[ceilingcorner]

I have studied this situation nonstop for the last week and I pretty much have the same opinion as you. If you ask a simple question, Cui bono? (Who benefits?) it becomes clear that it’s ultimately another military industrial complex project. The sad part is that the only real victims here are the Ukrainian people, who were led along with false promises.

Had NATO been wiser, none of this would be happening.

[calyth2018]

These would be of interest for you: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-... https://archive.ph/gnqkv - among the signers who opposed the NATO expansion during the late 90s to include the Visegrad group, Former SoD MacNamara https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300259933/not-one-inch Fog of War (Errol Morris documentary) - rather telling in there is empathy for your adversary, and the fact that there's so many parallels with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Seems like we've learnt nothing from it.

[owenversteeg]

Quite the list of signatories, including C. William Maynes (editor of Foreign Policy magazine), Sen. Bill Bradley, Raymond Garthoff (former ambassador to Bulgaria), Morton Halperin (former ACLU director), Sen. Gary Hart, Arthur Hartman (Reagan's ambassador to the Soviet Union), Sen. Mark Hatfield, Sen. Gordon Humphrey, Fred Ikle (the man who proposed sending weapons to the Mujahideen), Sen. Bennett Johnston, James Leonard (ambassador to the UN), former Secretary of the Navy Paul H. Nitze, former Secretary of Defense McNamara, Sen. Sam Nunn, Ambassador to East Germany Herbert S. Okun, commander of US Air Force Japan Robert E. Pursley, CIA Director Stansfield Turner, plus a list of everything from well-known professors to Purple Heart recipients.

In other words - left and right, ACLU and Senators, academia and veterans, a broad swath of the American political landscape - I'm not sure why this perspective doesn't attract more attention these days.

[calyth2018]

> I'm not sure why this perspective doesn't attract more attention these days.

Because this perspective dampens the prevailing narratives, that Russia is spinning pure propaganda in regards to NATO?

[warner_of_doom]

This is also playing right into NATO's hands in a way.

But, after reading the authors I mentioned closely, I now realize that this is a war for control/negative-control over natural resources (grain, oil, gas, fertilizers, etc.). Also, this is about geostrategic security (anchoring at the Carpathian mountains and Bessarabia Gap).

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CNeDtZmpjU

And: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE

[thraneh]

This has helped me better understand the strategic significance. Thank you.

Edit: As a seeker of answers to the "why", I can't recommend these links enough.

[warner_of_doom]

Same here, I too seek out the motive behind actions; otherwise, history is the most boring and unintelligible sequence of events known to man.

I recommend you look into these authors/commentators/analysts: * John Mearsheimer * Noam Chomsky * Vladimir Pozner * Jeffrey Sachs * Zbigniew Brezinski * George Friedman * Peter Zeihan * Peter Hitchens * Gonzalo Lira * Tim Marshall * Robert D Kaplan * Jack F. Matlock Jr * George Kennan * Stephen Cohen * Henry Kissinger

Indeed. NATO/EU expansion is essentially a slow-moving replay of Brest-Litovsk and Barbarossa from the Russian point-of-view. I'm an American but I totally understand why Russia just did what it did. Never forget that Lenin was sent to Russia BY GERMANY for the express purpose of destabilizing Russia during WW1. This is the type of destabilizing regime-change that Russia fears. Their fears are not unfounded if you pay close attention to what the US has done in Ukraine, which is something our media doesn't even cover.

This is just the tip of the iceberg:

* https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/congress-has-remo...

* https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/4/pandora-papers-ukra...

* https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-r...

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsh9V8UxenI

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK93aawlLKg

[eternalban]

This — only have listened to the Hitchens so far — was fantastic. Thank you so much for sharing this. I wonder what he would say about Germany deciding to militarize overnight. No wonder Macron was telling Putin Russia is “European”. Wheels within wheels.

[warner_of_doom]

Indeed. NATO/EU expansion is essentially a slow-moving replay of Brest-Litovsk and Barbarossa from the Russian point-of-view. I'm an American but I totally understand why Russia just did what it did. Never forget that Lenin was sent to Russia BY GERMANY for the express purpose of destabilizing Russia during WW1. This is the type of destabilizing regime-change that Russia fears. Their fears are not unfounded if you pay close attention to what the US has done in Ukraine, which is something our media doesn't even cover.

This is just the tip of the iceberg:

* https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/congress-has-remo...

* https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/4/pandora-papers-ukra...

* https://www.occrp.org/en/the-pandora-papers/pandora-papers-r...

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsh9V8UxenI

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK93aawlLKg

I seek out the motive behind actions; otherwise, history is the most boring and unintelligible sequence of events known to man.

I recommend you look into these authors/commentators/analysts: * John Mearsheimer * Noam Chomsky * Vladimir Pozner * Jeffrey Sachs * Zbigniew Brezinski * George Friedman * Peter Zeihan * Peter Hitchens * Gonzalo Lira * Tim Marshall * Robert D Kaplan * Jack F. Matlock Jr * George Kennan * Stephen Cohen * Henry Kissinger

[georgia_peach]

I think military-industrial complex gets its pound of flesh rain or shine. Westerners like their high-paying defense jobs. This is about bringing the entire world, state-by-state, under anglosphere concepts of law/property/morality/etc--but instead of subordinating Indians and Africans, it's Slavs this time.

[mcguire]

Lessee here,...

Following several hundred years of rule by Poland and then Russia, in 1991 the Ukrainians voted overwhelmingly for independence from Russia. (I assume you think that was a mistake?)

Between 1991 and 2004, two the administrations of two presidents retained close ties to Russia. However, in 2004, in an election festooned with accusations of fraud (serious accusations, not Trump-accusations), another pro-Russian president was elected, sparking protests and a second election, which brought into power another president who called for closer ties with the European Union. (Yeah, this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yushchenko demonstrating the results of not recognizing Russian authority.) Corruption seems to have abounded during most of these and the next president's terms.

In 2010, another pro-Russian president was elected, which in 2013 and 2014 led to the Euromaidan protests, complete with violence, that led to that government's collapse. This was the time when Russia annexed Crimea and civil war broke out in Donetsk and Luhansk. (They should have just given up then, right?)

The next President, elected in 2014, began again the policy of closing the relationship with the EU and withdrawing from the Commonwealth of Independent States, the association of countries from the USSR, and generally trying to clean up the mess. In 2019 the constitution was amended:

"The authority of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine include ... determining the principles of internal and foreign policy, realization of the strategic course of the state on acquiring full-fledged membership of Ukraine in the European Union and in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

"The President of Ukraine is a guarantor of the implementation of the strategic course of the state for gaining full-fledged membership of Ukraine in the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

"The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine provides the implementation of the strategic course of the state for gaining full-fledged membership of Ukraine in the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization."

(Stupid fools, don't they know they have no rights a world power is bound to respect? They're barely human!)

Also in 2019, Zelenskyy was elected president with 73% of the vote, a group of prisoners were exchanged with Russia, freeing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Sentsov, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Sushchenko and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olexandr_Kolchenko, among others, and here we are today. (Not that I'm suggesting holding political prisoners is bad, mind you.)

Now, Putin has said that the big mistake happened when Lenin's USSR gave Ukraine any autonomy at all, which may in fact be true. But,

1. The Ukrainians are not victims. Well, they are, but only of Russian aggression.

2. The military-industrial complex seems to have an awful lot of reach and power. Shades of the Elders of Zion, eh? On the other hand, seems like they could have worked a bit faster.

3. NATO does not look to be a very big player; the EU and Poland have had as big a hand in "false promises" if you choose to look at it that way.

[331c8c71]

> 2014 led to the Euromaidan protests, complete with violence, that led to that government's collapse. This was the time when Russia annexed Crimea and civil war broke out in Donetsk and Luhansk

Your have written a lot but omitted the crucial details about the maidan. US instigated the coup and installed nationalistic government. The separatist tendencies were the direct result of that government's actions.

[warner_of_doom]

Bingo. There are audio tapes that prove this as well.

[mcguire]

These audio tapes:

* https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

* https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Security-Watch/Backchannels/...

(I like the line, "A "new low?" From a Russian perspective, assuming they did it, it was brilliant. And it didn't require assassinating a former spy in a foreign capital with a radioactive isotope.")

There's nothing there about a "US instigated coup." What you're looking at are boring US State Department discussions of how to, yes, arrange to move the situation closer to something the US would like. Who to talk to, what to talk about. That's what they do. Here's the conclusion of the BBC diplomatic correspondent:

"The US is clearly much more involved in trying to broker a deal in Ukraine than it publicly lets on. There is some embarrassment too for the Americans given the ease with which their communications were hacked."

One should note that Russia was also engaged in shenanigans, including providing advisors in the operations to suppress the protests. (You don't see the phrase "the use of snipers to disperse crowds" very often.)

This phone call was released in early February 2014, during the protests. Unless you somehow believe that the US has mind-control technology that can cause tens of thousands of innocent people to risk their lives protesting their government, there is not a whole lot of US agency here.

I know this is hard to believe, but people outside the US are actually people, and have their own beliefs and values, and are capable of making their own decisions.

[331c8c71]

"Instigated" is inaccurate, I agree.

There were protests going on but there's still a legitimate president (de jure at least). US diplomats are caught on tape discussing who should be and should not be in the new government.

To me it means that they were directly talking to the protesters leaders and assuring them of us support.

If that kind of diplomacy sounds fine I don't quite understand why the Americans were so sensitive about the so-called "Russian involvement" in the US elections

[warner_of_doom]

https://mate.substack.com/p/by-using-ukraine-to-fight-russia...