The Road to War

Today, we find ourselves on the opposite side, pushing to establish ballistic missile sites on the borders of Russia, and are complaining that Russia objects. We are encouraging Ukraine to join NATO, and if they did, we would then have the ability to emplace launchers right on the Russian border, just a few miles from Moscow, and most of the European Russian cities. It might help to recall that NATO was formed to oppose feared expansion into Europe of the USSR – an entity that no longer exists.

We have been the “good guys” for so long, that we tend to assume that we are always on the side of right, standing up for the underdog against aggression by rogue regimes that mistreat their citizens. That hasn’t been true for several decades, now. Being the world’s superpower for years has not been good for us, and certain parties in our government have seen the situation as an opportunity to shape the world into the image they think it should have.

In some cases that has taken the form of trying to establish “democratic” governments in countries that have no tradition or understanding of how to establish and maintain such a government. In other cases, we have supported the overthrow of benign governments that fit with their societies in favor of “strongmen” who would be favorable to us.

Today, we are supporting a massively corrupt regime against an opponent with legitimate grievances and thus promoting massive loss of life on both sides as well as destruction of much of the infrastructure a nation needs to survive. Our warhawks in Washington present our support as helping a poor, innocent victim oppose the depredations of a large bully led by a thug with ambitions of taking over Europe in a mad quest for power.

As with so much out of Washington these days, the truth is far different. For years, Ukraine’s corrupt leadership had been poking the bear by violating treaties and agreements between them and Russia. Until recently, the natural gas pipelines that supplied Europe with Russian natural gas passed through Ukraine. Built during the Soviet period, agreements for such transport were worked out between the Ukraine and Russia after the collapse of the USSR in 1989. Likewise, agreements for access to the marine facilities in Crimea were negotiated, among many other issues.

In the last few years, Ukraine started threatening to cut off the natural gas flow that fueled Europe and provided Russia with much needed western currency. Ukrainian leaders held the gas transport hostage to extort higher payments from Russia for the negotiated rights. Likewise they threatened access to Crimea and allowed elements (the Azov Brigade) to persecute ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine.

After years of trying to negotiate a non-violent solution to the situation, and assessing correctly that a Biden administration would support Ukraine in their actions, the Russians took an action that they believed would bring Ukraine to the negotiating table for serious discussions. The Russian demands were few – Ukraine would not join NATO, it would stop the persecution of ethnic Russians within its borders, There were a few additional conditions that amounted to ensuring Russia’s security and protection of access rights. An agreement was actually reached between the two nations – an agreement that the US opposed and some claim even sabotaged.

Consider, for a moment, how the US would act in a scenario where Mexico was about to enter into a mutual defense agreement – TPTO, the Trans Pacific Treaty Organization. If Mexico joined, then China would be able to place military bases and ballistic missile launchers on the US/Mexico border. Further, imagine that Mexico was persecuting the millions of US citizens that had retired in Mexico, and also that Mexico was threatening to block US ships from using the Panama Canal. Would we be justified in opposing the agreement on TPTO, and demanding the end of persecutions of US retirees? If Mexico did not agree, or if China interfered to prevent an agreement between the US and Mexico, would we be justified in invading Mexico to protect our own security? How is this scenario different from that existing with Ukraine and Russia?

Putin has shown great restraint in his dealings with Ukraine. Whatever you might think of him and of Russia, the fact is that Russia could end the conflict at almost any time – but with even greater damage to Ukraine than the current level of conflict is inflicting. High altitude bombing with conventional, non-nuclear weapons could level Kiev, could destroy vital infrastructure for water, power and transportation and eliminate military capabilities. Yet they have not taken that route. Despite the carnage, the destruction, the loss of life, the limited war Russia has chosen is far less damaging to Ukraine than it could be.

Time is running out, though. Winter is near for both countries. No-one who has not experienced winter in Canada, Alaska or the northern Great Plains states can truly appreciate just how brutal winter can be. The Russian winter has defeated armies for centuries. It defeated Napoleon, even though his army reached Moscow. It defeated the German armies of the Second World War. The US has never fought a war in the conditions of a Russian winter, when vehicles freeze up, weapons don’t work, soldiers can freeze solid in a matter of minutes. All our wars, even Korea have been fought in temperate or tropical conditions. Those of our “leaders” who think we could go into an arctic war and win quickly are seriously deluded, yet they are talking about sending US troops to Ukraine soon.

All that our involvement has done has been to prolong a war that should have ended years ago, resulted in the loss of tens and even hundreds of thousands of lives, destroyed historic cities and vital infrastructure, led us t the brink of another world war, and depleted our own resources. Oh, yes, it has enriched our military contractors, and filled the pockets of Democrat neocons with kickbacks and bribes.