Dear friend,
I have been thinking about our discussion regarding the War in Ukraine. I believe we have an understanding on where we each stand in regard to the conflict but I will restate for the sake of clarity.
Your view is Russia initiated the escalation of the conflict by launching a military attack against Ukraine. As the aggressor, you hold Russia responsible for the humanitarian crisis occurring in Ukraine. You are aware there are historical events that may have contributed to the current conflict, but no historical event justifies Russia’s military attack on Ukraine. Your hope is the Russians will overthrow Putin and his government apparatus.
My view is the United States instigated the conflict by breaking the verbal assurance given by Presidents H.W Bush & Clinton provided to Gorbachev and Yeltsin to limit NATO’s eastern expansion beyond the unified Germany. In exchange for the private assurance (the same type of assurance that resolved the Cuban Missile crisis), the former U.S.S.R agreed to support unified Germany’s admission into NATO and the peaceful dismantling of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union executed the dissolution, including gathering the nuclear arsenal from the satellite states to Russia, and supported German re-unification and entry into NATO. At the time of the private assurance, there were 10 former U.S.S.R. Warsaw PACT nations.
Starting in the late 1990’s, NATO began the practice of adding former Warsaw Pact nations. Currently seven of the original ten countries have been admitted into NATO. With each new addition, the American Military Industrial complex modernized the former Warsaw Pact countries to NATO grade military weaponry including some with ballistic missiles. With each new NATO addition, Russia lodged vigorous complaints and threats of military escalation to restore the security buffer between Europe and Russia.
One month since the beginning of the War in Ukraine, Russia has stated they will end the war and withdraw from Ukraine if the following four conditions are met:
- Ukraine sign a neutrality agreement that would bar it from entering NATO
- Recognize Crimea as Russian
- Recognize Luhansk and Donetsk as independent
- Agree to a mutual cease fire
Ukraine has indicated they would no longer pursue admission into NATO and are open to a neutrality agreement. Ukraine has asked America to empower them in the negotiations by tying the removal of international economic sanctions to the Ukrainian negotiated peace agreement. Thus far we have refused.
We are at a stalemate in our discussion. We must agree to disagree.
What remains is the question of regime change in Russia, which President Biden acknowledged on his recent European trip. On this issue I believe America, even as the sole superpower, is over her skis.
The world is watching as we have weaponized economic sanctions beyond any historical reference point, to overthrow a G20 & permanent UN Security Council nation for reasons we have been guilty of many times over. This is the latest example of how we have chosen to lead the world…as a petulant nation that has sacrificed our moral standing on the iron altar of brute force. This approach has only hardened our enemies and given our friends pause, because we have been arrogant enough to affirm many times our America first foreign policy agenda. Given the opportunity, the EU, UK, Canada and other ‘friends’ may jump at the chance to break free of our yoke.
Our overplay of the War in Ukraine by revealing the intent to overthrow Putin, may induce China to partner with Russia to establish an alternative to the Swift exchange system. This would be the opening needed to establish a new international currency of trade. Russia is already requiring the EU to pay for oil and natural gas in Rubles. Saudi Arabia is not accepting President Biden’s calls, and have demonstrated an interest in using a different currency for OPEC oil transactions. If an alternative exchange system is organized with China, Russia, and potentially OPEC, this will give our “friends” an alternative to our American dominated SWIFT system. My point here is force has a limit when you are interdependent on your subordinate nation-state partners.
At the heart of the matter, my world view is not political. My worldview is spiritual. When I look at the US-dominated prevailing narrative over the last 50 years, we are persistently given an enemy to focus our hate…U.S.S.R, Iran, terrorists (including Iraq & Afghanistan), North Korea and now Putin (Russia). Each of our “enemies” had verifiable facts that paint a foggier picture than the clear cut vilification story we are fed by the media and our government.
The pre-curser to the Cuban Missile crisis is the United States deployed ballistic missiles in Turkey. The Soviets responded by installing the missiles in Cuba. We then escalated to a threatened nuclear exchange because nuclear armed ballistic missiles deployed in Cuba violated the American security buffer. The crisis was resolved when America gave the Russians a private assurance to quietly remove the ballistic missiles from Turkey six months after the Soviets agreed to remove their missiles from Cuba.
In 1953, the United States orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected leader of Iran in order to protect British oil interests. Prime Minister Mosaddegh was ousted in favor of a pro-American government led by the Shah of Iran. By the 1970’s, after years of brutal treatment of dissidents, the Shah was overthrown by the Iranian Revolutionary Army. The new Iranian government’s first official act was to seize the American embassy in Tehran. When the US arranged safe asylum in the Philippines for the Shah, after seriously considering providing safe harbor in the US, negotiations for the hostages’ release broke down. After Iran surrendered the hostages at the start of the Reagan administration, we punished the Iranians by arming the Iraqis with chemical and biological weapons in the Iraqi-Iranian War of the 1980’s, effectively killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians. Our repeated aggression with Iran, only exacerbated by branding them a member of the Axis of Evil, inspired Iran’s proxy war with the US where they sponsored terrorist organizations throughout the region.
America’s role in the proliferation of terrorism in the 1990’s and beyond continued in the Soviet-Afghanistan War of the 1980’s. Here an Islamic militia called the Mujaheddin was armed and trained by the US to embroil the Soviets in a quagmire conflict that effectively broke the morale of the Soviet military as they were forced to retreat back to the Soviet Union.
Iraq, emboldened by their success at repelling the much larger Iranian military, turned their attention to Kuwait where they claimed the country as the 13th Iraqi state. The brazen act of aggression sent shock waves around the globe based on the fear the Iraqis may extend their aggression to include Saudi Arabia. To repel this threat on the Arabian peninsula, Osama Bin Laden offered the Saudi Royal Family to re-enlist the victorious Mujaheddin to repel the Iraqi forces back out of Kuwait. The offer was made to protect the home of Mecca, Islamic holy of the holies, from Iraqi infidels. Instead, the Saudi Royal Family made a deal with America to repel Iraq from Kuwait in exchange for a number of permanent US military bases in Saudi Arabia. The establishment of permanent US military bases in Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca, is the cited basis for Bin Laden’s Fatwa against America and the Saudi Royal Family that ultimately led to the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
Many countries have aspirations for developing nuclear weapons. Libya established a WMD program in the 1990’s. After years of US led pressure, in 2004, Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi agreed to dismantle the country’s nuclear weapons program. By 2011, a US-led NATO attack on Libya supported a successful uprising to overthrow the government of Muammar Gaddafi, who was murdered in October 2011. Is it mere coincidence North Korea has since accelerated their nuclear weapons program to include multiple launch attempts?
My point here is to illuminate geopolitical motivations are far more complicated than the black and white vilification narratives propagated by the media and our government. Manufactured consent is a virulent cancer to any healthy democracy. Resist first by rejecting the prevailing narrative, then seek the facts as best as you can.
