A history of U.S. bullying — from a broken promise not to expand NATO to deceit over Minsk — shows that U.S. leaders since the Cold War’s end have ignored J.F.K.’s dire warning not to humiliate a nuclear power.
By Joe Lauria
Special to Consortium News
Updated from Nov. 26, 2024
In his momentous speech at American University in Washington 62 years ago, in which he controversially sought peace with Soviet Russia and an end to the Cold War, President John F. Kennedy said:
“Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy — or of a collective death-wish for the world.”
Twenty-eight years later, the Bill Clinton administration and every U.S. administration since, culminating in perhaps the most reckless, has proven the bankruptcy of U.S. policy by doing the exact opposite of what Kennedy advised, namely displaying a determination to humiliate and bully nuclear-armed Russia.
A most frightening moment arrived, one dreaded by generations, when the United States on Nov. 26, 2024 provoked Russia with American and British missile attacks on Russian soil fired from a third country with American and British personnel, ignoring Moscow’s unequivocally clear warning that this could lead to nuclear conflict.
By firing directly into Russia with its ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles, the U.S. and U.K., which Russia has not attacked, gave Moscow “a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war.”
Beginning at the End of the Cold War
The humiliation of Russia began with the end of the Cold War that Kennedy had sought, but not on the terms he envisioned. Despite George H.W. Bush’s vow not to engage in triumphalism, that was in full swing once Clinton took power.
Wall Street and U.S. corporate carpetbaggers swept into the former Soviet Union in the 1990s, eyed its enormous natural resources, asset-stripped the formerly state-owned industries, enriched themselves, gave rise to oligarchs and impoverished the Russian, Ukrainian and other former Soviet peoples.
The humiliation intensified with the decision in the nineties to expand NATO eastward despite a promise made to the last Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev in exchange for reunifying Germany.
Even Washington’s man in the Kremlin, Boris Yeltsin, objected to NATO expansion, while Sen. Joe Biden supported it though he knew it would provoke Russian hostility.
After eight years of U.S. and Wall Street dominance, Vladimir Putin became president of Russia on New Year’s Eve 1999. He sought friendship with the West. But in 2000 Clinton humiliated him when he refused within hours Putin’s request for Russia to join NATO.
Russia sought to be welcomed into the rest of the world when the Cold War ended, but the U.S. “tricked us,” Putin said. It could not respect Russia’s independence when there was so much money to be made — and still to be made.
Please Donate to CN’s 30th Anniversary Fall Fund Drive
Putin then closed the door on Western interlopers in order to restore Russian sovereignty and dignity, ultimately angering Washington and Wall Street. This process didn’t occur in independent Ukraine, which has remained subject to Western domination until this day.
On Feb. 10, 2007, an aggrieved Putin gave a Munich Security Conference speech in which he condemned U.S. aggressive unilateralism, saying,
“One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?”
But he focused particularly on NATO expansion eastward. He said:
“We have the right to ask: against whom is this [NATO] expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: ‘the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.’ Where are these guarantees?”
Putin speaking at the 2007 Munich Security Conference. (Munich Security Conference/Wikimedia Commons)
Burns’ Warning
Putin spoke three years after the Baltic States, former Soviet republics bordering on Russia, joined the Western Alliance. The West humiliated Putin and Russia by ignoring its legitimate security concerns, when in 2008, just a year after his speech, NATO said Ukraine and Georgia would become members. Four other former Warsaw Pact states then joined in 2009.
William Burns, then U.S. ambassador to Russia, and then Joe Biden’s C.I.A. director, warned in a cable to Washington, revealed by WikiLeaks, that,
“Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains ‘an emotional and neuralgic’ issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia. In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.”
In November 2009 the West again humbled Russia by rejecting out of hand its proposed new security arrangement in Europe. Moscow released a draft proposal for a security architecture the Kremlin said should replace outdated institutions such as NATO and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
In 2014, the United States pushed the issue in Ukraine by organizing a coup, stoking what Burns had said in 2008 were “fears” that “could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” [Emphasis mine.]
The U.S.-installed government attacked ethnic Russians in the breakaway Donbass region, which defended its democratic rights against the coup. Civil war ensued as Burns warned. Russia worked out with Europe a peace formula, the Minsk accords, that would keep an autonomous Donbass inside the Ukrainian state. They were endorsed by the U.N. Security Council.
But the accords failed. In December 2022, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel told us why. She essentially admitted that the West had deceived Russia into thinking it had agreed to peace when instead NATO bought time to arm and train Ukraine for war against Russia. It was another outright humiliation of Moscow, which was “played” as Putin would say.
All this history is hidden to Western publics who only see Russia invading Ukraine as an isolated event.
Going to War in Ukraine
A building burns in Bakhmut City, Sept. 15, 2022. (Ministry of Defense of Ukraine)
Before Russia’s intervention into Ukraine, Moscow tried one last time in December 2021 with draft treaty proposals to the U.S. and NATO laying out a new security architecture for Europe in which forward deployments of troops and missiles in the new Eastern European NATO states would be withdrawn. Again the West condescendingly dismissed the treaties out of hand despite Russia’s warning of war.
On the night in February 2022 that Putin announced Russia’s intervention into the Ukrainian civil war, he spoke of the way the West repeatedly humiliated Russia by ignoring its legitimate security concerns, including those of ethnic Russians in Donbass. He gave what Russia sees as the existential threat from NATO’s expansion as the main reason for the military intervention.
Russia had clearly had enough of 30 years of America’s reckless condescension. Putin told the world:
“Our biggest concerns and worries, [are] the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.
It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very border.
Why is this happening? Where did this insolent manner of talking down from the height of their exceptionalism, infallibility and all-permissiveness come from? What is the explanation for this contemptuous and disdainful attitude to our interests and absolutely legitimate demands?”
Putin said the Americans had “played” Russia in lying about NATO expansion. He referred to
“promises not to expand NATO eastwards even by an inch. To reiterate: they have deceived us, or, to put it simply, they have played us. Sure, one often hears that politics is a dirty business. It could be, but it shouldn’t be as dirty as it is now, not to such an extent. This type of con-artist behaviour is contrary not only to the principles of international relations but also and above all to the generally accepted norms of morality and ethics.”
Putin said Russia had long wanted to cooperate with the West. “Those who aspire to global dominance have publicly designated Russia as their enemy. They did so with impunity. Make no mistake, they had no reason to act this way,” he said.
“Burns said fears in 2008 were that Ukraine ‘could potentially split … in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.'”
The collapse of the Soviet Union had led to a redivision of the world, he said, and a change to international law and norms. New rules were needed but instead of achieving this
“… we saw a state of euphoria created by the feeling of absolute superiority, a kind of modern absolutism coupled with the low cultural standards and arrogance of those who formulated and pushed through decisions that suited only themselves.”
Who Is Humiliated Now?
After nearly four years of major conflict in Ukraine, it is the United States and Europe that face humiliation.
Russia has won the three wars against it: economic, information (except in the West), and on the ground.
Before Joe Biden limped out of office, he decided to allow the U.S. to attack Russia from Ukrainian territory to help Ukraine hold on to enough Russian territory it seized in Kursk over the summer of 2023 to trade at cessation of hostilities talks. In other words, Biden knew Ukraine had lost.
But this has never been a war to defend Ukraine. It has been a war to overthrow Russia’s leader, as Biden admitted, and to humiliate Russia back into its 1990s servitude, a war that still goes on.
Trump came into office a second time vowing to end the war immediately. He reopened direct contact with Putin, which Biden had cut off, and is attacked for merely listening to Russian side.
Trump, for all his too many outrages on other issues, recognizes the reality of Russian victory on the battlefield, and is trying to incorporate it into a peace settlement. But he must overcome the fierce objections of Europe and the neocons in Washington.
A Peace for All Time
In his speech, Kennedy sought world peace. He asked:
“What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children–not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women–not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.”
Neocons and European leaders have invested too much of their pride, their credibility and their citizen’s money into trying to use “American weapons of war” to enforce a Pax Americana on Russia. They want to continue to force a potential choice on Moscow of either a humiliating retreat or possible nuclear war.
Just how far do they think they can humiliate Russia this time?
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette, the London Daily Mail and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He is the author of two books, A Political Odyssey, with Sen. Mike Gravel, foreword by Daniel Ellsberg; and How I Lost By Hillary Clinton, foreword by Julian Assange.
Please Donate to CN’s 30th Anniversary Fall Fund Drive 
A philosophical paradox is a statement or situation that challenges our understanding of concepts like truth, identity, or existence, often revealing contradictions or unexpected outcomes. These paradoxes provoke critical thinking and discussions about the nature of reality and our beliefs.
It is arguably the greatest philosophical paradox of life: the fact that those who volunteer to lead sincere efforts to establish genuine lasting peace on Earth far too often end up getting murdered for undertaking those same sincere efforts.
Peace.
He was mostly correct but a bit misled about Soviet Union. Soviets did not want wars and conflicts and the west has always wanted to expand its imperial quests around the world through wars and economic punish pt ments. US was in Vietnam for a war against anti colonialists at that time.
The problem is, Folks, the American mainstream media isn’t going to report this. Rather, they exist to keep the American people misinformed, and “in line” with those who have the $$$ in mind, and power. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, “It’s my government that starts and keeps these world wars going.”
“But this has never been a war to defend Ukraine.”
The willingness to poison the people of Ukraine with deadly depleted uranium weapons is clear proof of this.
The European leaders also want to sabotage the prospects for peace by putting ‘peace-keeping’ troops into the Ukraine. It does not take a genius to know that such an idea would be unacceptable to Russia which is precisely why it has been proposed.
If such troops were deployed in this way, it would not be difficult to manufacture an incident in order to resume the war.
I hadn’t heard that speech before to my shame. Only 5 months before he was shot, I think that speech was probably the final straw for those plotting to destroy him. A murder most foul indeed, and the beginning of the end.
Professor Jeffrey Sachs has spoken often about this speech that JFK gave. He urges everyone to read it in entirety. No doubt about it. The CIA and other war hawks went berserk when they heard this speech.
Those who USE (the U.S. and Europe) the world for their narrow and short-sighted self-interests have brought us to this point of having to cross the Rubicon, where standing down from one’s exceptionalist posture for the best interests of all of humankind is seen as an intolerable humiliation.
In this insanity apparently, the possibility of nuclear annihilation is seen as “fake news” by demented minds, and therefore, more tolerable; says the archangel now daily Trumpeting this madness globally.
Forgive them for they know not what they do! Are you kidding?
Not even unconditional love would forgive these particular con artists lunacy.
Only preemption in 2016 would possibly have served better than attempting to cure the terminal destruction we all are now facing … and this does not mean voting either Democrat or Republican.
Question: Why is it that today’s America’s laboring masses are so afraid of even a mention of the idea of ‘workers councils’, in today’s lingo, ‘labor’ unions?
Question (to Google AI Overview): Were the earlier Russian Soviets democratic councils?
[Yes, in theory, the Russian soviets were democratic councils, representing a system called soviet democracy or council democracy where workers directly elected delegates to represent them. However, in practice, the system evolved into a highly centralized, one-party state where the Communist Party held supreme power, and the councils lost their democratic nature.]
How does this differ from a one-party Corporate Duopoly state where the Oligarchic Plutocracy holds supreme power, and wherein the labor unions democratic nature was long-ago artfully usurped?
Answer: It doesn’t! It is one and the same system of elite power dispersion.
U.S.E. the world–great acronym!
Re: labor, how does this differ…? Even if the old Soviet Union was horribly centralized and labor had no real power, at least the working class was recognized. In this neolib era in Europe and especially in the U.S. we the majority are invisible and ignored even by parties once ours (Dem, Lib, Labour.) Like no concern the Rust Belt became deaths of despair central.
A fantastically creative comment that nails the underlying bitter truth ! Kudos.
Thank you, Joe, for a very well written and completely accurate account of the Ukrainian conflict and the larger conflict, pursued by the West, in which it exists. Neocons, along with Zionists and fascists represent a cult of death in the world that is determined to prevent peace and cooperation at all costs. In rational human societies, these provokers of war and conflict would have no place and gain no sustenance. Sadly, American, and now Western culture in general, seem to incubate, fund and promote these vile ideologies as a matter of policy. However, rather than being the rulers and owners of the world as they desire, the West will be left out of it. America heal thyself or complete your exit from the world stage.