• Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    Ukraine is fighting for its sovereignty.

    Russia's military concerns does not justify it's criminal invasion

    From 2014, the U.S. and NATO began to pour arms into Ukraine — advanced weapons, military training, joint military exercises, moves to integrate Ukraine into the NATO military command. There’s no secret about this. It was quite open. Recently, the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, bragged about it. He said: This is what we were doing since 2014. Well, of course, this is very consciously, highly provocative. They knew that they were encroaching on what every Russian leader regarded as an intolerable move. France and Germany vetoed it in 2008, but under U.S. pressure, it was kept on the agenda. And NATO, meaning the United States, moved to accelerate the de facto integration of Ukraine into the NATO military command.

    In 2019, Volodymyr Zelensky was elected with an overwhelming majority — I think about 70% of the vote — on a peace platform, a plan to implement peace with Eastern Ukraine and Russia, to settle the problem. He began to move forward on it and, in fact, tried to go to the Donbas, the Russian-oriented eastern region, to implement what’s called the Minsk II agreement. It would have meant a kind of federalization of Ukraine with a degree of autonomy for the Donbas, which is what they wanted. Something like Switzerland or Belgium. He was blocked by right-wing militias which threatened to murder him if he persisted with his effort.

    Well, he’s a courageous man. He could have gone forward if he had had any backing from the United States. The U.S. refused. No backing, nothing, which meant he was left to hang out to dry and had to back off. The U.S. was intent on this policy of integrating Ukraine step by step into the NATO military command. That accelerated further when President Biden was elected. In September 2021, you could read it on the White House website. It wasn’t reported but, of course, the Russians knew it. Biden announced a program, a joint statement to accelerate the process of military training, military exercises, more weapons as part of what his administration called an “enhanced program” of preparation for NATO membership.

    It accelerated further in November. This was all before the invasion. Secretary of State Antony Blinken signed what was called a charter, which essentially formalized and extended this arrangement. A spokesman for the State Department conceded that before the invasion, the U.S. refused to discuss any Russian security concerns. All of this is part of the background.

    On February 24th, Putin invaded, a criminal invasion. These serious provocations provide no justification for it. If Putin had been a statesman, what he would have done is something quite different. He would have gone back to French President Emmanuel Macron, grasped his tentative proposals, and moved to try to reach an accommodation with Europe, to take steps toward a European common home.

    The U.S., of course, has always been opposed to that. This goes way back in Cold War history to French President De Gaulle’s initiatives to establish an independent Europe. In his phrase “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” integrating Russia with the West, which was a very natural accommodation for trade reasons and, obviously, security reasons as well. So, had there been any statesmen within Putin’s narrow circle, they would have grasped Macron’s initiatives and experimented to see whether, in fact, they could integrate with Europe and avert the crisis. Instead, what he chose was a policy which, from the Russian point of view, was total imbecility. Apart from the criminality of the invasion, he chose a policy that drove Europe deep into the pocket of the United States. In fact, it is even inducing Sweden and Finland to join NATO — the worst possible outcome from the Russian point of view, quite apart from the criminality of the invasion, and the very serious losses that Russia is suffering because of that.

    https://chomsky.info/20220616/

    The US is after the minerals within Ukraine. Russia has already gained the major resource of land. Both have interests to expand their sphere of influence, both have taken advantage of Ukraine for their own ends.

    You can strawman all you want, but as a leftist I will continue to criticize the imperialism of every empire. It’s not hard to be consistently anti-imperialist.

    • blade_barrier@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Imperialism is obviously different. US imperialism is a hundred times better than Russia’s shithole imperialism. Ukraine and other unfortunate Russian neighbors would gladly sell off their natural resources to be protected from Russian imperialism by US imperialism.

    • Grapho@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Yeah, the state with the largest landmass by far in all of Eurasia desperately needs the land of a tiny state, more than it needs the manpower required to take it.

      Also, Chomsky has never seen a US war he couldn’t find a way to justify.

      Absolutely deluded

      • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        If you think Chomsky has justified any US war you are delusional, hes. And yes, Russia’s interest is in expanding access to the Azov and Black Sea at the very least.