“This week, with Washington rejecting two of Moscow’s three key security demands, Russian military equipment massing near the border with Ukraine and NATO “prepared for the worst,” the question dominating global affairs remains: Will Russia invade Ukraine?”
“The White House answer is a qualified yes, the Kremlin’s a qualified no. Two of Western Europe’s most powerful countries, Germany and France, seem to think Putin is bluffing; a third, the U.K., seems pretty sure he’s not. Kyiv, meanwhile, is downplaying the threat of an imminent invasion by Russia. Analysts are similarly split.” — Parsing the Evidence: Will Russia Invade Ukraine? January 27, 2022
There is an old saying that you should walk a mile in another’s shoes before you judge them. Today, we are once more on the brink of a war with Russia. For over 100 years, Russia has been the big bad boogie man for America. Nothing Russia does or says can be trusted, at least according to our politicians. It never seems to occur to people that Russians want the same thing as Americans and have the same dreams and hopes as we do.
Before I go any further, I am not a big fan of Russia or Putin. Two years ago, Karen and I had a trip scheduled to go from Paris to Moscow. We had tickets to attend the Bolshoi Ballet. Everything was ready to go and then Covid hit the world. We had to cancel our trip. We were able to get most of our money either refunded or saved in a voucher for future travel. The Bolshoi was the first to return our money for the tickets we had purchased. However, the Russian embassy was not as liberal with returning the money that we had to pay for our visas. Between the Russian and Belarus visas, we were out about 1,000 dollars.
We rescheduled a trip to Spain in 2021 with the moneys that had originally been allocated for our Russian trip. Karen wanted to go to Russia as we had planned but I was angry about not being able to get a refund for our visas and I said “F—K Russia. Putin has a reputation for being both a strong leader and a bully. Many liberals in this country blame him for helping Trump get elected. It certainly seemed to me that Putin and Trump were “kissing” cousins. I detest Trump and anyone that helped get him elected. Thus, you see my “credentials” for disliking Putin are greater than many.
With the above caveats about my Russian attitudes, I will now mention that as much as I dislike Putin, I also do not trust any motives given by Democrats or Republicans for beating the drums of war in this country. With Vietnam, it was the lies about the domino effect. Still a lie used by many to justify war. With Iraq, it was the lies about the “weapons of mass destruction.” There have been many coups in South America orchestrated by the CIA to destabilize regimes that we thought threatened American interests. Seldom does the public get any truth about these clandestine efforts. So let’s look at some facts before we decide that Russia is once more the “bad” guy in the recent Ukraine problem.
Russia is ready to go to war!
The newspapers, Biden, and our Secretary of State Blinken are all shouting to the rooftops that Putin and the Russians are poised for war. The former defense minister under President Zelenskyy from 2019 to 2020 for the Ukraine, Andrij Zagorodniuk, was interviewed by an NPR reporter the other morning and he said, “It just isn’t so!” He gave the following reasons.
- Ukrainian estimates of Soviet troop strength are too small for them to attack without serious loses. The Ukraine has nearly 280,000 combat ready troops and Russia has only 125,000 troops on the border. The Ukraine army is the third largest in Europe after the Russian and French Armed Forces.
- The Ukrainian intel shows no evidence of enough medical units necessary to support a sustained war. He does not believe that Russia would attack without medevac units available.
- He doubts that Russia would attack just before the beginning of the Olympic Games. China is a Russian ally, and they have a vested interest in the Olympics generating favorable publicity for China. If Russia attacks the Ukraine, the publicity around the Olympics would be vastly overshadowed by the news following the Russian attack.
Why has Russia massed its troops on the border of the Ukraine?
Once upon a time, there was two big alliances of countries in Europe. There was the North American Treaty Organization (NATO) and there was the Warsaw Pact. These alliances consisted of countries with treaties to protect the other members of the alliance. NATO had about 20 members and the Warsaw Pact had nine members. With the end of the Russia hegemony over much of Eastern Europe, many countries left the Warsaw Pact. Several of these former Soviet allies joined NATO. The number of NATO countries now stands at 30 members. The former Warsaw Pact has been reorganized and is now called “The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).” It consists of six member countries, the largest of which is still Russia. To say that the Warsaw Pact has been downsized would be a gross understatement.
“The CSTO is a much weaker organization in military terms than the Warsaw Pact was. According to NATO histories, in 1984 the Warsaw Pact ground forces had six million soldiers serving in 192 divisions, as compared to 4.5 million NATO soldiers serving in 115 divisions. Approximately one-third of Warsaw Pact forces were Soviet, while approximately twenty percent of NATO forces were from the United States. The Warsaw Pact also had a significant preponderance of battle tanks, artillery and attack helicopters. At present, NATO member states have a total of approximately 3.5 million soldiers, while CSTO member states’ militaries have just over one million soldiers. About 40 percent of current NATO troop strength comes from the United States, while approximately 85 percent of CSTO troop strength comes from Russia.” Russia and Collective Security: Why CSTO Is No Match for Warsaw Pact — 5-27-2020, Dimitry Gorenburg, Harvard Kennedy School for International Affairs.
So now we have the USA attempting to convince the Ukraine to join NATO. Imagine if you will Russia attempting to get Canada or Mexico or Peru or Brazil to join CSTO. What do you think we would do in the USA? Do you remember what happened with the Cuban Missile Crisis? In this event, Khrushchev went ballistic because the USA attempted to place missiles on Turkey’s borders facing Russia. Russia decided to retaliate by sending missiles to Castro who was a Russian ally. Cuba is only 90 miles from the USA border making it easy for any missiles to strike American targets.
Then President Kennedy faced off against Khrushchev. Many people think the victory went to Kennedy since Russia withdrew their missiles. What is less well known is that Kennedy withdrew our missiles in Turkey and agreed to Khrushchev’s demand that we promise not to invade Cuba. The resulting publicity in America made it look like a wild-west gun fight with the clear winner being the USA. The truth was hardly ever mentioned.
Consider the scenario we have now. Putin has made several demands in respect to protecting Russia. These demands hinge on the relationship between the Ukraine and the USA. Putin understandably does not want to see a neighbor as close as the Ukraine is to Russia become any closer to either NATO or the USA. Again, what would we do if Mexico wanted to become a Russian ally? For the USA, negotiations hinge on three key points laid out by Secretary Blinken.
“We make clear that there are core principles that we are committed to uphold and defend – including Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and the right of states to choose their own security arrangements and alliances.”
- Ukrainian sovereignty
- Ukrainian territorial integrity
- The rights of states to choose their own alliances and security arrangements
Consider these three “non” negotiable principles that we are using that could bring us to the brink of a Third World war.
First of all, when did Ukrainian sovereignty become a core principle of American politics? According to Micah Zenko who is a fellow in the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations, the USA has repeatedly violated the sovereign rights of Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We have a doctrine called the Monroe Doctrine that we have used to violate the sovereign rights of numerous countries in South America including Columbia, Peru, Honduras, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico, and many others. All of a sudden, we are concerned enough to go to war with Russia over the sovereign rights of the Ukraine?
If you look at the key points of the Monroe Doctrine you can see how hypocritical Blinken’s principles are:
“Monroe made four basic points: (1) the United States would not interfere in European affairs; (2) the United States recognized and would not interfere with existing colonies in the Americas; (3) the Western Hemisphere was closed to future colonization; and (4) if a European power tried to interfere with any nation in the Americas, that would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States.” — Brittanica
It seems that we reserve the right to meddle in the sovereign affairs of our neighbors in this hemisphere, and we also now claim the right to meddle in the sovereign affairs of neighbors in the Eastern Hemisphere. Blinken’s third principle about the rights of states to choose their own alliances is just as hypocritical and even more ludicrous. We may say that we support the rights of other nations to enact treaties and alliances, but in reality we often do everything we can to undermine these efforts.
“The United States enters into more than two-hundred treaties each year on a range of international issues, including peace, defense, human rights, and the environment. Despite this seemingly impressive figure, the United States constantly fails to sign or ratify treaties the rest of the world supports.” — On International Treaties, the United States Refuses to Play Ball, Council on Foreign Relations. — by Anya Wahal, January 7, 2022
What is really going on here?
My friend Bruce wants to know why we are pushing a policy that could potentially result in a war that ends life as we know it on earth. Is it ego, politics, economics, power, stupidity, or a combination of all of them? I honestly do not know. I do know that 2 + 2 equals 4 and that the facts of this situation are out of proportion to the potential consequences.
My friend Denny wants to know why the media is so hell bent on pushing a narrative that only looks at one side of the issues and that seems to applaud the most dangerous rhetoric possible.
All three of us want to know why there has not been more skepticism in the media towards the efforts of politicians to push this potential conflict forward. This morning on NPR I listened to an uncritical interview with some politician from Pennsylvania who thinks sending 50,000 American troops over to the Ukraine would be a good idea. According to this brainless idiot, we must “Nip it in the bud.” The old domino effect is still used to push a narrative of impending disaster if we don’t do something right now.
Is it too much to ask, to see both sides of the story? Is it too much to ask to expect to see facts and not just hyperbole being used by our elected officials? Where are the journalists that are paid to present both sides of the story? How long did it take for them to discover that there were no weapons of mass destruction? Will we be in a war over the Ukraine before the media finds the real reasons behind this conflict.
Finally and most importantly, why are there two standards at play here? We have one standard for Russia and another standard for the USA. Are the lives of our citizens so cheap that we are willing to put them on the firing line once more for a political or economic cause? Are the lives of Russians and Ukrainians so cheap that we can use them as cannon fodder for our own national objectives? What if our goals and strategies were to help both Russia and the Ukraine find ways to work together more effectively instead of becoming the middleman in a war?
If you think I am making any sense with this blog, I encourage you to share it with others and to send it to any politicians out there who may be willing to listen to reason.
“I never really thought much about it”, I replied. “I do think I care about the environment, and I do my best to support environmental efforts at conservation and sustainability. Of course, I suppose if you were judging me, you would say that I usually put my own self-interests first.”
I did not know what to say. I was speechless. I felt selfish and self-centered. I had neglected my responsivities to the planet and all of the other species who inhabited it. The earth was never more than a convenient piece of landscape that might or might not be useful to me. Air, water, and land were mere things, mere objects that I could use and dispose of to help make my life better. I might fear hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornados but I relied on science to protect me from these “natural” disasters.
