Here in the US the news continues to be dominated by the Prog Left’s ongoing effort to bend America and Americans to its will: top down central governance by the Left elite, canceling of all dissenters, sexual deviance the norm for all—starting virtually from the womb.
I really appreciate (and from a layperson's limited knowledge perspective) agree with Matlock's analysis. It makes perfect sense to me.
In the 10,000 ft view of the Ukraine "problem," I place primary blame on the Neo-cons of both American political parties who could not accept Reagan's victory over the USSR and refused to adjust their views accordingly. These are the same people who will not accept Trump's victory over ISIS and his peacefully aligning Israel and the gulf states against Iran.
These people advocated continuing to press and threaten Russia all these years, without end, based on any justifications they could invent. They have continued to push for NATO expansion right to Russia's borders. They supported a coup in the Ukraine that they knew would necessarily invite a Russian military response. They condemn Russia for its takeover of Crimea in circumstances they encouraged and continue to encourage by supporting civil war through supplying weapons. These people loathed a "peace dividend" and peace as much as Democrats have hated to have budget surpluses and cutting spending.
Putin is asking the U.S. "What is your policy toward Russia?" Does he not have a responsibility to try to find that out? Is he wrong to prepare a defense for his country in the face of potential aggression? If so all traditional diplomacy must be considered acts of war. Putin may be a bastard but at least the Russians know he is THEIR bastard. In this matter he is acting as a national leader SHOULD act.
Good articles. I did not realize Ukraine was so ethnically diverse. I thought it was just basically Ukrainian and Russian speakers.
Why is the US so against Federal Governments, and pushes for a centralized government every place outside the US. Afghanistan would have been a lot better with one.
I wish there was a 4th article, one that mentioned:
1. Ukrainian money to the us politicians
2. Russian Economic path today
3. Russian gas / oil diplomacy
4. How effective are the existing sanctions
5. Effect of high price of oil and gas on Russian Economy
6. Impact of Soros funding on Ukrainian politics
7. Risk of Russian efforts to destroy the petro dollar / offer alternatives
8. Impact of us inflation on Russian efforts
9. Impact of allegations of 2020 US Election Fraud on US / Russian credibility
10. Perception of US power / credibility with Biden President and the purging of the US Military
11. How is Ukrainian economy doing today? What’s its probable path.
12. What impact will Nordstream coming online have on Ukrainian economy?
Lots of good questions. Particularly with the oil/gas/pipeline issues and to what extent they influence the strategic importance of control of Ukraine. I DO wish our politicians would explain to us why the Ukraine is viewed as being so important to us.
It depends on what you mean by "ethnically" diverse. What's "ethnic"? The big difference is that especially in the west there are historical and religious differences from the rest of Ukraine. Western Ukraine is what's usually called "Greek (or Uniate) Catholic"--they're in union with Rome and tend to be the most hostile to Russian influence and the most nationalist. In the middle area the Orthodox want to be independent from the Russian Patriarch, although they're not terribly sympathetic to the Greek Catholics.. In the east and in Crimea that area has been under Russian influence the longest--having to do with the Russian conquest of Slavic lands from Tatar and Turkish domination. Even though people in the east may identify as Ukrainian, they most often speak Russia and are culturally more aligned with Russia. Perhaps over simplified. The maps show you how those differences played out in elections.
Yes it does. The cultural differences are largely reflective of the religious differences which correlate with the historical differences--the Greek Catholics were part of RC Poland for centuries, even though there's little love lost.
I believe I've read that George Bush senior promised the Russians, at the time of the allowed reunification of Germany that NATO would not expand closer to Russia's borders than it was at the time. We have.
"One persistent U.S. demand is that Ukraine’s territorial integrity be restored. Indeed, the U.S. is party to the Budapest Memorandum in which Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in return for Ukraine’s transfer of Soviet nuclear weapons to Russia for destruction in accord with U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements. What the U.S. demand ignores is that, under traditional international law, agreements remain valid rebus sic stantibus (things remaining the same).
"When the Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 there was no plan to expand NATO to the east and **Gorbachev had been assured in 1990 that the alliance would not expand.** When in fact it did expand right up to Russia’s borders, Russia was confronted with a radically different strategic situation than existed when the Budapest agreement was signed. "
What Morris neglects to mention is that the US had, in 1961, positioned Jupiter missiles in Turkey. Russia was, in essence, responding to a US provocation:
This seems to be almost the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 in reverse; we didn’t tolerate Soviet missiles 90 miles away from Florida & Putin won’t tolerate a neighbor becoming a member of a federation that could place advanced weaponry on his border. This constant push to make Ukraine a NATO member has always seemed nonsensical; moreover why - post Soviet collapse - does NATO even exist? NATO was explicitly formed as a counter to the Warsaw Pact to forestall a potential Red Army plunge into Western Europe. The Warsaw Pact no longer exists so why does NATO? It’s a feckless, toothless organization funded principally by the U.S. taxpayer. Europe skates on its NATO financial obligations & every president sans Trump let them get away with it. This is akin to going up to a bear’s cage & poking him with a stick. It’s just going to enrage the bear for no good purpose.
And why the constant demonization of all things Russian? It reached a fever pitch during the Trump years with the fake “Collusion” hoax. In the Soviet-era, it’s understood but just because Putin is pro-Russian does not automatically make him anti-American. Hell, I wish we had a pro-American president. The last one we had they ran out of town via a rigged “election”.
Putin’s a Russian patriot. I respect that. Wish we had an American patriot in the WH.
Great points on NATO. It’s looking for a new mission, since the Warsaw Pact / Ussr one is gone. And Turkeys membership complicates things. Kosovo showed a lot about the EU’s lack of power. And dont forget that other great European led adventure, Libya, where the US broke its promise of non interference.
I was surprised at the hubris of expanding NATO eastward.
And the US is equated about with Russia in Germany, as being unpopular.
My theory is Russia is a safe villain / scapegoat for the woke / Democrats. They are seen as White, Christian, and anti lgbt. And my guess is they have not mastered the effective lobbying / fundraising, as the Ukrainian and Chinese have.
I would be remiss in not adding when the the Russians were Communist the Democrats were all for them. When they cast off Communism, they earned the eternal enmity of Democrats.
Bingo! The Ivans don’t have the lobbying power the Uks nor the ChiComs have; they’re roughly in the position of Germany in WWI, I.e. outmaneuvered by British perfidy. History proves the British as most likely the world’s biggest - & most shameful - liars; they celebrated the beginning of WW I BC Kaiser Wilhelm dared to build a blue water navy, ergo challenging the “Britannia Rules the Waves” meme. Look @ all the ammunition found onboard the passenger liner Lusitania post-sinking. They proceeded on to demonize “The Hun” as a subhuman form of species who was skewering & eating Belgian children; look it up, it’s shameful stuff. Then the complaint against Germany waging “unrestricted submarine warfare “ only happened BC Great Britain began putting deck guns on merchant ships, which was in direct contravention of maritime law, but I digress. The point being the Russians are always “the bad guys” BC they don’t have the public interest groups behind them, “helped Trump” in 2016 & don’t bow down to the Globalhomo agenda.
TexasDude, if the US is defined as the establishment elites, I think we got pretty good hints that this statement is true with how they responded to an "America First" President.... and how they called his supporters Deplorables.
I really appreciate (and from a layperson's limited knowledge perspective) agree with Matlock's analysis. It makes perfect sense to me.
In the 10,000 ft view of the Ukraine "problem," I place primary blame on the Neo-cons of both American political parties who could not accept Reagan's victory over the USSR and refused to adjust their views accordingly. These are the same people who will not accept Trump's victory over ISIS and his peacefully aligning Israel and the gulf states against Iran.
These people advocated continuing to press and threaten Russia all these years, without end, based on any justifications they could invent. They have continued to push for NATO expansion right to Russia's borders. They supported a coup in the Ukraine that they knew would necessarily invite a Russian military response. They condemn Russia for its takeover of Crimea in circumstances they encouraged and continue to encourage by supporting civil war through supplying weapons. These people loathed a "peace dividend" and peace as much as Democrats have hated to have budget surpluses and cutting spending.
Putin is asking the U.S. "What is your policy toward Russia?" Does he not have a responsibility to try to find that out? Is he wrong to prepare a defense for his country in the face of potential aggression? If so all traditional diplomacy must be considered acts of war. Putin may be a bastard but at least the Russians know he is THEIR bastard. In this matter he is acting as a national leader SHOULD act.
Good articles. I did not realize Ukraine was so ethnically diverse. I thought it was just basically Ukrainian and Russian speakers.
Why is the US so against Federal Governments, and pushes for a centralized government every place outside the US. Afghanistan would have been a lot better with one.
I wish there was a 4th article, one that mentioned:
1. Ukrainian money to the us politicians
2. Russian Economic path today
3. Russian gas / oil diplomacy
4. How effective are the existing sanctions
5. Effect of high price of oil and gas on Russian Economy
6. Impact of Soros funding on Ukrainian politics
7. Risk of Russian efforts to destroy the petro dollar / offer alternatives
8. Impact of us inflation on Russian efforts
9. Impact of allegations of 2020 US Election Fraud on US / Russian credibility
10. Perception of US power / credibility with Biden President and the purging of the US Military
11. How is Ukrainian economy doing today? What’s its probable path.
12. What impact will Nordstream coming online have on Ukrainian economy?
Lots of good questions. Particularly with the oil/gas/pipeline issues and to what extent they influence the strategic importance of control of Ukraine. I DO wish our politicians would explain to us why the Ukraine is viewed as being so important to us.
It depends on what you mean by "ethnically" diverse. What's "ethnic"? The big difference is that especially in the west there are historical and religious differences from the rest of Ukraine. Western Ukraine is what's usually called "Greek (or Uniate) Catholic"--they're in union with Rome and tend to be the most hostile to Russian influence and the most nationalist. In the middle area the Orthodox want to be independent from the Russian Patriarch, although they're not terribly sympathetic to the Greek Catholics.. In the east and in Crimea that area has been under Russian influence the longest--having to do with the Russian conquest of Slavic lands from Tatar and Turkish domination. Even though people in the east may identify as Ukrainian, they most often speak Russia and are culturally more aligned with Russia. Perhaps over simplified. The maps show you how those differences played out in elections.
The language map was eye opening, and how it correlated with the voting map.
Sounds like the language and voting maps, also correlates with religion.
Yes it does. The cultural differences are largely reflective of the religious differences which correlate with the historical differences--the Greek Catholics were part of RC Poland for centuries, even though there's little love lost.
I believe I've read that George Bush senior promised the Russians, at the time of the allowed reunification of Germany that NATO would not expand closer to Russia's borders than it was at the time. We have.
Nobody knows that better than Matlock:
"One persistent U.S. demand is that Ukraine’s territorial integrity be restored. Indeed, the U.S. is party to the Budapest Memorandum in which Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in return for Ukraine’s transfer of Soviet nuclear weapons to Russia for destruction in accord with U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements. What the U.S. demand ignores is that, under traditional international law, agreements remain valid rebus sic stantibus (things remaining the same).
"When the Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 there was no plan to expand NATO to the east and **Gorbachev had been assured in 1990 that the alliance would not expand.** When in fact it did expand right up to Russia’s borders, Russia was confronted with a radically different strategic situation than existed when the Budapest agreement was signed. "
Ironically just as I hit the “post” button for the below comment I receive this column via email just released by Dick Morris where he says the exact opposite of my $0.02 below: https://www.dickmorris.com/putin-wrong-to-compare-ukraine-with-cuba/
Sounds like he’s firmly in the Neo-con column.
What Morris neglects to mention is that the US had, in 1961, positioned Jupiter missiles in Turkey. Russia was, in essence, responding to a US provocation:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=u.s.+missiles+in+turkey&t=qupzilla&ia=web
Kennedy apparently hadn't been informed of those missiles, but he used them to establish a quid pro quo to end the crisis:
https://www.fff.org/2016/08/19/u-s-nuclear-weapons-turkey-didnt-jfk-order-removal/
This seems to be almost the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 in reverse; we didn’t tolerate Soviet missiles 90 miles away from Florida & Putin won’t tolerate a neighbor becoming a member of a federation that could place advanced weaponry on his border. This constant push to make Ukraine a NATO member has always seemed nonsensical; moreover why - post Soviet collapse - does NATO even exist? NATO was explicitly formed as a counter to the Warsaw Pact to forestall a potential Red Army plunge into Western Europe. The Warsaw Pact no longer exists so why does NATO? It’s a feckless, toothless organization funded principally by the U.S. taxpayer. Europe skates on its NATO financial obligations & every president sans Trump let them get away with it. This is akin to going up to a bear’s cage & poking him with a stick. It’s just going to enrage the bear for no good purpose.
And why the constant demonization of all things Russian? It reached a fever pitch during the Trump years with the fake “Collusion” hoax. In the Soviet-era, it’s understood but just because Putin is pro-Russian does not automatically make him anti-American. Hell, I wish we had a pro-American president. The last one we had they ran out of town via a rigged “election”.
Putin’s a Russian patriot. I respect that. Wish we had an American patriot in the WH.
Great points on NATO. It’s looking for a new mission, since the Warsaw Pact / Ussr one is gone. And Turkeys membership complicates things. Kosovo showed a lot about the EU’s lack of power. And dont forget that other great European led adventure, Libya, where the US broke its promise of non interference.
I was surprised at the hubris of expanding NATO eastward.
And the US is equated about with Russia in Germany, as being unpopular.
My theory is Russia is a safe villain / scapegoat for the woke / Democrats. They are seen as White, Christian, and anti lgbt. And my guess is they have not mastered the effective lobbying / fundraising, as the Ukrainian and Chinese have.
Funny Russian Video mocking wokeness…
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/russia-mocks-woke-american-snowflakes-christmas-diversity-guide
"White, Christian, and anti lgbt."
Yes.
I would be remiss in not adding when the the Russians were Communist the Democrats were all for them. When they cast off Communism, they earned the eternal enmity of Democrats.
Yes. It's not pure cynicism--it's true hatred.
Ray -
Bingo! The Ivans don’t have the lobbying power the Uks nor the ChiComs have; they’re roughly in the position of Germany in WWI, I.e. outmaneuvered by British perfidy. History proves the British as most likely the world’s biggest - & most shameful - liars; they celebrated the beginning of WW I BC Kaiser Wilhelm dared to build a blue water navy, ergo challenging the “Britannia Rules the Waves” meme. Look @ all the ammunition found onboard the passenger liner Lusitania post-sinking. They proceeded on to demonize “The Hun” as a subhuman form of species who was skewering & eating Belgian children; look it up, it’s shameful stuff. Then the complaint against Germany waging “unrestricted submarine warfare “ only happened BC Great Britain began putting deck guns on merchant ships, which was in direct contravention of maritime law, but I digress. The point being the Russians are always “the bad guys” BC they don’t have the public interest groups behind them, “helped Trump” in 2016 & don’t bow down to the Globalhomo agenda.
To that I say good for them!
Well stated. I should have read this before I posted :)
The mystery to me is why the GOP underestimates the maturity of their voters.
Dunning-Kruger Effect?
TexasDude, if the US is defined as the establishment elites, I think we got pretty good hints that this statement is true with how they responded to an "America First" President.... and how they called his supporters Deplorables.