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.

 

[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]

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?

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.

[Hoodat]

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.

That is exactly what happened.  Ukraine ousted the Russian puppet, after which Russian troops entered Ukraine.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

I, too have mentioned the Holodomor as reason for the Ukrainians fighting so hard, simply because that genocide reduced some of the survivors to eating their dead. No  one likes to mention it, but starving people will survive whether it is a plane crash in the Andes or sitting on a cleaned out farm, where even the seed grain has been stolen at gunpoint.
Forget? Never.
Fight? Like never before.

[starbuck_archer]

NATO is at fault for Russia becoming an Authoritarian nightmare:

I recommend reading Helen Andrews book about the boomers:  https://www.amazon.com/Boomers-Promised-Freedom-Delivered-Disaster/dp/0593086759

Basically, Jeffrey Sachs screwed over Russia after we won the Cold War.  Sachs was a deep stater leftist, and left a trail of bodies behind him from Moscow to Kyiv.  Without Sachs "kicking the Russians while they were down" in the 90s, it is arguable Putin would not have risen, and we would not have a war in Ukraine today.

The Deep State caused this war.

[Hoodat]

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.

Most fair?  I suggest that Russia get the hell out of Ukraine and stop launching missiles and artillery shells at Ukrainian civilians.  And if they don't like Ukraine's borders, then they should blame themselves for drawing them.  They should have to live with their decision.

[art.prout]

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."

It is well beyond "willing"

It is the intention.

[Kamaji]

Most fair?  I suggest that Russia get the hell out of Ukraine and stop launching missiles and artillery shells at Ukrainian civilians.  And if they don't like Ukraine's borders, then they should blame themselves for drawing them.  They should have to live with their decision.

[Right_in_Virginia]

It is well beyond "willing"

It is the intention.

 

Since the invasion of Ukraine our government from the top down has repeatedly called for a regime change in Russia, even calling for the assassination of its head of state.

Our government has pledged unlimited support in time, money, more and more advanced military hardware and the opposition leader in the Senate has declared this war to be the most important issue in the United States today.

We have directly countered, not on behalf of NATO,  Russian threats with our own specific to nuclear weapons.

We refuse to disavow using NATO as a threat on behalf of a non-member ---- turning NATO from a defensive alliance into an offensive one.

We support the expansion of NATO with the admission of Sweden and Finland  -- further boxing in Russia (poke, poke, poke).

We have "advisors" on the ground in Ukraine and US troops placed around Ukraine's borders ----- ready and, apparently, willing to cross them.

We refuse any attempt at negotiations, choosing instead to give a hero's welcome to a man beating the drums of war in a public forum before the most powerful political body in the world.

Our government is pleased with this war and has made it quite clear we intend to continue it.

[Hoodat]

It is well beyond "willing"

It is the intention.

Clearly, Putin is taking marching orders from Brussels.  Which NATO commander do you think ordered the attack last year?

[Kamaji]

Clearly, Putin is taking marching orders from Brussels.  Which NATO commander do you think ordered the attack last year?

[Hoodat]

Since the invasion of Ukraine our government from the top down has repeatedly called for a regime change in Russia, even calling for the assassination of its head of state.

This has zero connection with Russia's decision to invade and their continuation of this war.

Our government has pledged unlimited support in time, money, more and more advanced military hardware and the opposition leader in the Senate has declared this war to be the most important issue in the United States today.

This has zero connection with Russia's decision to invade and their purposeful continuation of this war.

We have directly countered, not on behalf of NATO,  Russian threats with our own specific to nuclear weapons.

This has zero connection with Russia's decision to invade and their purposeful continuation of this war.

We refuse to disavow using NATO as a threat on behalf of a non-member ---- turning NATO from a defensive alliance into an offensive one.

This has zero connection with Russia's decision to invade and their purposeful continuation of this war.

We support the expansion of NATO with the admission of Sweden and Finland  -- further boxing in Russia (poke, poke, poke).

This wouldn't have happened had Russia not invaded Ukraine.  Russia is the one guilty of the poking.

We have "advisors" on the ground in Ukraine and US troops placed around Ukraine's borders ----- ready and, apparently, willing to cross them.

This has zero connection with Russia's decision to invade and their purposeful continuation of this war.

We refuse any attempt at negotiations, choosing instead to give a hero's welcome to a man beating the drums of war in a public forum before the most powerful political body in the world.

Ukraine is not ours to negotiate away.  And none of this has any connection with Russia's decision to invade and their purposeful continuation of this war.

Our government is pleased with this war and has made it quite clear we intend to continue it.

This has zero connection with Russia's decision to invade and their purposeful continuation of this war.

[Right_in_Virginia]

“Your fight is our fight, 2017 will be the year of OFFENSE". (Video)


https://rumble.com/embed/vtyxeb/?pub=4




"Brutus in Russia?" (Video)


https://youtu.be/23D0w6sO36k



"Graham speaking in Kyiv: "If Putin gets away with this, there goes Taiwan. If Putin's successful in Ukraine and isn't prosecuted under international law, everything we've said since WWII becomes a joke. He will continue beyond Ukraine." (Video)

https://mobile.twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1616474706349015040

[Right_in_Virginia]

Disclose.tv
@disclosetv

JUST IN - Allies to provide "heavier weapons" to Ukraine, says NATO chief Stoltenberg at Klaus Schwab's World Economic Forum.

12:27 PM · Jan 18, 2023

[Right_in_Virginia]

Disclose.tv
@disclosetv

Henry Kissinger, Klaus Schwab's mentor, told the World Economic Forum today that Ukraine should join NATO.

1:47 PM · Jan 17, 2023

[unite for individuality]

   Quote from: art.prout on January 20, 2023, 07:37:08 am
It (both Russia and NATO) is well beyond "willing"
(to draw the world into a larger war)
It is the intention.
   /Quote

Clearly, Putin is taking marching orders from Brussels. 
Which NATO commander do you think ordered the attack last year?

Hoodat's comment appears to be intended as sarcasm,
making the point that Putin is NOT being manipulated by NATO,
but is the sole aggressor.

It looks to me like NATO and Russia BOTH deserve blame for the war.
It looks to me like BOTH of them are monsters,
each wanting to eat the other one.

In the original post, I proposed what I thought
might be a reasonable compromise.
It's really looking to me like
NEITHER side is interested in a peaceful solution.

In 2015, when Barry Soetoro, alias Barack Obama, was in office,
Russia seized Crimea.

When Trump was in office, the place stayed quiet.
(Having a reputation for being a "loose cannon"
as in, "We have no idea what sort of crazy response Trump might make!"
can deter other countries from engaging in aggression.)

Now that B.S./B.O.'s protege, Dementia Joe, is in office,
every bad actor in the world feels free to aggress all they want.

[Right_in_Virginia]

"Jeffrey Sachs: US government "definitely contributed to the overthrow of Yanukovych... I know this from inside, not just from outside. I know from top people involved in these issues." Media & self-proclaimed supporters of Ukraine would be silent.". (Video)

https://mobile.twitter.com/I_Katchanovski/status/1617369041223442433



https://youtu.be/C1EwmYbK7QA

[unite for individuality]

"Jeffrey Sachs:
US government "definitely contributed to the overthrow of Yanukovych...
I know this from inside, not just from outside.
I know from top people involved in these issues."

This is a good example of how closely linked the global ruling clique is with academia.

Jeffrey Sachs (not part of Goldman Sachs) is an economist at Columbia U.
who has been hired as a consultant by several countries around the world.

In the above post, he boasts that he personally knows the people who
overthrew the pro-Russian government in Ukraine,
which prompted Putin to invade the country.

Do not ever think that the war in Ukraine is between
the pro-democracy West and the Russian oligarchy.
It is actually a war between
the global ruling clique (the European oligarchy)
and the Russian oligarchy.

NATO can be most accurately described as
the military arm of the World Trade Organization.

The fact revealed by Jeffrey Sachs that
the U.S. government was involved in the overthrow Ukraine's government
reveals that the U.S. government, the D.C. swamp,
is a COLONY of the WTO's global empire!

More about Jeffrey Sachs -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs

[Hoodat]

In the above post, he boasts that he personally knows the people who
overthrew the pro-Russian government in Ukraine,
which prompted Putin to invade the country.

Just want to be clear about what happened.  Russia invaded Ukraine.  It is their war.  They started it.  They alone are the aggressors.  And they can end it whenever they choose.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Just want to be clear about what happened.  Russia invaded Ukraine.  It is their war.  They started it. 

Angelo Fazio
@TheLoFaz

How can so many stand for the planet, healthcare and humanity and at the same time advocate for WW3?

I get the “he started it” argument (I have a 6 year old), not grounds to fan the flames of mass destruction.

Pick one, either you want to save the world or destroy it.


9:39 AM · Jan 26, 2023

[Kamaji]

Angelo Fazio
@TheLoFaz

How can so many stand for the planet, healthcare and humanity and at the same time advocate for WW3?

I get the “he started it” argument (I have a 6 year old), not grounds to fan the flames of mass destruction.

Pick one, either you want to save the world or destroy it.


9:39 AM · Jan 26, 2023

[Right_in_Virginia]

2016--- Oliver Stone Documentary "Ukraine on Fire".  (Video)

The film premiered at the Taormina Film Festival in Italy on 16 June 2016; thereafter, it did not receive a general theatrical release but was published as DVD on 18 July 2017. Later, the documentary became available also in the video on demand market via Apple TV and Amazon Prime and since June 2021 also on YouTube.

In March 2022, it was reported that the documentary had been removed from YouTube and Vimeo. YouTube explained they "removed this video for violating our violent or graphic content policy, which prohibits content containing footage of corpses with massive injuries, such as severed limbs"; subsequently, the film was uploaded to Rumble for free viewing. As of 12 March 2022, the documentary was again available on YouTube, this time with a content warning attached.

Ron Dreher, writing for the American Conservative, gave this impression: "I expected 'Ukraine On Fire' to be propaganda, and indeed it was. But that doesn't mean it is entirely a lie, and in any case, it's important to know how the other side regards a conflict, if only to understand how they are likely thinking." He confirmed that some NGO are in the political change business as seen personally observed in Hungary and argues against a black hat vs. white hat interpretation of the situation. According to his assessment, the argument by Mearsheimer and Kennan, that the West has pushed Ukraine and Russia towards an escalating crisis, needs some consideration (not full endorsement) in order to understand the complexity of the situation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_on_Fire

https://youtu.be/kGQfiImnZHE