Why doesn't Zelensky offer his mineral deal to the EU?
The US has given Ukraine about$175bn (40%) The EU has given them $263 bn. (60%)
Since Trump/Vance now clearly backs Russia, the EU can get deal done solo.
This tactic gives Zelensky leverage. He has nothing to lose, as Trump has stopped all intelligence and military help.
Trump on the other hand, has a lot to lose if the mineral deal goes to the EU. They can then issue a "war effort" Eurobond collateralized by the Ukraine minerals deal to help replace the US funding Trump has stopped.
Zelensky should approach the EU, offer them the minerals deal and Lock Russia snd Trump out of all negotiations.
Trump will never help Ukraine to feed his pal Putin and the Russians. The Europeans need to come to this conclusion very quickly.
Because Zelensky is OUR puppet, not the EU's. If anyone is going to rape the land, it should be the nation on the other side of the world. The USA and Ukraine are next to each other and share the same border, history and the same people. One third of Ukranians speak Russian and are of Russian origin. So naturally, the USA regime-changed the nation and installed a puppet so WE get the resources.
That is a statement that is not based on fact but baseless speculation. How did we install Zelensky, when there was an election? He ran against Poroshenko who Trump sold javelins to.
No, I prefer the truth. Please direct me to any proof that you base your opinion upon. Calling all Russians "rapists", seems to be a deep state lie to promote to push more war, weapons and control. Jim is under someone's thumb, just call him "thumbilina".
I worked at the same firm in DC along with Paul Manifort (and Roger Stone), who was then making millions shaking down poor, resource rich African countries. 25 years later its well documented (in US Court) Manifort was on the KGB payroll ($15 million) mostly to show doubts about the 2014 Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Manifort then went on to save Trumps GOP candidacy in early 2016. That year, only one change was made in the Republican platform, a pro-Russia plank was inserted by Manifort. Trump was later elected. Manifort was convicted and later pardoned for his KGB work. Maniforts lies still form the basis for Putin's anti-Ukraine puppies in the White House and across the country. P.S. my clients were fine, upstanding Canadians.
Thank you for this explanation. If only more people (who do not actively seek explanations like this) could be made aware of this knowledge, there might be more support for actively seeking a resolution for that war. Too many Americans simply bury their heads in the sand and don't try to educate themselves about these situations. Sad.
Except ... James Baker told the Russians during the negotiations of German reunification, that NATO would NOT move "one inch East". The quote is in the record.
Always looking to reinforce your tribal needs? We are one nation. To let the R or D tribe destroy our Constitution with censorship is just wrong. MORE speech is the solution censorship is anti-American. We are one nation of - Republicans and Democrats. Why have our political parties been working to hypnotized weak minded people into hate?
We do, it's called the "Blob" because members don't think for themselves. For example: James Baker told the Russians during the negotiations of German reunification, that NATO would NOT move "one inch East". The quote is on the record in the negotiations. Blobsters ignore it because it isn't convenient to their reality.
No matter what Putin claims about NATO. Putin has a vast country. He could very well install his nukes along the frontline. It's just an excuse for his invasion and recovering his idea of Russia's glory days. He lies and lies. He signs and renegs.
Because it is true of most all all capitalist nations! I bet Jarrett THINKS that Russia is still communist!!! Do Karen and Jarrtt know that the Soviet Union died decades ago! Russia has more elections than Ukraine! Warmongers are still fighting for USAID propaganda, regime change and deep state drive into war, weapons and slaughter!
You wrote a complex mess "Funny how you accused Putin of doing EXACTLY WHAT WAS STATED OF US/NATO AGREEMENT W/RUSSIA."
Look at your post and explain, please. It's a mess and I know that you are smarter than... "Funny how you accused Putin of doing EXACTLY WHAT WAS STATED OF US/NATO AGREEMENT W/RUSSIA." You got a reactive caplock problem.
Projection? This need to demean others harms Democrats as much as tRump. To find an adult solution, be an adult. Tribal hissy-fits and demeaning others is not mature.
I am dismayed that no one has mentioned the point that both these countries are considered adherents of the ancient Eastern Orthodox Church, and the largest combined nations in the world of Orthodox Christians. In fact, the Ukraine literally "delivered" this faith to Russia - albeit by "force" in 988 by one of the greatest Saints of the Church, the Great Prince and Saint Vladimir. Putin, at least historically, was frequently seen in the presence of, and said to be in consultation with the Patriarch of Moscow; frequently in attendance in celebration of the Great Feasts of the Orthodox Church; and even seeking a blessing from the Patriarch before travel. Now, Putin has purposely made it a point to literally target and bomb the most ancient cathedrals and churches of the Orthodox Church in the Ukraine, a sacrilege apparently intended to both purposely discourage and demean the Ukrainian people. Further, it reveals the malignant and hypocritical demeanor and character of Putin and his allies, who would conduct such a campaign against their fellow Orthodox Christians. This is the original source of the expression, "Слава Україні! Slava Ukraini," drawn from the Church's praise "Слава" of its Lord.
Agree with your main points. However, there is a fourth truth that you somehow have elided:
"Ukrainians, as a sovereign nation separate from Russia, made the decision that they wanted to have a free and fair democracy and that they wanted to associate with Europe rather than Russia. They proved this by revolting against Viktor Yanukovych, the Kremlin’s choice to lead Ukraine, not once, but twice."
Key word: revolt, which you might have duly noted occurred in the form of an illegal insurrection against an elected leader Washington opposed and nefariously worked to overthrow.
That's not the truth. The popular protests that forced Yanukovych out of power were not an "illegal insurrection", and the US did not "nefariously" work to overthrow him. Both of those claims are part of the Russian disinformation campaign that Kunce refers to at the beginning of his post.
The source of the disinformation is not the main point (though of course the Russians have the greatest motivation to push the falsehoods). The point is that *it is not true*; it is not true that Yanukovych was forced out by an "illegal insurrection", and it is not true that Washington "nefariously" worked to overthrow him. The facts are clear, and stating them is hardly evidence of anti-Russian paranoia, as you imply.
Russiagate has been debunked, Eric. There have been two Democratic investigations that concluded "no collusion". From Democrats!
I bet that you have not read the conclusions because they don't match your tribal desires of war, weapons and slaughter. Yanuovych won the election in Ukraine and the USA worked to overthrow him. The insurcetion you identify was paid for by USAID! Pay attention, not homage.
No one even mentioned the investigation into the links between Donnie's campaign and the Russians, so I don't know why you bring that up, but you mischaracterize what the investigations found. There were definitely contacts between the two and while there was insufficient evidence to *prove* a criminal conspiracy, Mueller (who was a Republican) also did not say that the evidence showed there was no conspiracy. An inconclusive result is not proof of innocence. The investigation didn't even look at whether there was "collusion" which is not a term found in relevant US law.
The only ones responsible for "war, weapons and slaughter" in eastern Europe are the Russians with their unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and their repeated attacks on civilian targets. It's absurd to claim otherwise, and it is those who repeat their propaganda who are promoting "war, weapons and slaughter". And no, the US had nothing to do with Yanuovych's overthrow. The Ukrainian people did that themselves.
Of course I support both movements. I'm afraid they have as yet led to no new ground, as police are still abusive and Wall Street is still sticking it to Main Street.
Don't think that online comments are proof of truth-bringing!?! THAT would be insane. I suggest that you search Chase Hughes and learn from the person who has trained the CIA on psyops and deception. Once you've seen the M.O. of human deception, you can't un-see it. Chase helps you untangle the narratives for lies and deception. Be a truth-detector, not just another person playing the game of "telephone".
I understand the argument for getting something in return for any concession. Nevertheless, it has to be said that the relentless eastward NATO expansion to Russia's border was a violation of agreements reached between Regan and Gorbachev. To make matters worse, CIA efforts at regime change in both Georgia and Ukraine represented a severe provocation to the Russians.
Now that the Ukraine war is lost, I hope Trump can negotiate a suitable security arrangement for Eastern Europe. Given his diplomatic skills my hopes are small.
There was no such agreement between Reagan and Gorbachev. The closest thing to it was when James Baker, Bush Sr.'s Secretary of State, orally promised Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't expand eastward, a promise he made without authorization from Bush or any NATO allies, and which therefore was meaningless. The only agreements which matter are formal signed agreements between the two sides, like the arms control agreements Kunce talks about. Those who claim that NATO's eastward expansion somehow justified Russia's aggression never point to any such formal agreement, because it doesn't exist.
Please study the reunification talks between East and West Germany - where Baker is recorded saying that NATO will not move "one inch eastward." Such purposeful lies and/or ignorance of history ensures violence and war. Pay attention to the details, instead of jingoism.
Again, Baker saying such thing does not constitute a formal agreement that NATO is obligated to follow. Did either the US or NATO sign a written agreement with the USSR or Russia promising not to expand eastward? No, they did not. If, as Kunce notes with regard to arms control treaties, Russia doesn't even adhere to formal, signed agreements, then why should NATO adhere to an oral promise made decades ago by a single US official, a promise that neither the US nor NATO as a whole ever confirmed in writing? The only "jingoism" I see here is efforts to defend Russian warmongering by spreading misinformation.
So... it's "OK" for YOU to lie; but, not for those who acted on behalf of the lie.
Kunce ignores the CORE agreement that unified Germany. Acting like it was not important?!? When Cuba started to put Russian nuclear weapons next door, we objected and reacted. Be human and give humanity to others.
Kunce has joinded the blob headed towards WWIII. "Not one inch." Head home dude, you just lost the peace movement of the Democratic party.
Hey Ronald, Put your money where your mouth is and point us to a signed agreement between NATO and Russia, or even the US and Russia. If you can't do that, anything you say is untrue and irrelevant.
Erase that ignorance and allow the light of truth in to your mind.
"U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
Everything I wrote was true. Can you point to any written agreement about NATO expansion, whether in the context of German reunification or otherwise? If you can't understand the difference between an oral comment that was never backed up in writing by the actual governments involved and a formal, binding agreement, there's not much anyone can say to you. And "but not for those who acted on behalf of the lie" doesn't make sense.
"U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
This information has been extremely well presented. You pinpointed the issue that Zelenskyy tried so hard to get across: that Russia is notorious for reneging on agreements. And that was what he needs, assurance. Your insight into "other-thinking" is severely lacking in Washington. Understanding how opponents think and work, and planning responses accordingly is unheard of. Thank you for sharing your insight!
As with all propaganda, it ignores reality. Our negotiator, James Baker, told the Russians during the negotiations of German reunification, that NATO would NOT move "one inch East". The quote is in the the documented records.
A good person, a good nation does NOT renege on their promise. Cuba and the USA are similar to Ukraine and Russia. How many Russian weapons did we allow into Cuba?
When the truth (that you don’t like) is spoken, you accuse the truth-teller of being a Russian?!? James Baker is on the recorded record as having said that NATO would not move “One inch East”. Truth is my shield.
Raghnal, when your tribe forces you to lie or censor information, your tribe may be a big part of the problem. Drop the tribe, become “American”.
I am passing this along to my son. He was born in 1961 so too young to understand the aftermath of WWlI, Korea, or VietNam, or the many de-colonializing mini wars scattered about the globe. He is, however a reader and, over the years has been filling in the blanks. This concise accounting of (P)Russian RealPolitik in the modern era is important, even as it ignores all the ancient history of European dynastic and imperial ambitions. And all that ancient history is only important because it supports the specious mental processes of modern megalomaniacs There must be something in the human brain that dwells obsessively on conquest, illusions of security, and delusions of grandeur.
Putin as far as I know has never participated in an active war. His training is focused on covert warfare. His dreams of glory do not encompass the actual nightmares and agony of RealBattle. Pity.
But then neither does Trump and most likely, neither do most of the nincompoops gathered around him.
I look forward to more of your rare, not so common sense.
James Baker got into trouble for that! He didn't have any authority whatsoever to make that promise. Give that crappy argument up! BTW, NATO has never invaded other countries. Russia sure has!
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The US spends a lot of money defending Europe. That advantages the US militarily as you mentioned but also economically. It's one of the reasons we are the wealthiest country in the world (at least for now).
"Defending Europe" ? As you MAY know, the USSR broke up and it is the USA who violated the promise to Gorbichov to "not move one inch east". Yet the USA moved Eastward and recruited14 former Soviet Republics to join NATO after the cold war.
The argument "defending Europe" doesn't fly. NATO violated the pact, and is expanding nuclear weapons to the Russian border. Do you remember what the USA did when Russian nukes were found in Cuba?
Yes The US negotiated a settlement with Cuba and the USSR. There was no attack of Cuba. There was a lot of tough talk and posturing but negotiation solved the problem (not bombs).
The USA and other NATO countries allow other countries to join NATO. They probably would like some countries to join and others not. But those countries decide whether to join NATO or not join NATO. It's a decision by each sovereign nation and it's a very long, tedious and expensive process to join NATO.
It's not a decision by the USA. It's a decision by each country. And it must be approved by all NATO countries.
Putin didn't need to attack Ukraine to maintain its sovereignty. No country was going to attack Russia. Russia has nukes and no country seems to attack a country when it has nukes.
Authoritarians advance by expanding their territories, because they are really bad and building their own economies. As we will eventually learn in the next few years (very unfortunately).
According to the polls I see, Ukrainians overwhelmingly support joining the west and want to join the EU. BTW they elected Zelenskyy.
You keep wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Fix what is broke. Keep what works.
Sovereign nations make sovereign choices. They are, undoubtedly, influenced by lots of things including propaganda from Russia (which is soundly documented).
The biggest "propaganda " from the west is the life style which is far and away better than Russia.
NATO has never attacked another country.
The US did not attack Cuba to get the nukes.
Countries choose to join NATO and it takes a lot of work to join NATO.
That sounds a like like how you feel. But it is NOT how weapons get disbursed and used around the world. A good intention leading to widespread violence must be recognized.
Yet the invite to join NATO came from the USA. The weapons came from the USA. Payment came from the USA. Material military support came from the USA.
Joe, a proxy war still costs lives and money. Perhaps the 2013 peace accord should not have been signed. That is what polls in Ukraine show.
The core question is do you think Russia would try to take over its neighbors if its neighbors were not able to defend themselves?
The next question is do you think the US would try to take over its neighbors, if its neighbors were not able to defend themselves?
Then do you think NATO would take over its neighbors, if its neighbors were not able to defend themselves?
Oddly enough, my answer to the second question has changed in the last few months. There is a very large contingency of people in the US that wouldn't mind taking over Canada and Mexico and Greenland and Panama ... . I never realized it was there.
As crude as it sounds, if you don't defend yourself you will be taken over, even in today's age.
Prior to Trump, I would have said the US was defending itself with NATO. But, as with Bush and Iraq and now Trump with Canada ..., maybe you are right that all countries want to take over other countries.
But still today, NATO has never attacked another country and I still don't think it would. Member countries may (like the US), but not NATO itself. The nature of the group is that it has to act like a single unit. That nature is probably what keeps NATO from attacking and taking over other countries.
The particulars of how a country joins NATO are probably a matter of who you listened to last. Ultimately, the country has to make the decision to join and train the people who will fight and die in a war.
As a side note, the ultimate insanity of taking over Ukraine to defend yourself against NATO aggression is that once Ukraine belongs to Russia, then Russia has to take over the next country to defend its new territory of Russia and Ukraine. And it continues ... .
Hello Lucas, interesting article where you keep telling us that the Russians/Putin have been the bad guys all along. Maybe so, most of the time, but maybe not always? According to Jeffrey Sacks, the US has continuously done bad things in this situation and in many others. I know most of this is true. But I do not see you giving us more of a balanced opinion. I want and like to know what is happening, while doing my best to not get too involved emotionally because it will make me ill. I am a seeker of truth. Most people tend to be bias. Are you? I appreciate your experience, at the same time, because you have a large following and therefore can influence. I ask you to make an effort to examine history and the situation in a non bias way, but with dedication to the truth.
Jeffrey Sacks makes a lot of false claims about Russia and Ukraine, claims that are basically Russian talking points, such as claiming NATO agreed not to expand eastward (not true) or that the US was somehow responsible for the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine (also not true). If you want a balanced, unbiased view of this history, Kunce is far, far better than someone like Sacks.
Regarding NATO expansion, as I noted in another comment, there's the simple fact that no one can point to any sort of formal agreement between NATO and the USSR or Russia regarding NATO expansion. A formal, written agreement is the only thing that counts (and even those Russia often violates, as Kunce notes). But even as far as informal promises go, the only one that I am aware of was an oral commitment made to Gorbachev by James Baker, who was Bush Sr.'s Secretary of State. But Bush hadn't authorized him to make any such promise, and he hadn't consulted the rest of NATO either, so Baker's promise had no validity. It should be obvious that NATO is not obligated to abide by a commitment made decades ago by a single US official acting without authorization from the president or Congress to the head of a state that no longer even exists, especially if Russia won't even abide by formal treaties that it actually signed.
As for the Maidan Revolution, I was following the news fairly closely at the time, and it was clearly a spontaneous popular protest. No popular protest of that size and intensity could possibly be instigated by outside forces (as much as authoritarian regimes faced with such protests like to claim otherwise). Of course the US ambassador and other US officials at the time had sporadic contacts with the protesters (since they were doing their jobs) and expressed support for them (as did many pro-democracy people around the world, including myself). But to claim, as Sacks and others do, that those contacts and expressions of support somehow prove the US was behind the protests is ludicrous. I also openly supported the Hong Kong democracy protests in 2019, but that doesn't mean I instigated them.
Eric is a propagandist not interested in the actual truth. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
Ah, projection. You keep pushing pro-Russian propaganda, yet you accuse others of being propagandists. I've explained elsewhere multiple times that Baker's unauthorized oral promise was not binding on the US, much less NATO. Only formal written agreements matter. And NATO expanded to the east anyway years ago, though it had no plans to add Ukraine as a member. That Russian pretext for invasion is nonsensical, and no well-informed person buys it. You can repeat it as often as you like, and it will still never justify Russia's aggression.
Eric saw Russian aggression when the USA regime-changed Ukraine's elected leader in 2014. Eric did not like the peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine in 2013.
Eric does not acknowledge that the USA is the leading exporter of war, weapons and violence. Eric has not volunteered for the military, he just wants YOU to fight and die.
Go Eric, go fight. So brave are you from 10,000 miles away. Eric doesn't know that nuclear weapons do more than kill initially, the wind spreads the death around the world. Suck on that Eric!
Why doesn't Zelensky offer his mineral deal to the EU?
The US has given Ukraine about$175bn (40%) The EU has given them $263 bn. (60%)
Since Trump/Vance now clearly backs Russia, the EU can get deal done solo.
This tactic gives Zelensky leverage. He has nothing to lose, as Trump has stopped all intelligence and military help.
Trump on the other hand, has a lot to lose if the mineral deal goes to the EU. They can then issue a "war effort" Eurobond collateralized by the Ukraine minerals deal to help replace the US funding Trump has stopped.
Zelensky should approach the EU, offer them the minerals deal and Lock Russia snd Trump out of all negotiations.
Trump will never help Ukraine to feed his pal Putin and the Russians. The Europeans need to come to this conclusion very quickly.
https://apple.news/A-lQ9GVy9T02TWBTbv7pAbw
Because Zelensky is OUR puppet, not the EU's. If anyone is going to rape the land, it should be the nation on the other side of the world. The USA and Ukraine are next to each other and share the same border, history and the same people. One third of Ukranians speak Russian and are of Russian origin. So naturally, the USA regime-changed the nation and installed a puppet so WE get the resources.
That is a statement that is not based on fact but baseless speculation. How did we install Zelensky, when there was an election? He ran against Poroshenko who Trump sold javelins to.
Except we have voice recordings of Victoria Nuland saying what she did… regime change and all! Pay attention to be informed.
Zelensky is nobody's puppet. He's Ukrainian through and through.
I love the sarcasm! Now, get back to sending him weapons and intelligence.
Russians RAPED Ukrainian women in their invasion. That's not a stupid metaphor!
Jim will say anything to show his allegiance to his tribe. Anything... true or otherwise.
I love it when tribalists make up stories to help them cope with their beliefs. You seem to rape the truth at will. Are you Russian?
I'm a Deist. I'm a Geographer. I'm a Soldier. I'm a U.S. Citizen. I'm a Missourian. You are a Contrarian and a very slow one at that.
No, I prefer the truth. Please direct me to any proof that you base your opinion upon. Calling all Russians "rapists", seems to be a deep state lie to promote to push more war, weapons and control. Jim is under someone's thumb, just call him "thumbilina".
I worked at the same firm in DC along with Paul Manifort (and Roger Stone), who was then making millions shaking down poor, resource rich African countries. 25 years later its well documented (in US Court) Manifort was on the KGB payroll ($15 million) mostly to show doubts about the 2014 Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Manifort then went on to save Trumps GOP candidacy in early 2016. That year, only one change was made in the Republican platform, a pro-Russia plank was inserted by Manifort. Trump was later elected. Manifort was convicted and later pardoned for his KGB work. Maniforts lies still form the basis for Putin's anti-Ukraine puppies in the White House and across the country. P.S. my clients were fine, upstanding Canadians.
Thank you for this explanation. If only more people (who do not actively seek explanations like this) could be made aware of this knowledge, there might be more support for actively seeking a resolution for that war. Too many Americans simply bury their heads in the sand and don't try to educate themselves about these situations. Sad.
Except ... James Baker told the Russians during the negotiations of German reunification, that NATO would NOT move "one inch East". The quote is in the record.
First, James Baker doesn't control NATO, and never did.
Second, How is this any different than what Russia does when they sign a treaty and then violate it?
The tribe has spoken! Be trustworthy. The word of our Sect of State is important. “Not one inch Eastward”
James Baker did negotiate the treaty. The conversations were recorded.
Baker was installed by a Republican. As usual, another problem ensued.
Always looking to reinforce your tribal needs? We are one nation. To let the R or D tribe destroy our Constitution with censorship is just wrong. MORE speech is the solution censorship is anti-American. We are one nation of - Republicans and Democrats. Why have our political parties been working to hypnotized weak minded people into hate?
I know it will never happen but we need thoughtful people like you in positions of power. Thank you for this!
Geez, John. Yeah! It could happen. Go Lucas 😍😍😍
We do, it's called the "Blob" because members don't think for themselves. For example: James Baker told the Russians during the negotiations of German reunification, that NATO would NOT move "one inch East". The quote is on the record in the negotiations. Blobsters ignore it because it isn't convenient to their reality.
No matter what Putin claims about NATO. Putin has a vast country. He could very well install his nukes along the frontline. It's just an excuse for his invasion and recovering his idea of Russia's glory days. He lies and lies. He signs and renegs.
Karen is so unbalanced that she is wanting MORE nuclear weapons! She is off her meds again
Such uneducated hate is very dangerous. Pay attention to facts, not propaganda.
Funny how you accused Putin of doing EXACTLY WHAT WAS STATED OF US/NATO AGREEMENT W/RUSSIA.
Because it is true of most all all capitalist nations! I bet Jarrett THINKS that Russia is still communist!!! Do Karen and Jarrtt know that the Soviet Union died decades ago! Russia has more elections than Ukraine! Warmongers are still fighting for USAID propaganda, regime change and deep state drive into war, weapons and slaughter!
The USA has over 170 military bases on foreign soil. Russia has 7 (Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldoa, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan) according to https://brilliantmaps.com/russia-military-bases-abroad/
!s 170 greater or smaller than 7?
Work on your reading comprehension skills because you really misunderstood wtf I said apparently and then went on a drunken rant about it.
Wtf are you rattling on about now? Are you drunk already today?
You wrote a complex mess "Funny how you accused Putin of doing EXACTLY WHAT WAS STATED OF US/NATO AGREEMENT W/RUSSIA."
Look at your post and explain, please. It's a mess and I know that you are smarter than... "Funny how you accused Putin of doing EXACTLY WHAT WAS STATED OF US/NATO AGREEMENT W/RUSSIA." You got a reactive caplock problem.
Please send a copy of this to trump. I'm sure it's just that he doesn't understand.
But Trump does not read.
More like dRump is a moron and cannot read
Are you so hateful and arrogant towards everyone you look down your nose at? Such anti-American hate is wrong. Try something that works, please.
Projection? This need to demean others harms Democrats as much as tRump. To find an adult solution, be an adult. Tribal hissy-fits and demeaning others is not mature.
I agree with what you say about Russia. I'm curious about how you view China under the same lens. As well some other influential nations.
Useful analysis thank you
I love the sarcasm!
no sarcasm at all
Because more war, weapons and terrorism, the analysis, us what got us into this mess!
I am dismayed that no one has mentioned the point that both these countries are considered adherents of the ancient Eastern Orthodox Church, and the largest combined nations in the world of Orthodox Christians. In fact, the Ukraine literally "delivered" this faith to Russia - albeit by "force" in 988 by one of the greatest Saints of the Church, the Great Prince and Saint Vladimir. Putin, at least historically, was frequently seen in the presence of, and said to be in consultation with the Patriarch of Moscow; frequently in attendance in celebration of the Great Feasts of the Orthodox Church; and even seeking a blessing from the Patriarch before travel. Now, Putin has purposely made it a point to literally target and bomb the most ancient cathedrals and churches of the Orthodox Church in the Ukraine, a sacrilege apparently intended to both purposely discourage and demean the Ukrainian people. Further, it reveals the malignant and hypocritical demeanor and character of Putin and his allies, who would conduct such a campaign against their fellow Orthodox Christians. This is the original source of the expression, "Слава Україні! Slava Ukraini," drawn from the Church's praise "Слава" of its Lord.
Agree with your main points. However, there is a fourth truth that you somehow have elided:
"Ukrainians, as a sovereign nation separate from Russia, made the decision that they wanted to have a free and fair democracy and that they wanted to associate with Europe rather than Russia. They proved this by revolting against Viktor Yanukovych, the Kremlin’s choice to lead Ukraine, not once, but twice."
Key word: revolt, which you might have duly noted occurred in the form of an illegal insurrection against an elected leader Washington opposed and nefariously worked to overthrow.
That's not the truth. The popular protests that forced Yanukovych out of power were not an "illegal insurrection", and the US did not "nefariously" work to overthrow him. Both of those claims are part of the Russian disinformation campaign that Kunce refers to at the beginning of his post.
Right, right. Always the Russians are coming.
The source of the disinformation is not the main point (though of course the Russians have the greatest motivation to push the falsehoods). The point is that *it is not true*; it is not true that Yanukovych was forced out by an "illegal insurrection", and it is not true that Washington "nefariously" worked to overthrow him. The facts are clear, and stating them is hardly evidence of anti-Russian paranoia, as you imply.
Russiagate has been debunked, Eric. There have been two Democratic investigations that concluded "no collusion". From Democrats!
I bet that you have not read the conclusions because they don't match your tribal desires of war, weapons and slaughter. Yanuovych won the election in Ukraine and the USA worked to overthrow him. The insurcetion you identify was paid for by USAID! Pay attention, not homage.
No one even mentioned the investigation into the links between Donnie's campaign and the Russians, so I don't know why you bring that up, but you mischaracterize what the investigations found. There were definitely contacts between the two and while there was insufficient evidence to *prove* a criminal conspiracy, Mueller (who was a Republican) also did not say that the evidence showed there was no conspiracy. An inconclusive result is not proof of innocence. The investigation didn't even look at whether there was "collusion" which is not a term found in relevant US law.
The only ones responsible for "war, weapons and slaughter" in eastern Europe are the Russians with their unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and their repeated attacks on civilian targets. It's absurd to claim otherwise, and it is those who repeat their propaganda who are promoting "war, weapons and slaughter". And no, the US had nothing to do with Yanuovych's overthrow. The Ukrainian people did that themselves.
The USA funded a revolution, Victoria Nuland and USAID have the receipts! Pay attention please. Propaganda works on the willing.
Propaganda
propagates.
That is what the CIA said when Victoria Nuland handed out the checks and the Russian Ukrainian peace agreement was scrapped.
That "revolt" was manufactured, you need to read about Victoria Nuland.
M F, what are your thoughts on Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wallstreet?
Of course I support both movements. I'm afraid they have as yet led to no new ground, as police are still abusive and Wall Street is still sticking it to Main Street.
Nuland is a disgusting disgrace.
This is great. Keep up this sort of analysis and truth-bringing.
Don't think that online comments are proof of truth-bringing!?! THAT would be insane. I suggest that you search Chase Hughes and learn from the person who has trained the CIA on psyops and deception. Once you've seen the M.O. of human deception, you can't un-see it. Chase helps you untangle the narratives for lies and deception. Be a truth-detector, not just another person playing the game of "telephone".
All the false statements out there will not stop me and others around the world. Those who pass out this bs r obviously maggots or just plain ignorant
Chase Hughes can give you the tools to decipher misleading narratives and manipulation.
Carel Sellenraad
Hello Lucas,
I understand the argument for getting something in return for any concession. Nevertheless, it has to be said that the relentless eastward NATO expansion to Russia's border was a violation of agreements reached between Regan and Gorbachev. To make matters worse, CIA efforts at regime change in both Georgia and Ukraine represented a severe provocation to the Russians.
Now that the Ukraine war is lost, I hope Trump can negotiate a suitable security arrangement for Eastern Europe. Given his diplomatic skills my hopes are small.
There was no such agreement between Reagan and Gorbachev. The closest thing to it was when James Baker, Bush Sr.'s Secretary of State, orally promised Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't expand eastward, a promise he made without authorization from Bush or any NATO allies, and which therefore was meaningless. The only agreements which matter are formal signed agreements between the two sides, like the arms control agreements Kunce talks about. Those who claim that NATO's eastward expansion somehow justified Russia's aggression never point to any such formal agreement, because it doesn't exist.
Please study the reunification talks between East and West Germany - where Baker is recorded saying that NATO will not move "one inch eastward." Such purposeful lies and/or ignorance of history ensures violence and war. Pay attention to the details, instead of jingoism.
Again, Baker saying such thing does not constitute a formal agreement that NATO is obligated to follow. Did either the US or NATO sign a written agreement with the USSR or Russia promising not to expand eastward? No, they did not. If, as Kunce notes with regard to arms control treaties, Russia doesn't even adhere to formal, signed agreements, then why should NATO adhere to an oral promise made decades ago by a single US official, a promise that neither the US nor NATO as a whole ever confirmed in writing? The only "jingoism" I see here is efforts to defend Russian warmongering by spreading misinformation.
So... it's "OK" for YOU to lie; but, not for those who acted on behalf of the lie.
Kunce ignores the CORE agreement that unified Germany. Acting like it was not important?!? When Cuba started to put Russian nuclear weapons next door, we objected and reacted. Be human and give humanity to others.
Kunce has joinded the blob headed towards WWIII. "Not one inch." Head home dude, you just lost the peace movement of the Democratic party.
Hey Ronald, Put your money where your mouth is and point us to a signed agreement between NATO and Russia, or even the US and Russia. If you can't do that, anything you say is untrue and irrelevant.
Erase that ignorance and allow the light of truth in to your mind.
"U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
Everything I wrote was true. Can you point to any written agreement about NATO expansion, whether in the context of German reunification or otherwise? If you can't understand the difference between an oral comment that was never backed up in writing by the actual governments involved and a formal, binding agreement, there's not much anyone can say to you. And "but not for those who acted on behalf of the lie" doesn't make sense.
"U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
“Not one inch Eastward” was Baker’s promise made Russian leadership to allow German reunification.
Eric, wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true. Rely on facts and the printout of the negotiations.
This information has been extremely well presented. You pinpointed the issue that Zelenskyy tried so hard to get across: that Russia is notorious for reneging on agreements. And that was what he needs, assurance. Your insight into "other-thinking" is severely lacking in Washington. Understanding how opponents think and work, and planning responses accordingly is unheard of. Thank you for sharing your insight!
As with all propaganda, it ignores reality. Our negotiator, James Baker, told the Russians during the negotiations of German reunification, that NATO would NOT move "one inch East". The quote is in the the documented records.
A good person, a good nation does NOT renege on their promise. Cuba and the USA are similar to Ukraine and Russia. How many Russian weapons did we allow into Cuba?
Ronald, are you a Russian agent? You sound like one. James Baker can promise anything he wants but it means nothing woithout a signed aggreement.
No. Are you Joe McCarthy? The truth has no nationality. You know that, right?
When the truth (that you don’t like) is spoken, you accuse the truth-teller of being a Russian?!? James Baker is on the recorded record as having said that NATO would not move “One inch East”. Truth is my shield.
Raghnal, when your tribe forces you to lie or censor information, your tribe may be a big part of the problem. Drop the tribe, become “American”.
I am passing this along to my son. He was born in 1961 so too young to understand the aftermath of WWlI, Korea, or VietNam, or the many de-colonializing mini wars scattered about the globe. He is, however a reader and, over the years has been filling in the blanks. This concise accounting of (P)Russian RealPolitik in the modern era is important, even as it ignores all the ancient history of European dynastic and imperial ambitions. And all that ancient history is only important because it supports the specious mental processes of modern megalomaniacs There must be something in the human brain that dwells obsessively on conquest, illusions of security, and delusions of grandeur.
Putin as far as I know has never participated in an active war. His training is focused on covert warfare. His dreams of glory do not encompass the actual nightmares and agony of RealBattle. Pity.
But then neither does Trump and most likely, neither do most of the nincompoops gathered around him.
I look forward to more of your rare, not so common sense.
Make certain to relay to your son that James Baker told the Russians that German reunification would result in NATO NOT moving "one inch East".
I hope your son understands the point of keeping your word and your promises. Give it a shot.
James Baker got into trouble for that! He didn't have any authority whatsoever to make that promise. Give that crappy argument up! BTW, NATO has never invaded other countries. Russia sure has!
Are you saying the Sect. of State did not ask you! Let’s stop with the inflated ego.
Jim, calm down and read books, instead of misinformaiton. NATO currently has operations in over 170 nations.
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
The US also agreed to defend Ukraine if it gave up its nukes.
The US spends a lot of money defending Europe. That advantages the US militarily as you mentioned but also economically. It's one of the reasons we are the wealthiest country in the world (at least for now).
"Defending Europe" ? As you MAY know, the USSR broke up and it is the USA who violated the promise to Gorbichov to "not move one inch east". Yet the USA moved Eastward and recruited14 former Soviet Republics to join NATO after the cold war.
The argument "defending Europe" doesn't fly. NATO violated the pact, and is expanding nuclear weapons to the Russian border. Do you remember what the USA did when Russian nukes were found in Cuba?
Yes The US negotiated a settlement with Cuba and the USSR. There was no attack of Cuba. There was a lot of tough talk and posturing but negotiation solved the problem (not bombs).
The USA and other NATO countries allow other countries to join NATO. They probably would like some countries to join and others not. But those countries decide whether to join NATO or not join NATO. It's a decision by each sovereign nation and it's a very long, tedious and expensive process to join NATO.
It's not a decision by the USA. It's a decision by each country. And it must be approved by all NATO countries.
Putin didn't need to attack Ukraine to maintain its sovereignty. No country was going to attack Russia. Russia has nukes and no country seems to attack a country when it has nukes.
Authoritarians advance by expanding their territories, because they are really bad and building their own economies. As we will eventually learn in the next few years (very unfortunately).
Yet the situation is the same, border security. Border security for me but not for thee. Hypocrite!
I don't understand. Russia's border security is their nukes.
The USA regime-changed Ukraine’s elected leader who favored Russia- ask Victoria Nuland. USAID helped. Pay attention, not propaganda!
According to the polls I see, Ukrainians overwhelmingly support joining the west and want to join the EU. BTW they elected Zelenskyy.
You keep wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Fix what is broke. Keep what works.
Sovereign nations make sovereign choices. They are, undoubtedly, influenced by lots of things including propaganda from Russia (which is soundly documented).
The biggest "propaganda " from the west is the life style which is far and away better than Russia.
NATO has never attacked another country.
The US did not attack Cuba to get the nukes.
Countries choose to join NATO and it takes a lot of work to join NATO.
That sounds not-like. How do you feel!
?
That sounds a like like how you feel. But it is NOT how weapons get disbursed and used around the world. A good intention leading to widespread violence must be recognized.
Yet the invite to join NATO came from the USA. The weapons came from the USA. Payment came from the USA. Material military support came from the USA.
Joe, a proxy war still costs lives and money. Perhaps the 2013 peace accord should not have been signed. That is what polls in Ukraine show.
The core question is do you think Russia would try to take over its neighbors if its neighbors were not able to defend themselves?
The next question is do you think the US would try to take over its neighbors, if its neighbors were not able to defend themselves?
Then do you think NATO would take over its neighbors, if its neighbors were not able to defend themselves?
Oddly enough, my answer to the second question has changed in the last few months. There is a very large contingency of people in the US that wouldn't mind taking over Canada and Mexico and Greenland and Panama ... . I never realized it was there.
As crude as it sounds, if you don't defend yourself you will be taken over, even in today's age.
Prior to Trump, I would have said the US was defending itself with NATO. But, as with Bush and Iraq and now Trump with Canada ..., maybe you are right that all countries want to take over other countries.
But still today, NATO has never attacked another country and I still don't think it would. Member countries may (like the US), but not NATO itself. The nature of the group is that it has to act like a single unit. That nature is probably what keeps NATO from attacking and taking over other countries.
The particulars of how a country joins NATO are probably a matter of who you listened to last. Ultimately, the country has to make the decision to join and train the people who will fight and die in a war.
As a side note, the ultimate insanity of taking over Ukraine to defend yourself against NATO aggression is that once Ukraine belongs to Russia, then Russia has to take over the next country to defend its new territory of Russia and Ukraine. And it continues ... .
Hello Lucas, interesting article where you keep telling us that the Russians/Putin have been the bad guys all along. Maybe so, most of the time, but maybe not always? According to Jeffrey Sacks, the US has continuously done bad things in this situation and in many others. I know most of this is true. But I do not see you giving us more of a balanced opinion. I want and like to know what is happening, while doing my best to not get too involved emotionally because it will make me ill. I am a seeker of truth. Most people tend to be bias. Are you? I appreciate your experience, at the same time, because you have a large following and therefore can influence. I ask you to make an effort to examine history and the situation in a non bias way, but with dedication to the truth.
Jeffrey Sacks makes a lot of false claims about Russia and Ukraine, claims that are basically Russian talking points, such as claiming NATO agreed not to expand eastward (not true) or that the US was somehow responsible for the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine (also not true). If you want a balanced, unbiased view of this history, Kunce is far, far better than someone like Sacks.
Eric, do you have anything to support your affirmations?
Regarding NATO expansion, as I noted in another comment, there's the simple fact that no one can point to any sort of formal agreement between NATO and the USSR or Russia regarding NATO expansion. A formal, written agreement is the only thing that counts (and even those Russia often violates, as Kunce notes). But even as far as informal promises go, the only one that I am aware of was an oral commitment made to Gorbachev by James Baker, who was Bush Sr.'s Secretary of State. But Bush hadn't authorized him to make any such promise, and he hadn't consulted the rest of NATO either, so Baker's promise had no validity. It should be obvious that NATO is not obligated to abide by a commitment made decades ago by a single US official acting without authorization from the president or Congress to the head of a state that no longer even exists, especially if Russia won't even abide by formal treaties that it actually signed.
As for the Maidan Revolution, I was following the news fairly closely at the time, and it was clearly a spontaneous popular protest. No popular protest of that size and intensity could possibly be instigated by outside forces (as much as authoritarian regimes faced with such protests like to claim otherwise). Of course the US ambassador and other US officials at the time had sporadic contacts with the protesters (since they were doing their jobs) and expressed support for them (as did many pro-democracy people around the world, including myself). But to claim, as Sacks and others do, that those contacts and expressions of support somehow prove the US was behind the protests is ludicrous. I also openly supported the Hong Kong democracy protests in 2019, but that doesn't mean I instigated them.
Eric is a propagandist not interested in the actual truth. U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).
Ah, projection. You keep pushing pro-Russian propaganda, yet you accuse others of being propagandists. I've explained elsewhere multiple times that Baker's unauthorized oral promise was not binding on the US, much less NATO. Only formal written agreements matter. And NATO expanded to the east anyway years ago, though it had no plans to add Ukraine as a member. That Russian pretext for invasion is nonsensical, and no well-informed person buys it. You can repeat it as often as you like, and it will still never justify Russia's aggression.
Eric saw Russian aggression when the USA regime-changed Ukraine's elected leader in 2014. Eric did not like the peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine in 2013.
Eric does not acknowledge that the USA is the leading exporter of war, weapons and violence. Eric has not volunteered for the military, he just wants YOU to fight and die.
Go Eric, go fight. So brave are you from 10,000 miles away. Eric doesn't know that nuclear weapons do more than kill initially, the wind spreads the death around the world. Suck on that Eric!
When tribal misbeliefs demand that you demean truth tellers, the tribe is in trouble. Name one single lie, please.