Russia about to attack Ukraine
- Thread starter Chishawk1425
- Start date
Six Things the Media Won’t Tell You About Ukraine
by Ted Snider Posted on January 06, 2022On January 10, American and Russian officials will meet to discuss Putin’s proposal on mutual security guarantees. Western media and political analysts have cast Putin’s demands that NATO not expand further east to Ukraine and that NATO not establish military bases in former Soviet states nor use them to carry out military activity as bold and impossible.
Here are six crucial pieces of background that the western media will not tell you.
The NATO Promise
Putin’s demands are only bold if it is bold to ask NATO to keep its promises; his demands are only impossible if it is impossible for NATO to keep its promises.
On February 9, 1990, Secretary of State James Baker assured Gorbachev that if NATO got Germany – a huge concession – NATO would not expand one inch east of Germany. The next day, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher made the same promise to his Soviet counterpart, Eduard Shevardnadz. Earlier, on January 31, 1990, Genscher had already publicly declared in a major speech that there would not be "an expansion of NATO territory to the east, in other words, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union."
Recently declassified documents make it clear that all the western powers, including not only the US and Germany but also the UK and France, repeatedly made Russia the same promise.
Seven years later, when the US had already broken that promise, Clinton made Russia a second promise. Having expanded NATO far east of Germany, at least they would not permanently station substantial combat forces. That was the promise the US signed in the NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations. It was a reiteration of the earlier February 1990 promise that, not only NATO membership, but NATO troops would not extend east.
So, far from being bold or asking the ridiculous, what the media will not tell you is that Putin is not asking for any new Western concessions. He is asking only that the West honor the commitments it has already made.
The Coup
The catalyst for the crisis today in Ukraine was the 2014 coup. That coup was set up and supported by the US. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was faced with the choice of economic alliance with the European Union or with Russia. Polls at the time clearly showed that Ukrainians were nearly evenly split on which economic alliance to choose. Yanukovych’s choice of either package would have divided the country. Putin offered Yanukovych a way out: both Russia and the EU could help Ukraine and Yanukovych doesn’t have to be forced to choose. The US and EU rejected Putin’s peace offering. According to Stephen Cohen, Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies at Princeton, “it was the European Union, backed by Washington, that said in November to the democratically elected President of a profoundly divided country, Ukraine, ‘You must choose between Europe and Russia.’”
The stage was now set for strife in Ukraine. And the US stoked that strife. Led by Senator John McCain and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs Victoria Nuland, the US publicly endorsed and supported the coup protesters. The White House then provided cover and legitimacy to the violent protesters in the streets. Through The National Endowment for Democracy, the US also funded projects that helped fuel the coup.
More sinister than that even, the US was deeply involved in the plotting of the coup itself. Nuland was caught plotting who the Americans want to be the winner of the regime change. She can be heard on an intercepted call telling the American ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, that Arseniy Yatsenyuk is America’s choice to replace Yanukovych (and he did). Most importantly, Pyatt refers to the West needing to “midwife this thing,” a metaphorical admission of America’s role in leading the coup. At one point, Nuland even seems to say that then Vice President Biden, himself, would be willing to do the midwifery.
Nuland then pressured security forces to stop guarding government buildings and allow the coup protesters in. The opposition then took advantage of the absence of MPs from the south and east because of a pre-scheduled congress of regional politicians and of intimidation that forced many others to flee to ensure that it had the numbers to take over parliament in a coup disguised as democracy.
So instead of a Russian puppet president betraying his people and abandoning an economic alliance with the European Union in favor of an economic alliance with Russia, what the media will not tell you is that the catalyst of the current crisis was a US engineered and supported coup of a democratically elected president.
The Connection
The media will also not tell you about the crucial connection between the NATO promise not to expand east and the coup in Ukraine. The economic alliance with the EU was not the benign package presented to the Western pubic. It was not just an economic offer. According to Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies at Princeton, Stephen Cohen, the European Union proposal also "included ‘security policy’ provisions . . . that would apparently subordinate Ukraine to NATO." The provisions compelled Ukraine to "adhere to Europe’s ‘military and security’ policies." So the proposal was not a benign economic agreement: it was a security threat to Russia in economic sheep’s clothing.
Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent Richard Sakwa says, “EU enlargement paves the way to NATO membership” and points out that, since 1989, every new member of the EU has become a member of NATO. It’s not only that the EU package subordinated Ukraine to NATO, since the EU Treaty of Lisbon went into effect in 2009, all new members of the EU are required to align their defense and security policies with NATO.
Far from being just an economic agreement, Article 4 of the EU’s Association Agreement with Ukraine says the Agreement will “promote gradual convergence on foreign and security matters with the aim of Ukraine’s ever-deeper involvement in the European security area.” Article 7 speaks of the convergence of security and defense, and Article 10 says that “the parties shall explore the potential of military and technological cooperation.”
So, the EU economic alliance was an aggressive package that hid in it NATO’s expansion right up to Russia’s border. The media won’t tell you that either.
What Crimea Wants
What made Russia’s annexation of Crimea so threatening to the US was not the annexation itself. In itself, Crimea is not so important to the US. What was so threatening was what the annexation meant in terms of Russia’s relationship to the US and in terms of its changing role in the world order.
balance:
Six Things the Media Won't Tell You About Ukraine - Antiwar.com
On January 10, American and Russian officials will meet to discuss Putin’s proposal on mutual security guarantees. Western media and political analysts - Ted Snider for Antiwar.com
original.antiwar.com
Have 20 Years of NATO Expansion Made Anyone Safer?
Since 1997, the world’s perhaps most powerful corporation and lobbyist has created more insecurity than security.
By Stephen F. Cohen
OCTOBER 18, 2017
Have 20 Years of NATO Expansion Made Anyone Safer?
Since 1997, the world’s perhaps most powerful corporation and lobbyist has created more insecurity than security.
www.thenation.com
If Russia can snatch the blue areas, they completely cut Ukraine off from the Black Sea, and they completely own the Sea of Avov.A good map of Ukraine’s political bifurcation, evident in the 2010 vote:
Even if they just move up to the Dnieper River in the south - which would not include Odessa - that's a much more defensible border.
[for those who are curious - Odessa (Russian: Оде́сса) or Odesa (Ukrainian: Оде́са)]
The bridge over the Kerch straits effectively closed off the Sea of Azov already. The Russians have said no military vessels through the passage.
Ukraine tested it once.
I think an aspect of the border’s defensibility rests on the desire of those being defended to remain under the government in question. Clearly this is more of an open question around the Donetsk and Luhansk areas.
After watching NATO partition Serbia as they saw fit, I expect the Russians to act with similar restraint.
Russia is ramping up for false flag operations to justify an invasion. Luckily the US has a strong president, and not a sock puppet for Putin.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/14/politics/us-intelligence-russia-false-flag/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/14/politics/us-intelligence-russia-false-flag/index.html
We've already pretty much promised that all we'll do is impose sanctions.
So imagine Russia does actually move into Ukraine. Then we impose sanctions. Does anyone think Putin will reverse course?
So then what happens?
You can be sure the hawks in both parties - will be demanding more action. You can be sure the yellow press - which is arguably most of the MSM - will parade those hawkish views and relentlessly interview the most aggressive hawks.
I say that because that's what happened prior to the Iraq war.
Sanctions work. Russia is already a dumpster fire of an economy hiding behind nationalism and a strong military. That can only last for so long.
No, They. Don't.
They were applied to Venezuela. It took over 100K lives to date. The masses in V have rallied around the flag and now Maduro is rolling in the crib with Beijing, Moscow, Tehran and Havana. C&R will now have their hands on the world's largest proven oil reserves of 300BB.
They have not worked on Iran either. Iran has re-tooled their economy even though Trump sought to sanction them to 0 barrels of oil per day. They sought out a rabbi with deep pockets and struck a deal with energy starved China for a $400B deal over 25 years. Went into effect today. China will now receive energy at a 36% discount making China even more competitive. Iran also has their own defense industry now. Sanctions have done over $100B in damage to Tehran. Just immoral as they have done nothing to us and wished to do business with the west. NOW, Mandarin is the language taught after Farsi.
Russia has been sanctioned to death. They now have over $600B in foreign reserves with little debt.
Sanctions are an act of war. They are directed at civilians in the hope they will turn on their leaders. Quite frankly...it's sick.
What’s immoral about choosing not to deal with a country or its trading partners?
Russia, Venezuela, and Iran can continue to trail the rest of the world in GDP growth year after year. Relying on China has done wonders for North Korea.
They need to be more carefully targeted, and we need better laws to go after money laundering. It’s estimated that Putin has stolen $50 billion alone.
A lot of ignorance in that 1st sentence. CHOOSING not to deal with a country is one thing. Cutting them off economically from the world via the SWIFT financial messaging system with the goal they will kneel to the will of their master is another. SWIFT is private and losing its cache as countries see how it is a tool to make governments bow as we isolate them. It's having a reverse effect. Not long ago, 86% of all financial transactions passed through SWIFT. Today, it's something like 54%. R&C have a de-dollarization policy. China has set up the AIIB. Take a look at the members on this list and who conspicuously is not. It is set up to replace the IMF and World Bank.
You really need to read more.
Last edited:
What is in Country 404 that R could possibly want?
Since NATO has, in violation of an agreement, swallowed up 13 former Warsaw Pact members and is now at R's doorstep, shouldn't we be asking when does NATO attack Russia?
The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy
For four decades, relations among the major nuclear powers have been shaped by their common vulnerability, a condition known as mutual assured destruction. But with the U.S. arsenal growing rapidly while Russia's decays and China's stays small, the era of MAD is ending -- and the era of U.S...
Russia is the largest most resource rich country in the world. They don’t need us.A lot of ignorance in that 1st sentence. CHOOSING not to deal with a country is one thing. Cutting them off economically from the world via the SWIFT financial messaging system with the goal they will kneel to the will of their master is another. SWIFT is private and losing its cache as countries see how it is a tool to make governments bow as we isolate them. It's having a reverse effect. Not long ago, 86% of all financial transactions passed through SWIFT. Today, it's something like 54%. R&C have a de-dollarization policy. China has set up the AIIB. Take a look at the members on this list and who conspicuously is not. It is set up to replace the IMF and World Bank.
We shouldn’t deal with aggressive expansionist governments, nor should our trading partners.
If Russia’s such a noble country, why don’t you move there? Take Kanye with you.
No. We decide what is right for other people. Especially in a kleptocracy like Russia that acts against US interests. Russian people who decide differently wind up as political prisoners like Navalny, or falling from a 4th floor window while having a piano delivered.
U.S. taxpayers get fleeced so the MIC can profit on shipping things to Lt. Col Александр Семёнович Виндман's birthplace.
Oh FFS! Now, that you've been proven wrong time and again, you choose to act out like a 6th grader.
America's 2nd largest importer of oil is Russia. Their Ural grade is heavy, good for diesels. Venezuela has it, but, we have sanctioned them to death...literally.
Russia can deal with Venezuela. Russia can build diesel engines.
Every country should be allowed to choose their trading partners. That’s how autonomy works.
JFC! Now, I've seen it all. American exceptionalism at its worst. No, we shouldn't stick our nose in the affairs of any country. But, we do all the time and chickens are coming home to roost.
Navalny? Child puhleaze. He's a gun-toting, Muslim hating nationalist doing time for corruption. He's also a Yalie associated with people who cause dissent in their homeland. A traitor. You would call that an insurrectionist and demand life behind bars. What you should be screaming about is how we have treated a true hero, Julian Assange. Crickets from you. Maybe take a stand at how we still have people at Gitmo and still haven't been charged.
Is that why we sanction the Europeans for building Nord Stream 2?
Because we respect their ability to choose their trading partners?
WTF did I just explain to you? There wasn't a choice. It's meant to drive up unemployment rates and punish women and children...kind of like what we did to Iraq where we killed over 500K women and children. And now R&C will have large positions in Iraqi oil that some say has 400BB of oil.
As for V&R. Like I said above, we pushed R&C into V and now they will have control of 300Billion barrels of oil. Not to mention the abundance of lithium for the 4IR. Like I said, sanctions do not work. Prove me otherwise.
Navalny never polled more than a 2%.In their free and fair elections? Should they vote for Navalny?
We, as in the United States of America.
Washington (CNN)
The US imposed new sanctions related to the contested Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement Monday.
The State Department reported to Congress that it has designated a vessel and a "Russian-linked entity" called Transadria Ltd. that is linked to the controversial pipeline that was built to ferry natural gas from Russia to Germany and has raised concerns about Moscow's ability to use energy supplies as leverage over Europe.
Blinken said the report to Congress and the sanctions are in keeping with the requirements of the Protecting Europe's Energy Security Act of 2019.
link
The EU Commission has responded to the US sanctions in relation to Nord Stream 2 by stating that the EU does not recognise the extraterritorial application of US sanctions relating to the pipeline which it considers to be contrary to international law. The EU Commission has recognised that many companies in the EU are involved with Nord Stream 2 and has stated that the EU does not intend to impose sanctions against these companies provided that they act in accordance with EU law.
So, back to the question:
Is that why we sanction the Europeans for building Nord Stream 2?
Because we respect their ability to choose their trading partners?
Yep.
Our import sources
Canada - 52%
Mexico - 11%
Russia - 7%
Saudi - 7%
We were actually a net exporter in 2020.
There you go again. You expect to come on here and spill lies. I've shot down everyone and now you act out. Take your binky with you.
Oh you’re killing it. Everyone here believes that Putin is a good guy, the elections in Russia are fair, Russia’s Covid numbers are low, and Russia is only going to take part of the Ukraine because they were forced to.
Don't move the goal posts, Hoss. You said this was about choice.
But, I'll answer your question anyway. Every homeowner and business that heats his house/biz with natgas was harmed. The Netherlands has depleting reserves. Germany is transitioning off of fossils. The NS2 pipe was to be completed at the EY '19 until a 3rd party (USA) stepped in and pressured their vassals in the EU. Then they pressured them to buy on spot instead of long term contracts as they always did. Prices went parabolic and people may freeze now. That's who was harmed.
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
-
-
HawkCast Ep. 127 Ladell Betts is Moving On: Losing Iowa's RBs Coach
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-