The Responsibility for this War in Ukraine is on the West's Side

---

Disclaimer: I am a friend of Europe and the US, but not necessarily of their ruling political class or policy decisions. None of my criticism is intended to be malicious or adversarial. It is only meant to enlighten the discourse, broaden perspectives, and improve political relations and decisions.

---

Although Western political elites and their media unanimously condemn President Putin's decision to recognize the breakaway regions of Donetsk (DPR) and Lugansk (LPR) in eastern Ukraine as autonomous people's republics, Putin's strategic maneuver can be seen as one of last resort.

Donetsk and Lugansk separated from Kiev following the Western-backed Maidan coup of 2014. They did not tolerate the deposition of the incumbent President Yanukovych and the installation of Poroshenko, whom they perceived as a puppet of Washington and Berlin. Poroshenko’s policies opened Ukraine to the political, military, and economic influence of the US and the West. Since then, the Ukrainian leadership has rejected—disregarding the Minsk I and II agreements—meaningful discussions on the status of its eastern territories, even resorting to a civil war-like conflict in an attempt to forcibly reintegrate the republics.

In 2014, following the Maidan revolution, it became immediately clear that Putin would not passively accept Ukraine's potential NATO membership, which could result in the expulsion of Russia from its Black Sea ports in Crimea. For the first time, Putin was confronted with an anti-Russian regime in Kiev. This prompted the annexation of Crimea and support for the separatists in Donbass, who opposed Ukraine’s transformation into a NATO base. The predominantly Russian population in these areas also resisted the Ukrainian regime's efforts to eliminate Russian traditions, language, and culture.

The annexation of Crimea and support for the eastern territories should have been predictable had the US and Europe taken the time to consider Russia's legitimate strategic interests and conducted an overdue, intelligent evaluation of the region’s security dynamics. How would the United States react, for instance, if Mexico allied with Russia and Putin stationed massive troops along the southern border?

Western political elites have not made a single meaningful effort to address Russia's legitimate security concerns. Instead, they have pursued ruthless regional and global dominance, which has shaped international relations—and particularly relations with Russia—for over a quarter-century.

Resolving the crisis in Ukraine would have only required a reassessment of Washington, Brussels, and Berlin’s strategic miscalculations and a respect for Russia’s legitimate security interests. Unfortunately, the current political leadership in the US and Europe lacks the necessary restraint to peacefully resolve the conflict.

For example, neither the weeks-long Russian troop build-up on the Ukrainian border nor Russia’s security demands—outlined in a letter to Western leaders prior to the military action—led to any acknowledgment of Russia’s national security concerns by the US, EU, or NATO. They denied Putin any opportunity for diplomacy. The blame for the collapse of dialogue and the first step toward Russian aggression lies solely with the West.

While public and international discourse on this issue often focuses on the Kremlin and the White House, little attention is paid to Ukrainian President Zelensky’s role in the current crisis. Had he defined his country’s national security interests wisely and sensibly within the broader geopolitical context, particularly in relation to Russia, he might have avoided the conflict and preserved his country’s territorial integrity. Instead, driven by his Western backers and perhaps megalomaniacal ambitions, he pushed Ukraine toward NATO membership and the stationing of nuclear weapons—decisions that overstepped the reasonable limits of an adequate security strategy.

A historical analogy might help illustrate this point. In 1955, a decade after World War II and following ten years of Allied occupation, Austria was asked to choose between NATO membership or accepting neutrality as a prerequisite for regaining its sovereignty. Had Austria rejected neutrality and joined NATO, it would have provoked the Soviet Union, which had already expanded its defensive alliance, the Warsaw Pact, to Hungary and Czechoslovakia. This would have been seen as a direct threat to the security of the USSR, inevitably leading to a military response.

In a geopolitically precarious situation, no country should use political resolve to fulfill power-hungry ambitions. In Ukraine’s case, a neutral stance—eschewing NATO membership and halting arms-related support from the US and its allies—could have paved the way for a diplomatic solution. Had President Zelensky pursued this course, he would have gone down in history as a statesman. Instead, he will likely be remembered as the comedian he once was before his presidency, a role he has stubbornly maintained in office.

In truth, Zelensky and his predecessor Poroshenko, along with their American and European allies, have been undermining the country since the Euro-Maidan coup of 2014. In just eight years, they have managed to destroy Ukraine’s economy, militarize the nation, and exacerbate a series of crises. According to the Ptukha Institute for Demography and Social Studies, Ukraine’s defense budget at the start of the war was six times higher than it had been in 2013, and the country experienced significant economic recession, energy crises, and demographic shifts. Between 2014 and 2021, over one million Ukrainians obtained Russian citizenship, and more than 600,000 received work permits in the EU. One in four Ukrainians wants to leave the country, and nearly two-thirds believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction—issues barely mentioned in Western media.

Putin never intended to go to war with Ukraine or NATO, nor is he driven by a desire to resurrect the borders of the old Soviet Union. These are absurd accusations, often repeated by the US president and European governments under the influence of the arms lobby and irrational Russophobia. The bottom line is that Western leaders missed their opportunities to de-escalate the situation, and now they must bear the consequences of their folly. They have tormented the Russian bear for far too long, neglecting its concerns, and now the bear has taken the strategic initiative.

The senile Biden, the neoconservative warmongers in the US State Department, the subservient EU leadership, and NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg—all now stand like doused poodles, helpless in the face of their own failures. In their desperation, they have imposed a new sanctions regime on Russia, further alienating the country, driving it into the arms of China, and hastening the economic decline of much of Central and Western Europe. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who follows US directives to the detriment of his country and its neighbors, immediately halted the ratification of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which was meant to provide much-needed natural gas to Central and Western Europe at low cost.

The amateurish circles of American and European policy experts—the so-called national security officials in the US State Department and the European Commission—still insist on the correctness of their failed strategic paradigm. They call Putin an imperialist invader and a violator of international law for recognizing the breakaway provinces in eastern Ukraine and coming to their aid. Yet, they conveniently forget that the US and its transatlantic partners have often violated international law in recent decades. They based much of their foreign policy on the deliberate disregard of international law, especially the principle of non-intervention. Despite having no legitimate justification for their interventions—such as in Libya and Syria—they now demonize Putin for a strategic move he was cornered into making, one with legitimate reasons from the perspective of Russia’s national survival.

The true causes of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as briefly outlined here, remain entirely ignored in the public discourse. Western governments, particularly the United States, refuse to acknowledge their role in this crisis.

If Western foreign policy circles fail to recognize that any approach to international relations—whether bilateral, multilateral, or global—that ignores the geopolitical and strategic interests of other nations is destined to fail, the consequences for European and global security could be catastrophic.

For now, it is crucial that the political centers of power in the transatlantic world maintain composure, admit their role in the escalation, and avoid plunging the world into a potential Third World War.

 

 

 

 

 

 

An Earnest Facade of Lunacy: The Tragicomedy that is U.S. Domestic Politics

People who are interested in politics may not yet fully comprehend the magnitude of the undignified and mortifying political spectacle unfolding in this country.

There is no doubt that the U.S. is far too powerful to be destroyed from the outside. However, those outside powers with such intentions need not worry. There is plenty of evidence suggesting that this destruction is more likely to come from within, courtesy of the American people and their political representatives.

The lunacy of the situation is starkly visible in the field of more than 20 candidates initially running for the Democratic nomination to challenge President Trump in the 2020 election. Their stances on political issues are not just different; they are utterly unreasonable, if not downright insane and incompetent. Watching these candidates try to out-left and out-Trump each other in their bids to appear distinctive and exclusive makes it clear: they are unqualified for the office they seek.

Their ideas on issues like open borders, healthcare, voting rights for illegal immigrants, abolishing ICE, Medicare for All, Green New Deals to fight climate change, and a wealth tax—just to name a few—are completely out of touch with the needs of a functioning and orderly society. Even more astounding is the seriousness with which media outlets cover the absurdity and futility of this contest. One can only wonder at the time and effort being wasted.

The overall lawlessness and foolishness of the Democratic Party only serve to reinforce the ridiculous picture painted by these candidates. Need examples?

• Watch Democrat Jerry Nadler abuse his role as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to stoke partisan divisions and perpetuate the baseless effort to impeach the sitting President.

• Watch Democratic Party leaders and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam "Pencil Neck" Schiff, supported by elements of the Deep State, continue to push the Russia collusion narrative despite the conclusions of the Mueller Report, after two years of investigation, which disproved it.

• Watch Democrats and Never-Trumpers in the State Department, along with foreign relations pundits on nearly all news stations, interpret President Trump's legitimate foreign policy efforts to improve relations with Russia as treasonous—some even insinuating that Trump is a Russian agent.

• Watch neoconservative and neoliberal figures push for war with Iran under the pretense of the recent attack on Saudi oilfields, despite the Yemeni Houthi rebels claiming responsibility and the U.S. insistence on solely blaming Iran.

As I write these lines, a new opportunity for the Democrats to impeach Trump has presented itself. A whistleblower claims that Trump acted inappropriately during a telephone call with the newly elected President of Ukraine. While Trump sees this as just another witch hunt aimed at taking him down, impeachment proceedings are set to begin, further damaging the Democratic Party. In the end, it will likely lead to nothing. Three years of irrational Trump-hatred have clearly drained the radical left of reason and common sense. They seem impervious to more conciliatory approaches in domestic political relations.

Ultimately, if the anti-Trump forces are unable to remove him from office before the 2020 election, their final recourse to regain the White House will likely be a massive, all-out effort to commit voter fraud. This will be the subject of one of my next blog post.

2016 U.S. Presidential Election - Political Intuition TRUMPS Propaganda

The United States, and with it the world, got a respite. The utter catastrophe, namely the prolongation of the past eight years' nightmare, so it seems, could be averted. A horrific and ultimately devastating third Obama-term was prevented by denying Hillary Clinton the presidency. Something already to be considered the political miracle of the century. 

Against almost all polls and the united predictions of media pundits and news outlets, Donald Trump got elected to become the 45th president of the United States. The good intuition of some 60 million Americans made them vote for Mr. Trump, despite unparalleled disinformation and defamation campaign against him, carried forth by the mainstream media and advanced on the school grounds and college campuses in the months leading up to the election. They voted for him despite the vitriol spewed at Trump not only from his Democrat opponent in the race but also from certain elements in his political party. But most importantly, they voted for him because their political instinct made them see through the concerted attempt of almost all forces of public information and discourse to cover up for the colossal failure of the first African-American president's presidency. 

Over the years, I have commented on the utter follies of Obama's policies in previous blog entries back to 2009, criticizing the pursuance of his Marxist-utopian notions of politics in domestic and international affairs. Imagine that after that sham of Obama's presidency, some people dare to consider anybody else unfit for that office! Mind-boggling political shortsightedness, cultural parochialism, and ideological prejudice of those who still approve of Obama's job performance. Yet, signs that he had turned the Democratic Party into an ailing enterprise and that he doomed Hillary Clinton's run were already tangible to all those who had kept an open mind, and heart for that matter. As the Daily Caller reported, under Obama, Democrats had lost more than 900 state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 U.S. Congress, and 13 Senate seats.

On regional and local levels, significant numbers of American people had already rejected the advancement of Obama's delusional globalist policies. They neglected human coexistence's ontological necessities and were therefore highly damaging to our social and political coexistence. (for more on the 'Ontological Principles of the Political,' compare my blog essay of November 15, 2015, on "Immigration – U.S. and Europe Governed by Lunacy" https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2015/11/immigration-us-and-europe-governed-by.html). 

However, I emphasized that the lunacy of such policies not only occurs on the side of the progressive Left in this country—the neoconservative elements in the Republican Party also support these ideas. Domestically, out-of-their-mind proponents like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan propped up Obama's policies of open borders and uncontrolled immigration. Internationally, prominent Republican politicians such as John McCain or Lindsay Graham went along with the Middle East's destruction by arming and supporting dubious insurgents and bringing down established nation-state structures. They also endorsed the U.S. government's idiotic stance toward Russia, most of all the aggressive posture and saber-rattling of the U.S. and NATO in Ukraine and the Baltic states. Quite clearly, neglecting other stakeholders' legitimate national interests in global affairs and negating the significant stakes of strategic thinking had turned the attempted imposition of this type of Pax Americana into an absurdity. 

As I made clear in a blog back in April of 2016, after the dropping out of Rand Paul of the Republican presidential preliminaries, only the election of Donald Trump could raise hope for an urgently needed turnaround to bring U.S. policies to its senses. Alas, the overdue reversal of U.S. foreign affairs policies is not a given now where Mr. Trump got elected. It will all depend on whether or not he will prevent the influence of neoconservatives from altering his policy promises. Of paramount importance will be the person the President-elect is going to assign as his secretary of state. Politicians of statesmanlike stature have always acknowledged the supreme significance of foreign affairs in governance and thus dedicated their prime effort and attention to it. 

The radical policies of ignorant and deluded people, who happened to reign over global affairs in the quarter-century gone by since the collapse of the Soviet Union, drove the United States and Western civilization in its entirety to a crossroads. They wasted the chances the post-Cold War order offered by a reckless U.S. strategy aiming at singular global dominance. At the bottom of this move toward a centralized world stood the weakening and indeed dissolution of the nation-state concept, combined with a pseudo-messianic democratic universalism, manifesting itself in attempts and support for interventionist regime-change for instance in Libya, Syria, in Ukraine and the Caucasus, as well as in imposing nation-building in the Middle East and Asia, most foolishly in Afghanistan. This strategic design for a new world order presented us with a new face of contemporary warfare, featuring the advancement of militant progressive secularism and the ethnic and cultural subversion of western societies by pushing and facilitating disproportional immigration from non-western nations and regions. Such strategies aimed to synchronize the masses and prepare the ground for continuous governance by liberal and progressive regimes.

 

In the face of all this, Mr. Trump's victory came at the eleventh hour. His empowerment by way of sufficient Electoral College votes was a clear rejection of globalist policies and politicians, against which Mr. Trump waged his presidential campaign in the first place. His victory also delivered a devastating blow to the hubris of those liberal and progressive elites who thought they had already won the struggle for the political future of the lead nation of the free world. 

 

It remains to be seen if Mr. Trump and his incoming administration will be able to redress, neutralize, and reverse the policy failures of recent years. The scope of what he needs to accomplish is vast. Above all, it ranges from foreign affairs, the pacification of the Middle East, the resetting of relations with the Kremlin, and preventing the U.S.'s political culture from further decline by overcoming the cultural and moral nihilism that has taken hold in significant segments of society and state. Additionally, an important task will be the narrowing of the ethnic and ideological division within the country. 

While the task is not an easy one, all good-willing people should dearly hope for Mr. Trump to succeed. The hour of decision for the survival of this republic as well as our whole civilization has arrived!

Astonishing Media Double Standard on Ukraine

The murder of Boris Nemtsov, a liberal Russian politician and avid critic of President Putin, back in February, caused a significant outcry and was covered extensively by virtually all mainstream media in the West. Without substantial evidence, from the beginning, the murder of the politician culminated in speculations about the Russian Government's involvement. 

When somebody murdered three Ukrainian critics of the incumbent president Poroshenko within a few days in April, no such outcry could be heard. The assassination of Oleh Kalashnikov, a former Ukrainian member of parliament and vocal critic of the ruling administration, and the murders of opposition journalists Oles Buzina and Sergei Sukhob went by more or less uncommented. In previous blogs, I've already made clear that Poroshenko was a stooge installed by Washington and Berlin in a coup in the course of the so-called Maidan Revolution in the spring of 2014. Barely any media reported on these events, and the silence of the media in conjunction with the lack of comments from the US state department and EU foreign ministries and NATO, OSCE, and EU representatives speaks volumes. It gives indirect testimony to the West's collaboration in Ukraine's Maidan coup and the ensuing destabilization and radicalization.

Aside from the double standard in reporting and commenting, which violates the primary principle for news outlets to report factually and objectively, it demonstrates how most of the media degenerate into mere propaganda instruments for whatever policies suit their ideological agenda.

Ukraine - Another Failure of Western Interventionism

As I've made clear in my previous blog of March 2014 below, by overthrowing a democratically elected government in Ukraine, Washington, with support from the European Union's leading powers, has brought the United States and the West into a confrontation with Russia.

In about a year, the West has managed to topple the democratically-elected Ukraine government, install the Washington and Berlin-backed Poroshenko administration in Kyiv, and drive the nation into a fratricidal civil war. It turned the country into a failed state, virtually destroyed its economy, and severely damaged Russia's.

In its usual reversal of cause-effect realities, the mainstream media, in its typical reversal of cause-effect facts, blamed Russia and Putin's aggression and expansionism for protecting incumbent administrations and concealing their sad and ill-defined policies. Had the U.S. and Europe conducted just and wise policy procedures, they could have foreseen the support of Ukrainian separatists and annexation of Crimea by Russia as inevitable for its national interest.

Think about this: A year before scheduled presidential elections through which the Ukrainian people could have gotten rid of president Yanukovich's allegedly corrupt administration and chosen an administration espousing a more EU-oriented course, the U.S. and E.U. instigated an unnecessary coup. Why, for what reasons? To install a Western puppet administration that the people of Ukraine might have never elected themselves? To prevent a Russian-prone government (that was simultaneously establishing good relations with the West) from being democratically confirmed in OSCE-monitored elections? To put Ukraine into NATO and E.U. and drive Russia out of its Black Sea ports in Crimea?
 
Whatever the reason or ensemble of reasons, the applied policies provide evidence of a colossal misunderstanding of foreign affairs in a post-Cold War global setting and an astounding lack of any practical political philosophy of international relations in Washington. However, the incompetence and dilettantism that is hiding behind the democratic principle is widespread and not limited to the White House. Senators and politicians of both parties in Washington are pushing the notion of arming Ukraine and an increased show of force in Eastern Europe by the U.S. and NATO. GOP Senator James Inhoffe just introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate to arm Ukraine with "Lethal Military Aid" against pro-Russian separatists, which means the hawks are doubling down on the political foolishness. They perpetuate the damage to global affairs and continue to push Ukraine into a proxy war with Russia.

However, the overbearing arrogance and hubris of Washington appear to drive a wedge into transatlantic relations, as ever more European nations distance themselves from the idea of arming Ukraine and potentially dragging NATO into war with Russia. Western Europe's economic ties with Putin's country are too close, and a significant portion of Russia's natural gas delivery to Europe runs through Ukraine. Aside from that, European nations, even when NATO-members, know that their populations are not ready to subscribe to go to outright war with Russia over Ukraine.

What are the options for future development? From Ukraine breaking apart with the eastern and separatist parts integrating into Russia to outright war between the West and Russia over Ukraine, almost anything appears possible. Given the strength and commitment of the Russian-backed separatists, it seems unlikely that the Ukrainian Armed Forces, lacking in coherence and dedication to the cause, would reconquer the eastern and southeastern parts of the country. A diplomatic solution along the lines of the Minsk negotiations results will depend on the ending of military and armament support from the U.S. and other western nations. I am convinced, though, that the arms support will seize soon or never get up to speed as it has become quite clear by now that Kyiv has lost and is unable to wage a full-scale war with or without weapons from the West. While the U.S. and individual European nations might be willing to prolong the agony, Kyiv can't fight a war without the will of its people behind. And in the long run, even the most hawkish politicians in Washington couldn't possibly want to throw NATO in and fight World War III against Russia over some folly and utter political blunder they have instigated and committed in Ukraine by themselves in the first place?

It is mind-boggling to note that, like in the Middle East, western political authorities could have easily prevented the meaningless bloodshed in Ukraine and the state's unnecessary disintegration. The hubris of liberal interventionism and U.S. activism worldwide - resulting from distorted interpretations of history, misguided doctrines of international relations, and an unjustifiable sense of moral superiority - appears unconquerable.

No matter how many times history proves them wrong and presents the horrendous damage, these policies are causing worldwide, self-righteous pride and defiant inertia prevail over any judiciousness or informed judgment.