Nyet Means Nyet
WW III? That is the whole point of *our* proxy war in Ukraine
Secretary Rice knew no later than 2008 Feb 01 the seriousness of crossing the particular Red Line that is Ukraine, and thanks to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, We the People were made aware of it circa 2010. But not only “Condi” was informed by the Ambassador to Russia, William J. Burns; the Joint Chiefs, NATO, the National Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense were also included in the distribution.
And yet, in 2014, we decided it would be a good idea to orchestrate a coup in Ukraine. Our point person for that effort, was the truly evil Victoria Nuland, and she is still in the active “service” of her country, or perhaps better said the service of the Deep State, as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. This woman will be gone on Day One of Trump’s second term, God willing; if she’s not I will have serious doubts about Trump’s reign.
The cable advised…
NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains "an emotional and neuralgic" issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.
Bold type and italics are mine. Clearly, Burns was prescient; the civil war broke out immediately after the coup, and Russia intervened in February of 2022. So far as our state-run media is concerned, it all started with Russia’s intervention, not our coup. History doesn’t exist, when its inconvenient facts fail to support the state’s narrative.
For more on the coup, you can watch Ukraine on Fire, by Oliver Stone, on YouTube. Stone has been blacklisted by Hollywood for interviewing Putin; the same can now be said of Tucker Carlson. Both have slipped the bonds of corporate media, thankfully.
Also from the Burns’ cable…
Lavrov emphasized that Russia was convinced that enlargement was not based on security reasons, but was a legacy of the Cold War. He disputed arguments that NATO was an appropriate mechanism for helping to strengthen democratic governments. He said that Russia understood that NATO was in search of a new mission, but there was a growing tendency for new members to do and say whatever they wanted simply because they were under the NATO umbrella
In the lead-up to WW II, Britain’s “war guarantee” to Poland had the same effect; Poland did and said whatever they wanted to Hitler and Germany, knowing (or believing) Great Britain had their back, and war with Germany was the result; costing the lives of something like 6 million Poles. Without that guarantee, war between the west and Germany could very possibly been avoided. And as it turned out, Britain did not intervene on Poland’s behalf, as they did not have the continental power to do so; the “war guarantee” from Neville Chamberlin was an empty promise.
Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.
Burns reinforces the possibility of violence and civil war, which indeed happened. Russia eventually intervened.
The armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine started in 2014. Between then and early 2022, it had already killed over 14,000 people. Over the course of eight years, Ukrainian government forces fought Russian-backed separatists for control over much of the two heavily industrialised regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, also known as Donbas.
The Donbas is what it’s all about from the Russian perspective.
If Russians come to the table willing to deal, Ukraine and its partners will need a plan to mitigate the costs of the concessions that – barring an extraordinary revival of Ukraine’s battlefield fortunes – seem unavoidable. A negotiated deal between Ukraine and Russia would, for example, contain a component on land. It seems almost inevitable that Ukraine will have to accept – as it appears to have done in the spring of 2022 – at least the temporary loss of land that Russia already holds.
I suspect that any deal will result eventually in Russian control of the Donbas region they occupy.
The Interactive Map: Russia's Invasion of Ukraine shows clearly that Russia is in control of the east and southeast of Ukraine. Since that is where the Russian separatists have been fighting since 2014, and since it is consistent with Woodrow Wilson’s notion of self-determination (part of his 14 points post-WW I), this should, and will stay under Russian control, one way or the other.
So. There is long history behind all of what we see going on in the present day. For a more complete understand, consulting the history books is essential.
Having said all that.
Some 43,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed since Russia's full-scale invasion began, Volodymyr Zelensky has said in a rare admission of the extent of the nation's casualties.
In a post on social media, the Ukrainian president said 370,000 injuries had been reported, though this figure included soldiers who had been hurt more than once and some of the injuries were said to be minor.
He also claimed that 198,000 Russian soldiers had been killed and a further 550,000 wounded.
The BBC has not been able to verify either side's figures.
If we just take that at face value… though it’s probably low on the Ukrainian figures and high on the Russian, given the source, but hey…
241,000 dead
plus 14,000 dead (during the 2014-2022 civil war)
920,000 injured
All of those I’ll argue, lie at the feet of the United States; 255,000 dead, almost a million physically injured, untold numbers psychologically and morally injured. Not to mention the refugees.
Minimum.
This war should have never been started, by the U.S., and it needs to end, like Nuland, on Day One of Trump’s second term.
There are people, experts really, who I know as students of Russia and Putin. Not so much Ukraine, but it’s a community of experts. Let’s presume they are unwitting to the true stimulus driving the war there. Overwhelmingly, they’re no fans of Putin and his origins. However, it seems that he has reasons (not making allowances or excuses) for being skeptical and untrusting of the West (U.S.). Treaties seem to have legs unless someone scuttles the agreement terms. While I’m no appeaser on this issue, we’ve invested more in other places, only to abandon “the cause” (and temporary allies) for the sake of politics, and public opinion (manipulation). Seems like this is just one more sequence that warrants a “follow the money” stance to find out if the bad guys are actually who the press says they are. I’m betting it’s a twisted tale of corruption across the political ruling class. Right here.
Amen brother. My reading of the background tells me the same. Seems to me that Russia and 'the West' would be natural allies against the onslaught of Islam. Perhaps that is for future generations to work on....