Posted on 10/04/2022 6:37:55 AM PDT by son of terrence
JEFFREY SACHS: I was attacked in The Atlantic for being on the side of peace. And I confess, I'm on the side of peace. I'm very worried we are on the path of escalation to nuclear war, nothing less than that.
Russia feels that this war is at the core of its security interests. The United States insists it will do anything to support Ukraine's defeat of Russia. Russia views this as a proxy war with the United States. Whatever one thinks about this, this is the path of extraordinary, dangerous escalation. And I am very fearful.
A lot of the world is watching these events in horror, and a lot of the world doesn't like this NATO expansion, which they interpret as at the core of this. They want to see a compromise between the U.S. and Russia.
In vote after vote in the United Nations, basically, it has been the Western nations that have been voting for sanctions and denunciations and other actions. Whereas most of the world, certainly most of the world counted by population, is on the sidelines. They just view this as a horrible clash between Russia and the U.S. They don't view this, as we describe it in the media, as an unprovoked attack by Russia on Ukraine.
Anyone in the U.S. thinks, "well, what else is it?" But that is because of the way our media has been reporting this. This conflict goes back a long time, it didn't start on February 24, 2022. In fact, the war itself started in 2014, not in 2022, and even that had antecedents.
Most of the world doesn't see it the way we describe it. Most of the world is just terrified right now, frankly.
(Excerpt) Read more at jeffsachs.org ...
“This conflict goes back a long time, it didn’t start on February 24, 2022. In fact, the war itself started in 2014...”
Yeah, it started in 2014 when Russia invaded without provocation the first time, LOL.
‘Strategy and tactics for how to deal with an enemy force are best summed up in the Sun Tzu “Rules of War”.’
Yeah, those are nice, but Sun Tzu couldn’t even conceive of nuclear weapons, so they are a bit outdated.
Yep, appeasement just invites more conquest when you are dealing with someone like Putin.
This is an interesting recap including the framing of "separatists." Let us apply your view to other conflicts in which "separatists" have won or at least are persevering against the US military.
Vietnam, lost to the Viet Cong. Iraq, still a mess. Afghanistan, lost to the Taliban. Syria, still persevering in spite of about a third of the country under US military control. The three month bombing of Serbia, which won for "separatists" in Kosovo a US/NATO separation between peoples. Which are the "separatists" in this paragraph? The Vietnamese? The Taliban? The Iraqis and Syrians?
Moreover, given the US military presence in more than three-quarters of the world's nations even now costing US taxpayers and debt makers trillions, discussions of "separatists" is a large subject, in which we, with near $31 trillion dollars of national debt, are funding lots of separatism. And some puppet states as well.
To propose the Ukraine/Russia conflict as something other than all the others in the last fifty years is to lose sight of history, And debt.
Perhaps "the world is talking peace," as you write, but the West is currently "walking" war. Surveying the non-Western press such as that from Asia and Africa, it seems the "world" is not nearly as interested as the "war" party of the US, the Democrats and the Institute of War lobbyists in the state department, nor our current General Raytheon leading the DOD.
Bingo. US admin and much of EU are not representative — not because they were not elected, but because they care nothing whatsoever about their constituencies.
Uk serves them, the commie trash in charge, as $$ laundering and source of sex slaves. It all comes down to personal advantage.
I’m not going to defend Putin, but looking at Eastern Europe since the Cold War ended lets see who’s practiced appeasement, expansion and aggression.
When the Cold War ended NATO and the US informally told Russia there would be no expansion of NATO eastward, it wasn’t in writing so the word was a few years later screw you Russia. Was that promise kept? Fourteen new countries all former Soviet Pact countries were allowed to join. The Russians were upset and angry but did not start a war and appeased NATO, allowing it’s expansion literally right to it’s border in some cases.
When the Russians started pushing back in the Crimea NATO acted like they were pure as the driven snow and were flabbergasted at Russian behavior. Again I am not justifying the behavior just looking at the overall picture since 1991.
There are no innocents in this coming cataclysm, BOTH sides have behaved stupidly and disingenuously: practicing aggression, expansion and appeasement.
Untrue. No expansion of NATO eastward only covered East Germany. Gorbachev, the head of the Soviet Union confirmed this in later interviews. Also, NATO expansion is voluntary, as opposed to joining Russia, which always seems to be at the point of a gun. As to threatening Russia, does anyone seriously believe NATO was going to invade a nuclear Russia?
The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.
Mikhail Gorbachev: I am against all walls Oct 16 2014
https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html
There are other statements which contradict this link. As I said there was nothing in writing and if it’s not in writing it’s 99% of the time worthless.
To suggest this is all Russia’s and not anything the west has done fault is being disingenuous. Both sides have behaved irrationally at times. Russia invading the Ukraine being one of them.
I’m for America first, not NATO first and this mess is not in our interests. Let the Ukraine and Russia fight their war and for once in this century the US should stay out of yet another mindless, unnecessary and not in our interests war. Starting WWIII and a nuclear war over the Ukraine is the height is stupidity by both sides.
The Right Honourable Neville Chamberlain is but one example or many from world history proving that there are times when peace is the more dangerous option, and peace is more than merely the absence of war.
Your view is cogent and shared by me. To take one eight-year old quote to prove a point is a debate tactic of the "appeal to authority" method, but it does not complete the picture. To date, seven sets of sanctions and the destruction of undersea pipelines are throwing the West into greater turmoil, economically and politically. All for "cheering for one side," as we watch NATO munitions and armament disappearing into the conflict. From our many friends in Europe, we are hearing of growing challenges to them as prices surge. Because -- sanctions for a conflict which supposedly does not involve NATO excepting that it does. No combatants in the moment, but billions in cash and weapons. The EU is in debt, and the US in massive debt, as the military industrial complex, of which President Eisenhower warned, profiting nicely.
We were legal residents of Germany for decades. I can assure that the sentiment there is not as reported in our US media in the moment. The key is corruption, as we recall the participation of the princelings of the Biden, Kerry, Pelosi and Romney families made massive financial gain from involvement in the Ukraine. That is one side in this conflict which is so often ignored, with reason. It colors in a way that a color revolution does not. As Victoria Nuland said, caught in recording, "f*ck Europe." This is a mess, and the players are not all as they seem. That much is certain.
” The Russians were upset and angry but did not start a war and appeased NATO...”
I’m sorry, but that’s not “appeasement”. NATO did not invade any countries in Eastern Europe. Those countries voluntarily asked to join a defensive alliance.
“BOTH sides have behaved stupidly and disingenuously: practicing aggression, expansion and appeasement.”
No, only one side has been aggressive, and that is Russia. Nobody else has been invading other countries in Europe except for them, and they have done it habitually since Putin has come to power.
Thank you.
If you look at Russian history they have always tried to keep a buffer between them and potential aggressors and like it or not they see NATO as potential enemy. NATO moved right up to their borders, their reaction was perfectly predictable. I’m not condoning it but it was a very predictable response.
Isn’t the “Anti-Christ” supposed to be a “peacemaker”?
“If you look at Russian history they have always tried to keep a buffer between them and potential aggressors and like it or not they see NATO as potential enemy.”
And if you look further into Russian history, rather than just enough to find one talking point to support your position, then you will see that Russia generally only starts aggressive wars against weaker neighbors, not against strong alliances. So leaving them with “buffer states” instead of a strong alliance on their borders is just guaranteeing that they’ll eventually try to eat those buffer states. Rather than preventing war, this is a recipe for war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.