Exclusive Content > Editorials
Is NATO the aggressor in Ukraine?
unite for individuality:
I posted an article on this forum about Ukraine on December 13, 2016,
but the forum archive goes back only to July 1, 2017.
So here is my original post again,
followed by my current comments:
+++++++++++++ ORIGINAL POST +++++++++++++
The media has been caterwauling about Ukraine for several years now,
and has yet to tell us anything meaningful about the situation.
To understand any country,
first you have to start by looking at some maps.
Here's a map showing the borders of Ukraine through history:
Notice, a large part of the country was added to it
AFTER it was conquered by the Soviet Union!
There's a reason for that.
The Soviets drew the borders to include millions of
Russian people and Russian-speaking Ukrainians
to make sure that Russian interests would win
whenever the Soviets conduct their sham elections.
This map shows where the ethnic Russians
and Russian-speaking Ukrainians live:
Notice how strongly the election results (below)
correlate to the ethnic makeup of the country:
This map is at least as important as the historic and ethnic maps.
It shows the routes of the pipelines through which Russia
sells petroleum to Europe.
When the Soviet Union disbanded in 1991,
there was the question of who would control the nuclear weapons
the Soviets had based in Ukraine.
The decision was made that the nukes would be given to Russia,
and in exchange for that,
the USA pledged to come to Ukraine's defense in case of attack.
Then the pipelines were built,
and Ukraine's strategic value increased.
Since 1991, Ukraine has been teetering between
alignment with Europe or with Russia.
A few years ago, Ukraine elected a pro-Russia president.
George Soros was very displeased by this,
so he sent some henchmen to assassinate their President
and conduct a coup.
So, in response, Russia invaded eastern Ukraine.
And we all witnessed the "robust response" by Obama,
in spite of the standing agreement to come to Ukraine's defense.
(George Soros must be awfully disappointed at
having such a wimpy puppet!)
I suggest the following solution:
Let Russia annex the eastern and southern parts of Ukraine,
and let the rest of Ukraine join NATO.
Establish a joint security force to protect the pipelines.
It seems to me that that solution would be
the most fair arrangement possible for all sides.
If Russia rejects it, that is a signal that
Vladimir Putin wants to conquer all of Ukraine.
If Europe rejects it, that is a signal that
George Soros wants to conquer all of Ukraine.
How much of the above information
has been reported by the "mainstream" media?
If you're wondering why not, consider:
the MSM is owned mostly by George Soros and his cronies.
That's why the MSM always reports the situation as
being a case of "Russian aggression"
and never reports the aggression by Soros' henchmen
as being the REAL cause of the ongoing crisis.
And now Donald Trump wants to appoint the President of Exxon
to be Secretary of State.
Do you think the President of Exxon would like to have a peaceful Ukraine
through which to buy Russian oil?
And do you think Mr Putin would like to have a peaceful Ukraine
through which to sell Russian oil?
Donald Trump might be the best thing that ever happened
to help bring about world peace!
+++++++++++++ CURRENT COMMENTS +++++++++++++
Is NATO the aggressor in Ukraine?
It's pretty universally accepted that Vladimir Putin is quite ruthless.
But that's no guarantee that his victims are blameless either.
Sometimes, BOTH sides in a conflict are monsters!
It's pretty hard for Russia to justify their actions when they're the one doing the invading.
But there are reports that the reason Putin is invading Ukraine is,
NATO is planning to place IRBMs (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles)
in Ukraine, just 300 miles from Moscow.
Russia could legitimately see that as a very serious strategic threat.
We should also remember that, to a large extent,
NATO is run by George Soros.
If there is anyone on Earth possibly more ruthless than Vladimir Putin,
it would be George Soros.
I previously wrote about Ukraine, proposing that the country be partitioned.
The ethnic Russian part can be given to Russia,
and the ethnic Ukrainian part can be independent,
and join NATO if they choose.
I wish to add to my proposal that
ballistic missiles not be based in Ukraine,
and Russian inspectors be allowed to tour the country
to verify that the agreement is being followed.
berdie:
Very informative, well written post. I enjoyed reading it.
Boundary changes in countries have gone on for centuries in every part of the world...for whatever reason. Consider the boundaries in the US.
The US agreed to supply aid if Ukraine was ever invaded after relinquishing nukes. Seems to be the case in today's time.
The placement of ballistic missiles as an excuse for invasion by Russia seems to be insincere. Ballistic missiles in today's world can travel far further than 300 miles, can they not?
The crux of this appears to me to be about oil acquisition and transportation. The NWO, and by association, Soros is opposed by the alliance of Russia, China, Iran, Saudia Arabia, et al. How can we pick that poison?
I can't agree with your solution. If Russia decided to, and was allowed to, build their pipelines in another country and then decided that it was a bad idea...too damn bad. It equates to many poor decisions. Sort of like the US building refineries, etc. in Venezuela. There is no reason for Ukraine to give up territory or allow "inspectors". I will say that I have little trust for Russia, Ukraine or the media on either side.
Like I said. you are a very good writer that conveys your thoughts well. I, sadly, am not. If I wrote a book about the Titanic...it would say...the ship sank. :laugh:
The_Reader_David:
Is there any NATO culpability for the current war in Ukraine?
Before answering that, let me suggest an analogous question: was the treatment of Germany at Versailles after WWI to blame for the German seizure of Czechoslovakia and subsequent invasion of Poland?
The answer to both questions is "yes" in equal measure. Unfortunately, the fact that the answer to the first is "yes" is as irrelevant to the policy questions facing the US and NATO as the fact that the answer to the first question was "yes" was to policy makers in London and Paris in late 1939.
The trampling of Russian interests in the Balkans under Clinton, together with NATO expansion and the fomenting of "color revolutions" to replace pro-Russian governments with pro-Western government were this century's analogue of the demilitarization the Rhineland, limits on the size and capabilities of the German army, and reparations requirements imposed at Versailles. Neither should have been done, but that doesn't somehow mean it wasn't necessary to fight Hitler and isn't necessary to fight Putin.
unite for individuality:
--- Quote from: berdie on October 11, 2022, 09:23:17 pm ---The placement of ballistic missiles as an excuse for invasion by Russia seems to be insincere. Ballistic missiles in today's world can travel far further than 300 miles, can they not?
--- End quote ---
For several decades, Moscow has been protected by an anti ballistic missile system.
It appears that this system is not able to respond quickly enough
to stop a missile launched from just 300 miles.
So, Russia does have reason to feel threatened.
I don't want to give Russia a complete pass.
Several years ago, Russia installed a puppet government in Belarus.
Upon further reflection, I'm thinking that Russia tried to do the same in Ukraine.
When that failed, Russia then decided to invade.
I tend to think that, if Donald Trump was still in office,
he would have negotiated a reasonable settlement,
something like what I proposed in the original post.
But with NATO in the hands of puppets of people like George Soros,
who are willing to spend millions of lives to increase their own power,
it looks to me like both sides are totally willing to drag us all into a larger war.
20th Century -- "I killed over a hundred million people in wars, and even larger numbers in purges!"
21st Century -- "Hold my latte."
unite for individuality:
Here's a comment I posted over in
World News »
The CIA Thought Putin Would Quickly Conquer Ukraine. Why Did They Get It So Wrong?
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,482029.0.html
It's also relevant here, so here it is:
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,482029.msg2722232.html#msg2722232
Re: The CIA Thought Putin Would Quickly Conquer Ukraine. Why Did They Get It So Wrong?
« Reply #10 on: Today at 01:21:29 pm »
unite for individuality
From the start of this war, I figured that
Ukraine was fighting so fiercely because
they remembered the Holodomor.
In the 1930s, the Soviet Union
went into every home in Ukraine and took all the food,
intentionally starving to death several million people.
You can be sure that the survivors of this atrocity
told their children and grandchildren,
so that the knowledge of this
would be as fresh today as it was 90 years ago.
Every single Ukranian knows that surrender means death -
a very long, drawn out, painful death.
Every single Ukranian does not hesitate even slightly
to fight the Russians in the most daring ways possible
because they know that dying in battle is A LOT less painful
than what would happen to them if the Russians win.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version