Military Action Should Always Be Condemned, But This Could Have Been Avoided
It should not be neglected that U.S. interventionism, NATO expansion, and western power preservation have caused this.
No act of military action can be justified from a global power.
There is much to decry about the any nation using military force, but so much on the part of the United States and NATO expansion that lead up to this cannot and should not be neglected. Nor can the role of shifting global polarity.
But neglected it was by the corporate media apparatus that has bent over backwards to beat the drum in Russia's face for the last eight years. The concept of fighting Russia in Ukraine so "we don’t have to fight Russia here" has been running throughout the veins of the Washington establishment for a considerable amount of time now, and it's another continuation in a legacy—from Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq—of reckless interventionism.
Despite Durham's report from a few weeks ago, The New Cold War is only ramping up, propaganda and all. It's disgusting that the people who benefit from these endorsements of precariousness are the people who have steered this country into one senseless military intervention after the other, reaping the rewards while the lethal consequences are imposed on others, often innocent.
To the media and to so many DC ghouls, Russia's invasion is akin to Hitler. This is beginning to cause many to question whether or not anyone knows anything about history if all they can do is compare things to Hitler and World War II. . . Spare us your Pearl Harbor comparisons, your Churchill veneration, your romanticization of war. . .
But of course, the media doesn't know a whole lot about history. Worse, they have no interest in it. That's clear regarding this whole matter.
It slipped the media's mind to ever consider the diplomatic promise made in 1990 during negotiations between the U.S., European nations and the dissolving Soviet Union. Part of the main goal was focused on the reunification of Germany and its integration into NATO. It was something Gorbachev was open to agreeing to on the condition that some assurances be met regarding the so called defensive alliance, of which included a pledge not to expand it's reach any further eastward— a pledge that was being accepted early on by European leaders, and one ultimately made to Gorbachev.
Then-US Secretary of State James Baker had agreed with Gorbachev early in the year that such expansion is "unacceptable," saying that the goal was not to "extract any unilateral advantages from the processes." Later in the year Baker explicitly told Gorbachev that the west was "interested in building a stable Europe, and doing it together with [Russia]."
Though no formal treaties were written up to honor the agreement, Gorbachev, according to former CIA director Robert Gates, was "led to believe" his assurances would be met. Gates in 2000 criticized the choice of "pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward, when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen."
Baker's notes expressed that he and his side had understood the agreement in a note from the discussions at the time, clearly writing that the "end result" would consist of a unified German state "anchored [politically] in NATO— whose [jurisdiction] would not move eastward." Likewise, Gorbachev was certainly open to the opportunities this would bring in terms of Russia's independent ability to integrate into Europe, something it knew was a priority economically.
And President Bush—when there were conflicting opinions between the State Department and the always aggressive Department of Defense—agreed with Baker and company that expansion of NATO would be bad because it would not be in their best interest to organize "an anti-Soviet coalition" along Russia's western border because it would only create and/or heighten any tensions. Apparently, that's what the Russians heard when they decided to agree.
And yet, the push to expand NATO towards the east has constantly been pursued in the last decade or so.
Beyond promises made three decades ago, the media was pretty clueless about recent history— just as they were when they reported it.
In early 2014 the democratically-elected president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych was ousted from power in what was a US-backed coup.
The "pro-Russian" Yanukovych was supposed to sign a "far-reaching" association agreement with the European Union in November 2013. He paused the signing despite the economic interests in generating closer ties to the EU, and the reason was tied to concerns centering around security because Yanukovych would have to cut pensions and energy subsidies. The result was the Maidan coup.
As Professor Richard Sakwa said, the Maidan occupation began as legitimate protests—there was actual corruption for people to be angry about—but transformed into a revolution that was overtaken by far-right elements backed by State Department actors like Victoria Nuland, Jake Sullivan (both currently in the Biden administration) and other Western leaders.
In February 2014, a shooting occurred in the square in Kiev where it was reported that Yanukovych's Berkut police shot at the demonstrators. The conclusions of the mainstream narrative has been disproven. The shooting was carried out by the extremist militants in the insurgency, backed by the west, who rejected the EU deal that was set to be signed that day.
As a result of the immediate aftermath of having things pinned on him, Yanukovych fled Ukraine. With one year left in his term—with an opportunity to change things democratically in the country—the president was forced out of power. What followed was the installation of new neo-nationalist movement into power with DC's hands all over it.
That is a coup.
So much for defending democracy.
The new government wanted to alter some agreements, chief among them was the one centered on the Sevastopol Naval Base in the Crimea peninsula, the home of Russia's Black Sea Fleet where Russia was paying a lease to occupy. Seeing this as potentially the biggest Russian loss in many, many years, Putin was furious.
The western-backed, newly-installed Ukrainian government was outright threatening to expel Russian troops and snag one of the most prized assets of a historically paranoid country. The result was Russia's annexation of Crimea.
In 2014 and 2015, a series of trilateral agreements knowns as the Minsk accords which were two attempts to secure peace and stability. The goal of the Minsk agreements was to return the Donbas to Ukrainian sovereignty in return for their own autonomy. That was the Minsk agenda all the way up until Putin recognized the two self-proclaimed people's republics in the Donbas last weekend, making the accords obsolete.
Then-Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko, in post-coup Ukraine at the time of the Minsk agreements, was an asset of the U.S. and the west, and the peaceful resolutions of Minsk were never pursued by Ukraine.
Fast forward to 2019 and Volodymer Zelensky, the former comedian, is elected president of Ukraine on a peaceful platform promising dialogue with Russia.
At the Normandy Format with Merkel and Macron in late 2019, Putin and Zelensky sat down and spoke, making progress. But those militants blockading Maidan held the Ukrainian government hostage, thus beginning the beginning of Zelensky's transformation into a puppet of the west.
Zelensky had sought another Normandy Format-type talk with Putin later in 2021, but after what had happened to the previous ones where the substance was flimsy and pushed around by militants, Putin was justifiably skeptical and instead wanted serious discussions that were unhindered by outside forces, including the U.S.
Before 2021 could even come to an end, talks of potential Russian aggression was brought up in the news, heightening tensions. Macron wanted another Normandy-style talk as well, and managed to arrange one, but no progress was made— clearly the U.S. still had their hands on Ukraine.
The first month or two of this year were nothing but claims of Russian coups or false flag operations being floated around baselessly, calls for lethal aid being chanted and fulfilled, and yet, through it all, western promotion and training of neo-nazi groups like the Azov Battalion were purposely ignored along with the history that would have contradicted the authoritative narrative.
That authoritative narrative is "deterring" of Russia, ostensibly by ignoring calls for more dialogue and pleas from all around Europe to stop stoking the flames.
In ignoring history, in pushing a precarious situation to the edge, they deliberately crossed the one simple red-line Putin offered that would have cleared everything up: say Ukraine will not join NATO. And now U.S. "deterrence" has made this crisis possible.
Again, Putin was wrong to use military aggression, but to say he wasn't pushed into a corner would be dishonest. It's absurd to hear President Biden say that "Russia alone is responsible," when the U.S. was the lone party—aside from the UK as well—that was not interested in a diplomatic solution.
It's even more unbearable to hear that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg have the nerve to say this move is a threat to European security when the aggressive agenda of his organization was and is the biggest detriment to European security.
But why push on the gas so forcefully in the direction of heightening tensions to the point where a hyper-nationalist government like Russia would act out like a wounded animal?
For one, the U.S. needs a new feeding ground for war profiteering, especially six months removed from the withdrawal of Afghanistan. Saudi purchases to assault Yemen can only take weapons manufacturers, lobbyists, and politicians so far.
Another reason is that the world's power order is shifting, and the trends don't favor U.S. imperial power.
Earlier this month China and Russia signed a joint statement of "multipolarity," the goal being an attempt to cooperate in order to "redistribute" power in the world that is heavily influenced by U.S. hegemony. China refused to call this recent move—which came after the conclusion of the Olympics in Beijing—an invasion.
China is forming partnerships all over the globe, particularly in the global south. Their Belt and Road Initiative is offering economic partnerships that include infrastructure projects, and the list of partners is constantly growing.
If this is an attempt to prevent the world from steering to a multipolar reality, it is frightening that it is being pursued through such aggressive means. This sort of conflict in Ukraine can snowball into a terrifying conflict that can implicate the whole planet. This is, as many have already noted, a loss for the whole planet.
There is no defense for Putin, his military force and jailing of anti-war demonstrators is terrible, but this really all could have been avoided. And the potential reasons as to why things are being pushed in this direction are absurd and call into question everything the U.S. government purports to stand up for.
All one can hope is that level heads prevail, that nothing escalates too quickly, needlessly. All one can do is hope for the best, because the U.S.-NATO masters of war got what they wanted.
While The Huxleyan intends to remain free to the public, there are paid subscription offers (which would be more of a donation than receiving access to anything in particular) at $5/month, or $45/year. As always, donations are welcome and appreciated via Venmo (@john-pongratz). Again, as those are just options, everything remains free. Thank you for reading and be sure to subscribe, comment, and share!