By David Robb ——Bio and Archives--February 1, 2023
World News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
If you were to drive south from Moscow, you might take the M2 roadway. About 200 kilometers from Moscow, a bit north of the city of Tula, highway E105 branches off to continue south. A few kilometers away and roughly parallel to the E105 is a twin track railway. Both run through the agricultural regions of southern Russia, and down through eastern Ukraine all the way to Crimea and the port city of Sevastopol. The twin track railroad is important because it allows continuous rail traffic in both directions without having to pull trains onto sidings for traffic in the opposite direction to pass.
At one time, this road and rail system conveyed food, manufactured goods, and people to and from cities and towns along the route - a steady flow of vital commerce for both countries. In recent years, passage has become difficult, forcing Russian traffic to take a longer and more eastern route following M-4 and E115. The rail route is more complicated, and must cross the Crimea bridge to get to Sevastopol.
During the time of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the USSR, the port of Sevastopol was extensively expanded and developed, both for commercial and for military needs. Most of the expense was borne by the Russian republic. Access to the port was important because it was one of the very few ports available to Russia that was ice-free year round, and because it gave the Union ready access to European markets along the Mediterranean, as well as to the Atlantic.
Russia depended on the port for a major part of its economy, and it had unrestricted access since it was all part of the same Union. After the collapse of the USSR in 1989, things became more complicated. Initially, the port was under Ukrainian control, along with Crimea and the land routes to the port. The principal road and rail routes including the E105 from Sevastopol to the Russian border became subject to Ukrainian control. Ukraine did not hesitate to use that control to exact concessions from Russia in exchange for access to the port.
The situation became so severe that in 2014 Russia annexed Crimea, declaring it to be a Russian province. That gave Russia once again free access to the port via the eastern route. The move did not endear Ukrainians to Russia, although it did not seriously affect Ukraine's ocean commerce through its own nearby port at Odessa. It did remove one bit of leverage Ukraine had over Russia, though.
Russia and Ukraine have, at various points in history, been united as a single country. Relations between the two have often been difficult, and became especially hostile when Stalin in 1933 seized Ukrainian farms and collectivized them, turning productive agriculture into a communist wasteland. The confiscation led to famine and the deaths of millions of Ukrainians in the event known as the Holodomor. Many Ukrainians today are the children and grandchildren of survivors of that time, and bear great resentment toward Russians whom they hold responsible.
Unfortunately, blame for the injustices and horrors of Communism in the time of the USSR have been transferred to the Russians of today. The Communist USSR of the past is now decades removed from the capitalist Russia of today. After seventy years of Communist rule, Russia is slowly building an economy from the ground up, where almost the only people who have any significant experience with any form of capitalism are the former black market operators. Putin, a Russian patriot, has been working to make Russia great again and needs access to foreign markets to sustain and grow the Russian economy. Access to the port facilities at Sevastopol is one essential component.
A second major component of the Russian economy is revenue generated from supplying gas and oil to Europe. Again, during USSR days, the easiest route from the oilfields of Russia to the customers in Europe was through Ukraine. After the collapse of the Union, Ukraine began to threaten to disrupt the gas flow that provided Russia with much needed foreign exchange.
Russia's response was to construct a set of pipelines under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany. In case anyone was wondering, building undersea pipelines is very difficult and challenging, and both Nord Stream 1 and 2 must be considered engineering marvels. While the Russians hoped to continue using the Ukraine pipelines, the Nord Stream lines gave them a backup to reduce the leverage Ukraine might apply.
Support Canada Free Press
Now we come to today. True, Russia invaded Ukraine almost a year ago in what I have to consider a major strategic error on their part. I don't condone violation of national borders, but I also have to say that Ukraine provided a level of justification and provocation for the action.
It appears that the Russians were trying to force Ukraine to negotiate a number of long-standing issues, following the principle set forth by Clausewitz:
"We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means."
Western nations, in particular, the United States, have attempted to portray the Russian invasion of Ukraine as the start of a new phase of Russian expansionism that began during the time of the USSR. American press, in particular, has portrayed Putin as an evil thuggish autocrat bent on world domination, and that Ukraine is just the first step in his dreams of empire and conquest.
In my opinion, the Russian move was much more limited with a much more restrictive intention. From virtually the first day of the invasion, Putin put forth a limited set of conditions that if met, would result in withdrawal of Russian forces and a peaceful resolution. Rather than entering serious negotiations, Ukrainian leaders were encouraged to resist Russian efforts to negotiate, assuring them that the US in particular "had their backs".
When the Russians invaded, they found themselves in a much larger confrontation than expected, but by then they were committed. The conflict has devolved into a proxy war between the US and other western nations against Russia with Ukraine doing the fighting and bleeding. Without the backing of the Biden regime, the war would have been over long ago. In fact, the US could have acted as a credible mediator between the two sides to secure an equitable agreement that would have prevented the war and provided benefit to all sides.
To answer that question we begin by looking at some of the conditions Russia set forth to end the war - conditions that essentially relate to their justifications for invasion.
The first of the conditions was that Ukraine not enter NATO. Given that NATO was originally formed in 1949 largely for the purpose of containing the USSR, one can understand a certain reluctance Russia might entertain to having its closest neighbor join that organization, especially if that neighbor was harboring grievances.
Were Ukraine to join NATO, that would permit western nations stationing troops, building missile and military bases along the Russian border, and would generally provoke an intense reaction in a nation that has been invaded by the Japanese, the Mongols, the French, the Germans, and even Swedes, among others during its history.
In late 1962, the US learned that the USSR was positioning ballistic missiles in Cuba, only 90 miles from US shores. Such missiles could reach anywhere in the US in a matter of minutes, well before any defensive measures could be taken. The US response was to confront the USSR and demand the missiles be removed.
There was great concern that the confrontation could escalate into a third World War, and it was only resolved when the USSR backed down and removed the missiles. Now the US and its NATO proxy is threatening Russia with the same sort of situation except that Ukraine is closer to Russia than Cuba is to the US. Is anyone surprised that Russia objects? Was it ok for the US to object in 1962, but not all right for Russia to object in 2022?
A second condition was that Crimea be recognized as a Russian territory. Back in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea, the people of Crimea overwhelmingly chose to be part of Russia rather than the Ukraine.
In similar vein, the largely ethnic Russian provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk would be recognized as independent republics, which would eliminate the Ukrainian persecution of their populations by Ukrainian forces, especially the Nazi Azov Brigade.
Three other conditions were largely "throwaway options" put forth as negotiating items that could be yielded in negotiations. Nowhere in the conditions were any indications that Russia intended expansion even into other parts of Ukraine, much less Europe. Putin has reiterated the conditions on multiple occasions since the start of the invasion. The Western press has attempted to portray such offers as signs of weakness and as indications that Putin is failing in his leadership.
Clearly, the United States has had a large hand in the war. Instead of working to promote a peaceful resolution to the conflict, and even working to prevent the war, we have instead acted to promote, encourage, and even expand the war through provision of military supplies as well as through propaganda efforts.
When Russia invaded, the Western press cheered Ukrainian resistance, creating multiple stories of heroic efforts by Ukrainian military and civilians in their attempts to repel invaders. While I condemn the invasion, I also condemn the one-dimensional portrayal of the situation that only encouraged expansion of the war and the support and encouragement that led to the violence in the first place.
Yes, I know Russia is a real invader and Ukrainians are fighting to preserve their country, but is the propaganda helping to promote a peaceful resolution, or is it more like cheering on one side in a gladiatorial event? Even if Russia is driven out, what will Ukraine look like after the dust settles?
Why are we supporting the war instead of encouraging a peaceful resolution? What American interests are at risk? What beneficial policies are being pursued? Who benefits?
In my own look at the situation, there are several interested parties who stand to benefit, none of whom have the best interests of the US and its people at heart.
In first place are US arms manufacturers whose weapons are undergoing field trial in a combat zone. When they go to potential customers, they can now claim that the weapons they offer have been field tested and proven effective against a modern military. Do we really want to spend American resources and put America itself at risk to support a marketing campaign for arms manufacturers?
A second group is an unholy conglomeration of hard-core Leftists who want to punish Russia for betraying the Revolution and accepting capitalism, a group of War Hawks who see an opportunity to finally accomplish what the French and then the Germans failed to do and successfully conquer Russia, and a set of globalists who see nations like Russia as standing in the way of a world tyranny, excuse me, benevolent one-world government. This cabal is willing to risk everything you have, including incineration in a nuclear war, to fulfill their dreams of conquest
In third place, we have an illegitimate regime that sees an opportunity to distract from its own destructive actions. Nothing like a good war to take people's attention off what is happening at home. Never mind if the Biden regime is supporting the most corrupt country in Europe. Ignore the facts that the leadership of Ukraine has outlawed opposition parties, and is busy using government powers to eliminate competition. Be cheered by the fact that there is no accounting for all the money being injected into Ukraine, much of which is going to enrich various officials, and a substantial fraction of which is returning to support our own corrupt Democrat politicians.
This is far from the entire list, but nowhere is there an indication that we, the American people, stand anything to gain. Instead what we see is bad policy fed by greed and corruption. We see lies and more lies compounded to support evil. It is almost as though the participants want to drive us to the point of another global war, this time with nuclear weapons.
Yes, if it came to that, Russia would likely be incinerated, but what would happen if Russia were left with no other option, as some would like? Lies lead to bad policy. Bad policy leads to escalation. Escalation can lead to war. War today between major nations can well become nuclear. Is that really what we want?
View Comments
David Robb is a practicing scientist and CTO of a small firm developing new security technologies for detection of drugs and other contraband. Dave has published extensively in TheBlueStateConservative, and occasionally in American Thinker.