Shortly before his re-election in 2012, President Obama was caught in an open mic moment assuring Russian surrogate president Dmitry Medvedev that, Obama, he would have total control over the location of Nato missiles once he was back in the White House for another four years.
Obama asked Medvedev to pass this on to Vladimir Putin, then poised to begin a second spell as Russian President. The American President hinted that he believed Moscow’s security grievances about NATO expansion were legitimate.
The Obama administration went on to engineer the coup which overthrew the pro-Russian government of Ukraine in 2014 and replaced them with a far right, Russophobic loose coalition of nationalists, EU supporters and neo - Nazis. Fearing that Ukraine might join NATO as Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Chechia, Hungary, Romania and several other Warsaw Pact nations had. Once back in charge Putin seized Ukrainian Crimea, allegedly in retaliation for the new Ukrainan government's persecution of Russian speaking minorities in Ukraine and to secure Russian control of Sebastapol, the main base of his Black Sea navy.
We question the mainstream narrative's claim that the annexation of Crimea was 'In retaliation' for anything. As this blog's contributors understand the history of that event the Russian speaking occupants of Crimea that voted to re-establish their direct connection to Russia, with 90% expressing the wish to be part of Russia rather than the new Ukraine. Was Putin going to refuse such a gift?
It seems mainstream media are looking sideways at each other as to how to spin the current situation in Ukraine, as it clearly is not following their narrative upheld so vehemently for so long. Militarily Russia holds a winning hand. Politically there are 'Jokers' in the pack, supported by a West that has an inbred hatred of anything Russian that stems from even before the 'Cold War'.
There is much the West did not understand about Ukraine in 2014 and still does not understand now:
After making warlike noises Obama accepted Putin's fait accompli rather than risk conflict with Russia over NATO expansionism. Instead, a low-level war broke out in eastern Ukraine where the Russian-speaking majority sought autonomy.
Dribbling, demented Joe Biden took office inheriting from both Obama and Donald Trump a source of permanent discord that Moscow called an existential threat which it would not tolerate.
Although he has mainly followed his mentor’s policies, something changed in the attitude to Putin of Biden’s foreign policy team, most of whom had served under Obama and had shied from confrontation over Crimea. The thinking seemed to have become some version of: let’s neutralise the Russians by just ignoring them.
As a result of his inability to force the US into serious negotiations, Putin has waged war on Ukraine since February. The Obama doctrine of caution has been replaced by a gauntlet thrown down to Putin.
Now that the Swedes and Finns have sumitted their applications to join NATO,only Turkey’s threatened veto can prevent them, and once they sign up to the mutual defence treaty a line will have been crossed that will not be acceptable to Russian foreign policy or military strategy officials.
Admitting them to the alliance adds 800 miles of Finnish border with Russia for the potential deployment of Nato missiles and troops. It pushes Putin deeper into confrontation with the west and seriously complicates the prospect of ending the war in Ukraine soon.
How far does Nato expect Putin to swallow this enlargement on top of the one he is fighting in Ukraine to prevent? To what extent do we in the West trust in the ability of Biden to force him to do so without risking an incalculable wider conflict?
As the threat of escalation beyond Ukraine's bordersd mounts between NATO and Russia, it is clear that Biden blundered badly last year when he paid scant attention to Putin’s attempts to force the US into constructive talks, backed up with a military mobilisation on the Ukrainian border.
The Presidents held two summits in 2021 with Ukraine on the agenda. They met in person in Geneva in June and conferred by video conference in December without apparent progress.
The same month, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov formally laid out Moscow’s basic demands for the withdrawal of Nato forward forces from alliance members bordering Russia and irreversible denial of Nato membership to Ukraine.
When US and Russian envoys met in Geneva in January, the Americans said no more than that some of Nato’s deployments might be discussed but refused to budge on Ukraine. Since there was no follow-up, Putin struck into Ukraine on February 24. His forces are now sitting on their gains, undeterred by sanctions and the supply of western weapons and military hardware so that the Krazies in Kiev can keep the war going.
While the entire West accused the Russians of unprovoked aggression, even Pope Francis suggested to the Corriere della Sera that it may have overreached. He said the ‘barking of NATO at Russia’s door’ may have forced Putin to invade after parading his army so demonstrably on the border.
It is possible that this is exactly what Washington wanted all along, knowing in advance how much resistance the Ukrainians, whom they advised and armed, were prepared to put up. When the war began, US media quoted an anonymous US official as saying that ‘now we’ve got him where we want him’ – clearly an unprovoked aggressor, depending on how the lack of provocation was defined in a broader context.
In fact the Russian incursion into Ukrainian territory has been marked by its restraint. Where western military interventions have been typified by heavy, indiscriminate missile and artillery bombardment, air strikes and carpet bombing, Russia's formidable air force has stayed on the ground and attacks by ground forces have been focused on cities known to be strongholds of the anti - Russian Azov regiments.
The real danger here is that Putin's restraint is being seen as weakness. Driven only by money and power, as the globalists are - without a moral value to be seen, and the dribbling Biden is of course their creature - the idea of conducting hostilities with a view to minimising civilian casualties is simply not understood.
Had Putin conducted a blitzkreig on Galicia and reduced the place to ashes the queue to join NATO would not be there. The danger is that this failure to see the values driving the Russian position will eventually result in a reaction of massive reaction. The defeat of Ukraine is already a reality - no amount of war - glorifying propaganda or media yapping will alter that, and our disgusting Johnson regime has shamed every Briton and the name of humanity with its toadying to the globalist agenda.
What happens is that countries like Finland and Sweden ask to join NATO because they are scared of Russia smashing them up as it is now doing to Ukraine.
Has Russia the manpower or resources to do that ? I do not think so. It looks like a fantasy to me. Both countries have an excellent army and are well prepared. To attack Russia would have to have won in Ukraine and rebuilt it's army. In the case of Sweden I fail to grasp why they have given up decades of neutrality. Other than the way the Europeans seem now to be driven by emotion rather than common sense.
Everything suits China now. The West is weak and financially bankrupt.
The sanctioning of Russia and the seizure of Russian overseas reserves
might have been ordered by the CCP. It was dumb.
China can now tell the unaligned world that the West is untrustworthy. The target for now is the removal of the USD as the reserve currency. If the petrodollar can be removed all the better. We are in danger. Not from China which has no need for a war to obtain dominance but from an angered US watching it's position in the world undermined.
The Democrat administration in Washington is a bunch of idiots who think their mission is to impose 'woke' ideology on the world, led by a President in the middle stages of dementia who is unable to grasp the simplest concept of strategy. In Europe we have completely given up on rational thought. Boris Johnson is an embarrassment but no more so than any other Nato leader.
'Russia was not a European threat until Nato asked Ukraine to join'
Technically speaking NATO does not issue invitations to prospective new members. But the governments of some individual members do encourage the governments of some non-members to apply to join, a process that is probably with the approval of NATO officials.
The US and UK wanted and schemed for exactly this to happen. Good for their MICs, OGMCs and bad for Europe, in particular Germany.
What's not to like?
Unfortunately they 'forgot' that Russia would then team up with China,
India&co and that their illegal confiscations would lead to
de-dollarization and its serious consequences.
Finland&Sweden going into NATO will only have one security consequence, the same as bases in Eastern Europe have: an increased risk of an accidental nuclear launch.
As for the idiotic, suicidal politicians, media and public in Europe and in particular Germany, who cannot or do not want to see that they are just being fleeced and taken for a ride by the Americans and Brits who have opposing national intetests here, they can't be helped.
NATO was established to counter the threat of the Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact. When the Soviet Union fell apart between 1989-1991 that threat was removed. A diminished Russia posed no real threat in terms of expansionism, so NATO became a force for globalist imperialism, expanded remorselessly and mercilessly crushed any regime that became an obstacle to its geolpolitical ambitions. The idea that any Russian leader would accept the loss of his main naval port is insane. Talk of admitting Ukraine into NATO was nothing other than an outright declaration of war against Russia.