The United States is Sacrificing Ukraine
The United States is Sacrificing Ukraine
The United States is using Ukraine against Russia the same way they used the Mujahideen against the Soviet Union and for the same reason
Some people claim that the United States, along with other western governments like the United Kingdom, is fighting a proxy-war in Ukraine against Russia by providing the Ukrainian government with weapons and money. And it’s true that they are, but I think that this claim implies that the U.S. government wants or thinks that Ukraine can or will defeat Russia militarily which I don’t believe is the point. Don’t get me wrong, the Biden regime would be thrilled if Kiev was able to defeat Moscow militarily, but nobody believes that is a likely outcome. So what exactly is the United States trying to achieve in the Ukraine-Russia war if not military victory for the Ukrainians?
The U.S. government has long been aware that Ukraine joining NATO is a red-line and is considered an existential threat to the Russian government and to ethnic-Russians living in Ukraine. Thanks to WikiLeaks, we have a cable, titled NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES, written by then-U.S. Ambassador to Russia, and current CIA director, William Burns in 2008 making Russia’s position on the matter clear.
Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. 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.
Why is the United States insistent on NATO membership for Ukraine when they’ve known for years that it would likely lead to a Russian invasion of Ukraine?
In an interview with warmonger Jeffrey Goldberg near the end of his presidency, Barack Obama made what should be the obvious point that Ukraine is much more important to Russia than it is to the United States, stating, “The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-nato country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,” because America’s interest in Ukraine is “tangential” and Russia’s is not. He also made an interesting point about how the application of power actually works.
And the notion that somehow Russia is in a stronger position now, in Syria or in Ukraine, than they were before they invaded Ukraine or before he had to deploy military forces to Syria is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of power in foreign affairs or in the world generally. Real power means you can get what you want without having to exert violence. Russia was much more powerful when Ukraine looked like an independent country but was a kleptocracy that he could pull the strings on.
The invasion of Ukraine that Obama was talking about in this interview was in regards to the situation with Crimea from 2014, but how much more does this apply now that Putin has invaded the entire country of Ukraine? So, on the one hand we have Obama pointing out that Ukraine is not of particular interest to the United States, but of critical interest to Russia, and, on the other hand, that Russia is so weak that the only power they’re capable of projecting is military force.
This, I believe, is the basis of the current U.S. policy in regards to Ukraine joining NATO: Promise Ukraine NATO membership, with no intention of actually granting them membership, to provoke Russia into invading and getting bogged down in a no-win war.
CNN is reporting that this is exactly President Biden’s position on Ukraine joining NATO, despite pressure from other NATO members.
Biden and members of his administration have remained committed to the alliance’s current posture, which states Ukraine will eventually join NATO but without any certainty of when.
We can also look back at November 2022 when a missile struck Poland near the Ukrainian border killing Polish civilians. Ukraine was very quick to point their finger at Russia making the claim that Putin is now attacking NATO countries and that NATO should go to war with Russia. The U.S. government, which has not hesitated to give a blank-check to the Ukrainian government, to amplify Ukrainian propaganda, and even to assist the Ukrainian intelligence agency in trying to censor AMERICAN voices on social media, went out of their way to almost immediately cast doubt on Ukraine’s claims and to perform an investigation which proved that the missile which struck Poland was actually Ukrainian in origin. You might say that this shows that the U.S. is just being honest, but, given that they have no problem lying on Ukraine’s behalf in other matters, I think it’s just another piece of evidence that shows that the U.S. intends to help Ukraine only so much.
The reason why the U.S. won’t actually grant Ukraine NATO membership, at least not in the foreseeable future, is because if Ukraine joined NATO then the United States would be treaty-bound to come to their aid, and that would mean direct military conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia. So the Biden government is playing a dangerous game where they do just enough for the Ukrainians to keep them in the fight against Russia, but not enough to convince Russia that they have to attack the United States as well.
The problem is that the U.S. can’t actually know exactly how far it can push before Russia decides that they’ve gone too far and attacks the U.S. directly. Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, recently tweeted a threat to the United Kingdom, but, as Dave Smith pointed out in an episode of his podcast, Part of The Problem, the same would certainly apply to the United States as well.
The UK’s Foreign Secretary Cleverly has stated that Ukraine “has the legitimate right to … project force beyond its borders to undermine Russia’s ability to project force into Ukraine itself.” According to him, legitimate military targets beyond Ukraine’s border are part of its self-defence.
The goofy officials of the UK, our eternal enemy, should remember that within the framework of the universally accepted international law which regulates modern warfare, including the Hague and Geneva Conventions with their additional protocols, their state can also be qualified as being at war.
Today, the UK acts as Ukraine’s ally providing it with military aid in the form of equipment and specialists, i.e., de facto is leading an undeclared war against Russia. That being the case, any of its public officials (either military, or civil, who facilitate the war) can be considered as a legitimate military target.
Medvedev is correct; the U.K. and the U.S. have done enough to justify themselves as being considered belligerents in this war and would therefore be legitimate targets for retaliation by the Russian government.
This cynical policy by the United States is intended to hasten the collapse of Vladimir Putin’s regime in Russia. That it’s being done at the cost of countless lives, Ukrainian and Russian, soldier and civilian, is irrelevant to the sociopaths in Washington, D.C. And given the American track record on regime change in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and even Egypt, do we think this is even a worthy goal in Russia? What happens if Putin loses power and Russia’s nuclear weapons end up in the hands of someone even worse? How many more times does the United States government have to learn the lesson that it’s not God and can’t remake the world in its image?