Is Russia imperialist?

QUOTH :

"Russia is said to be an imperialist world power, one in conflict with the imperialist superpower, the U.S. Russia has been characterized in this manner both during the period of the Soviet Union, and after the Soviet Union collapsed and separate states were formed. Russia has said to be imperialist both when it was a socialist state and now as a capitalist state.

Russia is also said to be a non-imperial capitalist state, one still struggling to recover from the crisis of the Soviet collapse and the political and economic catastrophe of the Yeltsin years, when it degenerated into a near neo-colonial client looted by the U.S.

http://take10charles.blogspot.com/2022/03/1990s-us-rapes-russia-nation.html

Lenin recognized that modern capitalism “is everywhere becoming monopoly capitalism.”2 “Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the “financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world by a handful of ‘advanced’ countries.”3 This domination of the world by a few imperialist powers is not only the biggest barrier to the economic and social progress of the less developed countries, but to resolving the pressing problems that afflict humanity as a whole and now the planet itself.

Lenin defined modern capitalist imperialism: without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:

(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.4

In the following we will look at how capitalist Russia today shares in these features by considering the role Russian capitalist monopolies play in the world imperialist system, the nature of Russia’s export trade, the export of Russian capital, the world role played by Russian finance capital, and finally Russian military power.5 [1]

Russian Interventions in Other Countries Russia has intervened in other countries (Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria) but not in a manner of imperialist countries, which are motivated to seize natural resources and wealth. Nor is Russian intervention nearly on the scale of even secondary imperial powers such as France or Britain. Nor has Russia engineered coup d’etats in other countries as imperialist countries constantly do.

Russia intervened in a very limited intervention in the former Yugoslavia in the mid-1990s when the Russian forces acted as soft cops for NATO. Russia fought over pro-Russian South Ossetia with Georgia in 2008, which was backed by the U.S.

The conflict in Ukraine is a direct result of the U.S. engineering a rightwing anti-Russian coup in 2014. The people in the eastern region of the Ukraine, which is predominantly Russian-speaking, rose up demanding political and economic autonomy. While those in east Ukraine are backed by Russia, Moscow has shown no interest in absorbing the eastern Ukraine as it did with the Crimea after the referendum there.

Russia’s direct military involvement in 2015 in the Syrian war is similar to that in the Ukraine: to fend off continuing U.S.-NATO regime change and encirclement of their country. Russia was invited in by the Syrian government to assist in defeating rebel groups armed and financed by the U.S., NATO countries and Saudi Arabia.

Unlike the U.S., Britain and France, in none of these cases has Russia intervened militarily to overthrow a government in order to protect its foreign economic interests.

The U.S. and NATO’s increasing encirclement of Russia is a continuation of their prior policy to subjugate and recolonize the Soviet Union. Source: North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

5. Russia and Imperialism Today Referencing Lenin’s statement on imperialism, Russia is not a player in the dominance of monopolies and finance capital, nor does the export of capital play an important role (save the negative effect of on-going capital flight), nor do Russian trusts play any essential role in the division of the world resources.

Russia can be ranked as one of the world’s most powerful states only based on its military strength. Economically it shares the characteristics not of an advanced capitalist state, but of one on the capitalist semi-periphery. It plays very little part in the quintessential imperialist activity: the export of capital to the periphery and the extraction of profit from developing countries’ labor and resources. Russia’s finance capital is small, its exports predominantly raw materials, its industry weak, its multinational corporations minor, its economy plagued by low labor productivity.

Imperialism continues to be the main danger to the life and well-being of the peoples of the world. Our problems, humanity’s problems, are rooted in imperialist domination of our nations and our lives. Specifically, this means the rule of the U.S. imperialist boss and the secondary imperial powers in its orbit: Western Europe, Japan, Canada and Australia. Russia, while a capitalist country, bullied by the U.S. because of its independence (like Venezuela, Iran, Qaddafi’s Libya, Nicaragua) is not part of any imperialist cabal that threatens us. Rather the world powers of Russia and China find they must respond to imperialism’s efforts to subordinate them. Fortunately, their inconsistent resistance does provide openings for other peoples and countries to assert their own national sovereignty.[2]

The 2014 right wing coup changed the political situation dramatically. Ukraine became ensnared by the Western imperial powers.

John McCain speaking at the Maidan: What you should really know about Ukraine | MR Online Russia’s demand that NATO cease its expansion to Russia’s borders is viewed as such an obviously impossible demand that it can only be understood as a pretext to invade Ukraine. https://mronline.org/2022/02/24/what-you-should-really-know-about-ukraine/ Great Explainers in the above link.

The 2014 coup in Ukraine change everything

NATO powers were used against Yugoslavia, Iraq and Syria. Russians and Orthodox people in general may have some mutual sympathy with Serbs. Russians also don’t approve bombing Libya by NATO countries.

NATO leaders backed coup in Ukraine, allied with Ukrainian far-right and neo-Nazi, which resulted in civil war and killing of thousands of civilian pro-Russian by Ukrainian army. While NATO blamed Assad and Qaddafi in using excessive force against the rebels, this time NATO decided to look the other way.

The Crimean switch from Ukraine to Russia and Donbass conflict was in part caused by reluctance of Crimeans and Donbassians to be subjugated by the dirtiest allies of NATO.

In 2014–2021 Russia reported over 270k asylum seekers with Ukrainian citizenship, like 1 million of people of Ukrainian citizenship taking Russian one, and Ukraine estimated that like 3 millions of Ukrainians work in Russia. Russia also reported 8-7.76 millions of tourists from Ukraine in 2018–2019. Somehow “Russian aggression against Ukraine” resulted in order of magnitude more people visiting Russia than fighting Russia or standing against Russia. But you probably never read that in the Western MSM.

With the conflicts in Libya and another non-close ally of Russia Venezuela Western powers were at will taking money from the legitimate government and passing them to their puppets like Guaido.

In Syrian conflict NATO member Turkey backed forces against Russian ally Assad and shot down Russian warplane (which wasn’t threatening Turkey). Also NATO members threw quite a few accusation against Assad in “gassing people”. That looked just as truthful as “WMD in Iraq”.

In 2017–2020 NATO countries threw several accusations against Russia, like “Skripal murder attempt” or blowing some small weapon depot in the middle of nowhere, and denied Russia different things from nuclear energy contract to vaccine sales.

In 2020 NATO countries backed another attempt of hostile regime change in Russia’s close ally Belarus.

Now let me introduce you to a small gallery.

The man who stands by Nuland right hand here is Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of Ukrainian neo-Nazi party “VO Svoboda” (founded as Social-National Party of Ukraine, and that Social-National is the new National-Social). One of the leaders of the party published neo-Nazi textbook in 2011. It’s the same party which called American Mila Kunis “dirty Jewess”. Jerusalem Post wasn’t hesitating to call them neo-Nazis for their antisemitism. World Jewish Congress calls Svoboda a neo-Nazi party . They did torch marches and exhibitions in honor of Waffen SS Galizien.

A couple of lovely photo from “free Ukraine”:

And one photo from Crimea under Russia:

Back to Ukrainian photo again. Now Ukrainian in NATO.

Ukrainian neo-Nazi journalist Bilozerska in NATO headquarters. Just think of it: who invites a person exposed as open admirer of Adolf Hitler? NATO does. In one of her comments she said that she is sure that monuments to Hitler will stand in Germany one day. She was also photographer of above-mentioned neo-Nazi fuhrer Tyahnybok in his presidential campaign of 2010, and was favorite reporter of Ukrainian neo-Nazi Azov (“Patriot of Ukraine”) formation.

Bilozerska was welcomed in NATO headquarters before the coup, and ever half-year before Maidan protests. Here is one of the photos of Bilozerska and another Maidan leader Victoria Sumar in NATO headquarters in May 2013:

By Bilozerska’s own report they asked if NATO can help with armed rebellion against president in Ukraine — by the time legitimate president, had not even postponed EU association deal. She was known far-right / neo-Nazi and admirer of Hitler before that visit. But that hadn’t stopped NATO for cooperating with her.

From “New Cold War”. Andriy Parubiy in London with former Labour MP and NATO Secretary-General Lord George Robertson, Oct 2015. Parubiy is another co-founder of Ukrainian neo-Nazi Social-National party (see Oleh Tyahnybok above to recall what the party is famous for).

Another proud defender of Ukraine, member of “Azov” formation officially called neo-Nazi by the US Congress people. While you may think that he wants just to defend Ukraine, in fact this guy said in his interview than he wants to start WW3.

Oh, I almost forgot to add an important block: https://www.mil.gov.ua/en/news/2020/09/14/ukrainian-strategic-bombers-have-once-again-entered-ukrainian-airspace/ British warship challenges Russian claims to Crimea

A British warship sailed through Crimean waters on June 23 in what was widely seen as a reminder that the international community rejects Russia’s purported 2014 annexation of the Ukrainian peninsula.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/british-warship-challenges-russian-claims-to-crimea/

Hundreds of British Troops Parachute Into 'Russia's Backyard' to Train With Ukrainian Military

More than 200 British paratroopers parachuted into southern Ukraine between September 15 and 16 in a move that a Ukrainian general described as being a “message for Russia.”Speaking to Sky News, Ukrainian general Yevhan Moysiuk said, “The main message for Russia is that the UK is our true and reliable partner who help us in our hardship. The UK is ready to stand up to Russian aggression with us.”The UK’s Ministry of Defence said that it had trained 18,000 members of the Armed Forces of Ukraine since 2015, adding: “Following the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia … Operation Orbital is a demonstration of the UK’s unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s independence, territorial integrity, and sovereignty.” It shared a tweet saying the troops “dropped into Russia’s backyard.”This footage shows 250 soldiers from 16 Air Assault Brigade landing in southern Ukraine to conduct training with Ukrainian troops. Credit: UK Ministry of Defence via Storyful https://uk.news.yahoo.com/hundreds-british-troops-parachute-russias-155637357.html Now they call it “in Russia’s backyard”. Not me and not even Russia.

Western imperialists: “Show me the money”

As tensions began to rise over Ukraine, U.S. media produced a stream of articles attempting to explain the situation with headlines like “Ukraine Explained” (New York Times, 12/8/21) and “What You Need to Know About Tensions Between Ukraine and Russia” (Washington Post, 11/26/21). Sidebars would have notes that tried to provide context for the current headlines. But to truly understand this crisis, you would need to know much more than what these articles offered.

These “explainer” pieces are emblematic of Ukraine coverage in the rest of corporate media, which almost universally gave a pro-Western view of U.S./Russia relations and the history behind them. Media echoed the point of view of those who believe the U.S. should have an active role in Ukrainian politics and enforce its perspective through military threats.

The official line goes something like this: Russia is challenging NATO and the “international rules-based order” by threatening to invade Ukraine, and the Biden administration needed to deter Russia by providing more security guarantees to the Zelensky government. The official account seizes on Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula as a starting point for U.S./Russian relations, and as evidence of Putin’s goals of rebuilding Russia’s long-lost empire.

Russia’s demand that NATO cease its expansion to Russia’s borders is viewed as such an obviously impossible demand that it can only be understood as a pretext to invade Ukraine. Therefore, the U.S. should send weapons and troops to Ukraine, and guarantee its security with military threats to Russia (FAIR, 1/15/22).

The Washington Post asked: “Why is there tension between Russia and Ukraine?” Its answer:

In March 2014, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine. A month later, war erupted between Russian-allied separatists and Ukraine’s military in the eastern Ukrainian region of Donbas. The United Nations human rights office estimates that more than 13,000 people have been killed.

David Leonhardt (New York Times, 12/8/21) explains it all: “Putin believes that Ukraine — a country of 44 million people that was previously part of the Soviet Union — should be subservient to Russia.”

But that account is highly misleading, because it leaves out the crucial role the U.S. has played in escalating tensions in the region. In nearly every case we looked at, the reports omitted the U.S.’s extensive role in the 2014 coup that preceded Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Focusing on the latter part only serves to manufacture consent for U.S. intervention abroad.

The West Wants Investor-Friendly Policies in Ukraine

The backdrop to the 2014 coup and annexation cannot be understood without looking at the U.S. strategy to open Ukrainian markets to foreign investors and give control of its economy to giant multinational corporations.

A key tool for this has been the International Monetary Fund, which leverages aid loans to push governments to adopt policies friendly to foreign investors. The IMF is funded by and represents Western financial capital and governments and has been at the forefront of efforts to reshape economies around the world for decades, often with disastrous results. The civil war in Yemen and the coup in Bolivia both followed a rejection of IMF terms.

In Ukraine, the IMF had long planned to implement a series of economic reforms to make the country more attractive to investors. These included cutting wage controls (i.e., lowering wages), “reform[ing] and reduc[ing]” health and education sectors (which made up the bulk of employment in Ukraine), and cutting natural gas subsidies to Ukrainian citizens that made energy affordable to the general public. Coup plotters like U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland repeatedly stressed the need for the Ukrainian government to enact the “necessary” reforms.

In 2013, after early steps to integrate with the West, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych turned against these changes and ended trade integration talks with the European Union. Months before his overthrow, he restarted economic negotiations with Russia, in a major snub to the Western economic sphere. By then, the nationalist protests were heating up that would go on to topple his government.

After the 2014 coup, the new government quickly restarted the EU deal. After cutting heating subsidies in half, it secured a $27 billion commitment from the IMF. The IMF’s goals still include “reducing the role of the state and vested interests in the economy” in order to attract more foreign capital.

The IMF is one of the many global institutions whose role in maintaining global inequities often goes unreported and unnoticed by the general public. The U.S. economic quest to open global markets to capital is a key driver of international affairs, but if the press chooses to ignore it, the public debate is incomplete and shallow.

The U.S. Helped Overthrow Ukraine’s Elected President

During the tug of war between the U.S. and Russia, the Americans were engaged in a destabilization campaign against the Yanukovych government. The campaign culminated with the overthrow of the elected president in the Maidan Revolution—also known as the Maidan Coup—named for the Kiev square that hosted the bulk of the protests.

As political turmoil engulfed the country in the leadup to 2014, the U.S. was fueling anti-government sentiment through mechanisms like USAID and National Endowment for Democracy (NED), just as they had done in 2004. In December 2013, Nuland, assistant secretary of state for European affairs and a long-time regime change advocate, said that the U.S. government had spent $5 billion promoting “democracy” in Ukraine since 1991. The money went toward supporting “senior officials in the Ukraine government…[members of] the business community as well as opposition civil society” who agree with U.S. goals.

The NED is a key organization in the network of American soft power that pours $170 million a year into organizations dedicated to defending or installing U.S.-friendly regimes. The Washington Post‘s David Ignatius (9/22/91) once wrote that the organization functions by “doing in public what the CIA used to do in private.” The NED targets governments who oppose U.S. military or economic policy, stirring up anti-government opposition.

The NED board of directors includes Elliott Abrams, whose sordid record runs from the Iran/Contra affair in the ’80s to the Trump administration’s effort to overthrow the Venezuelan government. In 2013, NED president Carl Gershman wrote a piece in the Washington Post (9/26/13) that described Ukraine as the “biggest prize” in the East/West rivalry. After the Obama administration, Nuland joined the NED board of directors before returning to the State Department in the Biden administration as undersecretary of state for political affairs.

Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland (BBC, 2/7/14) picks the new Ukrainian president: “I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience.”

One of the many recipients of NED money for projects in Ukraine was the International Republican Institute. The IRI, once chaired by Sen. John McCain, has long had a hand in U.S. regime change operations. During the protests that eventually brought down the government, McCain and other U.S. officials personally flew into Ukraine to encourage protesters.

U.S. Officials Were Caught Picking the New Government

On February 6, 2014, as the anti-government protests were intensifying, an anonymous party (assumed by many to be Russia) leaked a call between Assistant Secretary of State Nuland and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. The two officials discussed which opposition officials would staff a prospective new government, agreeing that Arseniy Yatsenyuk—Nuland referred to him by the nickname “Yats”—should be in charge. It was also agreed that someone “high profile” be brought in to push things along. That someone was Joe Biden.

Weeks later, on February 22, after a massacre by suspicious snipers brought tensions to a head, the Ukrainian parliament quickly removed Yanukovych from office in a constitutionally questionable maneuver. Yanukovych then fled the country, calling the overthrow a coup. On February 27, Yatsenyuk became prime minister.

At the time the call leaked, media were quick to pounce on Nuland’s saying “Fuck the EU.” The comment dominated the headlines (Daily Beast, 2/6/14; BuzzFeed, 2/6/14; Atlantic, 2/6/14; Guardian, 2/6/14), while the evidence of U.S. regime change efforts was downplayed. With the headline “Russia Claims U.S. Is Meddling Over Ukraine,” the New York Times (2/6/14) put the facts of U.S. involvement in the mouth of an official enemy, blunting their impact on the audience. The Times (2/6/14) later described the two officials as benignly “talking about the political crisis in Kiev” and sharing “their views of how it might be resolved.”

Ignoring the fascist element in Ukrainian politics has been corporate media policy for some time now (FAIR, 3/7/14).

The Washington Post (2/6/14) acknowledged that the call showed “a deep degree of U.S. involvement in affairs that Washington officially says are Ukraine’s to resolve,” but that fact rarely factored into future coverage of the U.S./Ukraine/Russia relationship.

Washington Used Nazis to Help Overthrow the Government

The Washington-backed opposition that toppled the government was fueled by far-right and openly Nazi elements like the Right Sector. One far-right group that grew out of the protests was the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary militia of neo-Nazi extremists. Their leaders made up the vanguard of the anti-Yanukovych protests, and even spoke at opposition events in the Maidan alongside U.S. regime change advocates like McCain and Nuland.

After the violent coup, these groups were later incorporated into the Ukrainian armed forces—the same armed forces that the U.S. has now given $2.5 billion. Though Congress technically restricted money from flowing to the Azov Battalion in 2018, trainers on the ground say there’s no mechanism to actually enforce the provision. Since the coup, the Ukrainian nationalist forces have been responsible for a wide variety of atrocities in the counterinsurgency war.

Far-right influence has increased across Ukraine as a result of Washington’s actions. A recent UN Human Rights council has noted that “fundamental freedoms in Ukraine have been squeezed” since 2014, further weakening the argument that the U.S. is involved in the country on behalf of liberal values.

Among American neo-Nazis, there’s even a movement aimed at encouraging right-wing extremists to join the Battalion in order to “gain actual combat experience” in preparation for a potential civil war in the U.S..

In a recent UN vote on “combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism,” the U.S. and Ukraine were the only two countries to vote no.

As FAIR (1/15/22) has reported, between December 6, 2021, and January 6, 2022, the New York Times ran 228 articles that refer to Ukraine, but none of them reference the pro-Nazi elements in Ukraine’s politics or government. The same can be said of the Washington Post’s 201 articles on the topic.

There’s a Lot More to the Crimean Annexation

The facts above give more context to Russian actions following the coup, and ought to counter the caricature of a Russian Empire bent on expansion. From Russia’s point of view, a longtime adversary had successfully overthrown a neighboring government using violent far-right extremists.

The Crimean peninsula, which was part of Russia until it was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic in 1954, is home to one of two Russian naval bases with access to the Black and Mediterranean seas, one of history’s most important maritime theaters. A Crimea controlled by a U.S.-backed Ukrainian government was a major threat to Russian naval access.

The peninsula—82% of whose households speak Russian, and only 2% mainly Ukrainian—held a plebiscite in March 2014 on whether or not they should join Russia, or remain under the new Ukrainian government. The Pro-Russia camp won with 95% of the vote. The UN General Assembly, led by the U.S., voted to ignore the referendum results on the grounds that it was contrary to Ukraine’s constitution. This same constitution had been set aside to oust President Yanukovych a month earlier.

A pair of maps from Der Spiegel (11/26/09) illustrates NATO’s drive toward Russia’s borders.

All of this is dropped from Western coverage.

The U.S. Wants to Expand NATO

In addition to integrating Ukraine into the U.S.-dominated economic sphere, Western planners also want to integrate Ukraine militarily. For years, the U.S. has sought the expansion of NATO, an explicitly anti-Russian military alliance. NATO was originally billed as a counterforce to the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War, but after the demise of the Soviet Union, the U.S. promised the new Russia that it would not expand NATO east of Germany. Despite this agreement, the U.S. continued building out its military alliance,growing closer and closer to Russia’s borders and ignoring Russia’s objections.

This history is sometimes admitted but usually downplayed in corporate media. In an interview with the Washington Post (12/1/21), professor Mary Sarotte, author of Not One Inch: America, Russia and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate, recounted that after the Soviet collapse, “Washington realized that it could not only win big, but win bigger. Not one inch of territory needed to be off-limits to full NATO membership.” The U.S. “all-or-nothing approach to expansionism…maximized conflict with Moscow,” she noted. Unfortunately, one interview does little to cut through the drumbeat of pro-NATO talking points.

In 2008, NATO members pledged to extend membership to Ukraine. The removal of the pro-Russian government in 2014 was a giant leap towards the pledge becoming a reality. Recently, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg announced that the alliance stands by plans to integrate Ukraine into the alliance.

“A successful invasion of Russia…could embolden Russia” to engage in “cyberattacks, election meddling and influence campaigns,” says USA Today‘s “expert” (print edition, 1/26/22).

Bret Stephens in the New York Times (1/11/21) maintained that if Ukraine wasn’t allowed to join the organization, it would “break the spine of NATO” and “end the Western alliance as we have known it since the Atlantic Charter.”

The U.S. Wouldn’t Tolerate What Russia Is Expected to Accept

Much has been written about the Russian buildup on the Ukraine border. Reports of the buildup have been intensified by U.S. intelligence officials’ warnings of an attack. Media often echo the claim of an inevitable invasion. The Washington Post editorial board (1/24/22) wrote that “Putin can—and will—use any measures the United States and its NATO allies either take or refrain from taking as a pretext for aggression.”

But Putin has been clear about a path to de-escalation. His main demand has been for direct negotiations to end the expansion of the hostile military alliance to his borders. He announced, “We have made it clear that NATO’s move to the east is unacceptable,” and that “the United States is standing with missiles on our doorstep.” Putin asked, “How would the Americans react if missiles were placed at the border with Canada or Mexico?”

In corporate media coverage, no one bothers to ask this important question. Instead, the assumption is that Putin ought to tolerate a hostile military alliance directly across its border. The U.S., it seems, is the only country allowed to have a sphere of influence.

The New York Times (1/26/22) asked: “Can the West Stop Russia From Invading Ukraine?” but shrugs at the U.S. dismissal of Putin’s terms as “nonstarters.” The Washington Post (12/10/21) reported: “Some analysts have expressed worry that the Russian leader is making demands that he knows Washington will reject, possibly as a pretext for military action once he is spurned.” The Post quoted one analyst, “I don’t see us giving them anything that would suffice relative to their demands, and what troubles me is they know that.”

Audiences have also been assured that Putin’s reaction to Western expansionism is actually a prelude to more aggressive actions. “Ukraine Is Only One Small Part of Putin’s Plans,” warned the New York Times (1/7/22). The Times (1/26/22) later described Putin’s Ukraine policy as an attempt at “restoring what he views as Russia’s rightful place among the world’s great powers,” rather than an attempt to avoid having the U.S. military directly on its border. USA Today (1/18/22) warned readers that “Putin ‘Won’t Stop’ with Ukraine.”

John Deni (Wall Street Journal, 12/22/21): “The West ought to stand firm, even if it means another Russian invasion of Ukraine,” because even though “the human toll will be extensive… the long-term damage suffered by Moscow…is likely to be substantial as well.”

But taking this view is diplomatic malpractice. Anatol Lieven (Responsible Statecraft, 1/3/22), an analyst at the Quincy Institute, wrote that U.S. acquiescence to a neutral Ukraine would be a “golden bridge” that, in addition to reducing U.S./Russia tensions, could enable a political solution to Ukraine’s civil war. This restraint-oriented policy is considered fringe thinking in the Washington foreign policy establishment.

The Memory Hole

All of this missing context allows hawks to promote disastrous escalation of tensions. The Wall Street Journal (12/22/21) published an opinion piece trying to convince readers there was a “Strategic Advantage to Risking War In Ukraine.” The piece, by John Deni of the U.S. Army War College, summarized the familiar hawkish talking points, and claimed that a neutral Ukraine is “anathema to Western values of national self-determination and sovereignty.”

In a modern rendition of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Afghan Trap, Deni asserted that war in Ukraine could actually serve U.S. interests by weakening Russia: Such a war, however disastrous, would ​​“forge an even stronger anti-Russian consensus across Europe,” refocusing NATO against the main enemy, result in “economic sanctions that would further weaken Russia’s economy” and “sap the strength and morale of Russia’s military while undercutting Mr. Putin’s domestic popularity.” Thus escalating tensions is a win/win for Washington.

Few of the recent wave of Ukraine pieces recount the crucial history given above. Including the truth about U.S. foreign policy goals in the post-Cold War era makes the current picture look a lot less one-sided. Imagine for one second how the U.S. would behave if Putin began trying to add a U.S. neighbor to a hostile military alliance after helping to overthrow its government.

If Biden is Chamberlain, as Marc Thiessen (Washington Post, 12/10/21) suggests, then Putin is of course Hitler.

The economic imperative for opening foreign markets, the NATO drive to push up against Russia, U.S. support for the 2014 coup and the direct hand in shaping the new government all need to be pushed down the memory hole if the official line is to have any credibility. Absent all of that, it is easy to accept the fiction that Ukraine is a battleground between a “rules-based order” and Russian autocracy.

Indeed, the Washington Post editorial board (12/8/21) recently compared negotiating with Putin to appeasing Hitler at Munich. It called on Biden to “resist Putin’s trumped-up demands on Ukraine,” “lest he destabilize all of Europe to autocratic Russia’s advantage.” This wasn’t the only time the paper has made the Munich analogy; the Post (12/10/21) ran a piece by former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen headlined “On Ukraine, Biden Is Channeling His Inner Neville Chamberlain.”

In the New York Times (12/10/21), Trump NSC aide Alexander Vindman told readers “How the United States Can Break Putin’s Hold on Ukraine,” and urged the Biden administration to send active U.S. troops to the country. A “free and sovereign Ukraine,” he said, is vital in “advancing U.S. interests against those of Russia and China.” Times reporter Michael Crowley (12/16/21) also framed the Ukraine standoff as another “Test of U.S. Credibility Abroad,” after that credibility was supposedly damaged after ending the war in Afghanistan.

In a New York Times major feature (1/16/21) on Ukraine, the U.S. role in bringing tensions to this point was completely omitted, in favor of exclusively blaming “Russian Belligerence.”

As a result of this coverage, the interventionist mentality has trickled down to the public. One poll found that, should Russia actually invade Ukraine, 50% of Americans support embroiling the U.S. in yet another quagmire, up from just 30% in 2014. Biden, however, has said that no U.S. troops will be sent to Ukraine. Instead, the U.S. and EU have threatened sanctions or support for a rebel insurgency should Russia invade.

The past few weeks have seen several failed talks between the U.S. and Russians, as the U.S. refuses to alter its plans for Ukraine. The U.S. Congress is rushing a “lethal aid” package to send more weapons to the troubled border. Perhaps if the public were better informed, there would be more domestic pressure on Biden to end the brinkmanship and seek a genuine solution to the problem.[3]

Security and Defense Issues

Russia did strike first, which appears to be an unprovoked act of aggression, which is imperialist. However, there are very strong reasons to argue that Russia has been pushed into a corner by NATO since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It struck first but it did so defensively, as the West was pumping the Ukrainian government with money and weapons. The Ukrainians were working to put nukes on the border which could reach Russian cities within a few minutes. Mr. Putin tried to resolve this for a decade before this happened. [4]

Profile photo for Alex Korolev Alex Korolev · Feb 3 When did NATO promise Russia it won't expand eastwards? Was it a written document? For example. Baker once again fooled the simpleton Gorby. Updated: 02/03/2022 There is a lot of declassified information on this topic on these links. This is a highly respected foreign policy expert and academic who delivered this speech about Russia’s security concerns and why they care so much about Ukraine.

This brings together the matter of attenuation regarding defense vs aggression.

Also: It’s more than just having nukes on Russia’s border. Ever since the far-right Ukrainian nationalist coup government took power in 2014, a few pockets of Ukraine in the Donbass region declared secession as a response as they did not support it.

These pockets had a larger proportion of Russians rather than Ukrainians and so they did not like the sudden turn to a far-right Ukrainian nationalist government that started to destroy historical statues and tried to erase their historical ties with Russia.

They then held referendums, which the Ukrainian government declared illegal, and based on the results, declared themselves sovereign and independent republics, becoming the People’s Republic of Donetsk and the People’s Republic of Luhansk.

After declaring themselves independence, the Ukrainian government would send in the army to begin killing them, and so they mounted an 8-year long resistance which has culminated to today.

These republics have repeatedly begged for a ceasefire but the Ukrainian government keeps violating the ceasefire, attacking the republics.

Here is a memorial for children killed by the Ukrainian government in their attempts to destroy LPR and DPR.

This war has been, again, going on for 8 years. Will it ever end? It can’t end until someone escalates it.

The Ukrainian government believed they could escalate it by joining NATO, which then they could then argue to NATO that the people they’re killing in LPR and DPR are actually “terrorists” and so NATO needs to intervene to protect them.

In 2019, the coup government in Ukraine literally placed the desire to join NATO in its constitution.

It’s important to understand that Ukraine joining NATO would not simply mean US missiles on Russia’s border. It would mean the US would have to intervene in the war in Donbass since they would be legally obligated to “defend” Ukraine.

It would mean US troops would have to march on Russia’s border and begin to fight a bloody war against two states with large Russian populations. The US will be killing Russians on Russia’s border. That is an absolute guarantee if Ukraine joins NATO and is quite literally the reason they want to join.

Obviously, US troops marching on Russia’s border to start a war to kill Russians will inevitably drag Russia into it. Russia could not negotiate with the Ukraine government, they not only continued to shell Donbass killing civilians repeatedly, but they literally placed the desire to join NATO in the constitution. This could not be easily reversed.

Putin tried to negotiate with NATO itself to prevent this, but they refused to listen. So if it is just a matter of time before WW3 starts, then Russia has to stop it, which requires Russia to act first, which requires Russia to escalate the war before western countries could be dragged into it and put an end to it.[5]

[6] Conclusion Russia is a capitalist oligarchy which is semi-democratic. Ukraine is also a capitalist oligarchy. Russia’s security is genuinely threatened. It struck first as a you slice off the head of a sleeping rattlesnake. The West wants to expand NATO to squeeze Russia to death. Then it can do a Yugoslavia to it—break it up and turn it into Western imperialist colonies for its multinational corporations. It wants to impose neoliberal capitalism and shock therapy as it did to the Russians under Yeltsin. An entire generation was destroyed by the fall of the USSR. Some places struggled to this day to recover. The West doesn’t care. Ethnic Russians are and were facing horrible conditions and were seeking to be liberated.[7] [8]

If Russia simply absorbs Ukraine after the war is over, then that leans toward imperialism. If it helps form a neutral government which does not join NATO and is demilitarized, then that is not imperialism. Russia is already making reasonable demands.[9] This war is both defensive regarding NATO but also liberating for ethnic Russians in the East. Denazification is still very important, but even if you take away the Nazis out of the equation, the war would still be justified for the security reasons.

You need to know the history of the Soviet Union’s demise. The real issue here is whether the NATO threat is substantial enough to justify a war. I believe it is, based on my analysis of the facts. We saw what NATO did to Yugoslavia, and tearing Russia to pieces would enable Western imperialists to economically rape and pillage Russia. The threat is very real. It is like a boa constrictor. It squeezes the life out of you, slowly.

Footnotes [1] Is Russia imperialist? | MR Online [2] Is Russia imperialist? | MR Online [3] What you should really know about Ukraine | MR Online [4] What Putin Really Wants in Ukraine [5] https://www.quora.com/Assuming-Ukraine-was-inching-toward-NATO-membership-why-is-it-not-at-least-somewhat-understandable-that-Putin-resists-having-a-NATO-country-with-potential-nuclear-capability-right-on-his-border-We-would-not-allow/answer/真理zhenli [6] What you should really know about Ukraine | MR Online [7] https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-real-extent-of-the-alleged-Ukrainian-abuses-against-the-Russian-population-in-Donbass/answer/Roman-Podolyan [8] Daily and spot reports from the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine [9] Vladimir Andreeff's answer to What did the Russian negotiators demand in the peace meeting? 14.9K views196 upvotes25 shares42 comments 4.1K viewsView 108 upvotesView 2 sharesAnswer requested by Sti XaS Profile photo for Charles Brown You upvoted this 108 2 19 Profile photo for Charles Brown Add a comment... Profile photo for Charles Brown Charles Brown · Just now Upvote Reply Profile photo for Charles Brown Charles Brown · Just now You’re right about it again , Alexander Finnegan Upvote Reply Profile photo for David McPhee David McPhee · March 5 As a serious photographer I’m a little troubled by the image and concerned about the intention. I’m aware of management of media as a tool of government, but find it upsetting in any context. Upvote · 1 Reply Profile photo for Alexander Finnegan Alexander Finnegan · March 5 Actually I think I have an idea why. And I feel really bad. I deleted the caption that could have been hurtful to someone. Thank you for pointing this out. I have been a little stressed lately. A lot stressed, actually. Upvote · 1 Reply Profile photo for Danielle Hall Danielle Hall · March 5 I'm a big fan but you confuse my on this subject. I've heard political historians interviewed and asked how future generations will view Putin. They say he will invariably be seen as a villain. That Finnish Quora gal with the IQ of 160 writes, that she refuses to call Putin by a human name. I forget w… Read More

Upvote Reply Profile photo for Alexander Finnegan Alexander Finnegan · March 5 Mr. Medvedev is even more hawkish. 2/3 of the public in Russia support the war. Susanna is indeed very smart. But everyone, of all IQ’s, have different opinions about political matters. Also, she is Finnish, and Finns and Russians have a rough history. The Winter War was pretty bad. So it is understa… Read More

Upvote · 7 Reply Danielle Hall I will always keep reading your posts The other day, however, I saw a caricature about this. It depicted Russia as a huge ogre holding up a much smaller and defenseless Ukraine.