On Dec 21, 2021, I co-authored with Alexander Markovsky, a friend of mine, Ukraine, NATO, and the Most Fateful Error of American Policy, though Markovsky dominated the input.
“After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact, NATO, in a violation of the verbal agreement between Secretary of State James Baker and Russian Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, launched a massive expansion to the east.
“This expansion can be seen from Moscow only as a strategy to encircle Russia and turn its neighbors into hostile countries. As long as Russia was economically and military weak, the process proceeded unabated. NATO has grown from 16 countries before the reunification of Germany, to 28 today.”
Our next article was on January 14, 2022, If USA and Russia are Implacable Foes, all Lines of Inquiry Lead to NATO.
“In 1961, as a young academic Henry Kissinger had an opportunity to interview President Harry Truman. He asked the President what in his presidency had made him most proud. Truman replied, “That we totally defeated our enemies and then brought them back to the community of nations.”
“Unfortunately, the U.S. chose not to emulate Truman’s achievement. With the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact, the military threat to Western Europe had ended, but NATO alliance did not disband itself. Mission accomplished was not good news for the military alliance — it needed new enemies and a new mission for self-preservation.
“Indeed, NATO had no difficulty adjusting to the emerging world order. A new enemy was invented — Russia was to be treated as a descendant of the “evil empire.” The concept of an alliance was quietly converted into a doctrine of collective security. The difference is that while alliances are aimed at a specific threat and define the obligation of each partner in case of belligerency, collective security is an ambiguous concept that defines no specific threat and is designed to resist any aggression anywhere in the world. In this new mission NATO equated peace and security with expanding democratic gains and proliferation of American values.”
“After the restoration of the economy and years of heavy investment into the modernization of its armed forces, Russia feels strong enough to confront what she considers as a serious threat to her security. […]
“A glance at the map of Europe shows that if Ukraine and Georgia became members of NATO, Russia would be almost entirely flanked by NATO on its European border.
“This irrevocable fact of geography forced Putin to demand from America a security guarantee that Ukraine and Georgia would never be accepted into NATO. To demonstrate that he meant business, he assembled a sizeable military force in the proximity to the Ukrainian border.
“Moscow caught Western allies at the moment of maximum weakness. The geopolitical environment has dramatically changed in Russia’s favor. European Union is in a state of economic weakness and political uncertainty. Obsessed with Global Warming or Cooling or a vague Climate Change it has shut down its nuclear and coal fired power plants and is depended on Russian gas to keep its industries running and homes warmed.
“European members of NATO have degraded their military capabilities and are totally dependent on the U.S. for their defense. “
On Feb 26, 2022, I wrote The pot is calling the kettle, black, in which I accused the US of being the bad guy, not the Russians. I listed all the reasons for doing so beginning with:
“After the fall of the USSR, the US invaded Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq , and Libya. She overthrew Mubarak, the long standing ruler of Egypt and installed its own regime and attempted to do the same with Syria. She expanded NATO eastward after promising not to do so. She handcuffed Israel, thereby violating its sovereignty, and demanded she cease settlement construction and back the two-state solution.”
In the first article recited, we wrote:
“He (Putin) made it perfectly clear that he would not allow Ukraine to join NATO. To resolve the issue peacefully, he suggested to President Biden that the U.S. would offer Russia a guarantee that Ukraine would not be admitted to the NATO military alliance. But NATO’s secretary-general, Jens Stoltenberg, rejected the idea and affirmed a NATO right to bring more countries into the alliance. Unless the situation changes, Moscow will have no choice but to invade Ukraine.
“There is little risk for Moscow in doing such an invasion, either militarily, politically, or economically.”
Today we see how right we were. Russia is winning the war, Putin remains very popular and Russia has overcome the worst sanctions ever.
All this is confirmed by
John Mearsheimer | EVERYTHING the UNITED STATES touches turns to ASH
Reaching a Just and Lasting Peace in Ukraine: Jeffrey Sachs
Scott Ritter – The US Military is no match for the Russian Army
Col. Macgregor Debunks Ukraine Propaganda- It’s Time to End the War
In an analysis of the events leading up to this war, we must reference the CIA orchestrated Maidan Coup (2014) and the failed Minsk Agreements.
In my article, Ukraine: The right of self-determination supersedes sovereign inviolability, I discuss the Maidan Coup of 2014 and the Minsk Agreements which followed.
“The 2014 CIA masterminded coup, sometimes referred to as the Maiden uprising, which removed the pro-Russian head of state, Viktor Yanukovych and installed a pro-West head of state is not mentioned (by the West). That’s OK in their book, but best forgotten. They (the West) take no responsibility for the bombardment by Ukrainian Army of the citizens of the Donbass since then, killing over 14,000. Nor do they acknowledge the role of the Nazi Azov Battalion which Ukraine made part of their army and which did most of the killing.”
At this time Russia annexed Crimea and separatists declared independence in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Donbas in eastern Ukraine. As a result the West sanctioned Russia and began the bombardment by the puppet Ukrainian Army, killing 14000 Ukrainians over the ensuing years.
The Minsk Agreements, between Ukraine and the separatists, which were signed in 2014 and 2015 attempted to restore peace to the region or so we were told.
“Moscow may see Minsk II as a way to guarantee its central security demand – that Ukraine is never allowed to join NATO. Washington and NATO have already rejected that demand.”
Because of this rejection, Donetsk and Luhansk declared independence.
In Dec 2022, we learnt of the real intention of the Minsk Agreements.
Real intention behind Minsk agreements further destroys credibility of the West
“In an interview with the German newspaper Die Zeit last week, former German chancellor Angela Merkel revealed the West’s real intention behind its negotiation with Russia and Ukraine to promote a ceasefire in 2014. She admitted the Minsk agreements were an “attempt to give Ukraine time” and that Kiev had used it “to become stronger.””
Evidently it was the goal of the West to build up the Ukrainian Army so that it could repel a Russian attack which was expected.
Russia recognized their independence in Feb 2022 and began what it called, a “special military operation.” The West called it an invasion.
The fact that the West is now heavily involved in the supply of weapons and money to Ukraine, even though Ukraine‘s application to join NATO has now been rejected, suggests the Russia’s fears were well founded. Russia didn’t imagine that NATO would attack her even if Ukraine wasn’t a member of NATO.
The stated goal of the US is regime change in Russia and extending US hegemony.
Some may see this as a good thing and others not. Clearly the growth of BRICS (Russia and China trigger global shift from US through BRICS!) suggest the rejectionists are in the majority. Most people in the world reject US hegemony and the New World Order. They prefer Nationalism to Globalism. They prefer a multi-polar world rather than a uni-polar world.
The USSR was feared because it wanted to extend Communism throughout the world. Now the US is feared because it wants to dominate the world in the name of “democracy” as defined by the NWO.
In my article, Ukraine: The right of self-determination supersedes sovereign inviolability above mentioned I wrote:
The Principle of Self-Determination in International Law
“The Charter of the United Nations came into force in 1945, in which Article 1 includes reference to self-determination. This meant, for the first time, self-determination was recognised in an official international legal document, affirming that it was an existing right. However, the lack of definition and detail as to what self-determination entails provided in the Charter left little ability for the right to be applied, particularly in relation to secession. But, the 1966 International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) transformed that by providing a substantive definition about what is encompassed in the right to self-determination;
‘All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development’.
‘The ICCPR was ratified by Ukraine on Oct 12, 1973 so it is bound by it.
‘This right of self-determination therefor supersedes the sanctity of sovereignty.
‘Surely, the residents of the four provinces and the Crimea have the right of self-determination as legalized by this Treaty. They speak Russian as their mother-tongue and think of themselves as Russian.
‘These residents have not only overwhelmingly voted “yes” in their respective referendums recently held, they also voted “yes” in the 2014 referendum. They previously voted overwhelmingly for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian candidate for the presidency in 2010.
‘The West called these referenda “shams” and said they were “unconstitutional” and “lacked legitimacy”. The above noted right of self-determination was not conditional on whether or not it was “constitutional”. Thus it is ipso facto, legal.
‘In calling the referenda “shams”, the West is in fact, recognizing the right of self-determination providing the referenda are properly held.
What say you?