The attacker reasons: Your assault on me is always unprovoked, whatever I did; but my assault on you was provoked by your highly threatening and provocative action of existing.
We Jews know all about it. By existing we have provoked many monsters.
Other monsters take that to be proof that we have done something terrible (in addition to existing) for which documentation or other evidence is mysteriously always lacking. Probably due to a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to cover it up. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Back in the day Mr. Orwell, in an essay titled “Antisemitism in Britain,” made just this point. He said that many British people, not incorrectly, viewed the Jews as the only people who, without a shadow of a doubt, stood to benefit from the defeat of Nazi Germany. And this was taken as proof that the Jews in some manner were responsible for the war.
That the victims are guilty of their own victimization and ought not to protest against it is really the essence of antisemitism.
Acknowledging Ukraine is far from perfect, it’s still quite easy to pick the right side in this one. It’s been that way from day one of this conflict. The far right baffles me with their support of Putin, not unlike the far left’s support of Hamas. I guess the lesson is ‘stay off the fringes and use your head’. The answers / choices are straightforward - no need to look nuance.
- side note: I always enjoy your word selection Mr. Gregg. I will find a way to use “viperous” tomorrow, somehow.
When the Soviets crushed rebellions in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, the USA stayed out of it. It was considered to be not our business and not our problem. I have never heard any criticisms of those decisions as the wrong thing to do.
Also - and I have never heard an answer to this - throughout the entire Cold War, the Ukraine was under the complete control of the USSR. This was not in any way a threat to the US or Western Europe. We had strong borders, strong economies, strong militaries, and the Ukraine was irrelevant to our well-being.
That area is not vital to our security and never has been.
It is vital to Russia's security. Russia has been invaded three times in modern history, twice by the Germans and once by the French, and they are very suspicious of Western intentions - given the clear and obvious expansion of NATO, and then the attempt to bring Ukraine into the Western orbit. That shows a clear and unmistakable pattern.
Personally, I believe that if the USA had adopted a complete hands off policy toward the Ukraine, and not interfered in their electoral process to get a pro-western regime in power, not tried to bring Ukraine into the Western orbit, and just left things alone, there would have been no war at all, the Ukrainians would be living ordinary lives today with a great deal of local autonomy, and Putin would have been satisfied with that.
Just my opinion.
Oh, and I have zero faith in the foreign policy expertise of Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and the State Department and Pentagon geniuses who failed in Iraq, failed in Afghanistan, and failed in Vietnam.
Joe Biden was fighting to defend territorial sovereignty and democracy in the Ukraine while working to diligently undermine those same things in our own country.
Oh, please! Who’s going to invade Russia through Ukraine? NATO? Obviously not. There is no threat to Russia from that quarter. The claim that there is such a threat is nothing but b.s. Putinist propaganda. Putin’s problem with NATO is that it stands athwart his ambition to recreate the old Russian imperium. That’s the real security threat in Europe at the present time. Putin has made no secret of his belief that Ukraine is a fake country that has no right to exist and should be part of Russia. And in that, he’s channeling his role model, J.V. Stalin:
"Oh, please! Who’s going to invade Russia through Ukraine? NATO? Obviously not. There is no threat to Russia from that quarter. The claim that there is such a threat is nothing but b.s. Putinist propaganda."
In 1789 France was no threat to Russia. Then a lot of completely unexpected and unpredictable changes happened and a very short time later French troops were in Russia in a way no one could have foreseen.
In 1913 Europe was at peace. Then, in a sudden reversal, Europe was at war and in no time German armies were in the Ukraine.
In 1929 Germany was militarily weak, and in a friendly relationship with Russia. There was no threat from Germany at all, none – and a mere twelve years later German soldiers were in Russia.
A statesman would have to be very stupid and completely ignorant of history to say “Everything is fine now, so I have no need whatever to be concerned about this strategically important territory and who controls it.”
Also, you ignored my points
• about the USA not getting involved with Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. Not our business, not our problem. It is not the duty of the US government to spread democracy throughout the world.
• about Russia’s control of the Ukraine during the Cold War having nothing at all to do with our security or well-being. The Ukraine is strategically vital to Russia, and has been invaded twice in the last century. It is vital to them, but not to us.
• I have zero faith in the foreign policy expertise of Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and the State Department and Pentagon geniuses who failed in Iraq, failed in Afghanistan, and failed in Vietnam. Do you?
• Joe Biden was fighting to defend territorial sovereignty and democracy in the Ukraine while working to diligently undermine those same things in our own country.
Say what you like about Putin. He is a bad guy, but he is not stupid, and he has every reason to be suspicious of a policy of obvious encirclement and advancement, especially given Western leaders proven track record of lying about not wanting to expand NATO.
Putin’s problem with NATO is its obvious expansionist tendencies. And if the EU does get its own military force independent of NATO, as has been talked about, getting control of the Ukraine and bringing it into the Western orbit – as is happening now – could put western armies directly on Russia’s border. And we do not have the faintest idea of what Europe might be like in 20 years.
I do not believe Putin is the next Hitler, thirsting to attack Belgium and Holland. A greater threat to Europe is their own leadership. The Germans and the British are destroying democracy and the economies and the social structure in their own countries. The Europeans themselves are a much greater threat to England and Germany than Putin is.
And what right does the Ukraine have to claim Crimea? Wasn’t it historically a part of Russia for centuries, until Khrushchev made an administrative change?
Perhaps Zelensky also has territorial ambitions.
" The West Ukrainian People's Republic was proclaimed on November 13, 1918, with Lviv as its capital.
"The timing of proclamation of the Republic caught the Polish ethnic population and administration by surprise. The new Ukrainian Republic claimed sovereignty over Eastern Galicia, including the Carpathians up to the city of Nowy Sącz in the West, as well as Volhynia, Carpathian Ruthenia and Bukovina (the last two territories were also claimed by Hungary and Romania respectively) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Ukrainian_War
I looked at your link about the horrors of Stalin and the Holodomor. It is not hard to understand why the Ukrainians hate the Russians and want to be independent. That does not mean we have to give Zelensky billions. There are people starving in the Sudan today, millions starved in China, history is full of horrors. And my understanding is that before the recent war the Ukraine was not doing badly, people were living normal lives.
The first time was that France did not suddenly appear in Russia, but for 15 years the French fought with Russian troops in the heart of Europe. The Italian campaign of 1799 and the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805 were not in Russia, and it was Napoleon who feared constant threats from Russia, not the other way around.
The second time you were wrong was when you decided that Germany attacked Russia during World War I.
In fact, Russia entered World War I first, declaring war on Austria-Hungary, and Germany declared war on Russia as an ally of Austria-Hungary. The desire of all empires to fight was common, and Russia was in no way a victim of the attack.
The third time you were wrong was when you missed the fact that from September 1939 to June 22, 1941 the USSR fought on the side of Germany and, together with Germany, captured part of Poland.
You stated that I was wrong about my historical analysis in the comment above, but you did not object to other points. Does that mean you agree with the following statements?
(1) A statesman would have to be very stupid and completely ignorant of history to say “Everything is fine now, so I have no need whatever to be concerned about this strategically important territory and who controls it.”
(2) The USA did not get involved with Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. It was not our business, not our problem. It is not the duty of the US government to spread democracy throughout the world.
(3) Russia’s control of the Ukraine during the Cold War had nothing at all to do with our security or well-being.
(4) I have zero faith in the foreign policy expertise of Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and the State Department and Pentagon geniuses who failed in Iraq, failed in Afghanistan, and failed in Vietnam.
(5) Joe Biden was fighting to defend territorial sovereignty and “democracy” in the Ukraine while working to diligently undermine those same things in our own country.
Of course, you may not have responded to them for other reasons than agreement. Just asking.
About your closing statement that none of the three invasions of Russia (two of them involving the Ukraine) just happened in a vacuum, everyone knows major historical events do not happen in a vacuum.
Charles Lindbergh’s flight across the Atlantic did not just happen in a vacuum. It was preceded by decades of developments in aeronautical technology.
The Beatles’ North American tour in 1964 did not just happen in a vacuum, but was preceded not only by their many hours of practicing and performing, but also by decades of building the infrastructure of broadcasting and performing necessary for that success.
When it comes to Napoleon, I did not just say he “suddenly appeared.” I said that in 1789, no one expected that the French Revolution would give birth to a dictator who would launch glorious campaigns of conquest. No one predicted that a very short time later, French armies would be invading Egypt, Spain, Prussia, Italy, Austria and Russia.
Once things happen, their causes can be discerned and explained, but they are not usually predictable in advance. That was my point - that the future is unpredictable. We do not have certain and sure knowledge of what Europe might be like fifty or even twenty years from now. So, even if NATO is not a threat to Russia now – which can be debated, given their obvious policy of advance and encirclement, which looks very menacing to hostile and suspicious people like the Russians – even if NATO is genuinely not a threat now, there is no telling what might happen. Twice in modern history chaos in Europe has led to dictatorship followed by aggressive campaigns of conquest. Who can say that what has happened twice cannot happen a third time?
What if the US suffers major economic collapse in the next few decades and pulls all of its troops out of Europe? If European social problems lead to the rise of another strongman, with European control of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Ukraine, Russia will be in serious trouble.
Does that sound fantastic and ridiculous? In 1925, what later happened under Hitler would have sounded fantastic and ridiculous. In 1789, what later happened under Napoleon would have sounded fantastic and impossible.
Israel completed its withdrawal from the Sinai in 1982. A short 29 years later, in 2011, the unexpected Arab Spring came, and then Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood is in power in Egypt (no, not out of nowhere, the Muslim Brotherhood had been active for years). Who expected that? What if Morsi had stayed in power – wouldn’t the Israelis have regretted giving up the Sinai?
Just to say “Things are peaceful now, therefore we can afford to relinquish control of this valuable territory” is incredibly stupid (I believe Begin wanted to keep the Sinai for that reason, but was forced to give it up due to heavy American pressure).
About Napoleon fearing threats from Russia, so he had to attack – that’s why Napoleon attacked Prussia, Spain and Austria, and would have attacked England as well if he could have gotten across the Channel. Those people were obstacles to his dreams of imperial glory, so naturally he had to attack them in defense of his own glorious empire.
In the Napoleonic wars, Russia was involved in Europe in cooperation with Austria, England and Prussia, and when the war was over withdrew from Western Europe completely.
About WW2, I did not miss the obvious and well-known fact that from September 1939 to June 22, 1941 the USSR fought on the side of Germany and, together with Germany, captured part of Poland.
My point was, that in 1925, Hitler was on the lunatic fringe doing very poorly in elections. No one dreamed that such a short time later he would be wielding the most powerful army the world had ever seen and invading Russia. My point, which I thought was a simple and obvious one, was that we cannot predict the future.
How and why the Germans came to invade Russia in 1941 is completely irrelevant to the fact that it could not have been predicted a mere twenty years before.
The same with WWI. The historical origins of that war are complex, as everyone knows.
Russia had a treaty with France, because France and England and Russia were all concerned about Germany’s increasing military power. Germany declared war on Russia because Russia refused to demobilize . . . all of that background information is irrelevant to my main point.
By the way, when Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary, it was not entering World War I because that war did not yet exist. Russia was entering a Balkan conflict, which might have stayed a Balkan conflict if Germany had not given its famous blank check to the Austro-Hungarians. The American ambassador to Germany at that time, James Gerard, wrote a book on his experiences (My Four Years in Germany). He blamed Germany’s powerful military ethos which glorified war, and made the German leadership positively eager for war.
The point is, that twice in modern times Russia has been invaded through the Ukraine, which is important to them strategically. In terms of naked power politics, Putin does not want to see Ukraine become a member NATO. That is the main cause of the war in my opinion, a war that would never have occurred if a concerted attempt had not been made to bring the Ukraine into the Western camp.
I understand why the Ukrainians want to be independent. I just believe it is not America’s calling to save the world.
I simply drew your attention to the errors that were at the heart of your arguments.
Besides them, I disagree with some of your assumptions and arguments.
But that is not the point at all. If we now begin to sort out historical and logical errors, it will only lead us further from the essence of the conversation.
Therefore, I will tell you what I fundamentally disagree with you on. And this is not a subject of dispute, these are simply two different approaches to how we see the situation.
I can understand the reasons for your unwillingness for the United States to interfere in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, for the United States to interfere in intra-European affairs. You yourself have clearly outlined this by saying that this does not bring benefits and does not affect the security of the United States. I understand this completely and accept your point of view. And if you had limited yourself to this explanation, I would have had no reason to object. The American does not want his country to get involved in the affairs of Europe, Russia, Ukraine. Simple and clear, and I, a non-American, have no reason to object if an American has such an opinion. Only another American might consider your opinion not far-sighted, reasonable, or advantageous enough.
But what you are doing is different. You are starting to reason exactly like Putin's ideologists and propagandists. You are starting to look at the situation from the outside, what could happen if Russian interests are infringed. All these historical exercises are needed to justify how Russia is behaving.
All your stories about how "unexpectedly" something can change in the world lead us to the fact that we need to give Russia what it thinks belongs to it, and then it will leave the whole world alone. All your explanations seem like a mixture of Russian propaganda, Chamberlain's policy, and fairly healthy and largely justified isolationism.
Not to mention that we have different views on what is happening in Europe. For some reason you think that NATO is trying to expand and get closer to the borders of Russia, and I think that countries bordering Russia are trying to join NATO for security reasons. For some reason you think that Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Romania do not deserve to exist (okay, even if you think that they do), and you can give them over to Russia's influence, because you think that it has always been like that and it was good (okay, you don't think that it is good). For some reason you are sure that "Putin is not Hitler", and you are right, they are two different people, but their aspirations, methods and actions are so similar that it is already difficult not to see it. I still have many differences with your views, but I stopped at those that are most significant and close to this topic.
Thanks for your interesting and informative comments. That is one thing I value about Substack – the opportunity to have substantive conversations.
That having been said, I have been thinking it was a mistake for me to get involved in this kind of debate. There are more important things in life than politics and foreign policy, and these are not the questions I usually write about (as a glance at my Substack page will show).
So, I could stop here, and may make this my last post on the subject, but I would like to point out that I am not an isolationist.
Eisenhower did not get involved in Hungary in 1956, but he was in no sense an isolationist.
I recognize China, Iran, and Islamic fundamentalism as being real threats to the USA, in a way that the Russian domination of the Ukraine or the invasion of Crimea are not. I recognize the need for a strong military, and am not opposed to NATO in principle – though countries that do not want to pay their full share should be expelled or heavily penalized.
I support American aid to Israel in principle, and thought the American government should have supported Israel in a full-on assault to completely crush Hamas as quickly as possible.
Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and a joint strike by America and Israel should permanently terminate their entire nuclear program. This should have been done a long time ago – and it is very sad that America’s offensive capability and credibility was so sadly debilitated in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, all to no purpose.
Neither am I an isolationist who says we should stay out of European affairs. It was not wrong of the US to be involved in WW 1 and 2, to set up NATO, to implement the Marshall Plan and aid in the reconstruction of Japan. But this does not mean I have to support any and all foreign ventures, and it seems to me very clear, undeniable in fact, that if America had stayed out of the Ukraine, not worked to install a pro-Western president, and then obviously sought to bring the Ukraine into the Western camp, there would have been no war at all. The Ukrainians could have continued under the thumb of Russia in matters of foreign policy, but with a great deal of local autonomy, and no one would have been the worse for it.
About Putin’s ideologists and propagandists, I think the US has no business in the Ukraine, and I think Western meddling led Putin to go to war to keep the Ukraine from becoming a NATO outpost. This does not mean he was forced to go to war or that he had no choice, he had a choice, and decided after warning in advance that he would not tolerate the Ukraine being converted into a NATO ally.
I used historical examples to make the obvious point that the Ukraine is strategically important to Russia and it is elementary power politics, of the sort practiced by the Romans and by many other countries in history, to want to keep control of strategic territory on one’s borders.
I only used historical examples to counter the statement that “NATO is no threat at all to Russia.” Even if there is no immediate threat to Russia now, there is no telling what the situation might be twenty or 50 or 100 years from now. The territory is strategically valuable whether or not there is no direct threat at present.
And, about Russia’s interests being infringed, would we like to have Russia soldiers in Canada or Mexico? Would we not be suspicious of and unhappy about such a development? Countries do have national interests. The concept of “spheres of interest” is an ancient one. That’s why the US came up with the Monroe Doctrine – “This is our backyard and we will not tolerate interference in it.”
If you want to push someone, don’t be surprised if they push back.
I am very far from saying that “we need to give Russia what it thinks belongs to it, and then it will leave the whole world alone.”
No, I was saying that whether or not the Ukraine is ruled by Russia is not our business and not our problem, and if we had just left it alone there would have been no war. I don’t see that as Russian propaganda at all but as a simple statement of fact.
As to Chamberlain’s policy, people always point to WW2, but someone sagely suggested we need to think more about WW1, where more and more countries got dragged into what was originally a local conflict. Putin is not Hitler, and this is not 1939. A strong, united Europe with a credible NATO deterrent can maintain its security without the Ukraine as it did for more than 60 years after 1945.
And, anyone who thinks that Joe Biden was fighting for “democracy” is, in my opinion, deceived. He (or the people behind him) were seeking America’s own geopolitical interests, the wealth of the Ukraine, and big bucks for the war machine, with not the slightest concern at all for the people of the Ukraine.
The reason I think NATO is trying to expand is because it has expanded greatly. I don’t deny that countries on Russia’s borders want to join NATO for security reasons. That is to their advantage – but is it to Western Europe’s advantage? How many Europeans are really interested in going to war for Romania or Estonia? And what do those countries have to contribute militarily? Is NATO even an effective fighting force at all? I have read that the UK and Germany are extremely weak, apart from questions of leadership and fighting spirit.
I do not deny that Lithuania or Latvia or Romania have a right to exist. If they gain their independence in a period of Russian weakness, that is fine – but if a resurgent Russia at some time in the future should try to take them back, do we need World War 3 over it? Does America have to go to war with Russia for that?
Of course Putin and Hitler are not identical, but I do not believe Putin’s goal is to invade Western Europe, conquer France, Denmark, Norway, West Germany, Italy and England. I believe he wants Russia to be strong, to strengthen his country by grabbing some territories on the border, by keeping the West out of the Ukraine. He has much more limited goals.
Finally, Biden weaponized the justice system to attack pro-life demonstrators and political opponents, while BLM and Antifa were allowed to riot, loot and kill with no repercussions. People were supposed to stay in their homes and not go to church because of COVID, while street protests against racism were allowed and encouraged. Major policies were imposed by executive authority with complete contempt for what the people might want (such as EVs, the border, transgender issues) – and then we have to go to the Ukraine to fight for “democracy”? What a joke.
American leftists, progressives, socialists, transgender lunatics, BLM, Antifa, small-c and large-C communists, are a much greater threat to America than Putin. And the antidemocratic tendencies of the EU are also more of a threat to European democracy than Putin is.
But its all out of our hands.
What if God in his wrath someday brings down this whole mess like a gigantic house of cards?
I believe this excerpt is not pro-Putin propaganda but simple common sense.
"The problem, rather, is one of basic security perceptions. Moscow repeatedly warned — for many years before 2014 — that it was and remains prepared to take drastic action to prevent Ukraine from being used by the West as a forward operating base against Russia. Yet that, as recounted in lurid detail by The New York Times, is precisely what has happened over the past 10 years.
"The fact that Ukraine has not just willingly but enthusiastically submitted to this arrangement is immaterial to Russia’s core concerns. Nor can this issue be entirely reduced to NATO membership: Ukraine can play the role of an anti-Russian outpost on NATO’s eastern flank without ever formally joining the alliance, and this, too, is unacceptable to the Kremlin.
"Justification is by nature a subjective exercise, but there can be little question that the activities described in this exposé constitute, from the Kremlin’s perspective, a dire provocation and would be seen as such by the United States if the situation were reversed and a rival superpower established such bases in Mexico. This perception is an inseparable part of the military and political context that shaped this war’s outbreak. It can be dismissed as paranoid, but if so it is a paranoia common to all security establishments. "https://responsiblestatecraft.org/cia-ukraine-russia/
Your historical examples skate past lots of the relevant history, e.g. the French Revolution. And you’re completely off the beam as regards the Great War, which did suddenly just happen. The long fuse that detonated that catastrophe stretched back, actually to the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution, which between them made it possible.
Russia is not now and never will be threatened by NATO, which is not a rival state but an alliance structured for defensive purposes, i.e. to deter war. The threat comes, as I said, from Russia under Putin. He wants to reintegrate the lost Soviet empire back into Russia, and Ukraine is his first target. Why do you think that the Baltic States, Poland and other Eastern European states sought membership in NATO to begin with? Why did Finland and Sweden? What, do you think that the Swedes would ever contemplate a war of aggression against Russia? No, they joined NATO because Russia threatens their national security. It’s a predatory power with a long post-Soviet record of aggression.
The line you’re shooting is, as it happens, precisely the line shot by Soviet leaders during the Cold War. Back then, it was Germany that was full of Nazis plotting aggression against the Motherland. Now it’s Ukraine. Well, bullshit I say to that.
Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812. Germany invaded Russia twice, in WWI and WW2.
Russia has been attacked from the West three times in modern history.
What does the historical background have to do with it? Everyone knows that major historical events do not just happen out of nowhere.
My point was that the future is unpredictable. No one predicted those things long in advance.
No one was saying in 1789 “The Revolution will end in a dictatorship and the dictator will then invade Russia.” No one was predicting in 1925 that in a very short time Germany would be invading Russia.
After the event, we can look back and analyze the causes, but the future is full of surprises, and neither you nor anyone else have the faintest idea of what Europe might be like 50 or even 20 years from now. Just because there is no threat now does not mean there might not be one later – so strategically valuable territory should be retained, and not given up just because things look good now.
"The line you’re shooting is, as it happens, precisely the line shot by Soviet leaders during the Cold War. Back then, it was Germany that was full of Nazis plotting aggression against the Motherland. Now it’s Ukraine."
That the Ukraine is full of Nazis plotting aggression against Russia has nothing at all to do with anything I said and is completely irrelevant. I made some important points twice and you ignored them all, and then refuted the claim about Ukrainian Nazis that I never made.
Here are my main points again, for the third time:
• Joe Biden was fighting to defend territorial sovereignty and democracy in the Ukraine while working to diligently undermine those same things in our own country. That is crazy.
• I have zero faith in the foreign policy expertise of Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and the State Department and Pentagon geniuses who failed in Iraq, failed in Afghanistan, and failed in Vietnam. Do you?
• The USA did not get involved with Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. Not our business, not our problem. It is not the duty of the US government to spread democracy throughout the world.
• Throughout the entire Cold War, the Ukraine was under the complete control of the USSR. This was not in any way a threat to the US or Western Europe. We had strong borders, strong economies, strong militaries, and the Ukraine was irrelevant to our well-being.
• The Crimea was historically part of Russia, conquered by them from the Ottoman empire and annexed in the 1700s. Khruschev administratively reassigned it to the Ukraine, or so I have read, but the Ukraine has no historic claim to that region.
You claim “Russia is not now and never will be threatened by NATO, which is not a rival state but an alliance structured for defensive purposes, i.e. to deter war.”
(a) Many enterprises have expanded beyond their initial purpose. This is quite common. And, have you never heard that “offense is the best defense”? Not that I envision a direct attack on Russia, nuclear weapons rule that out, but much can be done to hurt Russia geopolitically and economically in the name of defense.
(b) You cannot predict the future and have no idea what Europe might be like in 50 or even 20 years.
(c) What about the EU? That is different from NATO, and the EU is definitely manifesting authoritarian tendencies in Europe. What if they want to bring the Ukraine into their orbit for financial and strategic purposes? War hysteria and “Putin is Hitler” hysteria would serve those ends. To put it another way, there may be ulterior motives behind all of their talk about “democracy democracy” when they are stifling real democracy in Europe itself and denying their own citizens basic liberties.
Part of our difference is that I see the EU as a malign force with serious potential for greater problems, and do not see the Western European governments as being automatically the good guys. Not that I see Putin as a good guy either, but I believe Putin has good reasons to be suspicious of Europe, especially after they lied about aggressively expanding NATO.
(d) I did not say or imply that Sweden or other countries were joining NATO because they contemplated a war against Russia. Obviously, there are security but also political and economic advantages to NATO membership.
I did say that Russia has reason to be concerned about threats from the West at some time in the future, if not necessarily now, for reasons we cannot currently guess. Sweden did invade Russia in the 1700s by the way, and Finland cooperated with the German attack on Russia in 1941.
In 1925, Germany was no threat at all to Russia. Then many completely unexpected things happened that no one could have foreseen, and overnight (16 years is a blink of an eye historically) a huge German army is invading.
No political leader can say “Things seem to be OK now, so there is no need at all to be concerned about the future.” And the paranoia and suspicion of Russian policy makers is also a factor.
The Ukraine was under Putin’s control and he was content with that. The Ukrainians had a lot of local autonomy, their economy was functioning smoothly, and Putin saw no need to invade them to bring them back into his empire. But the prospect of the Ukraine being part of NATO was red line which he warned of clearly in advance. Putin invaded solely to keep the Ukraine out of the Western camp because of clear Western intent to bring the Ukraine into their orbit for their financial and geopolitical benefit.
About post-Soviet record of aggression, at least they were operating on their own borders, unlike the Americans in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
And some feel that the huge expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe was a mistake. Do people in Holland and Norway really want to go to war for Lithuania or Romania? Is NATO even an effective fighting force?
What do Estonia and Slovakia and North Macedonia have to contribute to Europe's defense?
I did not get into the question of who was responsible for WW1 in the east. The fact is that Germany invaded Russia. Whether or not they had provocation is irrelevant. The point is that the Ukraine is strategically vital to Russia.
Your critic’s argument was so ?!$& stupid, it’s hardly worth refuting. Yet here we are.
https://substack.com/@thatskaizen/note/p-162660659?r=2vnoe2&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
“Provocation” is always a vexed question.
The attacker reasons: Your assault on me is always unprovoked, whatever I did; but my assault on you was provoked by your highly threatening and provocative action of existing.
We Jews know all about it. By existing we have provoked many monsters.
Other monsters take that to be proof that we have done something terrible (in addition to existing) for which documentation or other evidence is mysteriously always lacking. Probably due to a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to cover it up. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Back in the day Mr. Orwell, in an essay titled “Antisemitism in Britain,” made just this point. He said that many British people, not incorrectly, viewed the Jews as the only people who, without a shadow of a doubt, stood to benefit from the defeat of Nazi Germany. And this was taken as proof that the Jews in some manner were responsible for the war.
That the victims are guilty of their own victimization and ought not to protest against it is really the essence of antisemitism.
Acknowledging Ukraine is far from perfect, it’s still quite easy to pick the right side in this one. It’s been that way from day one of this conflict. The far right baffles me with their support of Putin, not unlike the far left’s support of Hamas. I guess the lesson is ‘stay off the fringes and use your head’. The answers / choices are straightforward - no need to look nuance.
- side note: I always enjoy your word selection Mr. Gregg. I will find a way to use “viperous” tomorrow, somehow.
When the Soviets crushed rebellions in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, the USA stayed out of it. It was considered to be not our business and not our problem. I have never heard any criticisms of those decisions as the wrong thing to do.
Also - and I have never heard an answer to this - throughout the entire Cold War, the Ukraine was under the complete control of the USSR. This was not in any way a threat to the US or Western Europe. We had strong borders, strong economies, strong militaries, and the Ukraine was irrelevant to our well-being.
That area is not vital to our security and never has been.
It is vital to Russia's security. Russia has been invaded three times in modern history, twice by the Germans and once by the French, and they are very suspicious of Western intentions - given the clear and obvious expansion of NATO, and then the attempt to bring Ukraine into the Western orbit. That shows a clear and unmistakable pattern.
Personally, I believe that if the USA had adopted a complete hands off policy toward the Ukraine, and not interfered in their electoral process to get a pro-western regime in power, not tried to bring Ukraine into the Western orbit, and just left things alone, there would have been no war at all, the Ukrainians would be living ordinary lives today with a great deal of local autonomy, and Putin would have been satisfied with that.
Just my opinion.
Oh, and I have zero faith in the foreign policy expertise of Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and the State Department and Pentagon geniuses who failed in Iraq, failed in Afghanistan, and failed in Vietnam.
Joe Biden was fighting to defend territorial sovereignty and democracy in the Ukraine while working to diligently undermine those same things in our own country.
Oh, please! Who’s going to invade Russia through Ukraine? NATO? Obviously not. There is no threat to Russia from that quarter. The claim that there is such a threat is nothing but b.s. Putinist propaganda. Putin’s problem with NATO is that it stands athwart his ambition to recreate the old Russian imperium. That’s the real security threat in Europe at the present time. Putin has made no secret of his belief that Ukraine is a fake country that has no right to exist and should be part of Russia. And in that, he’s channeling his role model, J.V. Stalin:
https://unwokeindianaag.substack.com/p/stalin-and-putin-and-ukraine-09e?utm_source=publication-search
"Oh, please! Who’s going to invade Russia through Ukraine? NATO? Obviously not. There is no threat to Russia from that quarter. The claim that there is such a threat is nothing but b.s. Putinist propaganda."
In 1789 France was no threat to Russia. Then a lot of completely unexpected and unpredictable changes happened and a very short time later French troops were in Russia in a way no one could have foreseen.
In 1913 Europe was at peace. Then, in a sudden reversal, Europe was at war and in no time German armies were in the Ukraine.
In 1929 Germany was militarily weak, and in a friendly relationship with Russia. There was no threat from Germany at all, none – and a mere twelve years later German soldiers were in Russia.
A statesman would have to be very stupid and completely ignorant of history to say “Everything is fine now, so I have no need whatever to be concerned about this strategically important territory and who controls it.”
Also, you ignored my points
• about the USA not getting involved with Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. Not our business, not our problem. It is not the duty of the US government to spread democracy throughout the world.
• about Russia’s control of the Ukraine during the Cold War having nothing at all to do with our security or well-being. The Ukraine is strategically vital to Russia, and has been invaded twice in the last century. It is vital to them, but not to us.
• I have zero faith in the foreign policy expertise of Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and the State Department and Pentagon geniuses who failed in Iraq, failed in Afghanistan, and failed in Vietnam. Do you?
• Joe Biden was fighting to defend territorial sovereignty and democracy in the Ukraine while working to diligently undermine those same things in our own country.
Say what you like about Putin. He is a bad guy, but he is not stupid, and he has every reason to be suspicious of a policy of obvious encirclement and advancement, especially given Western leaders proven track record of lying about not wanting to expand NATO.
Putin’s problem with NATO is its obvious expansionist tendencies. And if the EU does get its own military force independent of NATO, as has been talked about, getting control of the Ukraine and bringing it into the Western orbit – as is happening now – could put western armies directly on Russia’s border. And we do not have the faintest idea of what Europe might be like in 20 years.
I do not believe Putin is the next Hitler, thirsting to attack Belgium and Holland. A greater threat to Europe is their own leadership. The Germans and the British are destroying democracy and the economies and the social structure in their own countries. The Europeans themselves are a much greater threat to England and Germany than Putin is.
And what right does the Ukraine have to claim Crimea? Wasn’t it historically a part of Russia for centuries, until Khrushchev made an administrative change?
Perhaps Zelensky also has territorial ambitions.
" The West Ukrainian People's Republic was proclaimed on November 13, 1918, with Lviv as its capital.
"The timing of proclamation of the Republic caught the Polish ethnic population and administration by surprise. The new Ukrainian Republic claimed sovereignty over Eastern Galicia, including the Carpathians up to the city of Nowy Sącz in the West, as well as Volhynia, Carpathian Ruthenia and Bukovina (the last two territories were also claimed by Hungary and Romania respectively) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Ukrainian_War
I looked at your link about the horrors of Stalin and the Holodomor. It is not hard to understand why the Ukrainians hate the Russians and want to be independent. That does not mean we have to give Zelensky billions. There are people starving in the Sudan today, millions starved in China, history is full of horrors. And my understanding is that before the recent war the Ukraine was not doing badly, people were living normal lives.
You were very wrong.
The first time was that France did not suddenly appear in Russia, but for 15 years the French fought with Russian troops in the heart of Europe. The Italian campaign of 1799 and the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805 were not in Russia, and it was Napoleon who feared constant threats from Russia, not the other way around.
The second time you were wrong was when you decided that Germany attacked Russia during World War I.
In fact, Russia entered World War I first, declaring war on Austria-Hungary, and Germany declared war on Russia as an ally of Austria-Hungary. The desire of all empires to fight was common, and Russia was in no way a victim of the attack.
The third time you were wrong was when you missed the fact that from September 1939 to June 22, 1941 the USSR fought on the side of Germany and, together with Germany, captured part of Poland.
So all this did not happen "in a vacuum"
You stated that I was wrong about my historical analysis in the comment above, but you did not object to other points. Does that mean you agree with the following statements?
(1) A statesman would have to be very stupid and completely ignorant of history to say “Everything is fine now, so I have no need whatever to be concerned about this strategically important territory and who controls it.”
(2) The USA did not get involved with Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. It was not our business, not our problem. It is not the duty of the US government to spread democracy throughout the world.
(3) Russia’s control of the Ukraine during the Cold War had nothing at all to do with our security or well-being.
(4) I have zero faith in the foreign policy expertise of Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and the State Department and Pentagon geniuses who failed in Iraq, failed in Afghanistan, and failed in Vietnam.
(5) Joe Biden was fighting to defend territorial sovereignty and “democracy” in the Ukraine while working to diligently undermine those same things in our own country.
Of course, you may not have responded to them for other reasons than agreement. Just asking.
About your closing statement that none of the three invasions of Russia (two of them involving the Ukraine) just happened in a vacuum, everyone knows major historical events do not happen in a vacuum.
Charles Lindbergh’s flight across the Atlantic did not just happen in a vacuum. It was preceded by decades of developments in aeronautical technology.
The Beatles’ North American tour in 1964 did not just happen in a vacuum, but was preceded not only by their many hours of practicing and performing, but also by decades of building the infrastructure of broadcasting and performing necessary for that success.
When it comes to Napoleon, I did not just say he “suddenly appeared.” I said that in 1789, no one expected that the French Revolution would give birth to a dictator who would launch glorious campaigns of conquest. No one predicted that a very short time later, French armies would be invading Egypt, Spain, Prussia, Italy, Austria and Russia.
Once things happen, their causes can be discerned and explained, but they are not usually predictable in advance. That was my point - that the future is unpredictable. We do not have certain and sure knowledge of what Europe might be like fifty or even twenty years from now. So, even if NATO is not a threat to Russia now – which can be debated, given their obvious policy of advance and encirclement, which looks very menacing to hostile and suspicious people like the Russians – even if NATO is genuinely not a threat now, there is no telling what might happen. Twice in modern history chaos in Europe has led to dictatorship followed by aggressive campaigns of conquest. Who can say that what has happened twice cannot happen a third time?
What if the US suffers major economic collapse in the next few decades and pulls all of its troops out of Europe? If European social problems lead to the rise of another strongman, with European control of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and the Ukraine, Russia will be in serious trouble.
Does that sound fantastic and ridiculous? In 1925, what later happened under Hitler would have sounded fantastic and ridiculous. In 1789, what later happened under Napoleon would have sounded fantastic and impossible.
Israel completed its withdrawal from the Sinai in 1982. A short 29 years later, in 2011, the unexpected Arab Spring came, and then Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood is in power in Egypt (no, not out of nowhere, the Muslim Brotherhood had been active for years). Who expected that? What if Morsi had stayed in power – wouldn’t the Israelis have regretted giving up the Sinai?
Just to say “Things are peaceful now, therefore we can afford to relinquish control of this valuable territory” is incredibly stupid (I believe Begin wanted to keep the Sinai for that reason, but was forced to give it up due to heavy American pressure).
About Napoleon fearing threats from Russia, so he had to attack – that’s why Napoleon attacked Prussia, Spain and Austria, and would have attacked England as well if he could have gotten across the Channel. Those people were obstacles to his dreams of imperial glory, so naturally he had to attack them in defense of his own glorious empire.
In the Napoleonic wars, Russia was involved in Europe in cooperation with Austria, England and Prussia, and when the war was over withdrew from Western Europe completely.
About WW2, I did not miss the obvious and well-known fact that from September 1939 to June 22, 1941 the USSR fought on the side of Germany and, together with Germany, captured part of Poland.
My point was, that in 1925, Hitler was on the lunatic fringe doing very poorly in elections. No one dreamed that such a short time later he would be wielding the most powerful army the world had ever seen and invading Russia. My point, which I thought was a simple and obvious one, was that we cannot predict the future.
How and why the Germans came to invade Russia in 1941 is completely irrelevant to the fact that it could not have been predicted a mere twenty years before.
The same with WWI. The historical origins of that war are complex, as everyone knows.
Russia had a treaty with France, because France and England and Russia were all concerned about Germany’s increasing military power. Germany declared war on Russia because Russia refused to demobilize . . . all of that background information is irrelevant to my main point.
By the way, when Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary, it was not entering World War I because that war did not yet exist. Russia was entering a Balkan conflict, which might have stayed a Balkan conflict if Germany had not given its famous blank check to the Austro-Hungarians. The American ambassador to Germany at that time, James Gerard, wrote a book on his experiences (My Four Years in Germany). He blamed Germany’s powerful military ethos which glorified war, and made the German leadership positively eager for war.
The point is, that twice in modern times Russia has been invaded through the Ukraine, which is important to them strategically. In terms of naked power politics, Putin does not want to see Ukraine become a member NATO. That is the main cause of the war in my opinion, a war that would never have occurred if a concerted attempt had not been made to bring the Ukraine into the Western camp.
I understand why the Ukrainians want to be independent. I just believe it is not America’s calling to save the world.
I simply drew your attention to the errors that were at the heart of your arguments.
Besides them, I disagree with some of your assumptions and arguments.
But that is not the point at all. If we now begin to sort out historical and logical errors, it will only lead us further from the essence of the conversation.
Therefore, I will tell you what I fundamentally disagree with you on. And this is not a subject of dispute, these are simply two different approaches to how we see the situation.
I can understand the reasons for your unwillingness for the United States to interfere in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, for the United States to interfere in intra-European affairs. You yourself have clearly outlined this by saying that this does not bring benefits and does not affect the security of the United States. I understand this completely and accept your point of view. And if you had limited yourself to this explanation, I would have had no reason to object. The American does not want his country to get involved in the affairs of Europe, Russia, Ukraine. Simple and clear, and I, a non-American, have no reason to object if an American has such an opinion. Only another American might consider your opinion not far-sighted, reasonable, or advantageous enough.
But what you are doing is different. You are starting to reason exactly like Putin's ideologists and propagandists. You are starting to look at the situation from the outside, what could happen if Russian interests are infringed. All these historical exercises are needed to justify how Russia is behaving.
All your stories about how "unexpectedly" something can change in the world lead us to the fact that we need to give Russia what it thinks belongs to it, and then it will leave the whole world alone. All your explanations seem like a mixture of Russian propaganda, Chamberlain's policy, and fairly healthy and largely justified isolationism.
Not to mention that we have different views on what is happening in Europe. For some reason you think that NATO is trying to expand and get closer to the borders of Russia, and I think that countries bordering Russia are trying to join NATO for security reasons. For some reason you think that Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Romania do not deserve to exist (okay, even if you think that they do), and you can give them over to Russia's influence, because you think that it has always been like that and it was good (okay, you don't think that it is good). For some reason you are sure that "Putin is not Hitler", and you are right, they are two different people, but their aspirations, methods and actions are so similar that it is already difficult not to see it. I still have many differences with your views, but I stopped at those that are most significant and close to this topic.
Thanks for your interesting and informative comments. That is one thing I value about Substack – the opportunity to have substantive conversations.
That having been said, I have been thinking it was a mistake for me to get involved in this kind of debate. There are more important things in life than politics and foreign policy, and these are not the questions I usually write about (as a glance at my Substack page will show).
So, I could stop here, and may make this my last post on the subject, but I would like to point out that I am not an isolationist.
Eisenhower did not get involved in Hungary in 1956, but he was in no sense an isolationist.
I recognize China, Iran, and Islamic fundamentalism as being real threats to the USA, in a way that the Russian domination of the Ukraine or the invasion of Crimea are not. I recognize the need for a strong military, and am not opposed to NATO in principle – though countries that do not want to pay their full share should be expelled or heavily penalized.
I support American aid to Israel in principle, and thought the American government should have supported Israel in a full-on assault to completely crush Hamas as quickly as possible.
Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, and a joint strike by America and Israel should permanently terminate their entire nuclear program. This should have been done a long time ago – and it is very sad that America’s offensive capability and credibility was so sadly debilitated in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, all to no purpose.
Neither am I an isolationist who says we should stay out of European affairs. It was not wrong of the US to be involved in WW 1 and 2, to set up NATO, to implement the Marshall Plan and aid in the reconstruction of Japan. But this does not mean I have to support any and all foreign ventures, and it seems to me very clear, undeniable in fact, that if America had stayed out of the Ukraine, not worked to install a pro-Western president, and then obviously sought to bring the Ukraine into the Western camp, there would have been no war at all. The Ukrainians could have continued under the thumb of Russia in matters of foreign policy, but with a great deal of local autonomy, and no one would have been the worse for it.
About Putin’s ideologists and propagandists, I think the US has no business in the Ukraine, and I think Western meddling led Putin to go to war to keep the Ukraine from becoming a NATO outpost. This does not mean he was forced to go to war or that he had no choice, he had a choice, and decided after warning in advance that he would not tolerate the Ukraine being converted into a NATO ally.
I used historical examples to make the obvious point that the Ukraine is strategically important to Russia and it is elementary power politics, of the sort practiced by the Romans and by many other countries in history, to want to keep control of strategic territory on one’s borders.
I only used historical examples to counter the statement that “NATO is no threat at all to Russia.” Even if there is no immediate threat to Russia now, there is no telling what the situation might be twenty or 50 or 100 years from now. The territory is strategically valuable whether or not there is no direct threat at present.
And, about Russia’s interests being infringed, would we like to have Russia soldiers in Canada or Mexico? Would we not be suspicious of and unhappy about such a development? Countries do have national interests. The concept of “spheres of interest” is an ancient one. That’s why the US came up with the Monroe Doctrine – “This is our backyard and we will not tolerate interference in it.”
If you want to push someone, don’t be surprised if they push back.
I am very far from saying that “we need to give Russia what it thinks belongs to it, and then it will leave the whole world alone.”
No, I was saying that whether or not the Ukraine is ruled by Russia is not our business and not our problem, and if we had just left it alone there would have been no war. I don’t see that as Russian propaganda at all but as a simple statement of fact.
As to Chamberlain’s policy, people always point to WW2, but someone sagely suggested we need to think more about WW1, where more and more countries got dragged into what was originally a local conflict. Putin is not Hitler, and this is not 1939. A strong, united Europe with a credible NATO deterrent can maintain its security without the Ukraine as it did for more than 60 years after 1945.
And, anyone who thinks that Joe Biden was fighting for “democracy” is, in my opinion, deceived. He (or the people behind him) were seeking America’s own geopolitical interests, the wealth of the Ukraine, and big bucks for the war machine, with not the slightest concern at all for the people of the Ukraine.
The reason I think NATO is trying to expand is because it has expanded greatly. I don’t deny that countries on Russia’s borders want to join NATO for security reasons. That is to their advantage – but is it to Western Europe’s advantage? How many Europeans are really interested in going to war for Romania or Estonia? And what do those countries have to contribute militarily? Is NATO even an effective fighting force at all? I have read that the UK and Germany are extremely weak, apart from questions of leadership and fighting spirit.
I do not deny that Lithuania or Latvia or Romania have a right to exist. If they gain their independence in a period of Russian weakness, that is fine – but if a resurgent Russia at some time in the future should try to take them back, do we need World War 3 over it? Does America have to go to war with Russia for that?
Of course Putin and Hitler are not identical, but I do not believe Putin’s goal is to invade Western Europe, conquer France, Denmark, Norway, West Germany, Italy and England. I believe he wants Russia to be strong, to strengthen his country by grabbing some territories on the border, by keeping the West out of the Ukraine. He has much more limited goals.
Finally, Biden weaponized the justice system to attack pro-life demonstrators and political opponents, while BLM and Antifa were allowed to riot, loot and kill with no repercussions. People were supposed to stay in their homes and not go to church because of COVID, while street protests against racism were allowed and encouraged. Major policies were imposed by executive authority with complete contempt for what the people might want (such as EVs, the border, transgender issues) – and then we have to go to the Ukraine to fight for “democracy”? What a joke.
American leftists, progressives, socialists, transgender lunatics, BLM, Antifa, small-c and large-C communists, are a much greater threat to America than Putin. And the antidemocratic tendencies of the EU are also more of a threat to European democracy than Putin is.
But its all out of our hands.
What if God in his wrath someday brings down this whole mess like a gigantic house of cards?
I believe this excerpt is not pro-Putin propaganda but simple common sense.
"The problem, rather, is one of basic security perceptions. Moscow repeatedly warned — for many years before 2014 — that it was and remains prepared to take drastic action to prevent Ukraine from being used by the West as a forward operating base against Russia. Yet that, as recounted in lurid detail by The New York Times, is precisely what has happened over the past 10 years.
"The fact that Ukraine has not just willingly but enthusiastically submitted to this arrangement is immaterial to Russia’s core concerns. Nor can this issue be entirely reduced to NATO membership: Ukraine can play the role of an anti-Russian outpost on NATO’s eastern flank without ever formally joining the alliance, and this, too, is unacceptable to the Kremlin.
"Justification is by nature a subjective exercise, but there can be little question that the activities described in this exposé constitute, from the Kremlin’s perspective, a dire provocation and would be seen as such by the United States if the situation were reversed and a rival superpower established such bases in Mexico. This perception is an inseparable part of the military and political context that shaped this war’s outbreak. It can be dismissed as paranoid, but if so it is a paranoia common to all security establishments. "https://responsiblestatecraft.org/cia-ukraine-russia/
Really great commentary here and very informative. I also appreciate the civility between the parties.
Your historical examples skate past lots of the relevant history, e.g. the French Revolution. And you’re completely off the beam as regards the Great War, which did suddenly just happen. The long fuse that detonated that catastrophe stretched back, actually to the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution, which between them made it possible.
Russia is not now and never will be threatened by NATO, which is not a rival state but an alliance structured for defensive purposes, i.e. to deter war. The threat comes, as I said, from Russia under Putin. He wants to reintegrate the lost Soviet empire back into Russia, and Ukraine is his first target. Why do you think that the Baltic States, Poland and other Eastern European states sought membership in NATO to begin with? Why did Finland and Sweden? What, do you think that the Swedes would ever contemplate a war of aggression against Russia? No, they joined NATO because Russia threatens their national security. It’s a predatory power with a long post-Soviet record of aggression.
The line you’re shooting is, as it happens, precisely the line shot by Soviet leaders during the Cold War. Back then, it was Germany that was full of Nazis plotting aggression against the Motherland. Now it’s Ukraine. Well, bullshit I say to that.
Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812. Germany invaded Russia twice, in WWI and WW2.
Russia has been attacked from the West three times in modern history.
What does the historical background have to do with it? Everyone knows that major historical events do not just happen out of nowhere.
My point was that the future is unpredictable. No one predicted those things long in advance.
No one was saying in 1789 “The Revolution will end in a dictatorship and the dictator will then invade Russia.” No one was predicting in 1925 that in a very short time Germany would be invading Russia.
After the event, we can look back and analyze the causes, but the future is full of surprises, and neither you nor anyone else have the faintest idea of what Europe might be like 50 or even 20 years from now. Just because there is no threat now does not mean there might not be one later – so strategically valuable territory should be retained, and not given up just because things look good now.
"The line you’re shooting is, as it happens, precisely the line shot by Soviet leaders during the Cold War. Back then, it was Germany that was full of Nazis plotting aggression against the Motherland. Now it’s Ukraine."
That the Ukraine is full of Nazis plotting aggression against Russia has nothing at all to do with anything I said and is completely irrelevant. I made some important points twice and you ignored them all, and then refuted the claim about Ukrainian Nazis that I never made.
Here are my main points again, for the third time:
• Joe Biden was fighting to defend territorial sovereignty and democracy in the Ukraine while working to diligently undermine those same things in our own country. That is crazy.
• I have zero faith in the foreign policy expertise of Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and the State Department and Pentagon geniuses who failed in Iraq, failed in Afghanistan, and failed in Vietnam. Do you?
• The USA did not get involved with Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. Not our business, not our problem. It is not the duty of the US government to spread democracy throughout the world.
• Throughout the entire Cold War, the Ukraine was under the complete control of the USSR. This was not in any way a threat to the US or Western Europe. We had strong borders, strong economies, strong militaries, and the Ukraine was irrelevant to our well-being.
• The Crimea was historically part of Russia, conquered by them from the Ottoman empire and annexed in the 1700s. Khruschev administratively reassigned it to the Ukraine, or so I have read, but the Ukraine has no historic claim to that region.
You claim “Russia is not now and never will be threatened by NATO, which is not a rival state but an alliance structured for defensive purposes, i.e. to deter war.”
(a) Many enterprises have expanded beyond their initial purpose. This is quite common. And, have you never heard that “offense is the best defense”? Not that I envision a direct attack on Russia, nuclear weapons rule that out, but much can be done to hurt Russia geopolitically and economically in the name of defense.
(b) You cannot predict the future and have no idea what Europe might be like in 50 or even 20 years.
(c) What about the EU? That is different from NATO, and the EU is definitely manifesting authoritarian tendencies in Europe. What if they want to bring the Ukraine into their orbit for financial and strategic purposes? War hysteria and “Putin is Hitler” hysteria would serve those ends. To put it another way, there may be ulterior motives behind all of their talk about “democracy democracy” when they are stifling real democracy in Europe itself and denying their own citizens basic liberties.
Part of our difference is that I see the EU as a malign force with serious potential for greater problems, and do not see the Western European governments as being automatically the good guys. Not that I see Putin as a good guy either, but I believe Putin has good reasons to be suspicious of Europe, especially after they lied about aggressively expanding NATO.
(d) I did not say or imply that Sweden or other countries were joining NATO because they contemplated a war against Russia. Obviously, there are security but also political and economic advantages to NATO membership.
I did say that Russia has reason to be concerned about threats from the West at some time in the future, if not necessarily now, for reasons we cannot currently guess. Sweden did invade Russia in the 1700s by the way, and Finland cooperated with the German attack on Russia in 1941.
In 1925, Germany was no threat at all to Russia. Then many completely unexpected things happened that no one could have foreseen, and overnight (16 years is a blink of an eye historically) a huge German army is invading.
No political leader can say “Things seem to be OK now, so there is no need at all to be concerned about the future.” And the paranoia and suspicion of Russian policy makers is also a factor.
The Ukraine was under Putin’s control and he was content with that. The Ukrainians had a lot of local autonomy, their economy was functioning smoothly, and Putin saw no need to invade them to bring them back into his empire. But the prospect of the Ukraine being part of NATO was red line which he warned of clearly in advance. Putin invaded solely to keep the Ukraine out of the Western camp because of clear Western intent to bring the Ukraine into their orbit for their financial and geopolitical benefit.
About post-Soviet record of aggression, at least they were operating on their own borders, unlike the Americans in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
And some feel that the huge expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe was a mistake. Do people in Holland and Norway really want to go to war for Lithuania or Romania? Is NATO even an effective fighting force?
What do Estonia and Slovakia and North Macedonia have to contribute to Europe's defense?
Again, your grasp on history is inform. In 1914, It was Russia that invaded Germany:
I did not get into the question of who was responsible for WW1 in the east. The fact is that Germany invaded Russia. Whether or not they had provocation is irrelevant. The point is that the Ukraine is strategically vital to Russia.
“Lowbrow and oafish” sums it up.