How’d you like to have the old Union of Soviet Socialist Republics back, along with the Warsaw Pact?
Russia wants Nato to remove all of its forces from Bulgaria, Romania and other ex-communist states in eastern Europe that joined the alliance after 1997, the foreign ministry said on Friday, underlining Moscow’s hardline position ahead of security talks with the US in Geneva.
Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, said in a written Q&A on the ministry’s website that Russia’s demands included “withdrawing foreign forces, equipment, and armaments and making other steps to return to the condition as of 1997”, when Nato began admitting former Warsaw Pact countries.
“That includes Bulgaria and Romania,” Lavrov said, adding that Russia’s demand was “core” and “deliberately worded as clearly as possible so as not to allow any dual interpretations”.
Russia has called its demands “security concerns.” The eastward expansion of the NATO Alliance has provided Vladimir Putin with a rationale for massive westward aggression.
Our supposed allies don’t even want the U.S. involved in negotiations:
The US has mounted a frantic diplomatic effort to de-escalate tensions and warned of “crippling” sanctions in case of any Russian aggression against Ukraine.
But western unity frayed this week after US president Joe Biden appeared to suggest a western response would depend on the scale of Russia’s intervention and French president Emmanuel Macron proposed separate European-led security talks with Moscow.
And it’s not just France; Germany wants no part of us either:
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz turned down an invite at short notice from U.S. President Joe Biden to discuss the Ukraine crisis, German magazine Der Spiegel said on Friday.
Scholz did not accept the invitation due to a full schedule, including a trip to Madrid, as well as the desire to show that he was present as Germany grapples with the COVID-19 pandemic, according to Der Spiegel.
“Full schedule,” eh? Of course. That’s the only reason anyone would decline to meet with an American President, the leader of the free world: scheduling conflicts! Just ask Stacy Abrams. Better yet, ask the folks who sought to avoid having to meet with Barack Obama.
The Usurper Administration has emasculated our military – yes, I mean that exactly as I wrote it – and weakened our economy near to the point of collapse. Taken together, those two deteriorations make plain that we would be the underdogs in any military action in Eastern Europe. Not only is our armed strength far below what it was even five years ago; we would be hard pressed to sustain combat economically for more than a couple of weeks. Meanwhile Putin has been adding to Russia’s combat capabilities with additional men-at-arms and new weaponry.
But no more mean tweets, right? That’s certainly worth losing Europe, isn’t it?
This is what you get from Democrat dominance of the federal government. They start wars with their diplomatic and strategic ineptitude, then are unwilling – or unable – to win them.
Right-of-center commentators have been saying for a while that Ukraine isn’t worth the spilling of American blood. I agree…but what about the other former Soviet republics? What about the Eastern European nations Ronald Reagan’s resolve liberated from Soviet dominance? What about what was once called the People’s Republic of Germany? Should they be forcibly reintegrated into a reborn Warsaw Pact, will we regret having stood by while it happened?
Whatever the answer to that question, I have no doubt that we’ll regret allowing the Wokeists to transform our armed forces, once the acknowledged champions of the world, into a laughingstock good for nothing but marching in high heels. Indeed, given the shameful abandonment of Afghanistan and the scent of imminent surrender of Taiwan to Red China, I rather think most of us regret it already.
3 comments
“…but what about the other former Soviet republics?”
I don’t live there.
I’d much rather use our military to secure our own damn borders. Can we take care of our own house first?
Thank you Guy. My sentiments exactly. I’d much rather concentrate on getting the communists and fascists out of the US than keeping the Russians out of Ukraine. Then again, at this late stage both may be impossible.
I don’t think the eastward expansion of the NATO Alliance has provided Putin with a rationale for massive westward aggression. It’s simply inconceivable that the Russians are the least bit interested in taking on the risk, expense, and headaches of even a successful takeover of Europe.
The eastward expansion of “NATO” has, however, made clear to Russia that the assurances given by Bush ’41 that NATO would not expand eastward were worthless and now provide them a rationale for demanding that the entire post 1997 expansion be unwound. (I’m not sure the Russians have gone that far but they would be justified in doing so and are more than justified in demanding that “NATO” stop screwing around on their front porch.)
Bush may have given those assurances sincerely. I don’t know. The Russians made a mistake in not getting them in writing just as Bush should have foreseen that such expansion would serve no useful purposes and similarly had the agreement acknowledged in writing. No doubt confusion, soaring optimism, and general relief at the conclusion of a long nightmare reigned.
Nonetheless, the question whether the US is “agreement capable” goes beyond the matter of whether the agreement was on a handshake or in writing. The writings on matters of supreme importance are for the GS-13 scribes to prepare after the fact but a deal between men should be like iron even in their absence. A ludicrous idea now let it be said if you note that is men like Blinken and Biden who are our representatives.
Subsequent events proved that the US and “NATO” were very interested indeed in expanding eastward and we have today a situation that obligates NATO to do its Article 5 thing in the event of an attack on Chechia, North Macedonia, Montenegro, and Poland. This is 80+ years down the road but I still think it’s worth asking if we want to tie our fortunes to a possible still-extant Polish arrogance.
The US under the guise of a NATO savior mission illegally waged war against Serbia and inflicted death and destruction on that nation without constitutional or UN authorization. We peeled off Kosovo as a gift to the scumbag Kosovo Liberation Army, thereby giving radical Islam a base of operations in Europe. (NB. Forcible Kosovo transfer to KLA — righteous. Peaceful transfer of Crimea to Russia pursuant to referendum evidencing overwhelming local support — satanic.)
None of this is honorable or benign. Rules-based international order my foot.
The Russians have pointedly asked “against whom is this expansion intended?” And the closely related question is, “Why is this expansion directed against Russia?” Given that it is directed against Russia, the next logical question is, “Notwithstanding that the US government position on ‘the Russian Threat’ is a tissue of lies, is NATO — expanded, inflated, augmented, stretched, botoxed, and with a boss Brazillian Blowout — anywhere even close to being able to dent the fenders of the Russian war machine (RWM) in the event that the Russians say they’ve had enough of US/’NATO’ provocations and meddling in their near abroad?” Scott Ritter says we’re not and that any of the immediately-available “NATO” military options are doomed. Period. Full stop. Long-range, precision-guided missiles guarantee that forward assets and the rear area of NATO will be destroyed within 30 minutes. When Putin said the next war will not be fought on Russian soil he doubtless had these weapons in mind. Americans think that serious warfare is a game but the Russians know it to be a deadly enterprise.
But the bigger issue is why the US is taking this absurd position v-a-v the Russians? Some otherwise intelligent former cold warriors I know or know of take the ludicrous position that the fall of the Soviet Union was — IKYFN — a deception operation. Apart from them, the plutocrats and their lackeys in this country simply do the ipse dixit number and expect us to all race to the recruiting stations because . . . well, because “RuSSiA!!”
Russia was looted in no small part due to the “assistance” of our helpful experts after 1991 and the above incomplete account of events east of the Oder combine to demonstrated that our relations with the Russians have been an unbelievable wasted opportunity. They suffered over 70 years of communist destruction, waste, tyranny and plunder and we’ve ignored that sad history like a bug on the windshield. If Russia is this ghastly tyranny that threatens the peace of Europe then let us engage in a national debate about what our obligations to the framework of collective security, common sense, common decency, and economic/military/political realities require of us going forward. If we are going to point our finger at Russia then fairness also requires that we be prepared to face pointed questions about state murder (Epstein, Finicum, Babbit, the Weavers, the Davidians), prosecutorial tyranny (Flynn, the “Insurrectionists,” Rittenhouse, Zimmerman, Chauvin, Assange) and abdication (Boudin), military aggression (Syria, Iraq, Libya, Serbia), sophomoric, made-up notions of international law (R2P, RBIO), naked theft (Syrian oil), lawless security organs (FBI, NSA, CIA, DOJ, BATFE), corrupt press and courts, banana republic elections, and arrogant intervention around the world. This posture of ours that we somehow are righteous warriors against the forces of evil around the world is pure arrogance.