threat,- there is that continual NATO expansion thing also -, just one more attempt to weaken and break up it’s Federation.

When the Kremlin concluded that all attempts for a diplomatic resolution had been exhausted and it was obvious that Kiev would move forces into the Donbas, Russia took the initiative. Russian forces were lined up on the road to Kiev when a new effort to negotiate was attempted. This was brokered by Turkey in mid March, 2022. Diplomats from Ukraine and Russia, having met in Belarus and Istanbul, had made significant progress toward a peace deal. This turned out to be the final opportunity for both countries to avoid what followed but the errand boy from the West, Boris Johnson, “convinced” Zelensky to walk away. Since then it has been bombs away.

The scenario presented above regarding how the civil conflict in Ukraine began and the stages of escalation can surely be debated but the question has to be asked, why did the West get involved and dump fuel on a conflict that could’ve been settled in 2015, knowing Russia’s concerns and how adamant their stance would be, if not to try and burn the whole of Russia down. To believe our nation jumped in to help Ukraine negotiate a reasonable solution, which would have truly been helpful under an umbrella of security, and which would have ensured stability, is delusional.

The US, spearheading sanctions along with confiscating foreign Russian assets over the past eight years has only confirmed to Russia, and much of the world, that the West will never view them as equal partners so Russia has turned east and while America’s pride and misbegotten, outdated foreign policy has just about wrecked Europe, let’s not forget Nord Stream, the rest of the world has moved on to form multiple trade and security agreements based on respect for sovereign rights. The sanctions have done far more to damage and isolate the West than influence Russia’s decisions in Ukraine. But the greatest folly of the West has been to push this conflict right up against the nuclear option. How did we think this would go?

It makes one wonder if the headlong policy wasn’t meant to bankrupt NATO countries, Germany especially, destabilize all of eastern Europe and dump billions of US dollars into what was once a country but is now a black hole sucking down deals for weapons, land and resource grabs. It looks like war as a business model. Before shaking hands with the West for loans and security guarantees, Ukraine should’ve looked at Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and closer to home, Georgia. We goaded their corrupt president, Saakashvili, to attack the S. Osetians in 2008, and Russia came to their defense. Georgia lost some territory as a result. Russia only reacted.

Ukraine however is different in that almost every time Russia has been invaded from the west they have come across the Ukraine. Referring to President Putin’s lesson for Tucker Carlson, and whomever, ( I hope millions of Americans tuned in), he made it clear, several times, that Russia’s offers for participation, their requests for cooperation and their willingness to engage in diplomacy has been spurned by the West far more often than not. Five waves of NATO expansion towards their border and now, under the guise of protecting Ukraine, weapons would be placed on their front porch. How do the people of America think this will go? European countries have a shared history with Russia and they have no doubts. Besides, they have internal problems of their own, as does America, which Mr. Putin pointed out. Many of these problems are a result from sanctions against Russia that have backfired.

Unless someone does something very, very foolish, poor Ukraine will be lucky to find itself only at the mercy of Russia’s demands which are what they asked for from the beginning; a neutral buffer zone with no Nazis. The Ukraine that rebuilds will not be the same country it was and the loss of some territory will by the least of their tragedies and for what, to be one last brick in the wall to keep The Bear at bay.

Again, why would Russia want to invade Ukraine? What would they gain that could not be achieved through diplomacy and trade agreements that would benefit both countries? Would the Russian people want to acquire more “empire” through bloody aggression just to end up with a rebellious vengeful citizenry and invoke the condemnation of the whole world? What kind of security would that buy? How contradictory is the thinking that the largest country in the world, with vast resources needs to expand aggressively? It is not Russia that has 800 military installations scattered all over the globe. Is it unreasonable for them to ask that one or a dozen more not be placed on their doorstep? The debate about who and how the strife in Ukraine began and how much effort to find compromises by who really needs to be answered, especially by each and every American. Where is the wisdom? Where have the billions gone and are we more secure now, or would it be better for our nation to have invested those billions at home? It’s a guarantee Ukraine would have fared much better.

I read the Wikipedia histories of the Russian/Chechnya wars and that was educational. I did note that there was no mention of US aid for Chechnya, but Wikipedia is known for bias by omission, at the very least. As to military techniques, I’m not sure what the comparison is to Syria, Mariupol and the rest of Ukraine other than war is hell. If the reference is to compare the loss of civilian lives as well as wanton use of the common soldier, I would recommend listening to Colonel Douglas MacGregor for his assessment of military actions in Ukraine since 2014, (which is when the war began), as well as an in depth history of the whole Eurasian Gordian knot. Also, former marine and weapons inspector Scott Ritter offers comprehensive insights. Both have done dozens of interviews covering the war; just as a bonus.