On Ukraine, Comedians, NATO, America and Environmentalists

A widely offered explanation for the Russian invasion of Ukraine is that Russia -- which at this time essentially means President Vladimir Putin -- fears the expansion of NATO to its borders, especially Ukraine. The argument is often presented as an analogy: How would the United States react if Mexico had a mutual defense pact with Russia and received weapons from Russia?

A second explanation is that Russia is "paranoid" as a result of its having been devastated by the invasions of Napoleon's France in the 19th century and Hitler's Germany in the 20th. This was the excuse that many professional excuse makers made for the Soviet Union's shooting down -- without any warning -- Korean Air Lines flight 007 in 1983, killing all 269 passengers and crew.

"The Russians are paranoid" became a widespread explanation. Seymour Hersh, the best-known New York Times investigative reporter for decades, wrote a book on the shooting down of KAL 007. As described in a 1986 New York Times book review, "On the Soviet side, writes Mr. Hersh, there was paranoia."

When I was a graduate student at Columbia University's Russian Institute, I regularly encountered the "paranoid" explanation for Soviet/Russian policies. It struck me then, and even more so now, as pathologic or false, or both. Russia is by far the largest country on Earth, spanning approximately one-ninth of all the world's land surface. When that fact is combined with Russia's vast nuclear weaponry, the "paranoia" explanation for Russian aggression is rendered absurd.

It is even more absurd when one considers the countries Russia allegedly fears will invade them. Which one of their Western-border countries --Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Moldova, Belarus, Ukraine -- is likely to invade Russia? Wasn't every one of them invaded by Russia? Shouldn't every one of invaded by Russia? Shouldn't every one of them be paranoid?

We'll end the "paranoid" discussion with this rule of history: Generally speaking, wars are either between two police states or between a police state and a free state. And the latter are nearly always initiated or provoked by the police state. Russia has nothing to fear from its neighbors. Its neighbors have plenty to fear from Russia.

I know of no American, on the Right or the Left, who has called for sending the U.S. military into Ukraine. But every American should feel awful -- morally and as an American -- about America sitting by and watching the first major invasion of a peaceful country since Hitler and Stalin. One reason is that since World War II, the weaker nations of the world have all held onto the hope that should they be attacked by a stronger nation, Americans would come to their aid.

America is aiding Ukraine with arms and economic sanctions, but as I watch peaceful Ukraine devoured by aggressive Russia, I can't help but think that it appears that evil will triumph -- and lead to more evil on Earth. I have never agreed with the throwaway line, "America is not the world's policeman." Does the world not need a policeman? And if not America, who? China? Russia? The U.N.?

If the strongest boy in high school, one whom the weakest boys and girls looked to for protection, decided one day to watch rather than to protect them as they were beaten by the school bully, even if there was good reason for the lack of intervention, wouldn't that be a very sad day? And wouldn't it affect the way the protector saw himself?

Most Americans see themselves as protectors of the weak against bully nations. This is the first time in our lifetime that America has abandoned that role.

By general consensus among the world's media and world's nations, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is the most courageous leader in the world today.

For many people, this is particularly remarkable since Zelenskyy's professional background is that of a comedian. It strikes most people as amazing that a comedian turns out to be the world's most inspiring leader.

That, of course, was the reason so many dismissed Donald Trump when he ran for president: "He has no political experience, he's just a wealthy real estate developer." However, that real estate developer also turned out to be the most courageous leader in the world. Honest haters of Trump must at least acknowledge his courage -- just as supporters must acknowledge his lack of a filter between his brain and his mouth.

It was Trump who had the courage to demand that our NATO allies live up to their obligations with regard to military spending. Ironically, thanks to Putin, the NATO countries are finally doing so. It was Trump who uncovered a deep state of corruption in nearly every major American governmental institution. It was Trump who took on the mainstream media, regarded by half of America as little better than Pravda, the Soviet newspaper. It was Trump who had the courage to do what president after president and Congress after Congress called for but never acted on: moving the American embassy in Israel to Israel's capital city, Jerusalem. He did this despite the opposition of almost every world leader and his own State Department. If that's not courage, what is?

And it remains a fact that Putin did not invade Ukraine while Trump was president. Putin feared Trump. Neither Putin nor anyone else fears President Joe Biden.

It is therefore not at all surprising that a comedian is the world's most courageous leader. It is surprising that people still think a lifelong political career produces leaders. Biden is a lifelong politician and, as his behavior during COVID-19 showed, may well be the least courageous president in American history.

It is overwhelmingly likely that American and European environmentalists made the Russian invasion of Ukraine possible. Under Trump, America became energy independent and was even able to supply Europe with energy. But the environmental movement, which dominates the Democratic Party and nearly every Western European country, has made Russia the major supplier of natural gas to Europe, and especially to the most important country on the European continent, Germany.

The environmentalist movement uses climate change to achieve its primary objectives: undoing of the West's economic foundations, reshaping the Western way of life, dismantling capitalism and transferring wealth to the Third World. They will pursue these aims at any cost -- whether crippling inflation, energy blackouts, even the strengthening of Russia and China.

If you really believe climate change poses an "existential threat" to human life, there is no price too high to pay in order to eliminate fossil fuel-based energy. That includes empowering and enriching evil men.

I must respectively disagree with Mr. Prager.

“And if not America, who? China? Russia? The U.N.?”

No Mr. Prager, this is a European problem. Not a NATO problem. A European Problem. This might be a good time for Europe to truly become Europe United and for each member state send a contingent of troops, if not into Ukraine, at least to the borders.
But NO American troops on the ground. NO American Air power. No American anything except arms, ammunition & other supplies.
Of course, most of that material has to be shipped from China. Which is another kettle of fish.

Love Dennis, but he only nails it with #4.

For #1 (Russia paranoia), that was also the case for Gorby and Yeltsin when SDI was discussed. To Dennis it’s insane that they would be scared of invasion given their size (as if that matters) and nuclear arsenal (that’s valid), but why feel threatened by a defensive system like SDI as it could never stop a large attack and Reagan even offered to share it with Russia. Russians are a paranoid people, not just Putin, whether we like it or not. Trying to analyze them by Western values (whatever they are) only leads to miscalculation.

For #2 (America the policeman), maybe he likes the idea of that, but is he ready to triple the size of our military to be capable of that, considering, by that standard, we could be fighting a war (or wars) in Europe, Korea, Taiwan, and Iran at the same time? Also, Linda is all but demanding that we DO go into Ukraine and fight those pesky Russians.

For #3 (Comedian leader), who cares, other than the fact that inexperienced leaders can also do dumb things, like not finish off Castro in Bay of Pigs (directly leading the Cuban Missile Crisis), and then delay responding to Cuban missiles until nearly starting WW3. In this case, running headlong into NATO and the EU with only Biden and an otherwise disarmed NATO to protect him (Germany’s military is basically non-existent) could be considered stupid, really stupid.

Dennis could also spend a bit of time explaining just HOW STUPID it was for the New World Order types to think that world peace could be maintained without our militaries, when both Russia and China aren’t into that game. I don’t believe that there’s any evidence of the NWO types telling their own countries, like Germany, that it’s time to step things up militarily, as Russia/China are not playing by their rules. Only Trump was trying to do that.

It’s kind of like a hot woman walking alone through Central Park and getting raped. Sure, the rapist is the bad guy and should be punished, but even if punished, would it then be safe for that woman to walk alone again through Central Park at that hour? But consider the same scene with several well-armed Navy Seals with her...then yes, she can walk through Central Park, or anywhere else, at any time. Russia developed hypersonic missiles, we spent (probably) the same amount of money retrofitting nuclear subs to handle having women on them.

I disagree with Prager on the “paranoia” issue. Although Russia is the largest by land area it is about 9th in the world in population. Less than Bangladesh. It has a border with a hungry China. It has been invaded many times. It would be a nice plum for many to pillage. It is cut off by the Arctic ocean in the north. They have a strong group of reasons to fear their neighbors.
That being clarified, Ukraine is noted as being a corrupt kleptocracy, even worse than Russia by some watchdog groups.
Would anyone want their next door neighbor to have firebombs in their house, after you have rebuilt your house from it being burnt by a previous neighbor?

Preemptive invasion is risky. I look at it as two not very democratic nations drunk with corruption and fear having a fight in a dive bar over some perceived threats and unpaid debt.Sadly, innocent and brave people will suffer and die
If Prager wants the u.s. to be world policeman, he should go. Put some skin in the game, Dennis.
Otherwise, Prager usually has good reasoning most of the time. Most.
IMHO.

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.