Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

America is wrong about Ukraine

What is happening in Ukraine? Before diving into the events unfolding on the borderlands of Europe, let’s jump past some basic concerns I have about even writing this article. If you were to speak with a man who existed in hypocrisy like a fish exists in water, how often would you care to bring up the Golden Rule? At what point, after witnessing so many sociopathic forays, would you accept the futility of once again voicing calls for fairness?

The United States, in its current state, is the material embodiment of paranoia. Since World War 2, as if driven to madness by the nuclear waste infused blood on our hands, no stone is too small to risk remaining upturned. When September 11th happened, as is often true of the relationship between trauma and comorbidities, our already severe pathology became a terminal illness.

Paid for with our very future, this once revolutionary republic has dragged itself through every mud-drenched, sun scarred hellscape under the stars, all in a fear-drunk hope of catching a glance at the incoming punch we believe to be promised by karma.

And when every dollar was spent and ever pebble inspected, non-aggressive countries wary of external powers dictating their scientific or militaristic developments would be vilified so the role of enemy never remain unfilled.
Was the Monroe Doctrine just a Joke?

In 1923, the Monroe Doctrine warned European colonizers that the United States would not tolerate further colonization of the Western Hemisphere. Just 60 years ago, when the Soviet Union began the building of missile-launching sites in Cuba, it was the Monroe Doctrine John Kennedy would symbolically invoke.

Since that time, the United States and its allies in NATO have spent countless billions of dollars nearly encircling Russia with military bases.

For no other reason than military superiority, which is hardly an ethical justification, what would be imaginable for an America – an enemy within striking range – became the global expectation.
Obama’s Messaging Failure

Consider the reaction in America if Vladimir Putin came into office advocating for a military alliance between Russia and the government in Mexico. The brash, globalist minded Obama burst into the White House doors with just that sentiment.

Obama said it was important to “send a clear signal throughout Europe that we are going to continue to abide by the central belief … that countries who seek and aspire to join NATO are able to join NATO.” Biden has continues with this exact same rhetoric.

To understand why such messaging is disastrous to Ukraine, you need to understand the under-reported demographic makeup of the state once affectionately known as “little Russia.” As revealed by the Orange Revolution, the country is badly divided between the west and the Russian speaking east.

The Ukrainian Civil War

In America’s haste to bring Ukraine into its military fold, as is so common in stories such as this, weapons and support were delivered to some particularly unsavory characters during the Ukrainian Civil War. For a country that so freely invokes Nazi imagery in its domestic, internal conflicts, our standards abroad are more forgiving.

Pictured along with John McCain, Oleh Tyahnybok is leader of Svoboda, a Ukrainian political party that received over 40 percent of the 2012 vote in many parts of western Ukraine. To briefly explain the Nazi roots of this political party, it’s important to note that some 800,000 Jews were murdered in Ukraine during the German occupation, many of them by a Ukrainian auxiliary known as the Galicia Division. When Western Ukrainian citizens organized a ceremony honoring the unit, it was Oleg Pankevich, a Svovoda parliamentarian, who did the honors of being front and center.

“I was horrified to see photographs…of young Ukrainians wearing the dreaded SS uniform with swastikas clearly visible on their helmets as they carried caskets of members of this Nazi unit, lowered them into the ground, and fired gun salutes in their honor,” World Jewish Congress president Ronald Lauder wrote in a letter at the time.

Picture how the United States would feel if Russia provided financial and militaristic aid to literal Nazi organizations in Canada.
Conclusion

In history, those surrounded by enemies promising continuation to conflict have not been seen as the aggressor. However, Russia taking offense to Western funding of horrible elements in bordering countries has created this irrational outrage, when no country on our planet would condone such a flagrant attempt at encroachment.

The American economy is in free-fall, and the vast majority of Americans are lacking any faith in its leadership. Regarding both Russia and America, choosing deescalation and seeking mutual collaboration could be the only way to appropriately respond to the true threat posed by China.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
I’m so sick of this Russian paranoia excuse. E. Europe has far more to fear from Russia than Russia has to fear from E. Europe.
@Fukfacewillie Sorry but that is just factually wrong, historically wrong and it is not an excuse.

This is textbook cold war bullshit.




Look up what encirclement means.


Every invasion of Russia since the Golden Hoard has come from the west. So sticking a gun in someone's face and telling them "don't worry, it is defensive" is a joke.

Heck even the claim NATO was ever about defense is factually wrong, and fun fact, also is used as a loophole to violate the NPT.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@Fukfacewillie Russia is not stressed about Eastern Europe, Eastern European nations are gnats.

It’s stressed about US and Western Europe using Ukraine as a springboard for an invasion after years/decades of fortification. Russians anticipate a once-per-century or more catastrophic existential threat sort of invasion from the major Western powers, because that has been the pattern over the last few centuries.

Russians are not fun to live next to - but when was the last time they marched on Paris or Berlin unprovoked?

US is a young nation and thinks in different terms, but for Russians, Napoleon and Hitler were yesterday.
@QuixoticSoul

yep

*cough* Bond Steel *cough*
@Fukfacewillie Basically the Russians are most worried about another BondSteel right on their border. Nobody would consider Kosovo a threat but 50 000 US soldiers (at its peak) is no joke.
@QuixoticSoul I am guessing the Russian government also remember the "not one inch east of Berlin" promise and how much that was worth.
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@QuixoticSoul @PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I think Putin fears a European style democracy on Russia's border more than the ghost of Napoleon or Hitler. That seems more of a potential contagion/real issue than an invasion ala Barbarossa Part 2.

The Cold War was cold because of nukes. He's still got them!

And when all else fails, the Russian winter. Works like a charm. 🥶
@Fukfacewillie
I think Putin fears a European style democracy on Russia's border more than the ghost of Napoleon or Hitler. That seems more of a potential contagion than an invasion ala Barbarossa Part 2.

Sorry but there is zero evidence of that. You do realize the current Russian governmental system was literally created by the US State department.


No, the cold war was a cold war to make the world safe for the Fortune 500 and NATO directly contributed to creating that arms race.


It also conveniently justifies the American control of Europe and a global empire.


The one time Article 5 of NATO was ever used was after the cold war to justify attacking another country.


I guess you would be cool with a hostile gang of people with guns surrounding your house and being told you are paranoid if you complain.


It is cute how you dismissed several hundred years of history to justify a cold war cliche.
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I respectfully disagree. The fear of a NATO invasion is irrational. Russia is famous for its intelligence services, and Putin would know this. Further, there is no talk of Ukraine joining NATO. As for an American empire that seems more rhetoric as it fits no definition of empire. We have a security arrangement with like minded countries (minus Turkey). Putin respects strength, and sending troops is 100% the right thing to do. As for capitalism, I'm all for it, with a few tweaks.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@Fukfacewillie Russian winter is fairly mild tbh, it’s nothing like the Nordic winter. And it happens every year, nobody should be surprised by it. It is essentially an alibi, an excuse people like to use because otherwise they have to admit that they simply lost.

Nukes are nice and all, but who knows if they will retain the same deterrent in fifty years or a century? Russians aren’t thinking short term.

They aren’t worried about democracy on their border, there are others, and Ukraine is a hilariously incompetent and corrupt version of democracy that isn’t expected to become particularly functional. Don’t get caught up in “they hate us for our freedom” style of analysis.

Russia is famous for its intelligence services, and Putin would know this.
Those intelligence services are fully onboard. Indeed, any Russian leader that looked like he was going to let NATO into Ukraine would be removed by siloviki. This is as much self preservation for Putin as anything else.

Russians treat geopolitics essentially like a science, with its own principles and rules. Viewing Ukraine with its indefensible border as a dagger pointed at Moscow is established formal dogma. You can think it’s irrational if you want to, but it doesn’t matter. Russians see it as rational, and they’re quite willing to bleed over it. They will allow a neutral Ukraine, but they won’t tolerate a NATO Ukraine - they will destroy it first.
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@QuixoticSoul Ahh, those snow boots the Wehrmacht forgot to bring. It seems your premise is that Putin is an irrational actor. Well, I think at this point all we can do is see what happens. I don't think Putin expected Biden to send troops. I think he's looking for a way out.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
@Fukfacewillie They didn’t forget to bring them - at some point they simply had to choose between sending boots and sending ammunition. And their own logistical personnel told them exactly the point where their supply lines would become too stretched to be effective before Barbarossa even started - the high command simply ignored them.

It snows in Germany too - European Russia and Germany are basically on the same latitudes and have a very similar climate. Nothing about the Russian winter is unfamiliar to Germans.

Putin is quite rational - Russians are just operating with a different set of assumptions informed by their own history. Nor does he care that Biden sent three thousand (🤣) soldiers to Germany, Poland, and Romania - come on. That doesn’t even rise to the level of being symbolic.
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@QuixoticSoul I appreciate the WWII information.

If Putin is rational then he does not fear a NATO invasion. But apparently he does. Further, no one thinks Ukraine will join NATO. But, apparently that is Putin's concern, too? He doesn't fear any Ukrainian democracy, either. So, what is it? He surely doesn't think Ukraine will invade Russia, so you got me. Back to the Russian world view, which is not paranoid, just different. In any case, they provoked this crisis, or is that incorrect, too?
@QuixoticSoul There also was alot of arrogance at play. The USSR was expected to fall quickly so the initial belief was the war would be over in Russia before they would need to worry about winter gear.
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@QuixoticSoul Rich Lowry put it this way: "Putin essentially wants to reverse the outcome of the Cold War by intimidating NATO into pulling out of the Eastern European countries that have joined the alliance since 1997. It’d be perverse if the right began to push for the U.S. to act as if it lost the Cold War, when it didn’t."
@Fukfacewillie
I respectfully disagree. The fear of a NATO invasion is irrational. Russia is famous for its intelligence services, and Putin would know this. Further, there is no talk of Ukraine joining NATO. As for an American empire that seems more rhetoric as it fits no definition of empire. We have a security arrangement with like minded countries (minus Turkey). Putin respects strength, and sending troops is 100% the right thing to do. As for capitalism, I'm all for it, with a few tweaks.


Fear of an invasion by NATO is irrational? Tell that to Gaddaffi....oh wait. NATO has been an offensive force since day one and an excuse to violate the NPT.

The literal stated goal was to "Keep Germany (later Europe as a whole) down aka under US control, Russia out."

It was never and never will be about defense.


You have got to be kidding. The US has been forcing the issue of NATO since 1991.

Ukraine has had no interest until the US pulled off a coup in 2014. But we are supposed to believe this is a coincidence.

You seem to love euphemisms. This has fuck all to do with security arrangements and never has been.

And the US does fit the definition of an empire and has for almost a century.


Sending troops is monumentally stupid. It just increases the likelihood of some idiot shooting and accidentally kicking off a war. Alot of wars have started that way. Escalation is always a bad idea unless you are already shooting at each other. It has never ended well.


As for your non sequitur about capitalism that is a bizarre tangent.
@Fukfacewillie It is interesting you give praise to Erdogan whose family smuggles oil for ISIS, who competes with the Saudis for control of the terrorist bomb throwers and sees himself as being a new Sultan of a new Ottoman Empire. A dictator who gets a free pass specifically because of NATO.
@Fukfacewillie 😆 You're seriously basing your position on a quote from some random right wing American clown with a fetish for Ayn Rand?
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Yes, it is irrational. Russia has nukes. Libya did not. NATO was very successful, and I hope it continues. Empires require land, and dominion, tribute, none of that exists outside US sovereignty. No oil was stolen from Iraq. An empire would have taken it. You mentioned capitalism as a cynical reason for NATO. I simply think that would be fine. Sending troops has changed the game. I hope we send more.

I don’t like Turkey, merely pointing out that they are an anomaly when it comes to NATO membership.
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I was trying to determine what others think about the current situation, and offered that as a perspective. I am sympathetic with his argument, however.
@Fukfacewillie No it is not and your claim runs counter to the entire history of the organization and why it exists in the first place. Not to mention you hand waved away hundreds of years of history because it doesn't fit your Red Dawn sequel.

NATO is a dangerous, war machine that should have been in the dumpster of history long ago.

Come on man. Don't be a child and reduce empire to a medieval strawman. That is bullshit and you know it.


And now more bullshit about the Iraq war too.

Capitalism is a reason for NATO's existence that is a fact. So is the US military. It is about making the world safe for the plundering by the Fortune 500.

Must be nice to be your age and be so naive and innocent.


Your position on troops further proves you have no idea what you are talking about in terms of foreign policy or history.


Turkey is the norm in US foreign policy and NATO's, not an anomaly. The fact you are unaware of this just tells me again, you have no idea what you are talking about.


Bet you blindly supported the war in Iraq too, and probably every other imperial war for the last half century.


What I am saying is not even remotely new.


"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

Smedley Butler.
@Fukfacewillie In reference to the Butler quote. The American empire is literally the source of the term banana republic.
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Many in the State Department seem to agree with me. Arguing NATO is a failure ignores the success and security of Western Europe after WW2. As for capitalism being the reason for NATO, again, assuming that is true, I’m all for it. I’ve been to East Germany.

As for American hegemony in Central America, yes, all that happened as you list, but still fits no common definition of empire.

Regarding Turkey, it is unfortunate it has turned to authoritarianism, but I understand it is better overall it remains in NATO.

About which wars I supported. No to the Contras. No to the Brits with the Fawkland war. I supported Gulf War 1, and was misled about Gulf War 2. My opinion about that conflict changed as it turned into a partisan bloodbath and Rumsfeld showed himself to be incompetent.
@Fukfacewillie Are you listening to yourself? You are parroting the narrative of the State Department. Of course they would agree with you.



I never said NATO was a failure. I said you and others have misrepresented it's purpose. It was and never has been about "security".


Lol. So you are an expert because you were a tourist? Seems a common theme with right wingers.


Still in denial of what an empire is.


Can't have a serious debate with someone who moves the goalpost and changes the definition to an iron age metric because it fits their narrative.


Well I guess you get points for disapproving of Reagan running a narco cartel out of the White House.

But it doesn't change my overall point.
Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow

My reference to the State Department was about my views aligning with experts. One can of course disagree with experts, that’s fine, but it’s worthy to counter allegations of being a neophyte.

Visiting East Germany provided sufficient information to quickly see the failure of their economic system.

I use a standard model of empire for my analysis.

I’m a moderate Dem. Never have voted Republican.
@Fukfacewillie

Lol. Claiming to be an economics expert from being a tourist tells me all I need to know.

Fun fact, if you account for reparations (the GDR paid about 95% of war reparations) the economy of the GDR would be 5 times that of West Germany.

Easy to win a race if you kneecap your opponent first.



You used a model of empire outdated by the 1700s.


Not many "moderates" use the National Review to justify their ideological position, but sure.

And right and left are not dictated by party affiliation.