How the US Could Have Prevented the Russo-Ukrainian War AND Kept the NATO Door Open for Ukraine
But why would DC do that? Mass East Slav fratricide is great for the Empire
Unlike many, I don’t see the Russo-Ukrainian war as being primarily about NATO’s posture in Eastern Europe. I think the main reason is the very understandable Russian saltiness over Communists having spun off a regional variant of East Slavs (Rus) into non-Russians and ultimately anti-Russians. The Soviet Union cut off the project of Russian national construction from the Ukraine, giving the competing Ukrainian nation-building project monopoly access. Then massively backed that Ukrainianism with state resources and compulsion. (Considerably beyond what the tsars had done for Russianism in Ukraine.) Without this abrubt state intervention the Ukraine would have probably developed into a part of Russia with a strong regional identity, but one without a strong secessionist movement. Similar to Valencia in Spain, Wales in Britain, Brittany in France, or Texas in the US.
It was precisely this insight that allowed me to correctly conclude over the winter of 21/22 that the threat of war in Ukraine was real. While the rest of the alt-media that knows nothing about Russia aside from its standoff with NATO remained supremely confident that war in Ukraine would not take place. (One wonders if NATO-Russia relations alone had made a Russo-Ukrainian war inevitable why weren’t they able to divine it would happen.)
However, I do see NATO as one of many contributing factors to the war. In fact, in my voice-in-the-wilderness pieces warning about the war I spent about 1/3rd of the space writing about NATO. So while the American Empire this one time isn’t the main cause of the war (that distinction goes to Lenin), NATO can be seen as the straw that broke the camel’s back.
As such it was within Washington’s power to prevent the war if it wanted to. What is more, DC could do this while maintaining that Ukraine remains free to “chose its allies” and that its door to NATO is open.
On the eve of the war in February Joe Biden suddenly discovered that Russians and Ukrainians shared “deep ties” and made the following appeal:
“To the citizens of Russia: You are not our enemy. And I do not believe you want a bloody, destructive war against Ukraine — a country and a people with whom you share such deep ties of family, history, and culture.”
All of a sudden as war seemed imminent and DC expected a quick Russian victory talk of “deep” Russo-Ukrainian ties became legitimate. If these ties could be mobilized to forestall the imminent Russian takeover then all of a sudden the US would remember them.
Well what if the US had paid homage to these alleged “deep ties” between the two a lot sooner? What if at any time between 2008 and 2020 the Imperial Capital formulated its NATO Ukraine policy thus:
“Ukraine interest in greater military ties with NATO and membership flatter us. Door for Ukraine membership is open and we are committed to accepting it as a member.
At the same time we are aware that while NATO is not an ant-Russian alliance, it is sadly sometimes percieved as one.
Thus keeping in mind the deep ties of family, history, and culture as exist between Ukraine and Russia we do not wish to be a bone of discontent between the two or for NATO to harm these ties.
Thus we will accept Ukraine into NATO when Russia is also ready to make this step.
Until then we will not seek military ties with Ukraine or have forces there.”
Very simple. US wants Ukraine but in a package with its partner Russia with whom it shares “such deep ties of family, history, and culture”.
Had this been US policy I don’t think there would have been a war. With such a US stance Kiev would have to act differently, with more realism, creating space for normal Russo-Ukrainian relations. And if these existed Putin would have something to lose by going to war. — A situation that in 2021 no longer existed.
But of course why would that be US policy? Trying to raise tension between Kiev and Moscow and hurt the “deep ties” between Ukraine and Russia had been Washington’s policy precisely.
This war is a godsend for the Empire, especially since it didn’t result in the abrupt Russian takeover.
you say; Very simple. US wants Ukraine but in package with its partner Russia with whom it shares “such deep ties of family, history, and culture”.
why does us want ukraine and in what sense and what right does the us have to have ukraine?
and then i get confused if you mean nato or the us, it seems to me they are more or less the same.
Looking through history it seems to me fairly obvious that the uk and usa want to cripple russia all along and to do that cut it off from europe; this they have done by organising ww1 (and as consequence ww2) and introducing bolschewism and supporting nazism in hidden ways wheras publicly under the banner of freedom and democracy.
What if? What if a wolf would be a vegetarian, then it wouldn't be a wolf...
For the subject at hand everything is relatively simple. Modern Ukrainian identity is based on being anti-Russian. They have nothing else to go by to distinguish themselves from Russians unlike the other people of the former USSR that are ethnically and culturally distinct, like Georgians, Moldovans, Azerbaijani and so on. If you take anti-Russianness away from (most) Ukrainians, what do you have left? You find Russians again. This concerns primarily city dwellers in Ukraine who for centuries, basically since the coming of variags Oleg and Igor in the IX century, have associated themselves with Rus', e.g. with Russians. Based on the stance of declaring itself an anti-Russia and yelling from every corner that they are at war with Russia since 2014, Ukraine has set itself for eventual armed conflict with Russia. I didn't believe this war would start in February of this year and I wasn't correct in my assessment of the situation, I admit. But the whole logic of positioning of Ukraine opposing itself to Russia in every possible sense could lead just to one thing - to an eventual hot conflict on the ground. This has little to do with NATO membership for Ukraine, though it became a trigger and a formal reason for conflict, this is a conflict of a civilizational level when one significant part tries to break off the larger part of civilization and for this declares itself an antidote to a larger part.
At this point we have just one winner in this conflict, it is US of A. Considering turbulent period for the world we are entering into right now US in a stroke of genius move had elevated itself above the rest in the Western world. Here are the main achievements:
- Eastern Slavs are busy at killing each other and at destroying the legacy of "complexity", e.g. the great industrial base that Donbass was famous for. This legacy would be very difficult of not impossible to rebuild. Main question is who would do that and why?
- Europe is now detached from Russian resources to a great extent, and that was one of key advantages, by their own admission, that allowed it to prosper since the early seventies. In addition EU members through NATO are burdened with much higher military spending than they ever had to endure since the time of WWII
- UK while trying to surf this situation and reassert its global leadership through involvement in Ukraine, Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan is in a precarious situation ecomically and is heading for yet another political crisis
- US on the other hand, with all its shortcomings looks like an island of stability in the Western world attractive for migration of capital and even advanced manufacturing from Europe. Not sure if Joe Biden was behind this grand plan, but we have to give it to the old man, he was the highest ranking and most dedicated member of the project of Ukraine as anti-Russia that got into an active phase approximately in 2012 after re-election of Putin as president despite the direct objection to it by Obama and Biden.