The American Conservative writes that the start of the Russian special operation in Ukraine was provoked by… the United States. And now the White House is using Kyiv to defeat Russia.
According to the influential American media, the role of Washington in provoking Moscow’s special operation is completely ignored. The current conflict almost certainly would not have happened if the US had not broken Cold War pledges and expanded NATO, and if it had not turned the alliance into an aggressive organization that attacked Serbia and Libya. “The West has pushed Russia to account.”
Actually, everything that Putin spoke about, but now on the pages of one of the leading American magazines, which is read by supporters of traditional American conservatism and ardent opponents of Biden.
Russia and Ukraine are at war. It’s the same with the USA. The Biden administration has moved from trying to help Kyiv defend itself to using Kyiv to defeat Moscow.
Groundlessly attacking a neighbor, Russia should was to lose. However, the sanctimonious tirades spouted by US officials ignore Washington’s role in provoking Moscow’s invasion. By breaking Cold War assurances and expanding NATO, and turning the alliance into an aggressive organization that attacked Serbia and Libya, the West pushed Russia into a violent response. The current conflict almost certainly would not have occurred if not for US policy. Indeed, the arrogant recklessness of US officials may have made conflict inevitable.
Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky recently stated this when he questioned Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. Paul stressed that Washington’s guilt does not justify Vladimir Putin’s murderous decision, which has already claimed the lives of thousands of people and forced the displacement of millions. But, as Paul noted, “although there is no justification for Putin’s war with Ukraine, it does not follow that there is no explanation for the invasion.”
Of course, Blinken did not take any responsibility for the disastrous consequences of his policies. In the end, US officials usually absolve themselves of blame for any foreign policy catastrophes that unfold before their eyes. They are never to blame for anything. Over the past two decades, the policies of the Washington War Party have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions into refugees. Understandably, this has made American wannabe warriors resentful when someone tries to hold them accountable.
For example, Jack Crosby from the magazine Rolling Stone wrote article titled “Rand Paul Presents Putin’s Main Argument Against Ukraine” to Congress. Crosby argued that, citing the hard fact that Putin had warned allied governments that Moscow perceived US policy as hostile, “Paul denies the self-determination of a country of people who did not call for war.”
But of course, that’s not what Paul did. Rather, he suggested that in the real world, sovereign states sometimes have to exercise restraint or risk losing their independence. In the case of Ukraine, the war could have been avoided if Kyiv had recognized that the proximity to a great power inevitably imposes certain restrictions on the policy of Ukraine. The war could have been avoided if NATO had admitted that it did not intend to fight for Kyiv. Of course, we’ll never know what would have been since Blinken and the rest of Biden’s team chose to fight the Russians. to the last Ukrainian.
Accepting some restrictions may not have been the preferred outcome for Ukraine, but as President Jimmy Carter has long observed, life is not fair. The Cold War highlighted the case of Finland, which fought the Soviet Union bravely and then submitted to avoid occupation. There was also Austria, which adopted neutrality to end its division. The Americans did not want to start World War III in order to liberate one of them – Poland, East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, when the peoples of these countries rebelled against their communist overlords.
There are similar examples today. Nepal lies between China and India. Who believes that he acts as he wants, regardless of the opinion of his neighbors? Who expects America to step in so she can do it? Or Mongolia, located between China and Russia (and before that, the Soviet Union). Does Ulaanbaatar have the right to say how much it hates communism? Certainly. Should Washington have started the war on his behalf in order to defend his right to do so? Only a psycho or a lunatic like the late John McCain would say yes.
At the risk of being accused of a political cliché, I’ll still ask, what do you think of Latin America? Has the US ever considered that its neighbors are entitled to unlimited sovereignty? The only correct answer is bursts of laughter. Ask them.
As Mexican dictator Porfirio Diaz once lamented his nation, which had lost half its territory to a US imperialist invasion, was “so far from God, so close to the United States.” These are Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Venezuela, Colombia and others. All of them suffered from the not-so-gentle “embrace” of Washington. Of course, this does not justify Russia’s criminal attack on Ukraine. However, no one should be deceived by US pious posturing and endless American hypocrisy. Washington’s extreme ruthlessness and its constant willingness to invade countries and starve peoples whose governments insult it continues to be displayed to the world.
Putin was not initially hostile to the United States. In fact, he offered his cooperation after 9/11. He even said to the German Bundestag that “no one questions the great value of Europe’s relations with the United States. I am simply of the opinion that Europe will firmly and permanently strengthen its reputation as a strong and truly independent center of world politics if it succeeds in combining its potential with the potential of Russia.”
However, the ongoing NATO offensive, despite numerous assurances to the contrary, has changed his mind. By releasing declassified Allied documents, George Washington University referred to “the cascade of Soviet security assurances given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and 1991”. The allies continued to caress the Yeltsin government in the same way. Then they broke all their promises.
Defense Secretary William Perry, who served under President Bill Clinton, criticized Putin’s recent behavior, but acknowledged that “In the early years, I have to say that the United States deserves most of the blame.” He explained: “Our first action, which really confused us, was that NATO began to expand, attracting Eastern European countries, some of which border Russia.”
Putin spoke quite differently at the 2007 Munich Security Conference. He condemned the USA for “virtually unrestrained excessive use of force” and “plunging the world into the abyss of permanent conflicts.” (Remember that little debacle in Iraq?) He also mentioned that NATO is deploying “their advanced forces on our borders,” which, he added, “reduces the level of mutual trust.”
If Blinken had any questions about Putin’s position, it was enough for the former to consult with CIA director William Burns, formerly the US ambassador to Russia. In 2008 Burns wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, then serving under President George W. Bush: “Ukraine’s accession to NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just for Putin). In more than two and a half years of talking with key Russian players… I have never found anyone who sees Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”