Most of mainstream American media echo the official U.S. position that Russia is the only aggressor in Ukraine. Here is a collection of articles and quotations from senior U.S. diplomats, academics, military personnel, think tanks, and journalists that explain U.S. responsibility for provoking the crisis.
To be clear, it is not at all my intention to claim that President Putin is innocent. His invasion of Ukraine was a crime — similar to the U.S. criminal invasions of Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and (via proxies) many other countries. My aim is to quote experts and articles explaining the extent to which U.S. shares responsibility for the crisis. U.S. actions provoked Russia to act defensively. U.S. provocations included aggressive NATO expansion and support for Russia’s enemies in the 2014 Maidan Revolution in Ukraine. The U.S. exploited the conflict between pro-Russian separatists in the east and south of Ukraine and pro-Western groups (including far-right militias) to provoke and weaken Russia.
If you are aware of other articles or quotations I should add to this list, please email me at ThinkerFeeler@gmail.com.
Interference by the United States and its NATO allies in Ukraine’ civil struggle has exacerbated the crisis within Ukraine, undermined the possibility of bringing the two easternmost provinces back under Kyiv’s control, and raised the specter of possible conflict between nuclear-armed powers. Furthermore, in denying that Russia has a “right” to oppose extension of a hostile military alliance to its national borders, the United States ignores its own history of declaring and enforcing for two centuries a sphere of influence in the Western hemisphere.
What President Putin is demanding, an end to NATO expansion and creation of a security structure in Europe that insures Russia’ security along with that of others, is eminently reasonable. He is not demanding the exit of any NATO member and he is threatening none. By any pragmatic, common sense standard it is in the interest of the United States to promote peace, not conflict. To try to detach Ukraine from Russian influence — the avowed aim of those who agitated for the “color revolutions” — was a fool’s errand, and a dangerous one. Have we so soon forgotten the lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis?
The mystery was why the U.S. — which throughout the Cold War dreamed that Russia might one day have a democratic revolution and a leader who, however haltingly, would try to make Russia into a democracy and join the West — would choose to quickly push NATO into Russia’ face when it was weak.
A very small group of officials and policy wonks at that time, myself included, asked that same question, but we were drowned out.
Friedman quotes George Kennan, senior U.S. diplomat during the Cold War, as saying, “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves.”
Kennan also said, “were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.”
The 2019 RAND Corporation study Overextending and Unbalancing Russia “examines nonviolent, cost-imposing options that the United States and its allies could pursue across economic, political, and military areas to stress — overextend and unbalance — Russia’ economy and armed forces and the regime’s political standing at home and abroad. ” It includes the paragraph
Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages.
The highlighted words indicate that the authors were quite aware that U.S. provocations would cause Russia to respond militarily.
Many have pointed to the expansion of NATO in the mid-1990s as a critical provocation. At the time, I opposed that expansion, in part for fear of the effect on Russian-U.S. relations….Still, the first step in finding a solution [to the war in Ukraine] is acknowledging the problem and recognizing that our actions have contributed to that hostility.
Although it is obscene to blame the United States for Putin’ inhumane attack on Ukraine, to insist that the invasion was entirely unprovoked is misleading. Just as Pearl Harbor was the consequence of U.S. efforts to blunt Japanese expansion on the Asian mainland, and just as the 9/11 attacks were partly a response to the United States’ dominant presence in the Middle East after the first Gulf War, so Russian decisions have been a response to the expanding post-Cold War hegemony of the United States and its allies in Europe. Putin alone is to blame for his actions, but the invasion of Ukraine is taking place in a historical and geopolitical context in which the United States has played and still plays the principal role, and Americans must grapple with this fact.
With respect to Ukraine, we have not sat on the sidelines. We have been very much involved. Members of the Senate have been there, members of the State Department who have been on the square …. I really think that the clear position of the United States has been in part what has helped lead to this change in regime…. I think it was our role, including sanctions and threats of sanctions, that forced, in part, Yanukovich from office.
Harper’s Magazine: Why are we in Ukraine? — On the dangers of American hubris, by Benjamin Schwarz (formerly the national and literary editor of The Atlantic and the executive editor of World Policy Journal) and Christopher Layne (University Distinguished Professor of International Affairs and the Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security at Texas A&M University) is a mainstream accounting of U.S. provocations in Ukraine and elsewhere, including Kosovo.
Another compendium of U.S. provocation is Matthew Hoh’s A War Long Wanted — Many in Brussels, DC, Kyiv, London and Moscow have desired this war for decades.
The U.S. and NATO have also trained and armed Azov since Barack Obama had denied lethal aid to Ukraine. One reason Obama declined sending arms to Ukraine was because he was afraid they may fall into these right-wing extremists’ hands. According to the green-checked New York Times, “Mr. Obama continues to pose questions indicating his doubts. ‘O.K., what happens if we send in equipment — do we have to send in trainers?’ said one person paraphrasing the discussion on the condition of anonymity. ‘What if it ends up in the hands of thugs? What if Putin escalates?”
According to [FBI agent] Buma’s statement, shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, on February 24, 2022, he was told to terminate relations with one of his most valuable sources in that field, Dynamo. The order came from both his supervisors and the F.B.I.’s Foreign Influence Task Force, and, per Buma, superiors told him that the shutdown of Dynamo was based on “highly classified information from the National Security Agency” which he could not access. They also said that it was part of a broader effort, around the time of the invasion, to close off many “sources related to Russia/Ukraine matters.”
It is often forgotten that numerous American and European policymakers and strategists opposed NATO expansion from the start because they understood that the Russians would see it as a threat, and that the policy would eventually lead to disaster. The list of opponents includes George Kennan, both President Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Perry, and his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Shalikashvili, Paul Nitze, Robert Gates, Robert McNamara, Richard Pipes, and Jack Matlock, just to name a few. At the NATO summit in Bucharest In April 2008, both French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel opposed President George W. Bush’s plan to bring Ukraine into the alliance. Merkel later said that her opposition was based on her belief that Putin would interpret it as a “declaration of war.”
Mearsheimer gives as documentation for his claim a link to Arms Control Association’s Opposition to NATO Expansion . That webpage says “On June 26, a group of 50 prominent foreign policy experts that included former senators, retired military officers, diplomats and academicians, sent an open letter to President Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion. ” and lists most of the names Mearsheimer mentions as signers.
Having masterminded the coup in February against the democratically elected government in Kiev, Washington’s planned seizure of Russia’s historic, legitimate warm-water naval base in Crimea failed. The Russians defended themselves, as they have done against every threat and invasion from the west for almost a century.
But Nato’s military encirclement has accelerated, along with US-orchestrated attacks on ethnic Russians in Ukraine. If Putin can be provoked into coming to their aid, his pre-ordained “pariah” role will justify a Nato-run guerrilla war that is likely to spill into Russia itself….
Like the ruins of Iraq and Afghanistan, Ukraine has been turned into a CIA theme park ““ run personally by CIA director John Brennan in Kiev, with dozens of “special units” from the CIA and FBI setting up a “security structure” that oversees savage attacks on those who opposed the February coup. Watch the videos, read the eye-witness reports from the massacre in Odessa this month. Bussed fascist thugs burned the trade union headquarters, killing 41 people trapped inside. Watch the police standing by.
Subsequently, Putin showed restraint and tried to find a peaceful accommodation with NATO, but hawks in the US and UK escalated the arming of anti-Russian forces in Ukraine.
WikiLeaks revealed a 2008 cable from William J. Burns (U.S. Ambassador to Russia) which stated:
NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains “an emotional and neuralgic” issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia.
According to Univ. of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer, Burns told Condelezza Rice that Russian leadership were united in agreeing that NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line for them. Still, the U.S. persisted. Mearhsheimer said, “The fact is that we pushed NATO right up to Russia’s doorstep, and the Russians said that this was unacceptable.” He also thinks that the major threat to the U.S. is China, and the U.S. proxy war with Russia is a distraction from that challenge.
in 2008 when he was ambassador to Russia and Bush II recklessly invited Ukraine to join NATO, current CIA director William Burns warned that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).” He added that “I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” More generally, Burns called NATO expansion into Eastern Europe “premature at best, and needlessly provocative at worst.” And if the expansion reached Ukraine, Burns warned, “There could be no doubt that Putin would fight back hard.”
Burns was merely reiterating common understanding at the highest level of government, back to the early ’90s. Bush II’s own Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recognized that “trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching, recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests.”
The glaringly obvious record of provocation is, presumably, the reason for the tacit rule that the Russian assault must be called “unprovoked,” a term otherwise scarcely if ever used but required in this case in polite society. Psychologists should have no problem explaining the curious behavior.
Note: Chomsky condemns the invasion and says that it was unjustified even though it was provoked.
On Democracy Now, Stephen Wertheim, senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, discusses some of the background to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He mentions William Burn’s warnings about Russia’s “red line” in Ukraine. He also discusses the cold war in China.
More than anything else, it was the refusal of Ukraine to implement the provisions of Minsk 2 — especially the provision that would give the predominantly Russian-speaking regions a special constitutional status — that caused Russia to threaten military action against Ukraine.
Reuters reported that “In an interview published in Germany’s Zeit magazine on Wednesday, former German chancellor Angela Merkel said that the Minsk agreements had been an attempt to ‘give Ukraine time’ to build up its defences.”
In a new interview with The Wall Street Journal, immortal Hague fugitive Henry Kissinger says the US is acting in a crazy and irrational way that has brought it to the edge of war with Russia and China:
Mr. Kissinger sees today’ world as verging on a dangerous disequilibrium. “We are at the edge of war with Russia and China on issues which we partly created, without any concept of how this is going to end or what it’ supposed to lead to.”
Negotiations need to begin in the next two months before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome. Ideally, the dividing line should be a return to the status quo ante. Pursuing the war beyond that point would not be about the freedom of Ukraine, but a new war against Russia itself.
The war in Ukraine did not start on 24 February 2022, but already in February 2014. The civilian population of the Donbas has endured continued shelling from Ukrainian forces since 2014, notwithstanding the Minsk Agreements. These attacks on Lugansk and Donetsk significantly increased in January-February 2022, as reported by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.
I was the UN representative for the elections in Ukraine in March and June 1994 and criss-crossed the country, including Crimea. Without a doubt, the vast majority of the population there and in the Donbass are Russian and feel Russian. This brings up the issue of the jus cogens right of self-determination of peoples, anchored in articles 1 and 55 of the UN Charter (and in Chapters XI and XII of the Charter) and in Art. 1 common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Wittner seems to forget that the US and EU supported the illegal coup d’etat against the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovich, and immediately started working together with the Putsch-regime in Kiev, instead of insisting in re-establishing law and order as provided for in the Agreement of 20 February 2014.
Time Magazine reported in Rescusing Boris on “THE SECRET STORY OF HOW FOUR U.S. ADVISERS USED POLLS, FOCUS GROUPS, NEGATIVE ADS AND ALL THE OTHER TECHNIQUES OF AMERICAN CAMPAIGNING TO HELP BORIS YELTSIN WIN.”
Fifty members of the Arms Control Association wrote a letter to Clinton saying “We, the undersigned, believe that the current U.S.-led effort to expand NATO is a policy error of historic proportions. We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability.”
“We’ll be back on a hair-trigger” said Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a New York Democrat, during the debates in the Senate. Moynihan continued: “We’re talking about nuclear war. It is a curiously ironic outcome that at the end of the Cold War,we might face a nuclear Armageddon.”
Senator Joseph Biden (D-Delaware), while calling Moynihan “the single most erudite and informed person in the Senate,” said he disagreed with him and pushed for NATO’s expansion.
The U.S.-installed government in Kiev outlawed political parties, including the Communist Party, and stripped Russian as an official language. Ousted President Viktor Yanukovych’s Party of the Regions was banned in several oblasts and eventually collapsed. An American citizen became finance minister and Vice President Joe Biden became Barack Obama’s virtual viceroy in Ukraine. Three months later, Ukraine’s largest private gas firm, Burisma Holdings, appointed Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, to its board of directors.
Videos have emerged of Biden then giving instructions to the nominal president at the time, Petro Poroshenko. By his own admission, Biden forced the resignation of Viktor Shokin, Ukraine’s prosecutor general.
It contains a Youtube video of President Biden bragging about threatening to withhold a billion dollar loan guarantee unless the prosecutor — who was investigating Hunter Biden — was fired.
Late last year, with Ukraine’ state coffers running low because of overspending on political priorities like subsidizing natural gas and increasing the wages of government workers, President Viktor Yanukovych faced a choice. The European Union offered a trade deal that promised to boost Ukraine’ sluggish economy in exchange for harsh and politically unpopular austerity measures. Russia offered $15 billion and didn’t ask Yanukovych to change much of anything. Unsurprisingly, he rejected the EU deal and opted for Moscow’ bailout instead. Thousands of angry Ukrainians took to the streets in protest, and they haven’t left.
The U.S., the IMF, and pro-Western groups in Ukraine worked hard to align Ukraine with the West. This background is important to understand the context of the Russian invasion.
The U.S. expansion of NATO reflected an attitude of recklessness and hubris. According to former Defense Secretary William Perry, the predominant view of Russia in the Clinton administration was: “Who cares what they think? They’re a third-rate power.”
At least some senior figures were alarmed by the U.S.’ arrogance. Former CIA Director Robert Gates later criticized NATO’ eastward expansion, arguing that it was a bad move since Gorbachev was “led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”
In 1995, 20 former U.S. officials wrote an open letter stating that NATO’ planned expansion risked “convincing most Russians that the United States and the West are attempting to isolate, encircle, and subordinate them.” The letter also stated that the Russians “pose no threat to any state to the west, nor is there any evidence of an imperialistic surge among the Russian people.” Even Paul Nitze — an architect of the Cold War and a longstanding anti-Soviet hardliner “– signed the letter. Then in 1997, veteran Soviet expert George F. Kennan declared, “Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era.” U.S. policymakers were warned about the likely consequences of their actions.
The de facto alliance of Ukrainian westernizing liberals and the fascist Ukrainian far-Right which together drove the so-called Revolution of Dignity in 2013-14 ignored their obligation to respect the democratic process. The violent overthrow of the duly elected Ukrainian president was praised in the US and in certain European capitals as a victory for the “right” of Ukrainians to choose their European future, but was in fact a violation of their obligation to respect the results of a democratic election – and by extension their obligation to respect the will of their fellow citizens in the southern and eastern parts of the country.
For years, the U.S. national security establishment was warned by voices from the right, left, and center that America needed to change its policy toward Russia. It was warned that Russia could not be defeated in their near abroad. It was warned that Kiev—by launching an “anti-terrorist” campaign against its Russian speaking citizens—was recklessly antagonizing Russia. It was warned that making a semi-deity out of a corrupt tool of Ukrainian oligarchs was an obvious mistake. It was warned against conflating the interests of ethno-nationalist far-right factions in Kiev and Lviv (and their allies in Warsaw, Riga, Tallinn, and Vilnius) with U.S. national interests. It was warned to take President Putin’s numerous protestations against NATO expansion seriously.
At the time, I was the national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia, part of a team briefing Mr. Bush. We warned him that Mr. Putin would view steps to bring Ukraine and Georgia closer to NATO as a provocative move that would likely provoke pre-emptive Russian military action. But ultimately, our warnings weren’t heeded.
Residents of the country’ eastern provinces have been hammered hard by the Ukrainian military, over the course of several years now. Their fate has been almost ignored in Western media.
In Ukraine today, there is only one internationally recognized state and Russia’ claims that the populations of Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, and Kherson should be allowed to secede have not been widely recognized internationally. NATO, however, which in 1999 energetically and by military means supported Kosovo’ secession from Serbia, and many of whose members supported the secession of South Sudan from Sudan, is not in a great position to object to the principle behind Russia’ claims.
the Ukrainian president was replaced by a US-selected administration, in an entirely unconstitutional takeover,” and about “the role of the fascistic right on the streets and in the new Ukrainian regime…. Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to join Russia…… [Y]ou don’t hear much about the Ukrainian government’ veneration of wartime Nazi collaborators and pogromists, or the arson attacks on the homes and offices of elected communist leaders, or the integration of the extreme Right Sector into the national guard, while the anti-semitism and white supremacism of the government’ ultra-nationalists is assiduously played down.” He says that “after two decades of eastward Nato expansion, this crisis was triggered by the west’ attempt to pull Ukraine decisively into its orbit and defence structure.
masterminded the coup in February against the democratically elected government in Kiev ….Ukraine has been turned into a CIA theme park ““ run personally by CIA director John Brennan in Kiev, with dozens of “˜special units’ from the CIA and FBI setting up a “˜security structure’ that oversees savage attacks on those who opposed the February coup.
features named and unnamed veterans of the US intelligence cartel saying that long before the February 2022 invasion they were fully aware that the US had “provoked” Russia in Ukraine and created a powderkeg situation that would likely lead to war.
“By last summer [meaning the summer of 2021], the baseline view of most U.S. intelligence community analysts was that Russia felt sufficiently provoked over Ukraine that some unknown trigger could set off an attack by Moscow,” a former CIA official told Yahoo News’ Zach Dorfman, who adds, “(The CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.)”
In December of 2021 John Deni of NATO propaganda firm The Atlantic Council authored a piece for The Wall Street Journal, “The Strategic Case for Risking War in Ukraine,” subtitled “An invasion would be a diplomatic, economic and military mistake for Putin. Let him make it if he must.”
The neocons planning the war encouraged aggressive NATO expansion because they knew it would provoke military actions that would justify sanctions and a military response by NATO.
The United States withdrew from the following arms treaties:
The book Not One Inch by M.E. Sarotte, Professor of Historical Studies at Johns Hopkins University, says that the U.S. missed an opportunity to work more collaboratively with Russia by expanding NATO eastward. The phrase “Not One Inch” refers to promises given to Russian leaders by U.S. and NATO allies about NATO expansion towards Russia.
The December 24, 2021 email newsletter from the New York Times reports that no written or even verbal agreement was made with Russian leaders about NATO refraining from moving east towards Russia:
Soviet forces would fully withdraw from East Germany, allowing Germany to reunify under NATO-allied West German control, in exchange for significant financial support from the West. The Soviet Union was in dire economic straits at the time, and Mr. Gorbachev under intense domestic political pressure.
Mr. Gorbachev understood, and according to his own notes conveyed, that this meant accepting NATO eastward expansion.
“I told Baker: We are aware of your favorable attitude toward the intention expressed by a number of representatives of East European countries to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact in order to join NATO later,” he wrote in his notes from a May 1990 meeting, according to Dr. Sarotte’ translation.
journeyed to Moscow within a day of each other. On Feb. 9, 1990, Mr. Baker asked Mr. Gorbachev, “Would you prefer to see a unified Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’ jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position?” Mr. Gorbachev, according to Mr. Baker, answered that “any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.”
Kohl of Germany assured Mr. Gorbachev, as Mr. Baker had done, that “naturally NATO could not expand its territory” into East Germany. … Mr. Kohl’ foreign minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, visiting the Kremlin as well, assured his Soviet counterpart, Eduard Shevardnadze, that “for us, it stands firm: NATO will not expand itself to the East.”
But the U.S. soon pushed back on such promises.
George Washington University’s National Security Archive reports NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard. “Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner.”
Vladimir Putin swears that Washington betrayed a promise that NATO would move “not one inch” eastward and justifies renewed confrontation as a necessary response to the alliance’ illegitimate “deployment of military infrastructure to our borders.” But the United States insists that neither President George H.W. Bush nor any other leader made such a promise.
In June 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts signed an open letter to [President Bill] Clinton, saying, “We believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO “¦ is a policy error of historic proportions” that would “unsettle European stability.”
I was in Moscow in 2008 at the time of the Bucharest NATO Summit, and you know, you’ll remember that there was a proposal on the table to give membership action plan status to Georgia and Ukraine. I met that evening Russia’s top political military analyst at a reception and asked him what do you think, you know, what’s your take on this. He said, you do know, this means war, don’t you? I said: come on, come on, what are you talking about? No, this means war! And then he explained, why; and, you know, he was talking about Georgia but also Ukraine. My take on the Bucharest Summit declaration, it was the worst possible outcome to a very difficult question, because it did neither one thing nor the other, it poked Russia in the eye in something that we knew was deeply sensitive to them, but by not proceeding it said to Russia that we didn’t really mean it.
Surrounded by Ukrainian soldiers in U.S.-style Army fatigues, and with Senator Amy Klobuchar watching, Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain promise to help Ukraine stop Putin. After each statement, a Ukrainian translates for the Ukrainians.
Lindsey Graham: “2017 will be the year of offense. All of us will go back to Washington and we will push the case against Russia. Enough of Russian aggression. It is time for them to pay a heavier price. Our fight is not with the Russian people but with Putin. Our promise to you is to take your calls to Washington, inform the American people of your bravery, and make the case against Putin to the world.”
McCain: “I believe we will win, I am convinced we will win, and we will do everything we can to provide you with what you need to win, We have succeeded not because of equipment but because of your courage. So, I thank you, and the world is watching, and the world is watching because we cannot allow Vladimir Putin to succeed here, because if he succeeds here he will succeed in other countries.”
“Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We’ve invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.”
For example, the New York Times (4/11/22) claimed that US support for the 2014 “Maidan Revolution” that ousted Ukraine’ democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych was a “conspiracy theory” being peddled by the Chinese government in support of Russia.
But the U.S. clearly did aid the overthrow, as documented in this compendium, and as was admitted even in the NY Times (see the opinion piece by Christopher Caldwell, quoted above). Furthermore, according to FAIR:
When the Times covered the Russian annexation of Crimea, it acknowledged that the predominantly ethnic Russian population there viewed “the Ukrainian government installed after the ouster last weekend of Mr. Yanukovych as the illegitimate result of a fascist coup.” But now the newspaper of record is using allegations of disinformation to change the record.
Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, wrote (and he confirmed by email):
Under basic principles of international law, high level government officials acting within the scope of their official authority can bind a state under international law. It does not have to be in writing. Over the years I have dealt with some of the top Soviet/Russian international lawyers. They know these rules as well as I do. Clearly, these commitments would preclude the concerned NATO states from admitting Ukraine as a NATO member. It is time for them to put this binding commitment into writing as Russia has demanded in order to solve this matter.
I point out, by the way, that just because Gorbachev didn’t get in writing the promise not to extend NATO eastward, that doesn’t mean that it’s smart and wise to extend NATO eastward.
Chas W. Freeman, former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and a Lifetime Director of the Atlantic Council, says in The Many Lessons of the War in Ukraine: “Less than a day after the US-engineered coup that installed an anti-Russian regime in Kyiv in 2014, Washington formally recognized the new regime… The United States and NATO began a multi-billion-dollar effort to reorganize, retrain, and re-equip Kyiv’s armed forces. The avowed purpose was to enable Kyiv to reconquer the Donbas and eventually Crimea…. Crimea was Russian-speaking and had several times voted not to be part of Ukraine.” And: “From 2014 to 2022, the civil war in Donbas took nearly 15,000 lives.” Freeman says that the U.S. undermined several possible peace deals. “Ukraine is being eviscerated on the altar of Russophobia” but Russia has not, after all, been weakened.
Moscow’ cruel overreaction deserves emphatic condemnation. However, the culpability of the United States and its NATO allies also is sizable. Moving an alliance that one great power dominates to the border of another major power is inherently destabilizing and provocative.
Those people who are familiar with even the basics of international relations should grasp that point; it was inexcusable that so many U.S. and NATO leaders apparently did not do so.
One can readily imagine how Americans would react if Russia, China, India, or another peer competitor admitted countries from Central America and the Caribbean to a security alliance that it led”gand then sought to add Canada as an official or de facto military ally. It is highly probable that the United States would have responded by going to war years ago. Yet even though Ukraine has an importance to Russia comparable to Canada’ importance to the United States, our leaders expected Moscow to respond passively to the growing encroachment.
They have been proven disastrously wrong, and thanks to their ineptitude, the world is now a far more dangerous place.
In Foreign Policy, Stephen M. Walt, professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, wrotea: “This war would have been far less likely if the United States had adopted a strategy of foreign-policy restraint…. The Biden Administration and its predecessors are far from blameless.” In The Morality of Ukraine’s War Is Very Murky, Walt wrote,
There’s no question Russia started the war and deserves to be condemned for it, but the claim that Western policy had nothing to do with it is risible, as NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg recently acknowledged. Yes, Ukraine is a democracy, but also one that still contains some unsavory elements, even if Russian President Vladimir Putin’s depiction of it as a “Nazi regime” is grossly exaggerated.
The Center for American Progress published this essay in the Washington Post in 2004:
Events in Ukraine have inspired most people living in the free world. Ukrainian democrats stood together in the freezing cold to demand from their government what we citizens of democracies take for granted: the right to elect their leaders in free and fair elections. But not all observers of Ukraine’ “Orange Revolution” are so elated. Instead of democracy’ advance, some see a U.S.-funded, White House-orchestrated conspiracy to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty, weaken Russia’ sphere of influence and expand Washington’ imperial reach. These skeptics range from presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia, Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela to Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, columnist Patrick Buchanan, and left-wingers in the Nation and the Guardian.
This odd collection of critics is a little bit right and a whole lot wrong.
Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine? Yes. The American agents of influence would prefer different language to describe their activities “g democratic assistance, democracy promotion, civil society support, etc= “- but their work, however labeled, seeks to influence political change in Ukraine. The U.S. Agency for International Development, the National Endowment for Democracy and a few other foundations sponsored certain U.S. organizations, including Freedom House, the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, the Solidarity Center, the Eurasia Foundation, Internews and several others to provide small grants and technical assistance to Ukrainian civil society. The European Union, individual European countries and the Soros-funded International Renaissance Foundation did the same.
In the run-up to Ukraine’ presidential vote this fall, these American and European organizations concentrated their resources on creating conditions for free and fair elections. …
The essay goes on to deny that this meddling was significant enough to violate norms. Rather, it aided pre-existing, native groups and wasn’t directly under control of the Bush administration.
[W]hile the gains of the orange-bedecked “chestnut revolution” are Ukraine’s, the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.
Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box.
[C]onsider the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1980, which was painted in the Western media as an act of unprovoked perfidy. Years later, we learned that the Soviet invasion was actually preceded by a CIA operation designed to provoke the Soviet invasion! [That is a link to an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski.]The same misinformation occurred vis-Ã -vis Syria. The Western press is filled with recriminations against Putin’s military assistance to Syria’s Bashar al-Assad beginning in 2015, without mentioning that the US supported the overthrow of al-Assad beginning in 2011, with the CIA funding a major operation (Timber Sycamore) to overthrow Assad years before Russia arrived.
The Western narrative about the Ukraine war is that it is an unprovoked attack by Putin in the quest to recreate the Russian empire. Yet the real history starts with the Western promise to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not enlarge to the East, followed by four waves of NATO aggrandizement: in 1999, incorporating three Central European countries; in 2004, incorporating 7 more, including in the Black Sea and Baltic States; in 2008, committing to enlarge to Ukraine and Georgia; and in 2022, inviting four Asia-Pacific leaders to NATO to take aim at China.
Nor do the Western media mention the US role in the 2014 overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych; the failure of the Governments of France and Germany, guarantors of the Minsk II agreement, to press Ukraine to carry out its commitments; the vast US armaments sent to Ukraine during the Trump and Biden Administrations in the lead-up to war; nor the refusal of the US to negotiate with Putin over NATO enlargement to Ukraine.
Sachs played a large role in advising the first post-Soviet government in Russia and was disappointed that the U.S. refused to grant Russia the sort of economic aid that it gave to Poland, as reported here; the clear intent, says Sachs, was to weaken Russia, which suffered a terrible depression, far worse than the 1929 Great Depression.
In Jeffrey Sach’s NATO Expansion & Ukraine’s Destruction, he quotes NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg saying, “So, he [Putin] went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”
When Prof. John Mearsheimer, I, and others have said the same, we’ve been attacked as Putin apologists. The same critics also choose to hide or flatly ignore the dire warnings against NATO enlargement to Ukraine, long articulated by many of America’s leading diplomats, including the great scholar-statesman George Kennan, and the former U.S. ambassadors to Russia Jack Matlock and William Burns.
Why does Russia oppose NATO enlargement? For the simple reason that Russia does not accept the U.S. military on its 2,300 km border with Ukraine in the Black Sea region. Russia does not appreciate the U.S. placement of Aegis missiles in Poland and Romania after the U.S. unilaterally abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. ….
Russia also does not welcome the fact that the U.S. engaged in no fewer than 70 regime change operations during the Cold War (1947-1989), and countless more since, including in Serbia, Afghanistan, Georgia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Venezuela, and Ukraine. …
Even Zelensky’s team knew that the quest for NATO enlargement meant imminent war with Russia. Oleksiy Arestovych, former adviser to the Office of the President of Ukraine under Zelensky, declared that “with a 99.9 percent probability, our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia.” …
So, yes, Putin went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to Russia’s border. Ukraine is being destroyed by U.S. arrogance, proving again Henry Kissinger’s adage that to be America’s enemy is dangerous, while to be its friend is fatal.
There was a near universal understanding among diplomats and political leaders at the time that any attempt to expand NATO was foolish, an unwarranted provocation against Russia that would obliterate the ties and bonds that happily emerged at the end of the Cold War.
How naive we were. The war industry did not intend to shrink its power or its profits. It set out almost immediately to recruit the former Communist Bloc countries into the European Union and NATO. ….
There would be no peace dividend. ….
Once NATO expanded into Eastern Europe, the Clinton administration promised Moscow that NATO combat troops would not be stationed in Eastern Europe, the defining issue of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations. This promise again turned out to be a lie. Then in 2014 the U.S. backed a coup against the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych who sought to build an economic alliance with Russia rather than the European Union.
For example, the list shows us that a Ukraine group ‘InformNapalm’, set up “to debunk myths and expose secrets of the Russian hybrid war” and which claims to be “a purely volunteer endeavor which does not have any financial support from any government or donor”, is actually US Government funded. The group publishes anti-Russian propaganda on its website in 31 languages.
Other sources show us that the U.S. Government funds Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi linked Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine (the KVPU), through its NED funded partner the AFL-CIO’s ‘Solidarity Center’. There are few sectors which the NED has not penetrated….
As the New York Times pointed out in 1997, the NED was set up under the Reagan administration in the 1980s “to do in the open what the Central Intelligence Agency has done surreptitiously for decades”. Since WW2 Washington, “usually acting covertly through the CIA, has installed or toppled leaders on every continent, secretly supported political parties of close allies like Japan, fomented coups, spread false rumors, bribed political figures and spent countless billions of dollars to sway public opinion.”
On July 17, 2023 David Stockman (former Congressman from Michigan and former Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan) summarizes the history of U.S. provocations in Villainy In Vilnius.
According to the LA Times’ Russia feels threatened by NATO. There’ history behind that, “some of Russia’ security concerns are real. Offering to discuss them doesn’t qualify as appeasement… Thirty years ago, Russia had a buffer zone of satellite states to its west. Now it has only the unimpressive presence of Belarus.” The essay quotes Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine: “There are some concerns on the Russian side that are legitimate.”
Edward Lozansky, President of the American University in Moscow wrote, “The tragic events that we have now in Ukraine are the direct results of Washington’ post-Cold War policy that rejected post-communist Russia’ proposals for friendship, and win-win cooperation.”
The February 2014 uprising that overthrew the Yanukovitch government was led by two heavily armed right-wing nationalist organizations with neo-Nazi roots, Svoboda and Right Sektor, which also promoted white supremacy, anti-Semitism, and extreme hostility to Russians. While the political representation of those groups in the post-coup administration and parliament declined rapidly after the uprising, they remained active in street protests, and anti-Russian nationalism became a powerful force in Ukraine thereafter. The neo-Nazi Azov Battalion played a leading role in the new regime’s military offensive to regain control of the Donbas starting in 2014.
The CIA is overseeing a secret intensive training program in the U.S. for elite Ukrainian special operations forces and other intelligence personnel, according to five former intelligence and national security officials familiar with the initiative. The program, which started in 2015, is based at an undisclosed facility in the Southern U.S., according to some of those officials.
As part of the Ukraine-based training program, CIA paramilitaries taught their Ukrainian counterparts sniper techniques; how to operate U.S.-supplied Javelin anti-tank missiles and other equipment; how to evade digital tracking the Russians used to pinpoint the location of Ukrainian troops, which had left them vulnerable to attacks by artillery; how to use covert communications tools; and how to remain undetected in the war zone while also drawing out Russian and insurgent forces from their positions, among other skills, according to former officials.
After Russia’ 2014 incursion, the U.S. military also helped run a long-standing, publicly acknowledged training program for Ukrainian troops in the country’ western region, far from the frontlines. That program also included instruction in how to use Javelin anti-tank missiles and sniper training.
John Pilger, the Australian”“British correspondent and filmmaker, remarked after the U.S. cultivated the 2014 coup in Kyiv, “The suppression of the truth about Ukraine is one of the most complete news blackouts I can remember.” …
Those readers and viewers who confined their sources of information to the mainstream got some impossibly black-hats, white-hats version of events in Ukraine after the February 21 coup”gwhich was not a coup but a “democratic revolution.” This was just as the policy cliques in Washington wanted it. The U.S. role in the putsch, the presence of neo”“Nazis among the putschists, the antidemocratic character of a duly elected president’ overthrow, the new regime’ subsequent bombardment of civilians in the eastern provinces”-an eight-year campaign”-the wholesale discrimination since against Russian speakers and critical media, the assassinations of opposition political figures, Washington’ use of Ukraine in its longtime drive to subvert Russia”-all of this was left out.
Likewise, American media barely covered the fact that the U.S. enlisted the support of Islamic extremists (al-Qaeda) in Syria: “the arming of jihadist fanatics against the secular Assad government, of the savage murders, kidnappings, and torture the CIA effectively financed.”
In the Consortium News article 2022: Year of Major Power Conflict Over Ukraine former Marine Corps intelligence officer Scott blames the U.S. for provoking Russia in Ukraine and says that Russia may respond by stationing advanced hyper-sonic missiles in Eastern Europe or off the coast of the U.S.
The West Wants Investor-Friendly Policies in Ukraine
The backdrop to the 2014 coup and annexation cannot be understood without looking at the US strategy to open Ukrainian markets to foreign investors and give control of its economy to giant multinational corporations.
A key tool for this has been the International Monetary Fund….
In Ukraine, the IMF had long planned to implement a series of economic reforms to make the country more attractive to investors.
In 2013, after early steps to integrate with the West, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych turned against these changes and ended trade integration talks with the European Union. Months before his overthrow, he restarted economic negotiations with Russia, in a major snub to the Western economic sphere.
The US Helped Overthrow Ukraine’ Elected President
During the tug of war between the US and Russia, the Americans were engaged in a destabilization campaign against the Yanukovych government. The campaign culminated with the overthrow of the elected president in the Maidan Revolution”galso known as the Maidan Coup”-named for the Kiev square that hosted the bulk of the protests.
As political turmoil engulfed the country in the leadup to 2014, the US was fueling anti-government sentiment through mechanisms like USAID and National Endowment for Democracy (NED), just as they had done in 2004. In December 2013, Nuland, assistant secretary of state for European affairs and a long-time regime change advocate, said that the US government had spent $5 billion promoting “democracy” in Ukraine since 1991. The money went toward supporting “senior officials in the Ukraine government”¦[members of] the business community as well as opposition civil society” who agree with US goals.
The NED board of directors includes Elliott Abrams, whose sordid record runs from the Iran/Contra affair in the ’80s to the Trump administration’ effort to overthrow the Venezuelan government. In 2013, NED president Carl Gershman wrote a piece in the Washington Post (9/26/13) that described Ukraine as the “biggest prize” in the East/West rivalry. After the Obama administration, Nuland joined the NED board of directors before returning to the State Department in the Biden administration as undersecretary of state for political affairs.
One of the many recipients of NED money for projects in Ukraine was the International Republican Institute. The IRI, once chaired by Sen. John McCain, has long had a hand in US regime change operations. During the protests that eventually brought down the government, McCain and other US officials personally flew into Ukraine to encourage protesters.
US Officials Were Caught Picking the New Government
The Washington Post (2/6/14) acknowledged that the call showed “a deep degree of US involvement in affairs that Washington officially says are Ukraine’ to resolve,” but that fact rarely factored into future coverage of the US/Ukraine/Russia relationship.
Washington Used Nazis to Help Overthrow the Government
There’ a Lot More to the Crimean Annexation
The facts above give more context to Russian actions following the coup, and ought to counter the caricature of a Russian Empire bent on expansion. From Russia’ point of view, a longtime adversary had successfully overthrown a neighboring government using violent far-right extremists.
The Crimean peninsula, which was part of Russia until it was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic in 1954, is home to one of two Russian naval bases with access to the Black and Mediterranean seas, one of history’ most important maritime theaters. A Crimea controlled by a US-backed Ukrainian government was a major threat to Russian naval access.
The peninsula”82% of whose households speak Russian, and only 2% mainly Ukrainian”-held a plebiscite in March 2014 on whether or not they should join Russia, or remain under the new Ukrainian government. The Pro-Russia camp won with 95% of the vote. The UN General Assembly, led by the US, voted to ignore the referendum results on the grounds that it was contrary to Ukraine’ constitution. This same constitution had been set aside to oust President Yanukovych a month earlier.
All of this is dropped from Western coverage.
The US Wants to Expand NATO
The US Wouldn’t Tolerate What Russia Is Expected to Accept
In 2014, the US supported anti-government protests in Ukraine that led to the ouster of democratically elected, Russia-aligned Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych (Foreign Policy, 3/4/14).
Last summer, the US and Ukraine led multinational naval maneuvers held in the Black Sea, an annual undertaking called Sea Breeze. The US-financed exercises were the largest in decades, involving 32 ships, 40 aircraft and helicopters, and 5,000 soldiers from 24 countries (Deutsche Welle, 6/29/21).
The US has given Ukraine $2.5 billion in military aid, including Javelin anti-tank missiles (Politico, 6/18/21).
Shortly after the Maidan uprising of 2013 to 2014 brought in a new government, Ukraine began whitewashing Nazi collaborators on a statewide level. In 2015, Kyiv passed legislation declaring two WWII-era paramilitaries”gthe Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)”-heroes and freedom fighters, and threatening legal action against anyone denying their status. The OUN was allied with the Nazis and participated in the Holocaust; the UPA murdered thousands of Jews and 70,000″“100,000 Poles on their own accord.
Every January 1, Kyiv hosts a torchlight march in which thousands honor Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, who headed an OUN faction; in 2017, chants of “Jews Out!“ rang out during the march. Such processions (often redolent withantisemitism) are a staple in Ukraine”¦.
Ukraine’ total number of monuments to Third Reich collaborators who served in auxiliary police battalions and other units responsible for the Holocaust number in the several hundred. The whitewashing also extends to official book Bans and citywide veneration of collaborators.
The typical reaction to this in the West is that Ukraine can’t be celebrating Nazi collaborators because it elected [Volodymyr] Zelensky, a Jewish president. Zelensky, however, has alternated between appeasing and ignoring the whitewashing: In 2018, he stated, “To some Ukrainians, [Nazi collaborator] Bandera is a hero, and that’ cool!”
The USSR suffered about 20 million deaths in WWII from Nazi invaders. It is not surprising that Russians would feel threatened by right wing opponents on its borders.
Presented by the Committee for the Republic in Washington, the discussion features University of Chicago professor and international relations analyst John Mearsheimer, as well as ex-CIA Russia specialist Ray McGovern. It should be noted that McGovern’ CIA career spanned 27 years, which in the latter part included serving as the agency’ presidential briefer at the White House.
Also part of the discussion is Jack Matlock, last US ambassador to the Soviet Union, as well as Ted Postol, MIT professor of technology and international security. Additionally, Susan Eisenhower, grand-daughter of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, was part of the panel.
The video describes U.S. provocations toward Russia, including withdrawal from treaties, expansion of NATO, and aiding in the 2014 revolution in Ukraine.
The extent of the Obama administration’ meddling in Ukraine’ politics was breathtaking. Russian intelligence intercepted and leaked to the international media a Nuland telephone call in which she and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt discussed in detail their preferences for specific personnel in a post”Yanukovych government. The U.S”‘favored candidates included Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the man who became prime minister once Yanukovych was ousted from power. During the telephone call, Nuland stated enthusiastically that “Yats is the guy” who would do the best job.
Nuland and Pyatt were engaged in such planning at a time when Yanukovych was still Ukraine’ lawful president. It was startling to have diplomatic representatives of a foreign country”gand a country that routinely touts the need to respect democratic processes and the sovereignty of other nations”-to be scheming about removing an elected government and replacing it with officials meriting U.S. approval.
Washington’ conduct not only constituted meddling, it bordered on micromanagement. At one point, Pyatt mentioned the complex dynamic among the three principal opposition leaders, Yatsenyuk, Oleh Tyahnybok, and Vitali Klitschko. Both Pyatt and Nuland wanted to keep Tyahnybok and Klitschko out of an interim government. In the former case, they worried about his extremist ties; in the latter, they seemed to want him to wait and make a bid for office on a longer”term basis. Nuland stated that “I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’ necessary.” She added that what Yatseniuk needed “is Klitsch and Tyanhybok on the outside.”
The two diplomats also were prepared to escalate the already extensive U.S. involvement in Ukraine’ political turbulence. Pyatt stated bluntly that “we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing [the political transition].” Nuland clearly had Vice President Joe Biden in mind for that role. Noting that the vice president’ national security adviser was in direct contact with her, Nuland related that she told him “probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the details to stick. So Biden’s willing.”
Both the Obama administration and most of the American news media portrayed the Euromaidan Revolution as a spontaneous, popular uprising against a corrupt and brutal government.
A February 24, 2014, Washington Posteditorial celebrated the Maidan demonstrators and their successful campaign to overthrow Yanukovych. The “moves were democratic,” the Washington Post concluded, and “Kiev is now controlled by pro”Western parties.”
It was a grotesque distortion to portray the events in Ukraine as a purely indigenous, popular uprising. The Nuland-Pyatt telephone conversation and other actions confirm that the United States was considerably more than a passive observer to the turbulence. Instead, U.S. officials were blatantly meddling in Ukraine. Such conduct was utterly improper. The United States had no right to try to orchestrate political outcomes in another country — especially one on the border of another great power. It is no wonder that Russia reacted badly to the unconstitutional ouster of an elected, pro-Russian government — an ouster that occurred not only with Washington’ s blessing, but apparently with its assistance.
In 2014, after the U.S.-backed violent coup that overthrew Ukraine’ democratically-elected president, the coup regime outlawed the Russian language and neo-Nazi gangs began attacking Russian speakers, including burning dozens of people alive in a building in Odessa. Twelve days after that incident, the largely ethnic-Russian oblasts of Lugansk and Donetsk declared independence from Ukraine.
Like in Kosovo, both provinces held referendums that returned overwhelming majorities for independence. Kiev responded by launching a war against these Russian speakers who the regime called “terrorists.”
The U.S. supported the separatists in Kosovo but not the separatists in Ukraine.
Modern Diplomacy’s US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev says, “Incontrovertible proofs will be presented here not only that it was a coup, but that this coup was organized by the U.S. Government: “that the U.S. Government initiated the ‘new Cold War’.” I don’t know the nature of that publication.
But while the gains of the orange-bedecked “chestnut revolution” are Ukraine’s, the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.
Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box.
Richard Miles, the US ambassador in Belgrade, played a key role. And by last year, as US ambassador in Tbilisi, he repeated the trick in Georgia, coaching Mikhail Saakashvili in how to bring down Eduard Shevardnadze.
Ten months after the success in Belgrade, the US ambassador in Minsk, Michael Kozak, a veteran of similar operations in central America, notably in Nicaragua, organised a near identical campaign to try to defeat the Belarus hardman, Alexander Lukashenko.
Oskar Lafontaine, the former head of the ruling Social Democrats, has blamed the conflict in Ukraine on NATO’ refusal to listen to Moscow”¦ In an interview with left-wing newspaper Junge Welt published on Saturday, Lafontaine contends that “for a long time, we have been in a situation where Russia and China have been militarily encircled by the US.” The former SPD leader said Moscow had made it clear to NATO for 20 years that Ukraine should not become part of the military alliance ““ a scenario, which, according to Lafontaine, would mean US missiles deployed on the Ukraine-Russia border.
Thomas Graham (senior director for Russia on the National Security Council staff during the George W. Bush administration) describes in The Nation’s Was the Collapse of US-Russia Relations Inevitable? how “US hubris and Russian paranoia undermined partnership.” After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a weakened Russia sought closer ties to the West and even helped George W. Bush fight the war on terror. But instead of helping Russia fight Chechnyan separatists, which Russia considered to be terrorists, the U.S. lent support to those separtists. The U.S. pressed its advantage, aggressively expanding NATO, instigating regime change operations in countries friendly to Russia, and undermining Russian energy exports. Graham wrote:
Finally, in light of the growing problems with Russia in the former Soviet bloc, the US push in 2008 to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was ill-advised at best. It tied together the two strands of the Bush administration’s hedging policy—NATO expansion and Eurasian geopolitical pluralism—in a way guaranteed to provoke a powerful Russian backlash. Key allies, notably France and Germany, were adamantly opposed. Bush’s own ambassador in Moscow warned that extending an invitation to Ukraine would cross the “brightest of red lines’ and elicit sharp condemnation across the political spectrum.
Robert Parry’s 2015 piece The Ukraine Mess That Nuland Made in Truthout says, “Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland engineered Ukraine’s regime change without weighing the likely consequences.” Parry said that far right groups such as the Right Secktor played a large role in the 2014 regime change and will be difficult to control.
So, for nearly a year and a half, the West’s mainstream media, especially The New York Times and The Washington Post, twisted their reporting into all kinds of contortions to avoid telling their readers that the new regime in Kiev was permeated by and dependent on neo-Nazi fighters and Ukrainian ultra-nationalists who wanted a pure-blood Ukraine, without ethnic Russians.
Any mention of that sordid reality was deemed “Russian propaganda” and anyone who spoke this inconvenient truth was a “stooge of Moscow.” It wasn’t until July 7 that the Times admitted the importance of the neo-Nazis and other ultra-nationalists in waging war against ethnic Russian rebels in the east. The Times also reported that these far-right forces had been joined by Islamic militants. Some of those jihadists have been called “brothers” of the hyper-brutal Islamic State.
Though the Times sought to spin this remarkable military alliance – neo-Nazi militias and Islamic jihadists – as a positive, the reality had to be jarring for readers who had bought into the Western propaganda about noble “pro-democracy” forces resisting evil “Russian aggression.”
In an essay in the Jacobin, A US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution in Ukraine Helped Bring Us to the Brink of War, written right before the Russian invasion, Branko Marcetic says “It’s an overstatement to say, as some critics have charged, that Washington orchestrated the Maidan uprising. But there’s no doubt US officials backed and exploited it for their own ends.” Yanukovych was corrupt, the country was torn between pro-Western and pro-Russian factions, and Yanukovych had to choose between economic support from either the West or from Russia. “The driver of this [Maidan] violence was largely the Ukrainian far right,” which was integrated into the new government and the Ukrainian military.
By January 2014, even NBC was admitting that “right-wing militia-type toughs are now one of the strongest factions leading Ukraine’s protests.” What was meant to be a revolution for democracy and liberal values ended up featuring ultranationalist chants from the 1930s and prominent displays of fascist and white supremacist symbols, including the American Confederate flag.
Yet after Maidain, “Little to nothing has changed about Ukrainian corruption or authoritarianism, under either Poroshenko or current president Volodymyr Zelensky, elected in 2019 as an outsider change agent.”
The Russian military intervention in Ukraine was an evident response to the measures taken by the Kyiv regime and its armed far-right militias against Russians, Russian speaking population and other citizens of Ukraine, to the non-implementation of the Minsk agreements and to the continuous aggressive expansion of the NATO alliance inside the former USSR.
The essay argues that even if you don’t believe the arguments about NATO provocations, it is still crucial to push for a negotiated end to a conflict that is destroying Ukraine, risking nuclear war, and diverting resources from other much-needed uses.
South Africa President Cyril Ramaphosa told his Parliament after extensive lobbying by US Secretary of State Tony Blinken, “The war could have been avoided if NATO had heeded the warnings from amongst its own leaders and officials over the years that its eastward expansion would lead to greater, not less, instability in the region.”
[S]ince 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has been “˜promoting democracy’ globally, in many ways, doing overtly that which had been previously carried out covertly. … What explained the sudden interest of the western media in this contested election? And why, when millions of Yanukovich’ supporters marched throughout the Donetsk region in late November, did the media “˜miss’ them? It seems that the answer to these questions is intimately tied in with the interests of foreign (or more specifically US) “˜democracy promoters’, who provided the opposition with around US $65 million in the two years running up to the election (Kelley 2004). Indeed, visual evidence of this aid was apparent at the massive Kiev protests, where food, clothing, medication and local accommodation was provided for free (Mulvey 2004)
Abstract: Neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups in the United States and Europe have become more active and dangerous in the last decade and have developed a much deeper online presence. This has helped them establish closer transnational contacts. One common preoccupation for both individuals and groups has been the conflict in Ukraine, where a well-established far-right extremist movement and its associated militia have consistently engaged with and welcomed far-right ideologues and fighters from other parts of Europe and North America.
Reuters: Commentary: Ukraine’ neo-Nazi problem “As Ukraine’ struggle against Russia and its proxies continues, Kiev must also contend with a growing problem behind the front lines: far-right vigilantes who are willing to use intimidation and even violence to advance their agendas, and who often do so with the tacit approval of law enforcement agencies.”
The pogrom-like burning to death of ethnic Russians and others in Odessa”¦ reawakened memories of Nazi extermination squads in Ukraine during World War II. “¦ [Today] stormtroop-like assaults on gays, Jews, elderly ethnic Russians, and other “˜impure’ citizens are widespread throughout Kyiv-ruled Ukraine, along with torchlight marches reminiscent of those that eventually inflamed Germany in the late 1920s and 1930s”¦
“The police and official legal authorities do virtually nothing to prevent these neo-fascist acts or to prosecute them. On the contrary, Kyiv has officially encouraged them by systematically rehabilitating and even memorializing Ukrainian collaborators with Nazi German extermination pogroms”¦, renaming streets in their honor, building monuments to them, rewriting history to glorify them, and more.
NATO leaders are currently acting out a deliberate charade in Europe, designed to reconstruct an Iron Curtain between Russia and the West.
With astonishing unanimity, NATO leaders feign surprise at events they planned months in advance. Events that they deliberately triggered are being misrepresented as sudden, astonishing, unjustified “Russian aggression”. The United States and the European Union undertook an aggressive provocation in Ukraine that they knew would force Russia to react defensively, one way or another.
They could not be sure exactly how Russian president Vladimir Putin would react when he saw that the United States was manipulating political conflict in Ukraine to install a pro-Western government intent on joining NATO. This was not a mere matter of a “sphere of influence” in Russia’ “near abroad”, but a matter of life and death to the Russian Navy, as well as a grave national security threat on Russia’ border.
A trap was thereby set for Putin. He was damned if he did, and damned if he didn’t. He could underreact, and betray Russia’ basic national interests, allowing NATO to advance its hostile forces to an ideal attack position.
Or he could overreact, by sending Russian forces to invade Ukraine. The West was ready for this, prepared to scream that Putin was “the new Hitler”, poised to overrun poor, helpless Europe, which could only be saved (again) by the generous Americans.
Melvin A. Goodman,senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, professor of government at Johns Hopkins University, and a former CIA analyst wrote in Can the United States Provide an Off-Ramp For Putin?, “If you believe that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked, then perhaps you should read no further. And, if you believe that Vladimir Putin will allow the United States and Europe to bring Ukraine into the Western security orbit, then once again you should read no further.” Nonetheless, he summarizes the provocations and the reasons why Ukraine is vital to Russia.
President Biden has called the Russian invasion “unprovoked,” but that is far from the truth. In the four days leading up to the invasion, ceasefire monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) documented a dangerous increase in ceasefire violations in Eastern Ukraine, with 5,667 violations and 4,093 explosions.
Most were inside the de facto borders of the Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR) People’s Republics, consistent with incoming shell-fire by Ukraine government forces. With nearly 700 OSCE ceasefire monitors on the ground, it is not credible that these were all “false flag” incidents staged by separatist forces, as U.S. and British officials claimed.
In the larger context though, Ukraine has become an unwitting victim and proxy in the resurgent U.S. Cold War against Russia and China, in which the United States has surrounded both countries with military forces and offensive weapons, withdrawn from a whole series of arms control treaties, and refused to negotiate resolutions to rational security concerns raised by Russia.
Written By Pundits Tied To The National Security State Promoting NATO As A Defender Of The Free World and Describe Putin As Hitler Incarnate.
Washington ““ Amid tough talk from European and American leaders, a new MintPress study of our nation’ most influential media outlets reveals that it is the press that is driving the charge towards war with Russia over Ukraine. Ninety percent of recent opinion articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal have taken a hawkish view on conflict, with anti-war voices few and far between. Opinion columns have overwhelmingly expressed support for sending U.S. weapons and troops to the region. Russia has universally been presented as the aggressor in this dispute, with media glossing over NATO’s role in amping tensions while barely mentioning the U.S. collaboration with Neo-Nazi elements within the Ukrainian ruling coalition.
According to the above article, a big part of what’s going on is trying to prevent Russia from exporting gas:
The United States has repeatedly demanded Europe cancel this [Nord Stream 2] project, insisting that Europe service its energy needs from Middle Eastern dictatorships under U.S. control or directly from the U.S., at around four times the price of Russian gas.
Last month, Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., introduced legislation to give Ukraine $500 million for arms purchases … But it makes no mention of reports to oversee whether U.S weapons go to white supremacists like the Azov Battalion, a unit in the Ukrainian National Guard with ties to the country’ far-right, ultranationalist National Corps party and Azov movement. Last year, Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., called on Secretary of State Antony Blinken to label the Azov Battalion a foreign terrorist organization, saying it “uses the internet to recruit new members and then radicalizes them to use violence to pursue its white identity political agenda.”
Why The Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault, written by John J. Mearsheimer, appears in Foreign Affairs (2014). It says the “United States and its allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement …At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine — beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004 — were critical elements, too.”
And according to President George W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein had to be stopped before he acquired deliverable weapons of mass destruction and became too dangerous to be attacked and removed from power.
Roberts says that Putin too thought he need to invade Ukraine to defend his country from NATO expansion:
To say that Putin believed he had been backed into a corner by Ukraine and the West is not to endorse his perceptions and assessments of the situation. But greater understanding of Putin’s calculations may help clarify how this calamity came about, how it could have been prevented, and how an even greater future catastrophe might be averted.
Roberts reports on the cease fire violations by Ukrainian troops and fatalities among separatists in the Donbas:
According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, during the 8-year (2014-2021) conflict between Kyiv and the Donbass separatists there were an estimated 51,000-54,000 war-related casualties, of which 14,200-14,400 were fatalities, including at least 3,404 civilians. … Between 17-21 February [right before the Russian invasion], there were hundreds and then thousands of explosions and other ceasefire violations and on 18 February the authorities in Donetsk and Luhansk began to evacuate civilians to Russia.
In 2008, Bill Bradley gave a speech to the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs in which he is harshly critical of, and saddened by, NATO’a decision to expand eastward. “We kicked them when they were down.” It encouraged authoritarianism in Russia. “It was a blunder of monumental proportions.” “If we had really done a strategic partnership [with Russia] … imagine how Iran would be different today. Imagine how Central Asia would be different.” “We’ve created a problem that could have easily been avoided. We’ve lost a partner that could have been enormously important over the long term and particular with regard to the issues that most threaten us today.”
The root cause of the crisis, as Mearsheimer argues in detail, was the decision to fortify Ukraine as a Western bulwark on Russia’ border. This began with the expansion of the European Union and NATO, was heated up by the US-sponsored Orange Revolution, and finally ignited with the US-backed Ukraine coup of 2014.
In Consortium News’ How Not to Explain the Ukraine Crisis, author Mike Madden says that the U.S. is the aggressor, having orchestrated the overthrow of a democratically elected pro-Russian leader of Ukraine. Madden says the U.S. allied itself with neo-Nazi insurrectionists. The article criticizes PBS reporter Nick Schifrin for not challenging Victoria Nuland over U.S. aggression in Ukraine.
Schifrin could have reminded Nuland that the United States promised Russia in 1991 that NATO would not expand east of the newly reunified East and West Germany, but he didn’t. He also could have asked her if stationing missiles on the island of Cuba in 1962 was a sovereign decision to be made by Cuba and the Soviet Union, but he did not.
While Western media deploys Volodymyr Zelensky’ Jewish heritage to refute accusations of Nazi influence in Ukraine, the president has ceded to neo-Nazi forces and now depends on them as front line fighters.
The president’ Jewishness as Western media PR device
Backed by Zelensky’ top financier, neo-Nazi militants unleash a wave of intimidation
Zelensky failed to rein in neo-Nazis, wound up collaborating with them
After Prime Minister attends neo-Nazi concert, Zelensky honors Right Sector leader
Ukrainian state-backed neo-Nazi leader flaunts influence on the eve of war with Russia
“If we get killed”¦we died fighting a holy war”
Besides authorizing the release of hardcore criminals to join the battle against Russia, Zelensky has ordered all males of fighting age to remain in the country. Azov militants have proceeded to enforce the policy by brutalizing civilians attempting to flee from the fighting around Mariupol.
The presence of neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine was widely known then, not only by the media, but also, obviously, by US lawmakers. As a result, Congressmen John Conyers of Michigan and Ted Yoho of Florida drew up an amendment to the House Defense Appropriations bill (HR 2685) that was to “limit arms, training, and other assistance to the neo-Nazi Ukrainian militia, the Azov Battalion.” The bill passed unanimously in the House and the Senate but was ultimately removed from the final appropriations bill …..
U.S. media spins a one-sided narrative of Russian aggression “g but decades of U.S. meddling is what got us here
The U.S. coup was calculated to put Russia in an impossible position. If Russia did nothing, post-coup Ukraine would sooner or later join NATO, as NATO members had already agreed in principle in 2008. NATO forces would advance right up to Russia’s border and Russia’s important naval base at Sevastopol in the Crimea would fall under NATO control.
If Russia had responded to the coup by invading Ukraine, on the other hand, there would have been no turning back from a disastrous new Cold War with the West. To Washington’s frustration, Russia found a middle path out of this dilemma, by accepting the result of Crimea’s referendum to rejoin Russia, but only giving covert support to the separatists in the East.
In 2021, with Nuland once again installed in a corner office at the State Department, the Biden administration quickly cooked up a plan to put Russia in a new pickle. The U.S. had already given Ukraine $2 billion in military aid since 2014, and Biden has added another $650 million to that, along with deployments of U.S. and NATO military trainers.
Ukraine has still not implemented the constitutional changes called for in the Minsk agreements [limited autonomy for Russia-allied regions in the east], and the unconditional military support the U.S. and NATO have provided has encouraged Ukraine’s leaders to effectively abandon the Minsk-Normandy process and simply reassert sovereignty over all of Ukraine’s territory, including Crimea.
In October, Ukraine launched new attacks in Donbass. Russia, which still had about 100,000 troops stationed near the Ukrainian border, responded with new troop movements and military exercises. U.S. officials launched an information warfare campaign to frame Russia’s troop movements as an unprovoked threat to invade Ukraine, concealing their own role in fueling the threatened Ukrainian escalation to which Russia is responding. U.S. propaganda has even preemptively dismissed any actual new Ukrainian assault in the east as a Russian false-flag operation.
Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Svoboda Party and its founders Oleh Tyahnybok and Andriy Parubiy played leading roles in the U.S-backed coup in February 2014. Assistant Secretary Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt mentioned Tyahnybok as one of the leaders they were working with on their infamous leaked phone call before the coup, even as they tried to exclude him from an official position in the post-coup government.
After the coup, Right Sector helped to consolidate the new order by attacking and breaking up anti-coup protests, in what their leader Yarosh described to Newsweek as a “war” to “cleanse the country” of pro-Russian protesters. This campaign climaxed on May 2nd with the massacre of 42 anti-coup protesters in a fiery inferno, after they took shelter from Right Sector attackers in the Trades Unions House in Odessa.
After anti-coup protests evolved into declarations of independence in Donetsk and Luhansk, the extreme right in Ukraine shifted gear to full-scale armed combat. The Ukrainian military had little enthusiasm for fighting its own people, so the government formed new National Guard units to do so.
Right Sector formed a battalion, and neo-Nazis also dominated the Azov Battalion, which was founded by Andriy Biletsky, an avowed white supremacist who claimed that Ukraine’s national purpose was to rid the country of Jews and other inferior races. It was the Azov battalion that led the post-coup government’s assault on the self-declared republics and retook the city of Mariupol from separatist forces.
After the coup, Right Sector helped to consolidate the new order by attacking and breaking up anti-coup protests, in what their leader Yarosh described to Newsweek as a “war” to “cleanse the country” of pro-Russian protesters. This campaign climaxed on May 2nd with the massacre of 42 anti-coup protesters in a fiery inferno, after they took shelter from Right Sector attackers in the Trades Unions House in Odessa.
After anti-coup protests evolved into declarations of independence in Donetsk and Luhansk, the extreme right in Ukraine shifted gear to full-scale armed combat. The Ukrainian military had little enthusiasm for fighting its own people, so the government formed new National Guard units to do so.
Right Sector formed a battalion, and neo-Nazis also dominated the Azov Battalion, which was founded by Andriy Biletsky, an avowed white supremacist who claimed that Ukraine’s national purpose was to rid the country of Jews and other inferior races. It was the Azov battalion that led the post-coup government’s assault on the self-declared republics and retook the city of Mariupol from separatist forces
…Just as disturbing, neo-Nazis are part of some of Ukraine’ growing ranks of volunteer battalions. They are battle-hardened after waging some of the toughest street fighting against Moscow-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine following Putin’ Crimean invasion in 2014. One is the Azov Battalion, founded by an avowed white supremacist who claimed Ukraine’ national purpose was to rid the country of Jews and other inferior races. In 2018, the U.S. Congress stipulated that its aid to Ukraine couldn’t be used “to provide arms, training or other assistance to the Azov Battalion.” Even so, Azov is now an official member of the Ukraine National Guard.
Human rights activists petition the court to cease Israeli arms exports to Ukraine since some of these weapons reach neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine’ security forces
The Azov militia was established in Ukraine following the Russian invasion of the Crimean peninsula in 2014. The militia’ emblems are well-known national socialist ones. Its members use the Nazi salute and carry swastikas and SS insignias.
Moreover, some of them openly admit they have neo-Nazi sentiments and that they are Holocaust deniers. One militia member said in an interview that he was fighting Russia since Putin was a Jew. An Azov sergeant said that he was a national socialist, although he was not in favor of genocide, and as long as minorities in Ukraine did not demand special rights he would have no problem with them.
Even if these weapons are currently directed at Russians, one should take into account the reasonable possibility that in the future they will be used to achieve other goals, perhaps aimed at minority groups in the country.
Michael Brenner (Professor of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh; Senior Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations, SAIS-Johns Hopkins), wrote in an email list, “The American strategy is now crystal clear. Arrange a provocative incidence around the Donbass that sparks a Russian reaction that could be used to confirm the specious claims of a Russian plans for invasion. That means doing exactly what we are accusing Moscow of planning ““ clever “˜projection’ tactic. Then, force the West Europeans to go along with economic sanctions (including NORD Stream II’ annulment) that would make them more dependent on the U.S. ““ confirming their vassal status as conferred 75 years ago.”
It was the US, after all, which helped foment and orchestrate the 2014 Maidan Coup in Kiev that ousted the elected leader of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych because, while popularly elected, he was steering the country towards an economic pact with Russia instead of with the European Union.
The claim that Putin is solely motivated by imperialism is part of a pattern in Western coverage of the war. When Putin uses nationalist rhetoric that suggests a dim view of Ukrainian independence from Russia “• almost always in public-facing speeches that are meant at least as much for domestic consumption “• commentators seize on it to declare he’ driven purely by expansionist thinking. When he brings up grievances over NATO, which he has done in both public and in private with Western officials, it’ ignored or downplayed.
In fact, it’ ignored even when he brings it up in those public speeches. Many remain convinced Putin’ pre-invasion speech is proof positive of NATO’ irrelevance to this war “• even though he mentioned it 40 times. Even his famous 7,000-word essay presenting a vision of Russians and Ukrainians as “one people” was framed around unspecified “Western powers” manipulating Ukraine’ politics as part of an “anti-Russia project” to make the country a “springboard against Russia.” One doesn’t have to agree with this interpretation to simply recognize it exists.
As tensions with Russia reach a boiling point, lobbyists from Ukraine are working feverishly to shape the U.S. response. Firms working for Ukrainian interests have inundated congressional offices, think tanks, and journalists with more than 10,000 messages and meetings in 2021, according to an analysis of Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, filings for a forthcoming report from the Quincy Institute.
More specifically, the far-reaching campaign has been focused on stopping the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which Ukrainian officials argue is as much of a threat to their security as Russian troops. If completed, the pipeline would allow Russia to export natural gas directly to Germany and the rest of Europe, jeopardizing the billions Ukraine currently earns from transiting Russian gas to Europe.
The Ukraine lobby amplifies the voices of those pushing for more aggressive U.S. responses to the current crisis, but Ukrainian interests are far from the only players in this behind-the-scenes lobbying battle. The U.S. defense sector, for example, spent more than $117 million on lobbying in 2021. With U.S. weapons manufacturers making billions in arms sales to Ukraine, their CEOs see the turmoil there as a good business opportunity.
As Dennis Kucinich said, the U.S. government used “the good, courageous people of Ukraine as pawns in a vicious and deadly geo-political chess game which began well before the illegal Russian invasion. And it is now planning to do for the people of Taiwan what it has done for the people of Ukraine, portraying China as the aggressor while surrounding China with about 200 military bases.”
In this YouTube video you can hear Tulsi Gabbard saying, four days before Russia’s invasion,
They actually want Russia to invade Ukraine. Why would they? Because it gives the Biden administration a clear excuse to levy draconian sanctions”¦ against Russia and the Russian people and number two, it cements this cold war in place. The military industrial complex is the one who benefits from this. They clearly control the Biden administration. Warmongers on both sides in Washington who have been drumming up these tensions. If they get Russia to invade Ukraine it locks in this new cold war, the military industrial complex starts to make a ton more money “¦. Who pays the price? The American people “¦ the Ukrainian people “¦ the Russian people pay the price. It undermines our own national security but the military industrial complex which controls so many of our elected officials wins and they run to the bank.
It retells a lot of the history of aggressive NATO expansion and the squandered opportunities for peace.
Lozansky quotes Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan as having said, “NATO expansion would open the door to future nuclear war.” I can find no documentation of that exact quotation other than Lozansky’s essay. But I did find this archived article from 1998 in which Moynihan warns that NATO expansion may force Russia to resort to nuclear weapons and in which then Senator Joe Biden disagrees with Moynihan’s warnings about NATO expansion:
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Moynihan says Russian conventional forces today are in disarray, its army shrinking and military morale is at a low ebb. All these factors, the senator says, have forced Moscow to proclaim that, if NATO is expanded, Russia would have to place a greater reliance on its nuclear weapons.
Moynihan says gone now is the old Soviet doctrine of the “no-first-use principle,” which he says “saved mankind in the 20th century.” That doctrine proclaimed that the Soviet Union would not be the first country to use nuclear weapons.
He says: “All they have to defend themselves are nuclear weapons. It is a curiously ironic outcome that at the end of the Cold War we might face a nuclear Armageddon.”
Senator Joseph Biden (D-Delaware), while calling Moynihan “the single most erudite” and “informed person serving in the Senate,” says he disagrees with him. Biden says he believes that even without admitting Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO, the Russian military would have reached the same conclusions about the importance of nuclear weapons.
Biden says he believes the underlying Russian military doctrine would be no different today even if NATO decided to stay within its [then?] current borders.
Likewise, this (non-paywalled) 1998 Washington Post article DECIDING NATO’S FUTURE WITHOUT DEBATE says that Senators Moynihan and Warner had concerns about NATO expansion. Moynihan “points to a Russian government strategy paper published last December saying the expansion of NATO inevitably means Russia will have to rely increasingly on nuclear weapons.”
Joe Biden was confident. “This, in fact, is the beginning of another 50 years of peace,” he declared while serving as ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1998. The Delaware Democrat was proud of his role in helping the bipartisan congressional vote to approve the addition of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as full NATO members.
Not everyone was so optimistic, however. One month earlier, during a Senate debate, New York Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan cautioned, “We’re walking into ethnic historical enmities.” He added: “We have no idea what we’re getting into.”
Hearing Moynihan, Biden’s face reddened. He stalked the Senate floor for 10 minutes, waving his arms and shouting. “I find this absolutely astounding!” he said. “If my friends are saying, anyone who votes for expanding NATO to include Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary, are tying this noose around a Russian neck, this iron ring, well, then I don’t quite get it.”
The essay goes on to retell how the U.S. helped Russian oligarchs turn the former USSR into a kleptocracy and how some diplomats and analysts warned that NATO expansion would be viewed aggressively by Russia:
As the Clinton administration signaled its wish to expand NATO, Charles Kupchan penned aNew York Times op-ed in 1994 forecasting: “An expanded NATO would lead Russia to reassert control over its former republics and to remilitarize.” Kupchan, who had served as director for European affairs on Clinton’s National Security Council, said that bringing new countries into the alliance would not protect them from Russia, since Moscow didn’t threaten them. But, he added, Western leaders would create a self-fulfilling prophecy by inflaming Russian nationalism if they pursued NATO expansion.
Soon, more than 15 distinguished Cold War–era diplomats signed an open letter in The New York Review of Books arguing that NATO expansion would be disastrous. They were bolstered in February 1997 by George Kennan, the legendary ambassador to the Soviet Union and Cold War theoretician. He wrote bluntly that NATO expansion was a historic error, one that might “restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and … impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.” Inside the Clinton administration itself, Defense Secretary William Perry nearly resigned when his advice against rapid NATO expansion went unheeded.
Of course, Clinton ignored these critics, as did George W. Bush’s administration when it oversaw another round of NATO expansion in 2004.
…. The 2008 NATO Summit in Bucharest, Romania, proved more fateful than previous rounds of expansion, however. The organization declared that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually become members, over Russia’s threats of retaliation. “I think that was a huge mistake; it was hugely provocative,” said Goldgeier.
…. But the 2014 revolution in Ukraine was transformative. The Obama administration, along with Republican senators like John McCain, blatantly supported the pro-Western, anti-Russian forces in Ukraine. When the pro-Russian president was removed and fled the country after months of protests, Putin saw an urgent threat and annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine.
It almost goes without saying that the New Republic essay says that the responsibility for the war is entirely Putin’s. [My position is that the U.S. shares responsibility for the war.]
The Crisis in Ukraine Is Not About Ukraine. It’s About Germany, from the Unz Review. presents the plausible view that a main purpose of the U.S. actions in Ukraine is to set up an excuse for canceling the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, whose operations would otherwise cause Germany to develop closer ties with Russia.
The success of China’ industrial policy with a mixed economy and state control of the monetary and credit system has led U.S. strategists to fear that Western European and Asian economies may find their advantage to lie in integrating more closely with China and Russia. The U.S. seems to have no response to such a global rapprochement with China and Russia except economic sanctions and military belligerence. That New Cold War stance is expensive, and other countries are balking at bearing the cost of a conflict that has no benefit for themselves and indeed, threatens to destabilize their own economic growth and political independence.
Without subsidy from these countries, especially as China, Russia and their neighbors de-dollarize their economies, how can the United States maintain the balance-of-payments costs of its overseas military spending? Cutting back that spending, and indeed recovering industrial self-reliance and competitive economic power, would require a transformation of American politics. Such a change seems unlikely, but without it, how long can America’ post-industrial rentier economy manage to force other countries to provide it with the economic affluence (literally a flowing-in) that it is no longer producing at home?
Mickey Huff, the third director of Project Censored, interviews American University historian Peter Kuznick, co-author with Oliver Stone of The Untold History of the United States. They discuss the current U.S. and NATO confrontation with Russia over Ukraine; summarize the recent history of Ukraine and U.S. relations, while placing current affairs in Cold War context; and emphasize the urgency of settling the crisis peacefully. Here is my summary.
This 2021 piece in Common Dreams Will the Senate Confirm Coup Plotter Victoria Nuland? presents plausible background on the situation in Ukraine. The article discusses Victoria Nuland, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, who supported the government overthrow in Ukraine and imfamously said
“Fuck the EU” during a 2014 phone call with the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.
During the infamous call on which Nuland and Pyatt plotted to replace the elected Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych, Nuland expressed her not-so-diplomatic disgust with the European Union for grooming former heavyweight boxer and austerity champ Vitali Klitschko instead of U.S. puppet and NATO booklicker Artseniy Yatseniuk to replace Russia-friendly Yanukovych.
The “Fuck the EU” call went viral, as an embarrassed State Department, never denying the call’ authenticity, blamed the Russians for tapping the phone, much as the NSA has tapped the phones of European allies.
Despite outrage from German Chancellor Angela Markel, no one fired Nuland, but her potty mouth upstaged the more serious story: the U.S. plot to overthrow Ukraine’ elected government and America’ responsibility for a civil war that has killed at least 13,000 people and left Ukraine the poorest country in Europe.
Violence in eastern Ukraine between Russian-backed separatist forces and the Ukrainian military has by conservative estimates killed more than 10,300 people and injured nearly 24,000 since April 2014. Although Moscow has denied its involvement, Ukraine and NATO have reported the buildup of Russian troops and military equipment near Donetsk and Russian cross-border shelling.
In 2010 an anti-NATO president was democratically elected; the U.S. State Department oversaw a massive regime change effort to depict him as corrupt, anti-EU, impeding “Ukrainian’ European aspirations.” It succeeded in ousting him, and to some extent also succeeded in portraying the Maidan putsch, to the people of this country, as a democratic mass movement against a corrupt Russian puppet.
Leupp condemns Putin and compares his actions as follows: “Rather like the U.S. would be hell-bent on preventing the Warsaw Pact, when there was such a thing, from expanding to include Mexico and Canada. If you are looking for truly appropriate analogies, linger on that one.”
After backing a far-right coup in 2014, the US has fueled a proxy war in eastern Ukraine that has left 14,000 dead. Russia’s invasion is an illegal and catastrophic response.
While hailed by the US as an expression of Ukraine’s democratic aspirations, the post-coup Ukrainian government was dominated by the right-wing forces that had brought it to power. At least five key cabinet posts went to members of the far-right Svoboda and another right-wing party, Right Sector, including the national security, defense, and legal ministries. Andriy Parubiy, the far-right co-founder of Svoboda’s origin party, was appointed the head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council. During the Maidan protests, Parubiy had served as the Maidan encampment’s “commandant” and head of its security.
In the fall of 2014, the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion was formally incorporated into Ukraine’ National Guard, making post-Maidan Ukraine “the world’ only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces,” the Ukrainian-American journalist Lev Golinkin later observed.
Yatsenyuk, the Nuland-chosen technocrat, meanwhile presided over what NPR dubbed Ukraine’s “Spring Of Austerity” and what the prime minister himself described as a “kamikaze mission“, imposing the pension and heating subsidy cuts that the ousted Yanukovych had resisted.
While placating the “IMF Austerity Regime,” the coup government also set its sights on Ukraine’s ethnic Russian population, a major base of Yanukovych’s support. One of the post-coup parliament’s first votes was to rescind a law, long bitterly opposed by the far-right, granting regions the authority to declare a second official language.
The coup government’s anti-Russian sentiment culminated in a gruesome massacre in the city of Odessa….
The Odessa massacre helped accelerate the then-growing insurgency in the Donbas region, the eastern Ukrainian region dominated by ethnic Russians. Unwilling to live under a US-installed coup government led by far-right nationalists, rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk took up arms in the spring of 2014 with Russia’s limited support.
Yet however distressing to admit, crimes committed by the United States in recent years, usually justified under the guise of liberating the oppressed and spreading democracy, have inflicted more damage on the international order than anything done by Russia. Moscow never promulgated a patently illegal doctrine of preventive war. We did. And the death toll resulting from U.S. campaigns undertaken subsequent to 9/11 “g more than 900,000 killed according to Brown University’ Costs of War Project “- exceeds by several orders of magnitude the number of Ukrainians killed (or likely to be killed) in the present conflict.
That essay covers similar ground to the current one you’re reading.
This New Yorker interview with Matt Duss, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and former chief foreign-policy adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders contains
When the war started, many people on the left and across the political spectrum argued that the United States had, if not caused this conflict, played a role in exacerbating it by leaving NATO ascension for Ukraine on the table, by expanding NATO in the thirty years after the end of the Soviet Union. I’m curious what you thought of the arguments then, and what you think now?
I would go back even further. If we’re thinking about the roots of this conflict, let’s also look at the role that the U.S. and American economists played in the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the kind of neoliberal shock therapy imposed on Russians that gave rise to the oligarchs in the first place, which in turn enabled the rise of Putin. This ties in to the point I was making before about understanding the role of this economic model in putting us in this situation.
But moving ahead to NATO, listen, I think you don’t have to believe Putin about NATO. You can refer to numerous U.S. officials who have noted that the growth of NATO right up close to Russia’ borders was a political problem for Russia. That includes former Defense Secretary Bill Perry, current C.I.A. director Bill Burns – both of whom have talked about how they understood this to be a problem for Russia.
The question is, how much does that actually explain what Putin has done? ….
“Zelensky ran as a peace candidate,” [late Princeton professor Stephen F.] Cohen explained. “He won an enormous mandate to make peace. So, that means he has to negotiate with Vladimir Putin.” But there was a major obstacle. Ukrainian fascists, Cohen warned, “have said that they will remove and kill Zelensky if he continues along this line of negotiating with Putin”¦ His life is being threatened literally by a quasi-fascist movement in Ukraine.”
Peace could only come, Cohen stressed, on one condition. “[Zelensky] can’t go forward with full peace negotiations with Russia, with Putin, unless America has his back,” he said. “Maybe that won’t be enough, but unless the White House encourages this diplomacy, Zelensky has no chance of negotiating an end to the war. So the stakes are enormously high.”
The subsequent impeachment trial, and bipartisan US policy since, has made clear that Washington has had no interest in having Zelensky’s back, and every interest in fueling the Donbas war that he had been elected to end.
At first Sivokho’s optimism [that peace with Russia was posisble] was echoed by Zelensky himself. At the 2020 Munich Security Conference, and later at the Forum on Unity in Mariupol, Zelensky called for “a massive national dialogue,” where people could discuss their common future face-to-face. To this end, he endorsed Sivokho’s pet project — a National Platform for Reconciliation and Unity — which was formally presented to the public on March 12, 2020.
That presentation, however, lasted just 20 minutes, because a gang of some 70 young people from the National Corps (the civilian wing of the Azov Battalion) stormed into the hall, and with shouts of “traitor,” pushed Sivokho until he fell to the ground. Sivokho was fired from his advisory government position two weeks later.
It may seem odd that even before Russia’s invasion, merely mentioning reconciliation and dialogue could arouse so much anger, until one realizes that what Sivokho was actually asking for was a fundamental shift in Ukrainian political thinking. In his mind, Ukrainians had to recognize that they all bear some measure of responsibility for the conflict in Donbass, and specifically for dehumanizing the Other Ukrainians, those who do not think or talk the way they do.
An article by Jake Johnson in Common Dreams in May, 2022 said
“The British government has become an obstacle to peace in Ukraine,” said the Stop the War Coalition. “The conflict there is developing into a proxy war between Russia and NATO and it is the Ukrainian people who will suffer the consequences.”
According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries.
The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’ efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’ April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end.
A major factor in the failed negotiated settlement was pressure from the West. According to a report from Ukrainska Pravda, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to stop negotiating with Russia when he visited Kyiv on April 9….
Putin’s claim reflects an article published in Foreign Affairs last year that cited multiple former senior US officials who said Russia and Ukraine tentatively agreed on a peace deal in April 2022. They said the agreement would have involved a Ukrainian promise not to join NATO in exchange for a Russian withdrawal to the pre-invasion lines, and Ukraine would have received security guarantees from several countries.
According to Monthly Review article, Zelensky too admitted that he never intended to implement the Minsk agreements.
The American Conservative published this informative piece Why Peace Talks, But No Peace?. (The U.S. has prevented earnest negotiations and prolonged the war in Ukraine.):
Three separate times in the early weeks of the war, negotiations produced the real possibility of peace. The third even yielded a tentative agreement that was, according to Putin, signed. Both sides made “huge concessions,” including Ukraine promising each time not to join NATO. But each time, the U.S. put a stop to the promise of a diplomatic solution and peace, allowing the war to go on and to escalate, seemingly in the pursuit of U.S., not Ukrainian, interests.
Before the war, far right Ukrainian nationalist groups like the Azov Brigade were soundly condemned by the U.S. Congress. Kiev’s determined campaign against the Russian language is analogous to the Canadian government trying to ban French in Quebec. Ukrainian shells have killed hundreds of civilians in the Donbas and there are emerging reports of Ukrainian war crimes. The truly moral course of action would be to end this war with negotiations rather than prolong the suffering the of Ukrainian people in a conflict they are unlikely to win without risking American lives.
Johnstone’s article Unprovoked! is excellent. It incnludes:
A few days after the invasion began in February of last year a guy named Arnaud Bertrand put together an extremely viral Twitter thread that just goes on and on and on about the various diplomats, analysts and academics in the West who have over the years been warning that a dangerous confrontation with Russia was coming because of NATO advancements toward its borders, interventionism in Ukraine and various other aggressions.
It contains examples such as John Mearsheimer explicitly warning in 2015 that “the West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked,” and Pat Buchanan warning all the way back in 1999 that “By moving NATO onto Russia’ front porch, we have scheduled a twenty-first-century confrontation.”
Empire apologists love claiming that the invasion of Ukraine had nothing to do with NATO expansionism (their claims generally based on brazen misrepresentations of what President Vladimir Putin has said about Russia’ reasons for the war), but that’ silly. The U.S. war machine was continuing to taunt the possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine right up until the invasion, a threat it refused to take off the table since placing it there in 2008 despite knowing full well that this threat was an incendiary provocation to Moscow.
The Iraq War was totally unprovoked: Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had to struggle hard, even to resort to torture, to try to find some particle of evidence to tie Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda. The famous disappearing weapons of mass destruction wouldn’t have been a provocation for aggression even if there had been some reason to believe that they existed.
In contrast, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was most definitely provoked — though in today’s climate, it is necessary to add the truism that provocation provides no justification for the invasion.
A host of high-level U.S. diplomats and policy analysts have been warning Washington for 30 years that it was reckless and needlessly provocative to ignore Russia’ security concerns, particularly its red lines: No NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, in Russia’ geostrategic heartland.
One telling example occurred in 2021, the year before Russia invaded Ukraine. In that year, NATO carried out a live-fire training exercise in Estonia, a NATO country on Russia’s northwestern border. NATO fired 24 missiles. The launch sites were just 70 miles from Russia, and the missiles had a range of 185 miles. The purpose of this exercise was to practice destroying air defense targets inside Russia. The missiles did not enter Russian airspace, and NATO was not planning to attack Russia. It was trying to figure out how to react if Russia invaded one of the Baltic nations—Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania. Destroying air defense targets was part of an overall deterrent or protective strategy. But this exercise could have been perceived by Russian leaders as preparation for an offensive attack. In fact, the same exercises could be used to train for that purpose.
Abelow goes on to imagine how the U.S. would react if Russia engaged in similar life-fire training exercices with its miltiary ally Canada.
According to Brown University’s Costs of War Project , U.S. wars since 9/11 killed 900,000 people, displaced 38 million people from their homes, and cost over $8 trillion. They recently updated the estimates and include another 3.5 million of indirect deaths from those wars. If you include the Vietnam War, U.S. wars have killed close to ten million people.
Almost without exception, these were corrupt, disastrous wars and proxy wars — Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Latin America, Libya, and elsewhere. We overthrew democratically elected governments and installed autocratic regimes with death squads. We supported armed groups that later became our enemies, such as the Mujaheddin who later became Al Qaeda. Our wars created enemies. Our wars caused mass migrations that destabilized politics in Europe and the Americas.
We did this in the name of defending “democracy” and our strategic interests.
Those wars, proxy wars, and overthrows do not excuse Russian actions in Ukraine, but they should lead us to give pause to the mad rush to arm Ukraine fight Russia. Don’t you think the C.I.A. and other groups might have done some things to provoke Russia?
Is it any surprise that Russia feels threatened when the U.S. surrounds Russia with bases and weapons, withdraws from arms treaties, helps install client states along its borders, and expands NATO closer and closer to Russia? Putin is an autocrat, but the U.S. needs to stop trying to be policeman of the world — just like the U.S. shouldn’t have fought Sadaam Hussein in Iraq.
If you back a bear in the corner, throw rocks at him, and poke him with sticks, don’t act surprised when he lashes out.
At the very least, the U.S. is guilty of reckless endangerment, because its own diplomats and think tanks warned that aggressive NATO expansion would provoke a military response. But I am convinced that the military response was expected and desired by the neocons who planned the crisis.
Putin’s undeniable authoritarianism and brutality make it difficult to argue against U.S. efforts to weaken him. We can point out how the U.S. provoked him, how NATO expansion was unnecessary, how Putin wanted to integrate with the West, how U.S. wars and proxy wars were immoral, how we often supported brutal authoritarian governments, and how U.S. efforts to be policeman of the world often (or usually) fail and cause even worse blowback. And we can point out the risks and (opportunity) costs of our militarized foreign policy and of sanctions, including higher energy costs and possible nuclear annihilation. But we can’t pretend Putin is a good guy.
However, the U.S. regularly supports authoritarian regimes — even replacing democratically elected regimes with brutal despots — when it serves its strategic interests.
The U.S. could have made peace with Russia after the breakup of the USSR. We chose war. U.S. brinkmanship might succeed in weakening Russia; or it could result in disaster, for not just Ukraine and Europe, but also for the world. It will be costly in any case. The U.S. is willing to risk destroying Ukraine and sacrificing Europe’s energy needs to further its strategic interests.
Our duty is to denounce both Putin and U.S. militarized and aggressive foreign policy.
FB served me this rather silly ad, which questions the science of evolution and which appears to make the case for intelligent design. I’m sharing it here so we can chortle at it. FB serves me all sorts of right wing ads; I will follow up this article with one listing some of those ads.
I usually Laugh at the right wing ads that facebook serves, and facebook keeps serving me more of them, even going so far as offering me a badge for being a top fan. Its algorithms are too dumb to realize that I was Laughing at the ads, not Liking them; or maybe facebook just wants to increase its metrics about user interactions, so that it can justify its high fees for ads.
ITâ€™S TIME TO THINK OUTSIDE OUR ORBIT. (Itâ€™s more plausible than haphazard, agoraphobic evolution !)
The model of random evolution just doesnâ€™t cut it. Thereâ€™s no real proof that mutations and selection account for the diversity of life on this planet.
So-called scientists take joy in proclaiming the Earth isnâ€™t unique and humans arenâ€™t special. Yet they inexplicably scoff at the idea that life on Earth might be the result of extraterrestrial handiwork. (Are we unique and specialâ€”or not?)
OUTLANDISH IDEAS ARE NOW WORTH EXPLORING, rather than clinging to century-old musings that fall short on addressing enigmas that are unanswered or ignored such as:
– Origin of first life
– Cambrian explosion – Appears to be evidence of a weirdness competition
– Origin of genetic source code – equivalent to computer code
– Origin of genetic information – all other information we know of is a product of intelligence
– Incredible complexity of the human brain
– Lack of precursors to human linguistic language
– Unexplainable oddities; pyramids, early writing, Stonehenge.
If youâ€™re inclined to not believe in a Divine Creator, a potential scenario given an additional nine billion years of the Universeâ€™s existence is for an extraterrestrial origin of life on Earth. Thatâ€™s 9,000,000,000 years. (Weâ€™ve been â€œintelligentâ€ for a mere 200,000 years.)
To many, the idea of alien visitation soundsâ€¦(take your pick):
But no longer, at least to the official space agency NASA as it announced recently, â€œNASA has brought together some of the world’s leading scientistsâ€¦ to apply the full focus of science and data to Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP).â€
Admittedly, extraterrestrial origin of life on Earth is not a hypothesis with more evidence than farcical Darwinian undirected random evolution, thatâ€™s never been witnessed. BUT itâ€™s a more plausible explanation for the many outstanding enigmas mentioned.
Imagine if humans had the opportunity, knowledge and ability to create any life forms they could envisage; a romp on a new pristine planetâ€”with ideal conditions for a playground of creativity and amusement.
Perhaps an extraterrestrial civilization billions of years before us did just that.
Populating the young fertile Earth with a panoply of life forms, each designed for a specific niche; designed to be beautiful, designed to be weird, designed to be ferocious, designed to be aquatic, designed to be aerial, designed to be photosynthetic, designed to be aromaticâ€”designed individually, not precursors for evolution.
A caveat however; suppose like us these designers with extraordinary intelligence werenâ€™t perfect. Suppose their knowledge evolved over time as did their creations, analogous to our own technological progress, flaws included. That would explain imperfect evolution with increasing complexityâ€”INTELLIGENT EVOLUTION nevertheless.
So, is alien creation of life less scientific or more fantastic than Darwinâ€™s imagined, random and undirected evolution?
The answer is, ITâ€™S NOT. The Universe is vast. The origin and evolution of life here didnâ€™t have to be limited to this tiny planet in an almost limitless cosmos.
And that too is being acknowledged by NASAâ€™s Astrobiology Programâ€™s $7 million initiative called the Laboratory for Agnostic Biosignatures (LAB), to develop techniques to identify â€œlyfeâ€ in the cosmos with different biochemistry than we assume; perhaps differing in genetic code or not even carbon-based.
Contemplating the unknown without the constraints of established dogma excites, inspires and encourages learning about all that we do know about biology, astronomy, physics and chemistry.
A lot can transpire during nine billion years before Earth existed; technologies that we canâ€™t even imagine. It IS time to think outside our orbit.
There’s a plethora of documentation (e.g., this and the links therein) about how the U.S. intentionally provoked the war in Ukraine.Â While some of the facts about what happened are shrouded in secrecy and in a fog of disinformation and spin, calling polygraph.info an independent source is ridiculous.Â Is there any way to lobby google to stop using that source?
The de facto alliance of Ukrainian westernizing liberals and the fascist Ukrainian far-Right which together drove the so-called Revolution of Dignity in 2013-14 ignored their obligation to respect the democratic process. The violent overthrow of the duly elected Ukrainian president was praised in the US and in certain European capitals as a victory for the â€œrightâ€ of Ukrainians to choose their European future, but was in fact a violation of their obligation to respect the results of a democratic election â€“ and by extension their obligation to respect the will of their fellow citizens in the southern and eastern parts of the country.
Fiona Hill in the New York Times:
At the time, I was the national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia, part of a team briefing Mr. Bush. We warned him that Mr. Putin would view steps to bring Ukraine and Georgia closer to NATO as a provocative move that would likely provoke pre-emptive Russian military action. But ultimately, our warnings werenâ€™t heeded.
The Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea were some of the main reasons given by pro-war commentators starting in 2014 for arming Ukraine and further expanding NATO.Â Â Russia violated Ukraine’s territorial integrity, they said, so it must be stopped.
But the invasion and March 18 annexation occurred in the aftermath of the February 2014 Maidan Revolution, which even the New York Times has called a U.S.-backed coup. Some commentators (e.g., John Pilger) call it a U.S.-led coup.
These factsÂ certainly call into question the ferocious response of the U.S., which, after all, invaded and occupied Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and other countries — and instigated regime changes in dozens of countries — all in the name of supporting “democracy” and “freedom fighters.”
Crimea is ethnically and culturally tied to Russia, and citizens there want close ties with Russia. Far right militias such as Right Sector were violently supporting the revolution, and after the coup they became active near Russia. Indeed, the U.S. Senate and House later passed an amendment that explicitly banned funding Nazi groups in Ukraine, but the amendment was stripped and those militias were later incorporated into the Ukrainian army.Â Â A similar amendment was signed into law in 2018; see Congress bans arms to Ukraine militia linked to neo-Nazis.Â It’s not clear, however, to what extent that ban has been effective at keeping arms out of the hands of far right groups, especially given the lax oversight of military aid to Ukraine.
See here for dozens of articles in mainstream media documenting Nazi groups in Ukraine.
Prior to the 2014 coup, NATO had expanded aggressively into Eastern Europe, and there was talk of Ukraine joining NATO.Â So it is not a surprise that Russia, knowing the history of U.S. regime change operations, would feel threatened by the prospect of an(other) armed, anti-Russian, U.S. client state along its borders.
After the coup, France and Germany helped negotiate the Minsk Agreements, which “sought to end the Donbas war fought between armed Russian separatist groups and Armed Forces of Ukraine, with Russian regular forces playing a central part.” (ibid). Russian-aligned provinces would be given limited independence in exchange for security guarantees. But the agreements were never implemented. Reuters reported recently:
In an interview published in Germany’s Zeit magazine on Wednesday, former German chancellor Angela Merkel said that the Minsk agreements had been an attempt to “give Ukraine time” to build up its defences.
In other words, the intention all along was to prepare for war.
As senior U.S. diplomats including George Kennan, Jack Matlock, and WIll Burns said, aggressive NATO expansion was unnecessary and destabilizing. Russia has legitimate security concerns (LA Times), and it’s no surprise they don’t want NATO expanding right up to its borders.
How would the U.S. react if Russia or China set up armed, anti-U.S. client states in Cuba or Mexico?Â The U.S. doesn’t even allow vaguely socialist governments in South America.
Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit Russiaâ€™s greatest point of external vulnerability. But any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages.
The highlighted words indicate that the authors were quite aware that U.S. provocations would cause Russia to respond militarily.
Diplomats David H. Rundell and Michael Gfoeller wrote in Newsweek:
Some have presented this conflict as a morality play, between good and evil, but the reality is more complex. Ukraine is no flourishing democracy. It is an impoverished, corrupt, one-party state with extensive censorship, where opposition newspapers and political parties have been shut down. Before the war, far right Ukrainian nationalist groups like the Azov Brigade were soundly condemned by the U.S. Congress. Kiev’s determined campaign against the Russian language is analogous to the Canadian government trying to ban French in Quebec. Ukrainian shells have killed hundreds of civilians in the Donbas and there are emerging reports of Ukrainian war crimes. The truly moral course of action would be to end this war with negotiations rather than prolong the suffering of the Ukrainian people in a conflict they are unlikely to win without risking American lives.
When I share content that exposes U.S. culpability in the crisis in Ukraine, some people attack me, saying that I am parroting Putin’s propaganda, etc. It’s going to take a while before Americans realize they’ve been duped, just like they were duped about Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. To be clear, Putin’s invasion was criminal (as were the many U.S. wars and proxy wars after WWII). But that doesn’t at all imply that the U.S. is innocent in Ukraine.
My friend Rebekkah Alpisa wrote on facebook (and gave me permission to quote her):
Questioning Vietnam made you a pinko commie. Questioning Iraq made you a pinko commie anti-American. Questioning Afghanistan made you a pinko commie un-American traitor. Now questioning Ukraine makes you a Russian bot. Itâ€™s all propaganda for the masses.
Iâ€™m still shaking my head over the Vietnam boondoggle, the Korean boondoggle, the CIAâ€™s terrorism in South America, the Bay of Pigs, the Iraq boondoggle, the Iran boondoggle, the Afghanistan boondoggle â€¦ the list is endless.
The Pentagon’s own think tank, The RAND Corporation, published a study in 2019 Overextending and Unbalancing Russia that recommended arming Ukraine and provoking a war. It explicitly warned “any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing commitment without provoking a much wider conflict in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have significant advantages.”
U.S. demonization of Putin and its eagerness to escalate the conflict are immoral and dangerous, given U.S. provocations and its own history of unjustified and disastrous war-mongering in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, South America, and elsewhere.Â Would the U.S. allow Russia or China to set up client states along U.S. borders? The U.S. has about military 800 bases in over 70 countries. Since just 9/11, U.S. wars have killed over 900,000 people and cost over $8 trillion, according to Brown University’s Costs of War project.
As David Swanson says, War is a Lie, and governments (almost) always lie about war.
I sense that parody might be more effective than self-righteous anger at changing minds.Â Laugh at the war-mongers and those who believe the lies.Â A five minute comedy sketch on late night television probably has one hundred times the direct influence than a dozen articles in Truthout, Common Dreams, and Popular Resistance.Â (But those articles do plant seeds.)
It was Rep. Adam Smith (no relation), Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, who told me that the military-industrial complex is like a self-licking ice cream cone. He said that he was warned about the self-licking ice cream cone by an older colleague when he first became a member of the Committee.Â But now Rep. Smith is generally pro-war: he strongly supports arming Ukraine and preparing to confront China on Taiwan.