Posted on 04/13/2022 8:56:52 PM PDT by Cronos
Speaking at the Vostochny space launch facility, Putin charged that Ukraine was turned into an “anti-Russian bridgehead” where “sprouts of nationalism and neo-Nazism were being cultivated”.
“This new generation of Ukrainian nationalists are especially clashing with Russia. You see how Nazi ideology became a fact of life in Ukraine,” he argued.
Ukraine and its Western allies have dismissed such claims as a cover for aggression. No far-right party was represented in Ukraine’s parliament before the war.
(Excerpt) Read more at aljazeera.com ...
To refuse to let Putin put his Russia into you is Nazism. To be Ukrainian is a crime
For Putin the fact that Ukraine, Belarus and other ex-Soviet countries are independent and free to choose their own way is some kind of historical nonsense that he wants to fix.
However, no matter what Putin believes in, the people of Ukraine don’t want to join Muscowy. According to sociological polls, in 2021 only 3% of Ukrainian population want Ukraine to merge with Russia. For comparison, 59% of Ukrainians wanted Ukraine to join European Union and 50% want to join NATO. That’s a staggering difference, that can’t be ignored and also means that annexing and controlling Ukraine by force would be extremely hard for Muscowy.
Unless something goes terribly wrong, Putin’s biggest legacy will be permanent loss of Ukraine for Muscowy. Putin himself is the biggest promoter of Ukraine moving away from Muscowy
If the US didn’t meddle in Ukraine in 2014 it would still be a single country at peace.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/19/why-nato-has-not-permitted-russia-to-join/
May 19, 2014
Why NATO Has Not Permitted Russia to Join
by John V. Walsh
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Email
As the West’s assault on Ukraine gets ever bloodier, the “news” on National Public Radio (NPR) is teeming with anti-Russian propaganda, interspersed with the usual pieces declaiming on one’s senior prom and other matters of equal import. All in all it is a pretty dismal substitute for news and analysis.
But even at the “Diane Rehm Show,” very near the bottom of the dung heap that is NPR, a few scraps of truth can be scavenged on occasion – usually uncovered by a caller’s question. Such was the case on March 27 when Rehm’s guests were Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, before which he was Director of Policy Planning at the Bush/Powell State Department, and Ian Brzezinski, son of Zbig.
In this case the caller raised an oft-asked question since Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland put the final touches on the $5 billion plan to install a fascist-ridden government in Ukraine. The caller asked: Rather than antagonize Russia with the relentless advance of NATO, why not incorporate Russia into the European “security structure” and into NATO itself? Before Hass’s answer, a little history. NATO was formed in 1949. In 1954, the year after Stalin’s death, the USSR proposed that it join NATO as part of a mechanism to preserve peace in Europe. By that time the denazification campaign in Germany had been halted and the German intelligence services, chock full of “ex”-Nazis were up and running. West Germany was on its way to being incorporated into NATO, and the Soviets were alarmed. NATO turned down its request. In 1955, the Warsaw Pact was formed in response.
To return to the Diane Rehm show, here is how the caller posed the question, directing his question to Haass (Italics mine):
REHM: “And welcome back as we talk about what’s happening in Russia, in Crimea and possibly in Ukraine, as well as the president’s recent trip to Europe. Let’s open the phones now first to Michael in Kingston, R.I. Hi, you’re on the air. Go right ahead.”
MICHAEL: “Good morning, Diane. Thank you. Mr. Haass, with respect to NATO, you were in President Bush’s administration, George H.W. Bush. You know more than anyone in this country the question I’m about to ask. Was there nuanced reason or a specific reason why the Western powers, specifically NATO, did not, after the fall of the Soviet Union — why didn’t we specifically extend an invitation to Russia to become a part of NATO? And if we had, would we be looking at a Crimea crisis today”?
REHM: “Richard”?
HAASS: “Look, it’s a great question. The issue did come up at various times. I, at one point, to be honest, advocated it. I wrote a memo when I was the head of policy planning — so this was not under H.W. Bush, but George W. Bush, the 43rd president — suggesting that this was something that we could (do) for two reasons.”
“One is I didn’t think it would really impair the functioning of NATO, as we just discussed. I think NATO had already become, if you will, what I described as an a la carte relationship. So it wasn’t all or nothing. Coalitions of the willing had increasingly become the norm. And, second of all, I thought it would take some of the sting out of NATO enlargement and it would remove the argument that the post-war order was somehow built against Russia. So it would take away the kind of humiliation or rant we heard the other day from France and Putin.”
REHM: “And why was the suggestion denied”?
HAASS: “Those who doubted the wisdom of it, besides the possibility that Russia might not accept, which was a side argument, worried that it would impair the continuing military effectiveness of NATO, that Russia, essentially as an insider, would become obstructive and would work against NATO’s continuing viability.”
Let us stop right there and consider Hass’s reply. What does it mean to say that NATO would not have continuing “viability”? Certainly, with Russia inside, it would be better as an instrument of peace in Europe. But it would be useless as an instrument for the U.S. to dominate Europe. Refusal of membership to Russia is simply another way of saying that NATO is not a means to ensure peace in Europe. In NATO there is to be “Only one tiger on the mountain,” as the Chinese saying has it, and that tiger is the U.S. No other tigers need apply.
At this point a voice to give the Russian view would have been salutary, even “balanced.” But in the realm of Rehm and NPR, there is no such voice. So on she went to Ian Brzezinksi:
REHM: “Ian, do you think it would have been a good idea?”
BRZEZINSKI: “No. I would have argued against at that point. But I think the general prospect of saying that one day one could consider Russia being part of NATO is something you wouldn’t want to take off the table. You know, to be a NATO member, you have to meet standards of democracy. You have to demonstrate a consistency of a shared-world view, shared interests. You have to demonstrate those commitments to those common interests.”
“And if there’s a point in time — which I think will be quite far down the road — that Russia meets that (sic) criteria, then it’s something we should address. But one would also want to think carefully about how it would affect the balance of power within NATO. Because right now you have an alliance really that features one predominate power and then a group of smaller powers that enables a certain amount of cohesion that might be undermined if you had two great powers sitting at the table.”
Brzenzinski’s reasoning there echoes the naysayers to whom Haass alludes and certainly reflects that he is a chip off the old block. “One predominant power,” he says. Only one tiger on the mountain, as the Chinese say. In fact the nations of NATO are condemned to follow the U.S. in its quest for global hegemony. And Russia will be admitted only after it bows to the West. That indeed will be “quite far down the road.”
What about Germany as a counterweight to the U.S? Germany, however, is not really a sovereign nation; it is occupied by tens of thousands of U.S. troops, and the German NATO forces are under U.S. command. Whereas the NATO Secretary General can be a citizen of any NATO country, the Supreme Commander, that is the number one military commander, has always been an American. So the German NATO forces answer to an American commander. And the U.S. keeps a watchful eye on Germany in other ways, as the latest scandal of NSA’s spying on Germans in general and Angela Merkel in particular.
NATO’s goal remains what it was from the beginning, a mechanism to “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down,” as the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, stated in 1949. The idea that the U.S. keeps troops in Germany, and in Japan for that matter, out of excessive generosity to help in their “defense” is only for us rubes. It is time to dissolve NATO and let Russia and the rest of the European nations devise their own mechanisms for preserving peace on the Continent in a nuclear age.
John V. Walsh is a contributor to Antiwar.com, CounterPunch.com, DissidentVoice.org and Unz Review. He can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com
John V. Walsh can be reached at John.Endwar@gmail.com
There is no chance our nation would tolerate Russia or China aligning with Mexico, heavily-arming it and funding biolabs with dangerous pathogens in them.
Never mind, that we also funded and trained the most vile of neo-Nazis in Ukrainian, that have committed heinous human rights abuses against the ethnically Russian population in eastern Ukraine. Like this:
https://irfanchowdhury.substack.com/p/the-west-is-arming-serial-human-rights
The West Is Arming Serial Human Rights Violators in Ukraine
In its ‘Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine 16 February to 15 May 2016’, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) documented the following case of sexual violence carried out by the Azov Battalion and the Donbas Battalion: “A man with a mental disability was subject to cruel treatment, rape and other forms of sexual violence by eight to 10 members of the ‘Azov’ and ‘Donbas’ battalions in August-September 2014. The victim’s health subsequently deteriorated and he was hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital”.
This sick, one-sided bullsH#t is pushing us into a war with a great military and nuclear power. Neocons are dumbest people on earth. And, globalists pushing all this are evil.
The USA didn’t meddle in 2014.
Well those who like to believe the CIA is behind it will say that it was a coup by the US and the EU. In reality it all started already late 2013 a group of students protested against the fact that Yanukovich would not sign the Eastern Partnership agreement with the EU (Moldova and Georgia already had). Yanukovich had used this agreement to go to Moscow and get more money from Russia in exchange for not signing. These students disagreed so they set up a protest on Kreschatyk the main street of Kyiv
Yanukovych government response was to send in law enforcement who beat up the protesters and sent several into the clinic. This brutality pissed of more people who then started their own protest which merged with the student protest. And soon people from all ages joined for different reasons: anti-corruption, against high unemployment, the low pensions, poor life for war veterans etc. The original protest served as a catalyst that suddenly burst open the dissatisfaction that lived with many
Things were at a standstill when Yanukovich gave orders to the Berkut, Ukrainian special police force (bit like SWAT in the US) to organise a wide spread attack to break up the protests and restore order. For this they gathered troops from outside of Kyiv too and put snipers on the rooftops. The rest is history. A real battle followed and people died.
Yanukovich got scared, grabbed all the cash and jewellery he could and fled East to Donetsk where he came from. Unfortunately for him he had burned his bridges there as well by scamming the Donbas maffia while in office. When he was then refused passage by the Ukrainian border guards at the Russian border Putin sent in special forces to extradite Yanukovich, his family and some of his most loyal supporters to Russia where he know lives in wealth and at the mercy of Putin should he come in useful ever again. All Yanukovich had had to do was like those before him make some promises to the protesters, sign some symbolic legislation and then continue business as usual. Instead he chose the confrontation and lost.
There is not a single bit of evidence that US had anything to do anything with 2014 revolution.
That’s Putin’s propaganda you are repeating.
The Ukrainian revolution of 2013–2014 was not a coup d’état by Americans, but rather a popular uprising driven by the hostility of Ukrainians to the idea of entering into a deep and binding economic union with Russia. American (and other Western) support did play a role in supporting the protesters as they became revolutionaries, but even without this support the opponents of the pro-Russian Ukrainian government would still have been active.
Did they choose their own fate? Certainly they did succeed in overthrowing an unpopular government that was set to lock Ukraine into an alignment with Russia that they did not want
You’re full of it.
You are repeating your putinist lie of biolabs.
There’s a difference between a biolab or biological research facility and having bioweapons or a bioweapon facility.
These were not bio weapons facilities.
consider that the story about these “bioweapon labs” has never been “straight”: I believe the narrative began as chemical weapons instead? It’s been a very fluid story, to say the least.
Stop repeating your nonsensical putinist propaganda
“There is no chance our nation would tolerate Russia or China aligning with Mexico”
So why should Poland put up with a Russia dominated Ukraine on their border?
This shows the fundamental delusion that is destroying Russia. They still believe they are a powerful country like the United States, when in reality they are much closer to the power level of Poland.
You’re full of it.
Mexico has friendly relations with the USA. The USA is not saying Mexico is an illegitimate country with no right to exist and that it must be part of the USA.
Russia does not have friendly relations with its neighbours. It treats them as vessels.
Putin says that Ukraine is an illegitimate country with no right to exist and that it must be part of Russia.
Stop repeating your putinist propaganda
You’re full of it.
You link to a blog by a Muslim Irfan to bolster your non argument?
You then give one example of human rights abuse to justify your President Putin’s army killing and raping hundreds??
Stop repeating your putinist propaganda
You’re full of it.
“
with a great military and nuclear power”
You Russians think Russia is in 2022 a military power? Its joke as the recent sinking of your flagship the Moskva shows.
Stop repeating your putinist propaganda
Quite frankly, after looking at this war, I doubt if Russia has the power level of Ethiopia.
Germany was forced into invading Poland too. Same exact thing. SMH
Mike Walls: UKRAINE, Let’s pray together.
“Today is the 44nd day of Lent, in the sixth week of Lent and the 49th day of Putin’s massacre of Ukraine.
In the House of Commons in 1940 Churchill said, “We shall never surrender.” Sixteen months later, speaking to the students at Harrow School, his alma mater, Churchill said, “Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense.”
Lord hear our prayer.
As we watch women and children flee Ukraine saying tearful goodbyes to their husbands and fathers who are headed to battle, bless them and protect them so they can be reunited.
Lord hear our prayer.
The people of Ukraine seek peace. May peace be found.
Lord hear our prayer.
You have given the people of Ukraine a leader whose courage and determination make him a giant among men. Bless him and fill his heart with grace.
Lord hear our prayer.
Lord, we are but humble servants. Our existence is because of you and through you. We are nothing without you.
Guide our hearts. Enlighten our leaders. Help us to unite in body and spirit with our brothers and sisters of Ukraine.
Amen”
Your total lack of understanding geopolitical issues - much less actual history - is blatantly obvious.
Your spamming of every thread with your totally bullshit analogy of Mexico has gone way past its sell by date. Mexico is essentially invading the US since Biden took office if you haven’t noticed. The fentanyl crossing our southern border is killing more people daily than any other cause of death in the US in the 18-49 age group. Those drugs come almost exclusively from China, and those that don’t are manufactured in a Mexico with precursor chemicals shipped from China.
Do you see us invading Mexico? Or Canada? Or Cuba? No. You probably call that lame effort in the Bay of Pigs an invasion using your logic (or what you call logic).
Name one instance of NATO invading ANY nation. Tell me the last time the US announced that we would use nuclear weapons as a first strike for any nation interfering with us?
We fought against Soviet weapons in every theater of combat since WWII. How many of us died from these actions?
Go back to Iraq/Kuwait/Afghanistan. All of those “invasions” took place after lengthy negotiations at the UN and were approved by the Security Council and actual alliances went in - not the US alone. Remember WWII? We still believe in alliances, not unilateral military action on any large scale.
Russia has committed a large portion of its corruption crippled military and placed it on display for the entire world to see. Instead of being “liberators”, they have transformed their reputation into pariahs worldwide. China and others will use them for their needs, but bo one - no one - respects Russia any longer.
And as for their nuclear weapons arsenal, how much maintenance has been performed on that stuff? Their newest cruise missiles have a 60% failure rate.
Stop trying to build them up. They sucked in the Cold War, and suck far worse now. Corruption is their stock in trade, and forms the core of their society. Yeah, we’ve got corruption too, but it’s nothing compared to the scale of it there (or in China).
“ If the US didn’t meddle in Ukraine in 2014 it would still be a single country at peace.”
I don’t buy that. Ukraine is a sovereign country and what goes on inside Ukraine is none of Russia’s business as long as Ukraine does not pose a threat to Russia, which it never has. Putin on the other hand, as we learned a couple of days ago, was spending billions to destabilize Ukraine with the ultimate goal of annexing it some day. Putin wanted Ukraine to be a part of Russia. Period. There is no other way to state this. And he was determined to do it one way or another.
“ Putin charged that Ukraine was turned into an “anti-Russian bridgehead”
Putin was naturally shocked at this. After the invasion and annexation of Crimea he expected nothing but love from the people of Ukraine.
That is a load of crap. Ruzzians are inherently insecure, asiatic, despotic bullies. They couldn’t stand to see Ukraine thrive and move forward culturally and economically. No country bordering that shithole country of Ruzzia lives in peace from itsinterference unless they have nuclear weapons.
Exactly!
"Those young women forced me to rape them because they would not voluntarily submit to my friendly advances. One of the ladies I raped even went so far as to provoke me by subsequently arming herself, forcing me to shoot her."
Twisted logic!
Regards,
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.