Washington Helped Trigger The Ukraine War

[Jfp75]

"The magnitude of the aggressive moves taken by the Pentagon and CIA are just now becoming apparent."

Washington Helped Trigger the Ukraine War - The American Conservative

 

[FanthatSpark]

Here is more...

Remember that 6 billion or so that went missing in Ukraine ? @Reprobus. In the above article they act like this stealing of the tax is ok. Got a fresh 12 billion going over there soon to get lost too (No endpoint oversite of funds once it leaves U.S. soil). This is the hub of our (U.S. nation) corruption (Ukraine) so... Yeah they balk when Russia said enough. Now that the bluff was called , of course they want an all out war to lose their wrong doings in the chaos... Simple criminology .

 

[HTacianas]

"The magnitude of the aggressive moves taken by the Pentagon and CIA are just now becoming apparent."

Washington Helped Trigger the Ukraine War - The American Conservative

That's one of the reasons I posted on here a few weeks ago that I didn't expect Russia to invade Ukraine. I thought surely someone would make some public statement to the effect that Ukraine would not in fact become a NATO member and the whole thing would blow over. Sadly, that statement was only made after the invasion. I consider it to be one of the greatest diplomatic failures in history.

 

[Aussie Pete]

"The magnitude of the aggressive moves taken by the Pentagon and CIA are just now becoming apparent."

Washington Helped Trigger the Ukraine War - The American Conservative

Just maybe Russia's annexation of Crimea made the West realise that Putin was serious about his intent to restore the former Soviet Union. I think it was madness to shut Ukraine out of NATO. Even Putin is not stupid enough to attack NATO members. Arming Ukraine was exactly what needed to happen. Sure, Washington did as the article said. Putin did not need any provocation.

How many times has Russia been invaded since WW2? None. Russia has always been the aggressor. Despots do not make idle threats. Hitler flagged his intentions years before he started WW2. Putin has been promoting the idea of restoration of Russia's empire for years also. Trump was right about Europe's pathetic military state. The UK has insufficient military resources to meet NATO commitments and defend itself.

 

[Aussie Pete]

That's one of the reasons I posted on here a few weeks ago that I didn't expect Russia to invade Ukraine. I thought surely someone would make some public statement to the effect that Ukraine would not in fact become a NATO member and the whole thing would blow over. Sadly, that statement was only made after the invasion. I consider it to be one of the greatest diplomatic failures in history.

Bull. Putin flagged his intentions in 2014. Ukraine has not been able to join NATO. 2014 would have been the ideal time. Putin is a conscienceless despot who thinks nothing of murdering innocent civilians. The intelligence community came out of the woodwork and stated that they knew Putin would invade. Putin has become Stalin II.

 

[HTacianas]

Bull. Putin flagged his intentions in 2014. Ukraine has not been able to join NATO. 2014 would have been the ideal time. Putin is a conscienceless despot who thinks nothing of murdering innocent civilians. The intelligence community came out of the woodwork and stated that they knew Putin would invade. Putin has become Stalin II.

Ukraine President Signs Constitutional Amendment On NATO, EU Membership

 

[Aussie Pete]

Ukraine President Signs Constitutional Amendment On NATO, EU Membership

Ukraine can make all the pronouncements they like. They have not joined. I wish they had. From a purely military point of view, I would have told Putin that 200,000 troops on the border is an act of war, pull them back or else.

 

[HTacianas]

Ukraine can make all the pronouncements they like. They have not joined. I wish they had. From a purely military point of view, I would have told Putin that 200,000 troops on the border is an act of war, pull them back or else.

And you would only invite a slaughter. The idea here is to prevent the next world war not start it. Another European collective suicide that hundreds of thousands of Americans will have to die fighting in. All because some reasonable agreement couldn't be reached to avoid it.

 

[mindlight]

"The magnitude of the aggressive moves taken by the Pentagon and CIA are just now becoming apparent."

Washington Helped Trigger the Ukraine War - The American Conservative

America has been quite transparent about its desire for Ukraine in NATO ever since the Republican George Bush proposed the idea. The reason it is not in NATO is primarily the Germans and French and by extension the EU. Biden provoked the issue with his rhetoric but Putin had already made the decision to invade at some point decades ago.

The German policy of Ostpolitik was meant to engage Russia and bring change peacefully. "Those who trade with each other will not shoot each other." Also, Merkel was quite fond of Russia and fluent in Russian. Germans felt guilty about the things they did in Russia and adopting a more aggressive and militaristic stand against Russia was not therefore possible.

This has now all changed because the Germans perceive that Putin has been playing them, they now see their dependency on Russian gas and oil as a strategic mistake and because they are rallying to the support of the Ukraine which has impressed everyone with the stoic defense of its land. German rearmament coincides with a desire for Green Energy independence and is a seismic shift in policy. Now EU membership for Ukraine is a distinct possibility and even NATO membership is not ruled out in principle anymore.

This war has been a long time coming. Ukraine is better prepared for it now than it was in 2014.

 

[Archivist]

Ukraine is a sovereign nation. If Ukraine wants to join NATO it has, with NATO approval, that right. Russia has no say in the matter.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Ukraine is a sovereign nation. If Ukraine wants to join NATO it has, with NATO approval, that right. Russia has no say in the matter.

Correct in theory. Maybe now Russia has been exposed as more p*ussy cat than tiger, perhaps the West will be less afraid. The spectre of nukes still hangs over Europe. The biggest mistake Ukraine made was to give up it nukes without being allowed to join NATO. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[Andrewn]

Ukraine is a sovereign nation. If Ukraine wants to join NATO it has, with NATO approval, that right. Russia has no say in the matter.

I disagree. Sweden and Finland, which had their own experience with Russia shrewdly chose neutrality.

"Sweden chose to opt for neutrality. It has been neutral for more than 200 years, since the country had to cede Finland — which was then Swedish territory — to Russia, following a war in 1809.

"Finland won independence in 1917 when the Russian revolution put an end to imperial rule, and it was later able to defend its independence from the Soviet Union. 'We would not have kept our sovereignty,' former Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb told DW, 'without a self-declared, pragmatic neutrality that was in no way ideological.'"

Ukraine: Could neutrality really be an option? | DW | 25.03.2022

 

[RDKirk]

I disagree. Sweden and Finland, which had their own experience with Russia shrewdly chose neutrality.

"Sweden chose to opt for neutrality. It has been neutral for more than 200 years, since the country had to cede Finland — which was then Swedish territory — to Russia, following a war in 1809.

"Finland won independence in 1917 when the Russian revolution put an end to imperial rule, and it was later able to defend its independence from the Soviet Union. 'We would not have kept our sovereignty,' former Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb told DW, 'without a self-declared, pragmatic neutrality that was in no way ideological.'"

Ukraine: Could neutrality really be an option? | DW | 25.03.2022

Neutrality for Sweden, then for Finland, has always been a matter of Russia not at the time making a concerted effort to conquer them.

But then, no Russian leader has ever viewed Sweden or Finland as being existentially essential to Russia's national identity, the way Putin views Ukraine.

 

[Archivist]

I disagree. Sweden and Finland, which had their own experience with Russia shrewdly chose neutrality.

"Sweden chose to opt for neutrality. It has been neutral for more than 200 years, since the country had to cede Finland — which was then Swedish territory — to Russia, following a war in 1809.

"Finland won independence in 1917 when the Russian revolution put an end to imperial rule, and it was later able to defend its independence from the Soviet Union. 'We would not have kept our sovereignty,' former Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb told DW, 'without a self-declared, pragmatic neutrality that was in no way ideological.'"

Ukraine: Could neutrality really be an option? | DW | 25.03.2022

And neutrality is their choice as sovereign nations, just as it is Ukraine’s choice to apply for NATO membership if it so desires. That decision isn’t up to Russia.

 

[Andrewn]

But then, no Russian leader has ever viewed Sweden or Finland as being existentially essential to Russia's national identity, the way Putin views Ukraine.

Why does Putin view Ukraine as being existentially essential to Russia's national identity?

The only answer people get from MSM is that Putin is paranoid.

But let us look at history. In 1990, both James Baker (US Secretary of State) and Helmut Kohl (Germany's Prime Minister) promised Mikhail Gorbachev (Soviet President) that there would be no extension of NATO, beyond the unification of Germany.

But this was followed by 3 major waves of NATO expansion that preceded Putin's annexation of Crimea and subsequent developments.

 

[RDKirk]

Why does Putin view Ukraine as being existentially essential to Russia's national identity?

Putin has provided his own lengthy explanation for that.

On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians - Wikisource, the free online library

But let us look at history. In 1990, both James Baker (US Secretary of State) and Helmut Kohl (Germany's Prime Minister) promised Mikhail Gorbachev (Soviet President) that there would be no extension of NATO, beyond the unification of Germany.

There was no such "promise." It was a brief item of discussion, never a term of agreement ever validated.

There are historical and geographical reasons why the USSR occupied those East European nations in the first place: They are the invasion routes into Russia.

That geography has not changed. Those nations know Russia and they know Russia's intentions. That's why they joined NATO. I suspect even Sweden and Finland are giving some thought to it now.

 

[Andrewn]

Putin has provided his own lengthy explanation for that. On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians - Wikisource, the free online library

That's a long article. It should be interesting to see how Putin expresses his thoughts. I'll save it in the Reading List.

They are the invasion routes into Russia. That geography has not changed.

Yes, and now there is only Belarus and Ukraine in the way.

I suspect even Sweden and Finland are giving some thought to it now.

According to the article I quoted, there is a lot of support in Finland for joining NATO. I've never felt as close to WWIII as I have in the past month.

The last president who lived through WWII was George WH Bush. I hope that world leaders have not forgotten the horror.

 

[Arcangl86]

The biggest mistake Ukraine made was to give up it nukes without being allowed to join NATO. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

People keep claiming this. However the problem is that the nukes were useless to the Ukrainians anyway. They were left over Soviet devices, outfitted with soviet PALs. Who had the codes for the PALs? Russia, because that was where the Soviet high command had been located. So I suppose the Ukrainians could have rigged dirty bombs with them, but as actual usable nuclear weapons, they weren't viable.

 

[Aussie Pete]

People keep claiming this. However the problem is that the nukes were useless to the Ukrainians anyway. They were left over Soviet devices, outfitted with soviet PALs. Who had the codes for the PALs? Russia, because that was where the Soviet high command had been located. So I suppose the Ukrainians could have rigged dirty bombs with them, but as actual usable nuclear weapons, they weren't viable.

Ukrainians are smart people. I don't doubt that they could have rejigged the bombs to be controlled by their own military. It only requires the trigger mechanism to changed. "Only" of course may be trickier than it sounds, but for sure not impossible.

 

[Aussie Pete]

And you would only invite a slaughter. The idea here is to prevent the next world war not start it. Another European collective suicide that hundreds of thousands of Americans will have to die fighting in. All because some reasonable agreement couldn't be reached to avoid it.

That's a gross overreaction. The US has about 70,000 servicemen in Europe. Do you think they would all get killed? It's not Afghanistan. The enemy is obvious and the kind of warfare exactly what suits traditional military forces. America demonstrated this well in Iraq, twice, along with European allies.