NATO on Tuesday doubled down on its pledge to eventually admit Ukraine during a meeting of the alliance’s foreign ministers in Bucharest, Romania, a position that played a major role in provoking Russia’s invasion.
The Romanian city was where NATO initially made the promise to Ukraine back in 2008, and at the time, US officials acknowledged that attempting to bring the country into the alliance could spark a war in the region.
“We made the decision in Bucharest in 2008 at the summit,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said on Tuesday. “I was there … representing Norway as Prime Minister. I remember very well the decisions. We stand by those decisions. NATO’s door is open.”
In a joint statement, the NATO foreign ministers, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, said that they “reaffirm” the decisions that were made at the 2008 Bucharest summit.
CIA Director William Burns wrote a cable in 2008, when he was the US ambassador to Russia, that said promising NATO memberships to Ukraine as well as Georgia touches a “raw nerve” in Russia and raises serious security concerns for Moscow.
Burns wrote: “Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests.”
Burns said in the cable, which was released by WikiLeaks, that Russia was particularly concerned about Ukraine. “Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face,” he wrote.
The pledge to admit Ukraine into NATO didn’t lead to a civil war right away, but one was sparked after former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in a US-backed coup in 2014. Separatists in the eastern Donbas region rejected the more Europe and US-friendly post-coup government and declared independence.
Starting after Yanukovych was ousted, NATO began a deep partnership with Ukraine by sending troops to train the country’s military, and the US began providing Kyiv with anti-tank missiles during the Trump administration. Yahoo News revealed earlier this year that the US deployed CIA paramilitaries to the frontlines of the Donbas war in 2014 to train Ukrainian forces.
During the lead-up to Russia’s February 24 invasion, Russia presented the US with a list of security demands. Chief among them was the issue of NATO expansion, which Russia wanted to be rolled back. Moscow was also seeking a guarantee that Ukraine won’t ever join NATO, but the US refused to entertain the idea even though President Biden had acknowledged that Kyiv wouldn’t be joining the alliance anytime soon.
Shortly after Russia’s invasion, Ukrainian President Voldymr Zelensky said he was told privately that Ukraine won’t be joining NATO. “I requested them personally to say directly that we are going to accept you into NATO in a year or two or five, just say it directly and clearly, or just say no,” Zelensky said in March. “And the response was very clear, you’re not going to be a NATO member, but publicly, the doors will remain open.”
While NATO doesn’t plan on admitting Ukraine as a full member anytime soon, the alliance has big plans for the country. POLITICO reported in October that NATO is developing a 10-year plan to rebuild Ukraine’s military and arms industry with a focus on shifting the country from using Soviet equipment to primarily using NATO weapons. The report said the plan would make Ukraine a “default” member of NATO, a situation that will never be acceptable to Russia.
If Ukraine survives this war, no doubt they will want to become a member of NATO.
Ukraine is not going to survive this war in anything like the shape, size or condition it had at the beginning. And every week and month that goes by with the US-NATO pouring weapons into the war and encouraging Ukraine to continue the hopeless fight means that what is left of Ukraine at the end will be smaller and more badly wrecked. Also, of course, many more Ukrainian troops, and some civilians, will die and more will be injured, some of them crippled or maimed. Many, many more Ukrainians — probably millions more — will be driven from their homes this winter.
And you, Kenneth Harper, will be partly responsible for all of that, because you are one of the ignorant cheerleaders who both permit and encourage the chief instigator and escalator of this disaster, the US government, to continue its cynical and deadly scheme.
Make a note. Remember that I told you this.
Sure I’m responsible for Russia decision to attack Ukraine. Get real. And by the way, a lot Russians are also dying in Ukraine.
Sorry if I disagree with the idea that Ukraine should have just surrendered and let Russia just take whatever they want.
And don’t be so sure of the final outcome. Russia would not be the first bigger country to lose a war to a smaller country.
Russia had to draw a line somewhere. Thirty years of rubbing their noses in brown stuff, with threats galore, can wear on a nation.
“Russia had to draw a line somewhere.”
vlp, I’m gonna quibble w/yr language – though I think it’s an essential quibble.
imo, Russia did not have to draw a line.
But – as indicated in my above comment:
1/ 30 yrs of US expansion and brinkmanship – which is what the creeping expansion in Ukraine was – made is likely and predictable – and, as I indicate, Russia’s ‘negative reaction’ was long predicted; and
2/ I would argue that – from the neocon-driven view of the military industrial complex – the expansion and brinkmanship was not a gamble, but a win-win strategy:
Russia tolerates the expansion? More expansion, a more extensive foreign policy apparatus, more military spending, and an even more ‘expansionist bloc’ within NATO;
Russia does not tolerate the expansion? – a war-hysteric citizenry agitated by a servile mainstream press…again, with amped up military spending, and the strengthening of right wing elements – that have long sought NATO expansion, even before Russia’s invasion – in Sweden and Finland.
The human suffering? The hideous soldier and citizen body count? The horrifying bloodbath of Bakhmut where young men are dying this second? That is entirely acceptable to the neocon forces driving this war.
And the risk of expansion into a nuclear war? It’s like the ‘breaking up the asteroid to make money’ scene in “Don’t Look Up” – underlying it is a calculated risk.
Yea, that is a great defense. Let us just start a war because the all countries on my borders don’t like me. Maybe there reason they all don’t like you.
Sadly this is not one of those cases. In this regard it is not the same as the US invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan where the losing party gets to leave and not bother with the mess left behind, go on with your business as usual and pretend it didn’t happen. That is most definitely not an option here.
“Sure I’m responsible for Russia decision to attack Ukraine.”
1/ Nupe – not directly for Russia’s illegal decision; but indirectly – as a US citizen-voter – for:
a/ failing to oppose the US NATO-expansionist foreign policy that – as Cold War battle hardened officials predicted for 3 decades – made Russia’s criminal decision likely; and
b/ for failing to support US/NATO diplomacy with Russia versus a purely military strategy – a strategy that does prolong the war and the killing.
2/ As to “Russia[/s] decision to attack Ukraine”:
No question Putin had ‘agency’ and did not have to invade Ukraine.
But the US had agency too: choosing to expand despite 30 yrs of Cold Warrior warnings; choosing to demand Ukraine’s application be accepted, despite other NATO member objections; choosing to refrain from supporting Zelensky’s campaign promises to fulfill the Minsk agreements; choosing to make Ukraine a NATO “enhanced opportunity partner;” and choosing to repeatedly declare future NATO membership.
“not directly for Russia’s illegal decision” Bingo. The key words “illegal decisiion”.
Well at least you may have learned something here. The people you criticize here are in fact anti-war.
The difference in your case is that you simply cannot get your head around the fact that wars start because the two sides have vastly different priorities and assessments of the conflict – and it’s precisely that vast difference that leads directly to violent conflict.
If you are under the impression that these basic human traits are not part of the equation and that it is vital to understand where wars come from in order to prevent future wars, then there is no hope for you – none whatsoever.
But go ahead and try to score points. It looks to this poster like that’s all that you do here.
The remains of Ukraine will be south eastern Poland ( again ) they will be within NATO… Happy?
And what color was the crystal ball that you used to make this prediction?
“If Ukraine survives this war, no doubt they will want to become a member of NATO.”
Oh they’ll “want” to join? Well whoopy shit. An applicant can “want” all it wants;
but according to Article 10 of NATO’s charter, applicants can “become a member” only by member consensus – based on the criterion, and member judgment, that admitting a member will support all members’ security:
“The notion that NATO’s open door is a sacrosanct principle that we cannot give up is not actually how it’s written in NATO’s founding documents. Article 10 of NATO’s charter actually says that the states that are members of NATO can, by consensus, invite other states to join them if it would improve the alliance’s security. That’s all it says. It doesn’t offer a right for all states to necessarily join this military alliance.”
NYT, 3/18/22, “Ezra Klein Interviews Emma Ashford”
What is your point? I said Ukraine will “want” to become a member. Did I say they will become a member?
“the issue of NATO expansion, which Russia wanted to be rolled back” What a dumb demand. There was no way NATO was going to kickout members. The Russian security demands were ridicules and simply an excuse to start a war where they acquire territory by force.
The NATO expansion roll back demand doesn’t refer to membership but to military activity in Eastern Europe. It explicitly referred to the security demands made by Russia. These are the initial stages of negotiations were you aim higher than you know you can get. If this is not a part of your routine you should probably get someone else to buy your souvenirs when on holiday abroad.
“These are the initial stages of negotiations where you aim higher than you know you can get.”
Indeed. What is funny, or sad really, is that those initial demands start to look pretty good and the side that turned them away starts begging for them to be offered up again. Ukraine will longingly look back to those days that they weren’t a cratered sh*thole and wonder why they allowed themselves to be used as cannon fodder for the west.
“Russia presented the US with a list of security demands. Chief among them was the issue of NATO expansion, which Russia wanted to be rolled back” These are exact words of the writer of the article. Activity is not the same thing as expansion. And there is no way NATO was going backwards.
This is not about grammar or semantics. It is about the actual demands Russia made. These are of december 21, 2021:
Article 1: the parties should not strengthen their security at the expense of Russia’s security;
Article 2: the parties will use multilateral consultations and the NATO-Russia Council to address points of conflict;
Article 3: the parties reaffirm that they do not consider each other as adversaries and maintain a dialogue;
Article 4: the parties shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other states in Europe in addition to any forces that were deployed as of May 27, 1997;
Article 5: the parties shall not deploy land-based intermediate- and short-range missiles adjacent to the other parties;
Article 6: all member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States;
Article 7: the parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia; and
Article 8: the agreement shall not be interpreted as affecting the primary responsibility of the Security Council of the United Nations for maintaining international peace and security.
These were of course completely ridiculed and disregarded. So then the avoidable demolition of Ukraine started 24th of February and the 7th of March the senselessness could “stop at a moment’s notice” If Ukraine
– ceased military action;
– change its constitution to become a neutral country;
– acknowledge Crimea as Russian territory;
– recognise the separatist republics of Luhansk and Donetsk.
That was of course utterly unacceptable to future Nobel Peace Prize winner Boris Johnson. So now we are 9 months and what was it EU’s Iron Coiffure, Der Ursula said? ah yes “20.000 civilians and more than 100.000 military officers killed” on the Ukranian side and I don’t know how many billions in weapons and damage further in time and no end in sight. There is no way to really know for sure, but we might have passed the point of no return or maybe there might not have been one to begin with in this faux moral crusade that in our propaganda early on began to assume the characteristics of a Holy War.
This is the stupidest sh-t I’ve ever heard of…! Is there anyone in NATO that has a brain?… “Default” member? Seriously?
Yes, it’s the lawyers’ way of lying without lying, stealing without stealing, torturing without torturing, …very common latter day neocon practice, same pattern with “One China policy”, …having it both ways of a direct contradiction, strategic ambiguity, … double-think.
Ask me again why I despise lawyers – excepting Philadelphia Lawyer, obviously 😉
Except for Philadelphia Lawyer of course! 😉
Edited.
Absolutely! And Philadelphia is my birth place 😉
Interesting! I’ve not been to Philly, but the best trip of my lifetime was a week spent in Gettysburg ( huge Civil War buff here!)
Might also mention Israeli ambiguity on its nuclear status. If it were to admit bombs, U.S. law would cut off aid until they became signatory to IAEA.
I’m still pretty confident the Yale Law types would find a formula around that.
Agreed.
This is bad news for the citizens of the US as we just guaranteed that the US-Russian war that is being fought in Ukraine lasts a long long time, and especially bad for the citizens of West Ukraine as they live where the war is being fought.
We don’t guarantee the length of the war, only that the end of it will eliminate Ukraine.
In other news, Joe chortled over the U.S. defeating Iran in a World Cup game, as if it was a defeat on a battlefield. Joe is a super war monger, right there. Using a soccer game to score political points. So childish.
Yeah, it was a real barn-burner, too; 1-0.
God, I hate soccer.
Joe is a complete ass.
This confirms that Russia was forced to war, and that the only possible peace is for Russia to destroy Ukraine as a political entity.
That is great power politics 101. Some things you can’t do to the other great powers.
Well only if you do not believe in the nuclear deterrence – if that is the case then what Putin has just done is to show NATO that now is the time to strike.
Given that NATO is doing its very best to not actually provide weapons to the Ukrainians that would be of a very offensive capacity and has avoided to deliver both airplanes and so far tanks – NATO does not seem at all eager to get into a conflict or exploit Russia’s current apparent weakness – so perhaps NATO is as far as Russia is concerned just a defensive alliance?
Well if they can do this we can put them on ice like we did the Soviets – I’m guessing that the Russians will not fancy having their trade partners face the choice between trade with Russia or trade with the west.
“Choice”?… Not in the West’s vocabulary, as our trade partners well know.
How do you square this with France opting to leave NATO for a good long while?Any nation can chose if they do not like to make the choice then tough luck the west will not invade if that is your suggestion – they will just apply secondary sanctions to them.
– they will just apply secondary sanctions to them.
Or blow up a vital gas line… Like I said, no choice.
There is no proof that it was the west that did this – the Russians had the most to gain from blowing up a pipeline that was not in use and was not going to be back in use after 2023. Either way that was not a third party being asked to chose – so did not qualify under any circumstances.
And there will likely continue to be little proof, if it’s up to loyal satraps like Germany and Sweden, both of whom have stated they will not share the results of their investigations with the public.
Of course, there is the little matter of the American ship of appropriate type hanging out in the area at the appropriate day and they steaming away immediately once the deed was done.
But, yes, no proof such as would be announced on CNN, likely.
Germany is the main victim if you trust the Russian narrative while Sweden is hardly a loyal satrap – so I guess there will never be anything to convince you.
Link please – I can provide you with a link to there being a Russian ship near the locations shortly before the explosions:
https://www.brusselstimes.com/297669/fourth-leak-found-in-nord-stream-pipeline-while-russian-ships-spotted-near-earlier-leaks-tbtb
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-nord-stream-putin-explosion-1747387
Given that it is supposedly the British (according to the Russians) who did it you would expect the Brussels times to carry the story or some German paper!?
– the Russians had the most to gain
That’s debatable, to say the least.. What isn’t is who has the most to lose – Germany, out loyal trading partner.
Sure – the Russians stood to gain from:
– destabilizing the gas market
– causing worries about the safety of other pipelines and thus more price hikes
– potentially splitting the coalition of countries working against them
– obviating court judgements against them and therefore reparation payments for not delivering gas
– propaganda for their domestic population that could excuse the loss of revenue that no gas sales cost
Risked:
– nothing as none of their stooges would ever believe that they did it
The west stood to gain:
– security that the Germans would not backtrack on their promise to quit Russian gas
a very dubious gain as the gas deliveries had already ended and the Germans already invested in regassification facilities making an about face on the decision on gas very costly and thus unlikely (sure they would have bought gas for about 6-12 months more but that is about it)
The west risked:
– Huge reparation costs
– splitting the coalition working together against the Russian war on Ukraine
– break down of relations between close trade partners
– major domestic dissent for what would be terrorist actions
All to close a already closed gas pipe – and prevent it from being reopened for a very short time – all while having other alternatives to achieve the same goal (ending German gas payments). Just not seeing the benefits to risk assessment working out to make any western government carry through this action.
Loyal not so much Putin had stopped the flow of gas and forced the Germans to prop up the ruble – fairly humiliating for the new chancellor.
The west stood to gain by jacking up gas prices for their own consumers.
No that is just a misunderstanding of how economies work and whom gets to enjoy the fruits of increased gas prices. As in some companies in the west would benefit form increased energy prices but overall the west is standing to lose quite significantly as increased energy prices will deepen the recession and if we had not had a recession already would dampen our growth. Add to this that a significant part of the increase in prices would be paid to Saudi Arabia and Russia and I hope you get the picture why the west would not be benefitting from increased energy prices.
That may be you hope that Ukraine gets destroyed, but the war has long way to go and like all wars it is unpredictable.
NATO is a cancer and the antithesis to peace.
That your opinion, but 30 nations (soon to be 32) disagree with you idea.
yes but,
blaming
an inanimate object
like a brick building
could understand the root thesis
towards peace
And Russia is not, I guess.
The goal of the leaders of NATO is the escalation of the confrontation between NATO and Russia. However, they want such an escalation, which wouldn’t terminate in a big nuclear war. So far, they are successful.
If that was/is the case why do they not send planes and ATACMS – neither of which would be likely to provoke nuclear war.
Ukraine will cease to exist very soon so it’s a moot point!
This tells all. To NATO, Ukraine was nothing but a trap for Russia. NATO doesn’t care how many Ukrainians die. In fact, they would like more Ukrainians to die to keep them from migrating to Europe. It’s not only fatal stupidity we’re witnessing on full display. It’s pure evil. The population in the west are peacefully chewing their cud like cattle on the way to the slaughter house, a terminal and all inclusive nuclear holocaust.
This is exactly right. Basically, the “West” hates both Ukrainians and Russians … both are “deplorables” and unredeamable so for the corporatocracy that rules us. So why not use them to destroy each other, all in service and extension of MICIMATT of course.
It’s the Iran Iraq war on steroids.
They hate it the Polish too. Anyone that isn’t them is hated.
NATO is developing a 10-year plan to rebuild Ukraine’s military and arms industry with a focus on shifting the country from using Soviet equipment to primarily using NATO weapons
there it is = the bomb makers in the US are looking forward to their new customer base and are actively working towards cornering the market
Even worse, the cost of this will be on the backs of taxpayers. Other expenses will be at the feet of the general public in the form of inflation.
There is no gain for us. Lots of risk. Lots of moral costs via death, destruction and mayhem. The oligarchy of Western countries reap the benefits. The rest of us don’t. So, why do we put up with it?
Most of “the rest of us” are trained and programmed from birth to believe that our government’s endless aggression is really defense of “our freedom” and of “democracy” around the world against demonic evildoers. And the system is rigged so that very little, short of full-scale rebellion, could meaningfully limit the aggression.
Unfortunately I believe you are correct. I struggle with understanding how gd stupid people can be. At the least, I would hope people would act in their own interests. And these endless wars, regime change operations and assorted scams are not in the interests of the overwhelming number of humans.
Back in 2008? Funny, when Russia said that joining NATO was a red line, the NATO controlled MSM called it a conspiracy theory.
Kiev wants to enter NATO so they can bomb the people in Donbass without consequences. Even now they are killing civilians in Donetsk from their fortified positions nearby. They have killed 14,000 people over eight years and driven more than 100,000 from their homes. Russia has taken care of them. Likewise, they stole the pensions of the old people living in Donbass and Crimea – that was Pereshenko’s and Zelensky’s revenge. That, and cutting off the water to Crimea, and forbidding them from importing wheat or electricity.
Zelensky admitted in March 2022 that “I made a point that the war in Ukraine has been lasting for eight years. It’s not just some special military operation.”
You mean an email, don’t you? Why should it be called a “cable” to somehow sound more magic? Besides I have cables in my house, they’re not something you write. He wrote an email.
“They, the separatists, and the separatists’ Russian allies have killed 14,000 people over eight years”
Fixed, no charge.
“They, the separatists, and the separatists’ Russian allies have killed 14,000 people over eight years”
Advance thanks for supporting an otherwise worthless claim.
Google “Donbas casualties 2014-2022” for all the “support” you want. The casualties were a mix of Ukrainian troops, separatist troops, civilians, and a few Russian troops.
Order is incorrect. The greatest loss of lives were civilians.
I didn’t state any ascending or descending order. I just named the categories.
And I only pointed that the order of casualties was incorrect. It is, however relevant to the discussion. Mostly civilians died. The vast majority were cultural and ethnic Russians. Resisting a oppressive government should not be seen as a crime.
No, the “order of casualties” wasn’t “incorrect,” because there was no implication that they were “ordered” in any particular way.
“Mostly civilians died.”
According to the United Nations, about 3,400 civilians died between 2014 and the 2022 invasion, versus about 4,400 Ukrainian forces and about 6,500 DPR/LPR forces. 3,400 is not “most of” 14,300.
The conflicting claims of the Ukrainian and separatist forces are even more lopsidedly non-civilian. The separatists claimed to have killed 10,000 Ukrainian troops as of June 2015. The Ukrainian forces claimed to have killed 14,600 separatist troops as of early 2015. And the DPR and LPR regimes claimed a total combined of 6,370 civilians killed as of 2018.
The Donask and Lugansk Republics BURIED over 9,000 CIVILIANS. You may choose to believe the UN. I don’t.
The UN didn’t bury the bodies.
The Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics claimed fewer than 9,000 dead civilians. So are you saying they buried some alive?
The Lugansk and Donask via Lugansk was cited by Lugansk was over 9000 civilians several months ago.
So, no live people buried.
Perhaps you should refrain from inane comments Thomas. It’s not a productive use of anyone’s time.
Google? Really?
“Google “Donbas casualties 2014-2022″ for all the ‘support’ you want. The casualties were a mix of Ukrainian troops, separatist troops, civ-”
ie, 14,000 is total casualties on both sides vs 14,000 “kill[ings]” only by “separatists and the separatists’ Russian allies” as you claimed
I bet you’re young.
Whatever the physical medium for transmission of the cited message, you can be quite sure that it wasn’t just an ordinary email. The term “cable” is used because such messages were sent by encrypted telegram, using telegraphy over cable, for many decades. In the case of the Burns message, if it was carried by the physical layer used for email, it will still have traveled most of the distance over cable.
Google “diplomatic cable.”
“NATO Doubles Down on Pledge to Eventually Destroy Ukraine”
Fixed.
To the last Ukrainian, and now with mass formations of Polish troops in Ukraine, to the last Polish soldier.
Leaves no option for Russia except take over all of the Ukraine and defeat NATO and another blow against the Global American Empire along with establishing a separate economy and financial system apart from a US dollar denominated one.
Well good luck with that project.
Check back in 6 months NATO is a paper tiger. The Unipolar world is over. Thank God there will be some restraint on US aggression
Will do.
US ruling class are scum.
could not possibly say for the simple reason that I do not know them nor indeed do I know how ‘they’ would be delineated –
Is Bill Clinton one of them if so did he not come from a rather humble background?
Is Barack Obama one of them if so did he not come from a rather humble background?
I mean sure Bush and Trump I can see – but perhaps you are referring to wider circle say of senators or something like that?
No the rich and powerful ruling class billionaires that own the government. Obama family connected to CIA and Clinton crime family is notorious. You seem rather naive.
Bill Clinton was borne to a salesman (who dies before Bill was borne) and his wife Virginia
If that is your definition of ruling class then you know nothing about the concept of classes.
The Clinton family may now be rich and influential but Bill certainly did not come from a rich and influential family. As for Barack Obama – though his mother was decidedly not working class it would be something of a stretch to call her family the ruling class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham
So if they did not inherit their class how do you define the ruling class – as I pointed out for Georg Bush (both of them) and Trump I could see you making the claim for the Kennedy’s again sure – but for Clinton and Obama – well the concept of a ruling class just loses meaning if you include their parents in that.
So perhaps you either failed to define the concept or you are the naïve one – as you define them as part of the ruling class because they attained that status during a successful life but starting from fairly average backgrounds?
They are pawns think Rothschild, Rockefeller, Gates, House of Windsor, Soros. Something like .001 percent own 85percent of the planets wealth.
You don’t advance unless you obey them and their international criminal system. The mainstream media is controlled by them but rigged elections are a fact here and anywhere the CIA can. The intelligence agencies and military work for the overlords like the phony politicians do.
OK – so we are talking about the super rich – in which case you have to look to how significant social mobility is in the US versus elsewhere, I’d argue that the US is better than the majority of other countries while acknowledging that the concept of a ruling class is then still more justified.
I would strongly disagree with the notion of rigged elections outside the idea of whom gets to run in your elections – best case I can think of is the ‘selection’ of Hilary Clinton where Debbi Wasserman Schulz clearly favored her over her opponent while supposedly being neutral.
As for the rest I fear we are moving into conspiracy theory land – as in there is no overlords who get together and decide who should be the next president – there are very influential people who fight other very influential people each side promoting their candidates and the electorate only gets to decide between the candidates they chose.
In this way the US and the UK system is much more prone to ‘corruption’ than say the Danish system – as anybody can run in our system (proportional representation where any candidate decides all by themselves whether they want to run) and have a fair chance of being elected if they are smart enough – even without financial backing.
“No the rich and powerful ruling class billionaires that own the government” Do they sell stock? I would like to buy some of that.
You can’t afford it. That’s an important reality. Ponder it.
Yes buy in to evil.
See you tube George Carlin “The Big Club” says it all in simple terms.
I’m very familiar with the concept of a ruling class we have had that for many centuries in Europe – not so sure you have it anything as clearly in the US (yet – at least the admixture of the ‘lower’ classes seems quite substantial by European standards).
There’s more movement in and out of the ruling class in the US than in e.g. feudal Europe, and membership is less dependent (although not entirely non-dependent) on inherited wealth/status.
That’s not really a new development. Comte and Dunoyer correctly identified the over-arching class struggle — “the political class” versus “the productive class” — in the early 19th century. “Liberal democracy” as an institution enabled a certain degree of class mobility.
Regardless of the claimed mobility, the fact remains that there is a productive class and a parasitic class. Like the Romans, the Western nations ‘ ruling class uses the mob to prevent the productive class from overcoming their rule. Historically, that only works as long as the productive class believes there is upward mobility. When the productive class sees their prospects as being poor, AND demands on their wealth production increase, they reduce their efforts. An economic decline sets in. The economic decline destabilizes the polity and internal or external forces cause collapse.
Are you under the impression that the people we elect are the ruling class? Really?
That is an idea which I can much more readily agree with – though as can be seen from the comments of Tom Paine that was not what he was actually suggesting – as I have proposed to Tom I’m also sure that the US (and UK) election systems is more at risk of having only a few preselected candidates to choose between – but the idea of a global ruling class that dictates who gets to be leaders in the world is just conspiracy theory nonsense as I see it.
That still does not change the fact that rich people gets to have far more influence than poor ones and wealth is inheritable though lack of intelligence can lose most rich people their status (but their network also make it easier to regain it).
We have an international billionaire ruling class that is in process to install a global totalitarian government; think the entire planet becomes China its called the New World Order aka The Great Reset.
Sorry the notion that the ruling class in the US much less the whole planet could agree upon agree upon even just one candidate in each democratic country is just absurd.
There is no democracy you are woefully naive.
So just an other conspiracy theorists – thanks!
Are you under the impression that the people we elect in the US are the ruling class?
That was why I asked about whom we were talking – because if we are debating the influential people then it is more likely that the statement is correct – yet still I’d argue much less so in the US than in the majority of countries of the rest of the world.
Really the only thing that is standing now between Russia and Ukrainian collapse is Zelenski. The clever trick that gor him to power has worn out very, very thin, He won on the strenght of both Russian and Ukrainian Orthodix vote. These populations by high margin are Russian soeakers. Zelensk lied to them and he is toast to at least 70 %population, However thise who DID NOT vote for him is Western Ukraine, Catholic population speaking a dislect a mix of Polish and an extinct language, Ruthanian. But, it is the extremist leadership of West Ukraine that is the most Russophobic, and never really wanted to be part of that Orthodox world, But it is just this world, the majority -/ that is the Zelenski cannon fodder .
Western Ukrainians are mostly the dreaded internal security, Kiev’s imitation of Gestapo. And their death squads are keeping Ukrainians “patriotic”.
What. Is tge future of so fractured country? Bi do not see it. While there was a chance before 2014 that a Party of Regions was going to unify the country, after 2014, violenbce and imtolerance for anything Russian was the grand plan,
Yet, with 8 years of propaganda, the only candidate that could win those Russian speaking rwgions was a comedian who promissed solution to Donbas under Minsk agreement, The agreement was quite favorable to Ukraine. Bt the Clown President was brought to power to kead the country into war. His overt populatity in tge West assured the that right leaning and overt Nazis obeyed him,
But what now? Right wing is restlesd. They were sure NATO will fight their war. Now, not so sure after missile in Poland bait did not work. Threre is nothing tgmhey can do on battlefield — only gains were positions where Rusdia was exposed, and Ukraine could concentrate forces there, No more such easy pickings. Just the opposite. Russia is fortifying its ranks, securing new territories, and feeing up military for future tasks. But what if Ukraine military leaders not beholden to Western Ukrainian Security forces decide Zelenski has nothing more to give? US and allies are running short in ammuniin, West Europe is up in arms over energy prices, madvwith US over massive sunmbsidies Buden will use to steal their energy deprived industry, and there is nothing they can do to assust population of Ukraine in worsening war time hardship. Nothing, its own population is fed up with inflation, rules on shower, soft blackouts by turning museums, stadiums, public parks dark,
The best thing would be to give West Ukraine independence, not let poland to grab it. That woukd live a homogenous rest of Ukraine capable to reach a peace deal — provided Zelenski is in some Carebbean tax heaven,
And while Western Ukraine shoukd be free to jouun NATO and be as viable as Slovakia — tge rest of Ukraine should join Eurasian Economic Union, and join Turkey, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Iran in Shanghai Cooperation Organization,
Russia does not even have to “occupy” Ukraine. Most Ukrainians wish a pre-2014 pre-coup Russian federation situation. That will happen after the de-Nazification and defeat of the ultra-nationalist Azov battalion that is terrorising the country. Then Ukraine will have cheap Russian oil and gas.
Russia will not permit NATO armaments in any part of Ukraine I see the only way to assure that is to occupy it. Agreements with West are worthless.
They do? If that is true, why are the Ukrainians fighting so hard?
The Armageddon Clock just ticked down to 15 seconds while the world bellowed about the World Cup, drank beer, had an org*** about nationalism and painted flags on their kids’ cheeks.
I expect this is mostly to “create” something that can be negotiated away in an eventual settlement.
Na, this is just a little something for Zelenski as other gifts are drying up. Who would have thought NATO would be running out of ammunition? US just purchased some from South Korea. It is no loger that easy to show off sucesses, even when loosing, Now, they have the “Desilience Centers”, places to come for wormh, food. But it is another show. Being unable to quickly convert schools and other public venues into gathering centers -/ they brought in tents, with generators used for heating devices. Not at all adequate for temperstures iin the twenties. Most are empty, no food provided
It does not liok like they prepared for a war at all. After all, Russia went after military targets and weapins storage,
Before destroying Nord Stream and Kerch Bridge Zelenski and his NATO partners should have prepared for consequences — loss of their own infrastructure. And what to do in an emergency.
Now all Ukrainian army can fo is to dig into Bakhmut muddy and freezing trenches, trying to hold Russian advance. And they know why it is critical.
As Western allues are at each other’s throats over US gouging energy prices to Europe, European industries are facing collapse at the same time Biden’s clumate 300 plus billion package will woo European industries to US,
Macron coming to Washington to beg US not to fleece them in thix situation.
But that is not all, Our Asian allies, the biggest gllibal providers of micro chips — are facing calamity. US series of sanctions against Chins has tge effect of destroying key market for Japan, Tsiwan and South Korea. China is by far biggest byer.
Us brags of having dominance in chips PRODUCT SPAN. Meaning that US provides most of the design, software and chip makung equipment. While Japan, South Korea and Taiwan do the manufacturing. Meaning source materials , and sustain capital and labor intensive industry.
Now here is the rub — this is calked co-dependency, and US policies have changed drastically since Trump. Co-dependency is consider nos dangerous as US allies produce chips — Us does not. What if allies make more miney from China and US cannot get enough chips to power nilitary and other industries?
Thus mega money to actually make Taiwan and Samsung build factories in US! It will take a while for US to catch up on engineers, factory management, materials supply and maintenance.
But what is in it to our Asian Alies? Nothing but a loss of Chinese market, and eventual loss of US market after our factories ramp up priduction,
In Europe we destroyed allies energy supplies, in Asis we destroyed allies’ market. With no benefits to either.
It all makes sense. US cannot tackle Russia or China while our European and Asian allies are strong economically — thus independent in making choices in alliances,
From the position of weakness they have few choices. One — the most desirable from US perspective — is to become proxies in fighting Russia and China.
The US is the true bull in a china shop.
Pretty misleading. I don’t see “NATO” doubling down on anything. According to the first link, Stoltenburg is running his war mongering mouth. But he hardly speaks for all NATO countries. The article actually says that the Kiev regime will NOT be joining NATO anytime soon, and that its borders are not even established, what with the war raging. Also, even Stoltenburg admitted that moving to admit the Kiev regime would be divisive, and added that, “We are in the midst of a war and therefore we should do nothing that can undermine the unity of allies to provide military, humanitarian, financial support to Ukraine, because we must prevent President Putin from winning.” Again, stressing that maintaining NATO “unity” means NOT pressing for the Kiev-based entity joining NATO.
And the official statement, also linked in the article, of the foreign ministers says merely that, “We reaffirm the decisions we took at the 2008 Bucharest Summit and all subsequent decisions with respect to Georgia and Ukraine.” At Bucharest in 2008, the foreign ministers said this:
NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm
Which is, perhaps, less than meets the eye. Sure, the mentioned regimes would, someday, “become” members. And while their “applications for MAP” (which stands for “Membership Action PLAN,” not membership itself), were “welcomed,” yet the statement itself refers to “intensive engagement” to address “questions still outstanding” pertaining to their MAP applications, never mind their actual membership.
Also, notice that the current statement also refers to “all subsequent decisions” regarding the Kiev regime. Well, it has been quite a long time since 2008, and, apparently it has never been “decided” to accept the Ukraine into NATO as a full member. Indeed, as recently as 12June2020 it was made clear that no decision had been made:
Ukraine’s status as an Enhanced Opportunities Partner does not prejudge any decisions on NATO membership.
https://www.rferl.org/a/nato-grants-ukraine-enhanced-opportunities-partner-status/30667898.html
It appears that, as of quite recently, there is not even a MAP pending for the Kiev regime….
Participation in the MAP
Participation in the MAP helped prepare the seven countries that joined NATO in the second post-Cold War round of enlargement in 2004 (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia) as well as Albania and Croatia, which joined in April 2009. Montenegro, which joined the MAP in December 2009, became a member of the Alliance in June 2017. The Republic of North Macedonia, which had been participating in the MAP since 1999, joined NATO in March 2020.
Currently, Bosnia and Herzegovina is participating in the MAP, having been invited to do so in 2010.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37356.htm
No mention of the Ukraine.
Also, in all of this nonsense….
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_37750.htm
about NATO’s wonderful “relations with Ukraine,” there is not even a mention of a MAP.
NATO is kicking the can down the road, again. That is certainly not as good a thing as simply disavowing membership would be. But I am not seeing it as “doubling down,” either.
You are correct. France and Germany did not support starting a MAP with Ukraine and Georgia back in 2008. Ukraine is not currently a democracy. It was just crazy Bush offering that. Details will appear in Part III of this series that will post next week. Here is Part II that provides background.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of_XSjH3uHg
Yes, the Ukraine applied for MAP in 2008. It is well-known that approval was resisted by France and Germany and others NATO members, including, more recently, Hungary. In 2010, the Ukraine withdrew its application. Not sure if it ever officially renewed it. On Sept 30 this year, the Ukraine asked for an “accelerted membership procedure.”
https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/mi-robimo-svij-viznachalnij-krok-pidpisuyuchi-zayavku-ukrayi-78173
Even Stoltenburg was less than enthusiastic, as you can see.
https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-09-30-22/h_2127c3e731deebfdc354906a0210d0d1
As far as I know, NATO hasn’t officially said anything about the application.
And here is a question posed to Stoltenburg, in the press conference yesterday, and his answer:
Lili Bayer (Politico):
“…During the political discussion regarding the future of Ukraine and Ukraine’s membership aspirations, did Allies discuss at all any potential steps that the Alliance or Ukraine could take to come closer together and to help Ukraine prepare their membership application? Or is any such framework or concrete steps, are those off the table? Thank you.”
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:
“We are discussing how to further strengthen our partnership with Ukraine and also help them move towards NATO membership. NATO Allies have reiterated their decision taken here in Bucharest about NATO membership in 2008. And we have also demonstrated that NATO’s door is open. We have demonstrated that over the last years by inviting North Macedonia and Montenegro to join, they already joined, and also by inviting Finland and Sweden. Already 28 out of 30 Allies have ratified their accession protocols.
“On Ukraine, of course, the main focus now is on providing urgent needed support, both to help them defend themselves, but also to repair the destroyed energy infrastructure and many other types of support. But on Ukraine, we are discussing how can we strengthen further the political partnership, short of membership, and there are different ways of doing that just by meeting more frequently, having more substantive discussions, and looking into different ways of expanding, deepening our political partnership.
“Second, we are now stepping up the practical support. And of course the practical support is important because we provide them with fuel generators, winter clothing, drones, jammers, and many other things, but the political support and the practical support goes hand-in-hand because by expanding the practical support, we also are engaging more closely with Ukraine. And we’re also looking into how we can further strengthen that when it comes to, for instance, capacity building, helping Ukraine to transition from Soviet-era equipment, to standards and doctrines, to NATO standards and doctrines, and become more interoperable with NATO forces. So the practical cooperation and the political cooperation goes hand-in-hand and it’s helping to move Ukraine towards NATO.”
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_209381.htm?selectedLocale=en
In other words, nothing at all is actually being done in terms of “helping Ukraine with its application,” much less approving it. Nothing, in the reporter’s words, of a “concrete step.”
NATO is nowhere near ready to accept the Ukraine as a member. For that matter, neither is the EU….
“Meeting at a summit in Brussels, leaders of the EU’s 27 nations mustered the required unanimous approval to grant Ukraine candidate status. That sets in motion a membership process that could take years or even decades…To gain EU membership, countries must meet a detailed host of economic and political conditions, including a commitment to the rule of law and other democratic principles. Ukraine will have to curb entrenched government corruption and adopt other reforms…EU candidate status doesn’t give an automatic right to join the bloc and doesn’t provide any immediate security guarantees…”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/european-union-to-grant-ukraine-candidate-status-war-russia/
Actions, or, the lack of action, speaks louder than words. Europe is hedging its bets with respect to the Ukraine.
And then there’s the fact that a number of current members look askance at a country governed in part by neo nazis.
“NATO is kicking the can down the road, again. That is certainly not as good a thing as simply disavowing membership would be. But I am not seeing it as ‘doubling down,’ either.”
Yes…as I noted elsewhere in this thread, NATO countries clearly were (in 2008) and remain opposed to Ukraine membership period. But the US and dominant, belligerent members in NATO evidently had the power to make the ‘future membship statement’ part of its official pronouncements.
Less belligerent members have long capitulated that way.
The best I can take out of it is:
a/ Stoltenberg’s sidelong admission elsewhere that countries remain opposed to membership at all;
b/ Bulgaria’s stepping back over NATO membership (both a and b footnoted in my other comments), and
c/ the fact that – as noted in this article – Ukraine was directly told that it would not be admitted ever, but that “officially the door would remain open”…
…making this statement a case of ‘officially the door remaining open,’ though nonpublic veto evidently remains in place.
Can see the glass as half full or empty – empty? wimpy NATO opposition and a longer war/cold war conflict since it will never be acceptable to Russia; full? clearly the opposition is still there, and a vague ‘future membership’ can be seen as a maximalist position, already admitted as a false hope by Z once, officially dropped as a hope by Z once, so the US can save face in negotiations by representing it as U’s decision.
It’s all reading tea leaves! But I think the various diplomatic posturings do show a small retreat, rather than a doubling down, on the hawks’ part. Incorporating by reference the endorsement in principle of the 2008 conference is not exactly a clarion call!
Me thinks that NATO/US speak with forked tongue.
Indeed. Even now the borders are being further disestablished.
I note that Mr. DeCamp, above, wrote “The pledge to admit Ukraine into NATO didn’t lead to a civil war right away . . .” That’s true, but the 2008 pledge to Georgia at Bucharest did lead to “civil” war right away, in August of that year, IIRC.
Western news coverage and subsequent commentary and analysis almost universally blames Russia and the “self-proclaimed” or “self-styled” republics* of Abkhazia and South Ossetia for the flareup, but a more balanced assessment makes it clear that the Bucharest statement emboldened Georgia to turn up the heat, apparently imagining that it had become invulnerable.
Russian troops, unsurprisingly, crushed the Georgian forces within a week or two.
* Are there other kinds of republics than self-proclaimed? Who else would make such a proclamation?
Stoltenburg is a complete horse’s ass. He’s the very embodiment of the Peter Principle.
Georgia and Ukraine have elevated corruption to a planetary art form.
I understand your sentiment, Bear, but horses everywhere object to their butts being compared to Doltenburg!
LOL! Good one!
This article says it all. NATO was arming Ukraine and was not going to grant membership until it was “ready”. Meantime NATO continued to make it ready. Putin had no choice but to attack Ukraine. The ignorance of the American public is sickening, especially since it was all known within the government, specifically by William Burns, whose warnings had been uncovered by Wikileaks. Today’s revelation by Ursula v d L of the real Ukraine casualties is the result of Ukraine “not being ready” to join NATO. This all shows how degenerate US “leadership” has become and how feckless the European Community is for allowing itself to be led by such degenerates.
“Putin had no choice but to attack Ukraine.”
“Vladimir Putin is a meat puppet with no will or decision-making ability of his own” is an oldie but not really a goodie.
Bigoted propaganda. So your argument is that Putin makes all the decisions and parliament does nothing?
I agree: The idea that Putin is just a helpless, crawling robot under the complete control of the west is bigoted propaganda.
As for the Duma, here is the English translation of Putin’s claim in his February 24 announcement:
“I have decided to conduct a special military operation.”
Was he lying? Were there secret orders from the Duma or somewhere else which he was powerless to countermand?
Putin is the President, the buck stops there. It finally is his decision, he could of course veto the Duma.
Why do you hate Russian’s so much (Putin of course is a metaphor for Russians) and why the constant war propaganda? Nothing you have said about Russia (Putin) is true. And what you say is laced with prejudice and hatred.
The Obama coup in 2014 is well documented, the ethnic cleansing campaign by the Nazi’s is well documented.
Is your bigotry and hatred of Russia not a conflict of interest in a site called Antiwar? Why is your support for Nazism not a conflict of interest?
This SMO has so far bleed 100,000 Ukrainian officers dead. Probably twice that seriously injured. This constant war propaganda is leading to a lot of people getting killed.
I opposed the 2014 coup, and the ethnic cleansing. And I still do. My position since 2014 has CONSISTENTLY been that the Ukrainian regime should let the seceded Donbas republics go peaceably. And that NATO should be disbanded. And that the US should not be involved in the current war in any way, shape, manner, or form.
How is directly quoting Vladimir Putin, and asserting that he’s not a moron, meat puppet, or hostage “hating Russians?”
The next time I support Nazism will be the first time I support Nazism. And there won’t be a first time.
Apparently your definition of “hating Russians” is mentioning facts that you don’t like.
Being antiwar means opposing war, not supporting your preferred regime’s wars.
“… your preferred regime’s wars”
Oh, brother. Thought you could do a little better than this.
Being meaningfully antiwar means acknowledging that there are widely-understood actions and provocations that are likely to result in the targets thereof believing that violence is a necessary defensive response.
In the present case, it is simply wrongheaded to believe or claim that both parties are somehow equally responsible for the snowballing disaster. The actions of the US-NATO provocateur and ringmaster are the principle causes of the fact of this war, of its prolongation, and of its escalation.
Hear hear.
Before Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky quit negotiations with Russia to settle the war in Ukraine, he told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria on 20 March 2022, “I made a point that the war in Ukraine has been lasting for eight years. It’s not just some special military operation.”
Zakaria had asked him “You have said recently that Ukraine perhaps will not be a member of NATO. You have admitted that. Could that — there are people who ask, could that concession, had you made it clearly and loudly earlier, could that have prevented this war?”
Zelensky’s reply said that for Ukraine to make such a “concession” — would be unacceptable to Ukrainians, because this war had started “eight years” earlier, and they wouldn’t accept now — after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 — a “concession” of an indispensable part of what their military has been fighting for ever since long before that, going all the way back to 2014. — virtual if not official membership in NATO, so that American missiles can then become posted on Ukraine’s border only 300 miles away from Russia’s command center in The Kremlin. That has always been Ukraine’s goal throughout this eight-year war. And for Ukraine to “concede” it to Russia now would be for Ukraine to lose what they have been waging war for eight years in order to attain.
He also told Zakaria that Ukrainians would never accept any concession to Russia on what was, before 2014, Ukrainian land: Crimea and Donbass: “Any compromises related to our territorial integrity and our sovereignty … We cannot concede to it.” The NATO issue is part of that:
So: the Big Lie about Ukraine’s war is that it started on 24 February 2022, instead of during 20-26 February 2014. Even Ukraine’s President acknowledges that it is false. Ukraine’s President acknowledges that they have been at war with Russia since 2014.
But Putin is a monster and Putin heads a regime, while the Ukraine is a Nazi infested abomination. How about you loose the war rhetoric and start talking facts and truths.
Putin and Zelenskyy are both monsters, Putin and Zelenskyy both head regimes, and both of those regimes (and others) are responsible for the ongoing war.
Facts and truths are what I deal in. That you find some facts and truths inconvenient to your Kool Aid preferences doesn’t magically make them stop being facts and truths.
In context:
Yes, he had reasons for making a decision.
And he made a decision.
He had hooks to hang his “special military operation” on, and he hung it on those hooks. But so far as I can tell, nobody rousted him out of bed, put a gun to his head, and told him to do it if he wanted to live.
He’s either responsible for his actions, or he isn’t. If he isn’t, those actions are neither reprehensible nor laudable, any more than there’s something evil or meritorious about water running downhill or the sun rising and setting.
Thomas, as you very well know, when Putin or anyone else says that there is “no choice,” “no other option,” or anything similar, the assertion is always meant, and should always be interpreted, in the context of both the immediate and predicate circumstances in which a decision is made.
In the real world, virtually any head of government facing what s/he believes to be an existential threat to her or his nation is fairly likely to feel that one action or another, depending on the details of a particular set of circumstances, is the only or necessary action to take.
It is disingenuous to pretend that Putin or any other decision-maker is somehow free to choose from any of a smörgåsbord of options.
Amen. I’m beginning to believe that reasoning is dead among some individuals here.
In the real world, anyone who believed, as of February 24, that there was an existential threat to Russia was a f*cking idiot.
I don’t believe Vladimir Putin was a f*cking idiot then, or that he’s a f*cking idiot now.
On the contrary, I believe he’s among the most astute and calculating politicians of the last half century, and that he does things for real reasons, not made-up bullsh*t reasons.
That doesn’t mean he can’t miscalculate, as he clearly did in February, but it does mean he’s not some helpless victim just going wherever the wind happens to blow him.
We’ll have to qualify that by noting that it is your assessment, not a statement of fact.
I’m pretty sure that the Russian leadership did, and does, believe exactly that. And I think it’s a perfectly reasonable thing to believe. I think it’s reasonable because it’s supported by decades of credible evidence.
Also, my observations of the Russian leadership over the past couple of decades suggest that it tends to say what it means and to mean what it says about matters of security and international relations. I’m not aware of any reason to think that’s not true in this case.
No one here is arguing that Putin did not drive the final decisions. After all, that’s in his job description. So, what in the hell is your point and whom are you directing it to?
It’s not an argument. Just one hundred per cent brazenly bold, not to mention jaw-droppingly shameless fiction. Thomas has strong views of sorts on the subject of Russia and Putin. All and without exception, of them are quintessentially hallucinatory.
“Putin had no choice but to attack Ukraine” The same arguments were made by Japan war lords when convincing Japan to attack the US. I don’t buy it. Putin choose to go to war because he thought it was going to be an easy win. Like most aggressor he didn’t understand the will of people to fight for freedom. Now 10,000s of ordinary Russians are paying the price with their lives and a lot more will be coming.
Once again, you make points about different times and places as if there is some concrete relationship between them.
When the dust settles, there will be no Ukraine to join NATO…
And there will be no NATO to join.
Great job, President Biden!
And NATO is going away why?
They’ll get a better deal with Russia – as will the rest of the world.
Want to bet on this?
You sound just like @Javy Lopez here who few months ago Tripled down on Ukraine not able to retake Kherson and that HIMARS HIMARS HIMARS was just a hype. He disappeared since.
If it is about Kherson he just might reappear soon enough.
But Kerson hasn’t been retaken. The city was evacuated not the Oblask. Now the AFU has to hold the city and that may cost quite a bit. A Pyrrhic victory at best and a potential disaster for the AFU.
The Russians have the tactical advantage. With another 12 divisions in the mix, and solid defences in place in places like Kerson, the Russians will have the ability to concentrate offensive forces. Looks like a classic set up.
NATO should have been disbanded as needless when the Warsaw Pact finished with the Cold War ending. The power-hungry USA could not bear peace and cooperation, so of course an enemy was easy to find and fight ie Russia.
Why? Did Russia disappear with ending of the cold war?
They worked hard to cooperate with the US. When they even allowed US businesses to operate in Russia, we screwed them over big time.
When the Soviet Union crumbled, life was ok for the average Russian. But the US did to Russians what Obama and Hillary did to the people of Honduras more recently.
Trump said to the immigrants: if you come to America we’ll put you in cages separated from your children. Not in those words of course.
The immigrants formed caravans to flee the government that the US set up in Honduras anyways.
Similarly, not long after US corporations set up shop in Russia, life expectancy there plummeted, poverty sky rocketed, and GDP dropped significantly. Yeltsin is viewed as the leader that destroyed the life of Russians for the benefit of US corporations
Putin was supposed to implement the continuation of the destruction of Russia. He stood up for average Russian citizens instead. Which emphatically explains why Russians still stand behind him
We were not nice to them then. And we have doubled down on our hatred of them ever since.
What? Nobody suggested a country disappear. What about peace? Is that unAmerican?
No, though nearly!!! but it need not be an enemy.
It will never happen. Pure phantasy. Russia won’t allow it.
In response I bet Russia annexes all of Ukraine.
Dear Dave DeCamp,
Your article omits a key point of NATO’s 2008 summit statement re Ukraine’s future membership: opposition within NATO, about which Stoltenberg’s ‘memory’ of the 2008 ‘agreement’ is dishonest:
a/ Bush declared without warning that Ukraine and Georgia would become NATO members;
b/ a number of NATO members – France and Germany especially – flatly opposed NATO membership for Ukraine – opposed it period (doubtless for the reasons given in Burns’ nonpublic cable) (NYT, 4/3/08, “NATO Allies Oppose Bush on Georgia and Ukraine”);
c/ the 2o08 statement re ‘future membership’ was compromise language that apparently never changed NATO opposition: a “compromise reached by…Bush when other NATO members, like Germany and France, rejected his proposal to offer the two countries a concrete and immediate road map – [i.e., the conventional ‘offer’] – to membership.” (NYT, 12/21 “Ally, Member or Partner? NATO’s Long Dilemma Over Ukraine”)
d/ Even after the compromise, the US lobbied hard to abandon the normal membership process and requirements, and to make them members post haste – again angering other members. (NYT, 11/25/08, “U.S. Presses NATO on Georgia and Ukraine”)
e/ Stoltenberg elsewhere lets slip that NATO members still oppose Ukraine membership: “30 allies have to agree, and we don’t have consensus agreement in NATO now on inviting Ukraine into becoming a full member.” (Axios, 2/27/22, “Flashback: Why NATO stiffed Ukraine”)
Note: even in the above interview, Stoltenberg is weasel-word-y – but its clear that the “now” covers up simple membership opposition to letting in Ukraine – just as in 08.
f/ Stoltenberg’s ‘I remember’ garbage is totally dishonest – he ‘remembers’ 2008, except for any of the above. Stoltenberg is, as they say, an unreliable narrator.
Yes, all true.
“Stoltenberg is, as they say, an unreliable narrator.” … Stoltenberg is a mouthpiece of a dangerous and despicable ideology: neoconservative. Lying is second nature to this bunch.
NATO Doubles Down on its Own Destruction