TheAltWorld Ukraine Tensions Driven by US Aggression
Tensions are rising between Russia and the United States over the Eastern European nation of Ukraine. The irony of the US fighting a potential war with Russia over accusations of “Russian aggression” in a region an ocean away from US shores seems lost on the collective Western media and within the halls of US political power.
The Western media would have the world believe that Russia is an aggressor for allegedly moving Russian troops inside of Russian territory. This narrative is pushed unironically as US forces, having crossed the Atlantic Ocean, are stationed by the tens of thousands in Europe including contingents in nations sharing a border with Russia itself. This includes US troops inside Ukraine itself.
US Troops are already in Ukraine
The Washington Post in its article, “There are already a small number of U.S. troops in Ukraine. They’re from the Florida National Guard,” would admit:
President Biden’s decision to put 8,500 troops on high alert, potentially for deployment to NATO allies on Russia’s borders, has put the spotlight back on the uncomfortable fact that America already has military people in uniform inside Ukraine. Florida National Guard, to be precise.
They number fewer than 200 and aren’t there to fend off Russian troops — they’re training and advising Ukraine’s military. And they’re reportedly in western Ukraine, far from the eastern border, where Russian President Vladimir Putin has massed an I-can’t-believe-it’s-not-an-invasion-force.
The Washington Post’s attempt at describing US encroachment up to Russia’s borders as somehow instead Russian aggression is a microcosm of the overall nature of the propaganda surrounding the security situation in Europe.
The US having troops of any kind in Ukraine is clearly a proposition that if reversed – with Russian troops in a nation directly bordering the United States – would be deemed unacceptable, resulting in similar tensions and a similar risk of potential conflict. That this reality is absent amid Western analysis or in the comments of US politicians clearly illustrates who between the US and Russia is at the center of this current provocation.
The presence of US troops in Ukraine specifically to train Ukrainian forces is problematic for another reason.
Reuters in a commentary piece titled, “Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem,” would expose what it called “far-right vigilantes who are willing to use intimidation and even violence to advance their agendas, and who often do so with the tacit approval of law enforcement agencies.”
The piece would explain (emphasis added):
Many of the National Militia’s members come from the Azov movement, one of the 30-odd privately-funded “volunteer battalions” that, in the early days of the war, helped the regular army to defend Ukrainian territory against Russia’s separatist proxies. Although Azov uses Nazi-era symbolism and recruits neo-Nazis into its ranks, a recent article in Foreign Affairs downplayed any risks the group might pose, pointing out that, like other volunteer militias, Azov has been “reined in” through its integration into Ukraine’s armed forces.
Thus, the US is arming and training Ukrainian forces that include Neo-Nazi militia members – not according to Russian state media – but instead according to the Western media’s own admissions and observations – albeit tucked away from mainstream reporting.
It is not difficult to imagine why Russia perceives US-armed and trained Neo-Nazis among the armed forces of a nation along its borders a threat. It is clearly a threat. That Ukraine is also slated for eventual NATO membership is also problematic and clearly a threat.
Again, it is not difficult to understand Moscow’s concerns if considering a reversed scenario and what Washington’s reaction would be if Canada or Mexico were up for membership in a Russian or Chinese-led defense organization – especially if it is a defense organization that – like NATO – engages in serial wars of aggression around the globe.
A US-led NATO Seeks to Absorb Russia Itself
The United States deceiving the world regarding the true intentions of its foreign policy objectives is nothing new. While the Western media dismisses concerns in Russia regarding NATO’s perpetual expansion along its borders, US policymakers themselves have openly admitted the goal is to not only encircle Russia, but eventually absorb Russia itself.
Articles like the US State Department-directed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s “Did The West Promise Moscow That NATO Would Not Expand? Well, It’s Complicated,” admit that Moscow was promised that NATO would not continue expanding eastward.
The article admits:
Ultimately, according to Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador who was serving at the State Department at the time, the United States, France, and Britain, along with Germany, agreed not to deploy non-German NATO forces in the former East Germany.
It obviously stands to reason that if Moscow found the movement of NATO forces eastward within a unified Germany unacceptable, the notion of NATO membership moving eastward up to what are now Russia’s borders would be even worse.
A US-led NATO took advantage of a weak Soviet Union and an initially weak Russian Federation, pushing the expansion of NATO as far and as fast as possible fully cognizant of how provocative it was and how unacceptable it would be were this being done in reverse. This is evident by Russia’s mere movement of its own troops within its own territory “triggering” Western accusations of “aggression.”
The Atlantic Council, an organization funded by the US government, US arms manufacturers and other major corporate and financial special interests, as well as NATO itself, has openly accused Russia of coercing nations to abandon what it calls a vision of “Europe Whole and Free.”
No mention is made of how NATO’s expansion and with it, EU membership, is done with actual coercion, up to and including military force, but more commonly through “color revolutions.”
Ukraine specifically has been targeted at least twice. A 2004 Guardian article titled, “US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev,” admitted to the extensive nature of Washington’s involvement in toppling governments opposed to EU and NATO membership and the installation of a compliant regime that reflected Washington’s rather than the interests of people living in Eastern Europe.
The article stated:
But while the gains of the orange-bedecked “chestnut revolution” are Ukraine’s, the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.
Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box.
Richard Miles, the US ambassador in Belgrade, played a key role. And by last year, as US ambassador in Tbilisi, he repeated the trick in Georgia, coaching Mikhail Saakashvili in how to bring down Eduard Shevardnadze.
Ten months after the success in Belgrade, the US ambassador in Minsk, Michael Kozak, a veteran of similar operations in central America, notably in Nicaragua, organised a near identical campaign to try to defeat the Belarus hardman, Alexander Lukashenko.
The US all but openly admits that NATO’s expansion eastward has been done through a campaign of political meddling, coercion, and regime change, short-circuiting the will of the actual people living in the targeted nations, and imposing Washington’s vision of a Europe “whole and free” for Washington to do as it pleases.
The Atlantic Council would also publish a 2017 paper titled, “Strategy of “Constrainment” – Countering Russia’s Challenge to the Democratic Order.” The paper explicitly states:
In the long run, an open and democratic Russia is more likely to support global norms and the rules-based order. The West should engage in a thoughtful and strategic effort to encourage the democratic aspirations of the Russian people. This includes speaking out regularly in favor of protecting democratic rights and individual liberties, meeting with opposition figures as a regular feature of diplomatic engagements, and encouraging more people-to-people contacts.
This is simply the US and its allies in Europe seeking to not only overthrow the Russian government but also the system of governance just as it has admittedly done to nation after nation as part of NATO’s eastward expansion toward Russia’s borders.
The Atlantic Council’s Damon Wilson – now CEO and President of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an organization that funds opposition groups around the world toward the goal of US-sponsored regime change – had co-authored the above mentioned Atlantic Council paper and has made similar comments regarding Russia’s eventual “transition” to “democracy.”
The NED itself has been exposed multiple times involved in political interference in Russia’s internal political affairs – propping up unpopular opposition groups – as well as doing so in nations neighboring Russia. Last year, Russian pranksters coaxed senior NED leaders into admitting to their role behind both Russian and Belarusian protests, the UK Times would admit.
In many ways Washington is not even pretending it is not encroaching on and seeking to eventually absorb Russia, yet the still-powerful Western media has managed to convince the public that Russia, not the US and NATO, is provoking tensions in Europe involving itself and the US from the other side of the Atlantic. No explanation is even given as to why the US is involved in any capacity in the first place, let alone leading Europe’s policy toward Russia.
Reluctance by European nations including Germany is also never explained by the Western media – as to why nations in Europe don’t perceive the “threat” Russia supposedly poses, but the US “does.”
A commitment by the US and NATO to no longer expand eastward is the obvious means to end current tensions. Ukraine’s return to a pre-2014 status quo would allow the nation to serve as a buffer but also a bridge between Europe and Russia, allowing the people of Ukraine to enjoy the best of both worlds without committing to entangling alliances with either. NATO, however, has demonstrated throughout its existence that it is not an actual defense organization, with its actions often harming European security rather than protecting it.
Only time will tell whether the US and those collaborating with Washington in Europe will prevail over those in both Europe and in Russia who seek closer cooperation, mutually beneficial relations, and economic investments, all of which will do more to protect peace and stability in Europe than NATO ever could.
0 thoughts on “Ukraine Tensions Driven by US Aggression”