Natylie Baldwin interviews Soviet and Russian specialist Geoffrey Roberts on Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine, Europe’s role, Stalin and World War II.
Russian President Vladimir Putin in February, at a World War II memorial in Moscow. (President of Russia)
By Natylie Baldwin
Special to Consortium News
Geoffrey Roberts is an historian, biographer and political commentator. A renowned specialist in Russian and Soviet foreign and military policy and an expert on Stalin and the Second World War, his books have been translated into numerous languages. He is emeritus professor of history at University College Cork and a member of the Royal Irish Academy.
Natalie Baldwin: How did you become interested in the Soviet Union and Russia?
Geoffrey Roberts: Mainly, it was a political interest in the Soviet socialist system. As a teenager I was enthused by the Prague Spring and [Alexander] Dubcek’s vision of socialism with a human face. Together with others, I studied the Soviet system for lessons — positive and negative — that could inform the achievement and building of socialism in my own country and elsewhere in the world.
I studied international relations as an undergraduate and that led to specialization in Soviet foreign policy but I have always been interested in all aspects of Soviet history. People assume I’m a Russophile, which I’m not (though I do have many Russian friends) — only in recent years have I become more interested in pre-revolutionary Russian history.
Baldwin: A big part of your specialty is Joseph Stalin as well as World War II. What made you focus on Stalin and what is the most interesting thing you learned about him?
Roberts: When I started studying Soviet history I wasn’t much interested in Stalin as an individual. I thought his Marxism was mechanistic, crude and dogmatic. I agreed with Nikita Khrushchev’s critique of his dictatorial rule at the 20th Party Congress.
What interested me was not Stalin but “Stalinism” — the political, ideological and economic functioning of the Soviet system. In that regard, I was unconvinced by Khrushchev’s explanation of Stalinism as a function of the cult of Stalin’s personality. It seemed to me that the mass repressions of the 1930s and 1940s and the ongoing authoritarianism of the Soviet system — softer though it was after Stalin’s death — were the result of the collective failings and defects of the party and its ideology.
Nikita Khrushchev addressing the 20th CPSU Congress in the Kremlin, 1956. (Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0)
When I started to research Soviet foreign relations, I focused on policy, and on personalities other than Stalin, such as his foreign commissar, Maxim Litvinov. Only when I began working in the Russian archives in the mid-1990s did my attention switch to Stalin. What those archives revealed to me was how pervasive, detailed and dominant was Stalin’s leadership and decision-making. Given the dictatorial nature of Stalin’s regime, that was not so surprising, but now I could follow its day-to-day operation. Above all, the archives showed that Stalin was a formidable administrator who was able to absorb and process huge amounts of information. His decision-making was often inefficient but invariably effective in achieving his key goals.
The Soviet system was created by Stalin and it endured for many decades after his death. It had many defects but, after a fashion, it worked, not least during the crucible of total war with Nazi Germany.
Baldwin: One of your books is Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War. After making profound errors of judgment in the runup to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, which led to horrible losses in the first weeks, you detail how Stalin worked hard to learn from his mistakes and ultimately became — you argue — the most important military strategist of the war in terms of defeating the Germans. Can you discuss this aspect of Stalin as well as how the war affected the Soviet Union in general and why it still has resonance for Russia?
Roberts: Stalin remains a hugely popular historical figure in post-Soviet Russia and in many other parts of the former U.S.S.R., such as his native Georgia. His popularity rests on his perceived role in winning the Second World War. In my book I argued that Stalin was indispensable to the Soviet war effort — it was his system and could only function effectively if he performed well — that without his warlord-ship Hitler and the Nazis might well have won. Somewhat provocatively, I claimed it was Stalin who saved the world for democracy, albeit at the expense of half of Europe being subordinated to his authoritarian rule.
When the war ended in 1945, Stalin was almost universally hailed as the key architect of the allied victory over Nazi Germany. Not until Khrushchev’s attack on Stalin in 1956 was that positive verdict seriously questioned. Central to Khrushchev’s critique of the dictator was the poor quality of Stalin’s military leadership. While some of Khrushchev’s criticisms were valid, others obscured the extent to which the mistakes of the early war years were a collective failure, including on the part of Khrushchev himself.
With access to Russian archives, I was able to re-evaluate Khrushchev’s critique and demonstrate that Stalin was a highly effective war leader — a leader who learnt from and corrected his mistakes.
World War II was the central event in Soviet history. At stake in the conflict was not only the survival of Soviet socialism but the continued existence of the multinational state the Bolsheviks had inherited from the Tsars. Had Hitler won, European Russia would have become a German colony and what was left of the Soviet Union a fragmented, disintegrating state. That historical spectre has particular resonance at the present time when many Russians see their country as once again involved in an existential struggle for survival.
Baldwin: In a recent interview with Glenn Diesen and Alexander Mercouris, you said that Stalin committed the crimes he did largely due to his being such a true believer in his communist ideology and was very convinced of the rightness of his actions to further this ideology. This fits in with an observation I’ve made over the years (and I’m sure I’m not the only one) that the most dangerous people are those who are the most self-righteous, whether it’s on behalf of a religion or political philosophy, because they can justify the use of any means or methods in pursuit of their righteous ends. What do you think? Do you think policymakers in Washington suffer from a similarly dangerous sense of self-righteousness regarding their exceptionalism?
Roberts: The most important thing to understand about Stalin is that he was an intellectual, driven by his Marxist ideas, a true believer in his communist ideology. And he didn’t just believe it, he felt it. Socialism was an emotional thing for Stalin. His often-monstrous actions stemmed from his politics and ideology, not his personality.
Josef Stalin, 1949. (Bundesarchiv, Wikimedia Commons, CC-BY-SA 3.0)
But the mass violence and repression of the Stalin era is not the whole of the Soviet story. Soviet society embodied many laudable ideas and aspirations — egalitarianism, multiculturalism, internationalism, anti-imperialism, anti-racism, above all the valorization of peace and peaceful co-existence between different peoples, systems and values. The U.S.S.R. inspired a great deal of idealism and popular support throughout its existence, notwithstanding the millions of innocent people who fell victim to Stalin’s fanatical determination to defend the Soviet system against its enemies.
I agree with you about the dangerous self-righteousness of Western policymakers. But what really worries me is that they lack Stalin’s sense of realism and pragmatism and his ability to grasp the reality beyond his own ideological preferences. Thankfully, the same is not true of President Vladimir Putin, himself a product of the Soviet system, and an inheritor of its tradition of adapting political ideology to the contingencies and exigencies of the real situation.
Baldwin: Given your work in analyzing and attempting to understand Stalin as a political leader, military strategist and as an intellectual, I wouldn’t be surprised if you get accused of being a Stalin apologist. If so, what is your response?
Roberts: No one who reads my work with any degree of care would give any credence to such an accusation.
As a historian my primary task is to understand and explain Stalin, not to condemn or justify him. I do that by striving to see the world through his eyes, which, admittedly, requires a high degree of empathy, but which is not to be confused with sympathy. As a colleague of mine, Mark Harrison, once said, there is no moral hazard in trying to understand Stalin and having gained greater understanding, you can condemn him even more if you want to. But let’s get the history right before rushing to judgement.
One or two reviewers of my latest book — Stalin’s Library — complained that by presenting him as an avid reader and as a serious intellectual, I whitewashed his dictatorship. All I can say is that they must not have noticed the book’s sub-title — A Dictator and His Books — or its first sentence — “this book explores the intellectual life and biography of one of history’s bloodiest dictators” — or the title of Chapter One — “Bloody Tyrant and Bookworm” — or, indeed, a whole section devoted to “Stalin’s Terror” — a topic on which I published yet another article about just recently.
Baldwin: I want to shift gears to current events. You’ve done a remarkable job documenting exactly how events must have looked to Putin in the leadup to February of 2022, including Putin’s numerous public comments about the growing dangers of NATO expansion, de facto NATO membership for Ukraine, and the possible stationing of offensive missiles in Ukraine.
One of the things I really wanted to hash out with you regards an indirect sort of debate you had recently with Ray McGovern over whether Putin had other options he could have pursued instead of invading Ukraine in February 2022. McGovern tends to agree with John Mearsheimer that Putin did not have any other realistic options to defend Russian security interests. You wrote in response that you think this was a war of choice and not necessity by Putin.
At the time Putin invaded, I believed Putin did have other options such as those outlined by Russia expert Patrick Armstrong in his article of December 2021. Those options included positioning nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad and Belarus to show resolve in defending Russia against NATO-aligned mischief, and/or economic measures that would punish NATO-aligned nations, among other things.
In retrospect, I don’t think any of these alternative measures would have worked. We’ve seen how the U.S. and virtually all of Europe has gone along with policies that have hurt their own interests both economically and in terms of security, particularly Europe. We’ve also seen how the West is willing to escalate this conflict. I hate this war as much as anyone, but I also have to be honest at this point — it now seems implausible that Putin stopping gas deliveries to Europe or stationing nukes in Belarus or trying to appeal more to Europe would have deterred Washington/NATO in any meaningful way.
Also, [former Ukraine President Petro] Poroshenko, [former German Chancellor Angela] Merkel and [former French President Francois] Hollande have all since admitted that they had essentially taken Russia for a ride with the Minsk Agreements which they used as a cover to build up Ukraine’s military.
[Related: SCOTT RITTER: Merkel Reveals West’s Duplicity and PATRICK LAWRENCE: Germany & the Lies of Empire]
It seems like some in the West wanted this conflict or at the very least they didn’t have a problem once it started given their rejection of several attempts at negotiating an end to it. Can you give some concrete options that Putin had that were realistic at all, given what he was dealing with from the West? And please feel free to respond to any part of what I just laid out.
October 2015 in Paris; seated at table from left: Germany’s Angela Merkel, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Ukraine’s Petro Poroshenko and France’s Francois Holland during Normandy format talks to resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine. (Kremlin.ru, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0)
Roberts: My agreement with Ray McGovern and John Mearsheimer is far greater than any particular differences of interpretation.
The most important point about the Russia-Ukraine war is that it was the most avoidable war in history. It could have been avoided by Ukraine implementing the Minsk agreements. It could have been avoided by NATO halting its build-up of Ukraine’s armed forces. It could have been avoided by a positive U.S. response to Putin’s common security proposals of December 2021. Putin pulled the trigger but it was Ukraine and the West that loaded the gun.
[Related: The War in Ukraine Was Provoked and John Pilger: War in Europe & the Rise of Raw Propaganda and Ukraine Crisis Should Have Been Avoided]
When the West stonewalled his security proposals, Putin had a choice — continue with what I call his militarised diplomacy, or take military action to force acceptance of his demands. He chose war because diplomacy didn’t seem to be working and because he thought it was better to fight now rather than later — hence my characterisation of the invasion decision as a choice for preventative war.
I disagreed with his decision for three reasons: (1) notwithstanding Ukraine’s progressive military build-up, a dire existential threat to Russia was emergent rather than imminent; (2) the chance of diplomacy succeeding was slim but not non-existent; and (3) going to war was an enormously dangerous and destructive step to take, not just for Russia and Ukraine but for Europe and the rest of the world.
In retrospect, it seems clear that Putin’s decision for war was also based on a series of miscalculations. He over-estimated the power and efficacy of his armed forces, under-estimated Ukraine’s fighting ability, and, crucially, did not anticipate the determination and recklessness of the Western proxy war on Russia.
Had the Istanbul peace negotiations succeeded and war come to an end in spring 2022, those who argue Putin’s decision for war was right at the time he took it, would have a much stronger case to argue. But the prolonged nature of the war, the extent of its death and devastation, the real and continuing threat of nuclear catastrophe, and the prospect of an endless conflict, leave me unconvinced that it was the right thing to do.
It is highly likely Russia will in due course secure a decisive military advantage that will enable Putin to credibly claim victory. But it remains to be seen whether or not what Russia gains will have been worth the cost it will have paid.
Baldwin: Why do you think European leaders refuse to stand up to Washington’s reckless actions in terms of scuttling negotiations to end this war much earlier and continuing to escalate the conflict using a frog-in-boiling-water approach? European leaders must know that if this conflict continues to escalate, they will be potential targets.
Roberts: It’s mind-boggling! Presumably, they feel the Russian threat is so great and their dependence on U.S. protection so deep, that these are risks worth taking. But I hope the scales will fall from their eyes and they will see that the Ukrainians are fighting a losing war of attrition that may end in complete catastrophe for their country.
To be fair, there are realist and pragmatic politicians in all European countries who desire a ceasefire and are prepared to negotiate a compromise peace with Russia. I’m sure their voices will become louder and more persistent in the coming months.
Baldwin: In a similar vein, a recent survey of European opinion revealed that, though they currently view Russia as a rival, once the war ends most European citizens want to reconcile and partner with Russia. It seems that regular Europeans realize that you can’t change geography and that Russia is a European neighbor and a modus vivendi must somehow be reached. When do you think the leaders of Europe might catch up to this realization?
Roberts: The commonsense of the European public is right. There can be no peace and prosperity in Europe without a partnership with Russia. None of the world’s most pressing problems can be resolved without Russian participation.
The sooner this war ends the better it will be for Europe, for Russia and, above all, for Ukraine.
Natylie Baldwin is the author of The View from Moscow: Understanding Russia and U.S.-Russia Relations. Her writing has appeared in various publications including The Grayzone, Antiwar.com, Covert Action Magazine, RT, OpEd News, The Globe Post, The New York Journal of Books and Dissident Voice.
Views expressed in this interview may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
It seems we are forgetting the civil war from 2014 to the SMO and the 54,000 casualties, 14000 deaths and 3000 civilian deaths. There was already a war in Ukraine. Russia did not start it, the US did when it orchestrated the Meidan coup!
The final straw might have been Zelensky’s public threat of acquiring nuclear weapons, just days before the start of the SMO. It was reported that the Ukranians had stored enough radioactive materials, the byproduct of nuclear power generation, to build a dirty bomb.
I found an article that states that Ukraine had 120,000 troops deployed on the Donbass border on 2/2/2022. I know that Scott Ritter knows this because I have heard him say that in this situation Russia was not obligated to peacefully wait for the invasion, but few others know or acknowledge it. How should Russia have avoided this war?
Donetsk: Ukraine has deployed 120,000 troops on the border with Donbass
2/2/2022, 11:42:57 PM
Stalin lead the political genocide of the Left Opposition. It was Stalins leadership that held the German Communist Party back in it’s fight against the Nazis. It was Stalins murder of the military leadership and revolutionaries worldwide that lead to the eventually Nazi rule and attack on the USSR.
The Stalinist Socialism in One Country was a counter revolutionary theory designed to protect the Stalinist bureaucracy. The Stalinist Two Stage Development was how the Stalinist bureaucracy crushed world Socialist Revolution and allowed the bourgeoisie to maintain world power.
Basically the interviewee is a Stalinist that is not able to see past his hero worship to understand what Stalinism is and why it is.
It’s either the working class that maintains power and keeps control of the surplus value it creates or it’s some other group, caste or class. In the USSR it was the Stalinist bureaucracy that controlled the surplus value and used that surplus value to it’s own advantage.
Finding itself isolated after the Civil war the Russian bureaucracy found Stalin to do it’s bidding. Stalin came to it’s rescue by designing theories that would help it maintain power. That is why Stalin lead a political genocide against the Left Opposition, came up with Socialism in One Country, had revolutionaries around the globe murdered, made deals with the Imperialists, killed off the Russian military leadership, developed the Popular Front with the bourgeoisie, protected the bourgeoisie with the Two Stages of Development ideas and maintains general dictatorship over society.
Nothing Stalin did was to protect Socialism. It was to protect a new class, caste of people.
the blatant lies in real time coming from the west regarding Putin and Russia in general should force any serious historian to reconsider, reevaluate and rethink the cold war narratives surrounding Stalin, Mao, Castro, Chavez and every anti-imperialist leader. My feeling is that it is impossible for any western historian to be taken seriously in academia unless said historian has a deeply anti-socialist, anti-communist and anti-Stalinist position. In other words, western historians engage in cold war propaganda. This is indisputable. Once Western hegemony crumbles, perhaps we will have better historians.
Geoffrey Roberts uncritically repeats myths promulgated by the Stalinists themselves such as:
– “without his warlord-ship Hitler and the Nazis might well have won.
– [Stalin] was “an intellectual, driven by his Marxist ideas, a true believer in his communist ideology.”
– “… they lack Stalin’s sense of realism and pragmatism and his ability to grasp the reality beyond his own ideological preferences.”
—
Notice he does NOT say
– If it wasn’t for Stalin’s decapitation of the Red Army in the Great Terror and his policies from 1939 to 1941 the Nazi army would never have come close to victory. Hitler always promised to try to destroy the Soviet Union yet the largest land invasion in human history – 3.3 million solders – came as a surprise. The 1939 non-aggression pack meant the USSR supplied critical supplies to the NAZI regime, created a common border which was much better suited for an invasion and created tremendous confusion among Soviet and international workers because Hitler was suddenly the “friend of Stalin”
If Stalin war really so realistic and wanted to protect the Soviet Union he would have done everything to stop the Nazi’s taking power but not a single shot was fired to stop the Nazis building their dictatorship. Instead he said the Social Democrats were “social fascists” (just as bad as the Nazis).
– Stalin’s socialism-in-one-country reflected the material interests of the soviet bureaucracy, not socialism. It was a reactionary utopian ideology that rejected Lenin’s insistence that the fate of the Soviet Union depended on the world revolution and rejected Marx and Engels insistence of ‘Workers of the world unite’. Stalin’s passive capitulation to the rise of fascism in Germany was a catastrophe for the Soviet and international working class. All those who speak about his great efforts during WWII are completely silent about his role during the crisis in Germany in 1930-1933
I recommend the following as a critical review of Stalin’s role.
hxxps://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2023/03/07/per1-m07.html
Perhaps a significant part of the trap set for Russia was the gradual covert nature of preparations to make Putin think it would be easier. They provided a stealth effort first and then a fake treaty as well for more open preparation. Entrapment is still warfare tactics and we may also have miscalculated them thereby inflicting more harm just as in misconceiving Iraqi resistance.
What is inexcusable to trying to refight WWII against communism in the USSR and China using fascism all over again including recruiting Japan all over again. Like we say now being able to have a two theater war simultaneously covert or overt or both.
After 8 years of the Donbas being oppressed by the Kiev government/regime and the constant bombing of the Russian speaking majority there and the more recent build up of Ukrainian troops on the border of the Donbas, preparing for a massive attack, Putin acted on the Russian nation’s promise to protect Russians who were displaced after the splitting of the Soviet Union. The Americans and their NATO vassals pushed it and got what it wanted – a war!
The worst part of this shabby yet barbaric exercise in maintaining hegemony and the free ride the American elite corporatists have become accustomed to, is that the regular and American people who have already suffered so much for so little in return (not even an equal share of the pie) are going to suffer even more once the war our misleaders have provoked, decimate our economies to the point that it will resemble what our propagandists say that North Korean life is like – picking through crumbs in the dust.
Russian author Vadim Rogovin, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, wrote a multi-volume history consisting of “Was There an Alternative? 1923-1927”, “Bolsheviks Against Stalinism 1928-1933”, “1937 Stalin’s Year of Terror”, “Political Genocide in the USSR-Stalin’s Terror of 1937-1938”. Rogovin became convinced of the correctness of Leon Trotsky’s opposition to Stalin. I would also suggest Trotsky’s biography of Stalin on which Trotsky was working when he was assassinated by the GPU. Stalin was, as Trotsky correctly called him, the gravedigger of the Revolution.
I think if you want to know the truth about Trotsky you have to read Grover Furr’s studies. Trotsky was a self-promoted arrogant intellectual who should never hav been allowed into the Bolshevik Party. He did untold damage.
Lots of grumpy comments about what was not said by Roberts in this interview.
Here is more: hxxps://jmss.org/article/view/76584/56335
The cryptonazi junta running westzone wanted and wants the war. Putin acted under Art 51 UNC when asked by recognized states according the the principles pioneered by westzone in the Kosovo affair. The westzone “pulled the trigger” at Kosovo. Further, no State is ever “ready for war”, the correct means is to get the enemy to motivate your people to support you and a rapid military expansion…the Judo gag. It is naziwestzone that gave the Russian a vast military and a leader supported by 90%.
nazihubris makes it such that nazis cannot fathom their real responsibility in creating the new Red Army that is going to ruin the grand nazi plans and quite possibly arrest the westnazicadres and do as aught to be done…
Redarmy’s been to Berlin and to Paris, they can go anywhere, even Maryland and Virginia…
I predict that if RA comes to DC, the multitudes will cheer their liberation.
Great comment Walter, you saved me the trouble. Putin had no choice after 8 years of genocide on the border and the clear intentions of the NaziWest, or your very apt term the westzone. This was clearly a war of choice, by the westzone and there was never going to be any avoiding it with Sleepy Joe at the wheel in the blackhearted whitehouse. Russia itself had and has never done anything to warrant animosities from Europe, they were the savior of Europe with their willingness to provide gas. and before the stupid westzone got all up in everybodies business with ‘sanctions’ against Europe, there was a lot of mutually advantageous trade. Beyond that the picture gets even larger as the westzone faces unprecedented bankruptcies of its entire system hitting a brick wall after 500 years of colonial theft. What is going on now is the 85% of the rest of the world realizing via Russia’s efforts their chance to slip the noose of US ‘aid.’
Succinct and correct:
“I disagreed with his decision for three reasons: (1) notwithstanding Ukraine’s progressive military build-up, a dire existential threat to Russia was emergent rather than imminent; (2) the chance of diplomacy succeeding was slim but not non-existent; and (3) going to war was an enormously dangerous and destructive step to take, not just for Russia and Ukraine but for Europe and the rest of the world.”
(1) While obviously Russia would prefer a neutral Ukraine, there is no scenario under which any military buildup in Ukraine would be an imminent threat or even near-term threat to Russia. Poland and the Baltics were already part of NATO and are as close to Russia’s heartland as Ukraine is. Russia could have oriented and positioned its forces to face the threat and continued to rely on its #1 nuclear weaponry and terrific conventional defensive abilities. As this war has shown, Russia is terrible on the offensive, but terrific defensively. There was/is no risk of attack on Russia.
(2) Remembering that Ukraine had elected a Russia-friendly president just in 2012, Russia could have concentrated on utilizing its huge diplomatic and spying influence inside the country to discredit the opposition and, in the long term, help elect a much more friendly government. This chance is now reliably gone for the foreseeable future.
(3) Starting a war is a crime and the taking of an enormous chance precisely because one never knows what will happen after the first steps are taken. As Mike Tyson said, “everyone has a plan until he gets punched in the face.” When we are talking about a proxy war between the two sides that can, through desperation or mistake, end most human life on earth, then minimizing risk by not initiating war unless attacked would be the prudent and wise choice. Btw, no war is inevitable until one side actually decides to attack, so the idea that war with Ukraine was inevitable is a supposition, not a fact.
At this point, people usually bring up the Donbas … what about the Russian speaking people there? What if they were attacked in earnest by Ukraine? Well, at that point, Russia would have had a clear casus belli to come to the protection of the Donbas, much like they did in Georgia in 2008 and much stronger than Nato’s in Kosovo in the 90’s.
Of course, as the author states, none of this removes the primary responsibility of avoidance which here lies with the “west”, primarily UKUS, for putting the unfortunate people of Ukraine in this horrific situation. This war could have easily been avoided by even one of the major European countries acting in the interest of peace and their own economic interests, as opposed to the interests of the world empire. But alas, that was not done.
If Ukraine were to join NATO, Russia would lose its navel base in Crimea and this it cannot allow.
Whatever one may think of Stalin, is it not a fact that he made several attempts to ally with Britain and France in 1939? This was to contain Nazi Germany’s military advances, only to be refused by Britain and France because they wanted Germany and Russia to go to war with each other. If I’m wrong about this please let me know.
“The commonsense of the European public is right. There can be no peace and prosperity in Europe without a partnership with Russia. None of the world’s most pressing problems can be resolved without Russian participation.”
US motivations are not addressed – and put them in the context of MacKinder’s theory from the early 1900s. US leadership/Neocons and their Democratic Party side kicks do not want European prosperity if it requires teamwork with Russia – hence the 2014 coup, the decades of NATO expansions/provocation (NATO’s role as a defense organisation in now a Trojan horse for offensive action), the destruction of the Nordstream (loss of cheap energy for Europe is devastating and our troubles are only beginning).
The US is a bankrupt, dying empire where half the population disdains the other half. While literally hundred of thousands die needlessly, Blackrock and Goldman Sachs are salivating over the chance to ‘rebuild’ Ukraine.
The only reason US leadership and corporate oligarchy hate Putin, is that Putin put a stop to Yeltsin’s willingness to let Western corporate industry pillage Russia’s resources. The US foreign policy of ‘weaken Russia’ and over throw Putin’ has done the exact opposite – Russia is stronger than ever (especially militarily) and Putin enjoys record level support amongst Russian (and sympathy among the rest of the world who are fed up with US bullying and duplicity). Despite the fortunes spent, the US military is all sizzle and no steak and Biden’s polls are worse than Trump.
Hear, hear. Thank you for putting the responsibility where it belongs: on the United States empire.
Kristi O’Sullivan:
Your analysis is right on the money!!
More people need to know about MacKinder! Without that point of reference you cannot understand what’s happening now.
Nothing said about how the war and national conflict distract from dealing with the common coming tragedy of climate change and other global problems This fact should be a part of every analysis. There will be no winners to this war and other conflicts within a couple of decades.
Extending this history, Jeffrey Sachs explains how the West was beginning their current attack on Russia back when the Soviet Union dissolved. A fascinating inside view of events. The first 25 min of the video. (The rest of the video is also worthwhile, as usual with The Duran.)
NATO summit failure and further Biden escalation w/ Jeffrey Sachs
(2) the chance of diplomacy succeeding was slim but not non-existent;
What’s the point in reaching another agreement with those who are “non agreement capable”, a fact now established beyond any reasonable doubt (statements by Poroshenko, Merkel, Hollande)?
There was Minsk 1, and the West and the Ukraine did it in bad faith. Then there was Minsk 2, and the West and the Ukraine did it in bad faith? What were the chances that a hypothetical Minsk 3 would have produced a different result?
Right on. Well said. Why won’t these opinionated writers get that.
Thank you for this thought-provoking interview. I learned a lot from, and appreciated, the intelligent comments that followed!
Stalin’s one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known. If not for his administration’s rapid industrialization the filth of Hitler never would’ve been defeated. If not for Stalin’s collectivization of agriculture and the 5-year plans the deadly famines would’ve continued for eternity. And oh yeah, the “famine” that’s often attributed to Stalin was due to natural causes, it had nothing to do with the Stalin administration’s policies. Khruschev lied about the Stalin administration. Trotsky was a traitor.
For further info on all of shocking (though truthful info I’ve outlined above) see the insightful and astonishingly well documented works by Professor Grover Furr.
Trotsky led the Red Army during Russian the civil war – i.e. the Tsarists and the foreign armies of intervention who were eventually beaten. The Russian Civil War raged from 1918 until the start of 1921. During this time, the Bolsheviks faced massive opposition to their rule in the form of the White Armies, led by former officers of the Tsarist state, and also from intervention by the forces of foreign countries. Yet, by the start of 1921, the Bolsheviks had defeated their enemies and gained a complete victory.
I often cringe when the propaganda of the old capitalist imperials, the nazis, and then the post WWII US lead imperials all coincide. Fascists, liberals, conservatives, anarchists and Trots all agree with a view of Stalin which was constructed to be a bogeyman, making socialist movements largely untenable in the West. As you point out, when the archives opened up to academia, the really inconvenient thing, is much of the existing cannon on the man has been shown to be largely evidence-free and self-referencing.
It was politically necessary for the fascists and the Western colonial empires to create a monstrous image of the leader of the soviets for the crime of succeeding, through abolishing hereditary class power based on private wealth. I can’t think of a national leader with clean hands, and this one is not different. Certainly not more of a monster than most in the West. Certainly not a dictator, as the records show his preferences were voted down regularly, and he tried to retire four or five times and was refused.
Roberts’ three arguments against Putin’s decision are neither novel nor good ones, in my view.
“(1) notwithstanding Ukraine’s progressive military build-up, a dire existential threat to Russia was emergent rather than imminent; (2) the chance of diplomacy succeeding was slim but not non-existent; and (3) going to war was an enormously dangerous and destructive step to take, not just for Russia and Ukraine but for Europe and the rest of the world.”
(3) is the weakest in the face of the counterpoint that war would have come to Russia eventually anyway (which he himself concedes had a ‘slim’ chance of being avoided by diplomacy). Further, it was the West (primarily the US and UK) that continued to egg on and enable Ukraine to continue their proxy war after it began, torpedoing further attempts at diplomacy in March / April 2022.
(2) is not particularly compelling (at least it was not believable that diplomacy could have succeeded in any form that would have been acceptable from the point of view of Russia’s legitimate interests) given the repeated attempts that Russia made which the West rejected (and exploited, in the case of Minsk), both before the war began and in the first months. At what point is a further attempt at diplomacy no longer a credible option? We may well reasonably differ on this question, but I suspect most people would agree, if they knew the whole history of attempted diplomacy in this shameful conflict, that further attempts by Russia would be all but futile (even self-deluding).
(1) is also weak, in my view, for the following simple reason – if one has good reason to believe war is inevitable (cf. point (2)), and losing it would be existential, then it doesn’t make a moral difference when it begins. In that case, the decision of ‘when’ is purely pragmatic (it boils down to minimizing loss, which is an equally crucial moral imperative informing such decisions).
Well said.
Indeed, Russia to have waited for an inevitable war to become “imminent” would have given the enemy more time to prepare for it, clearly to Russia’s disadvantage. Russia waited over 7 years for the Minsk Accord to be implemented. If that didn’t show patience, then I don’t know what would. There can be no doubt that the US and NATO wanted this war all along, but to say that they miscalculated is one of the great historical understatements of all time.
Thanks, Nigel Lim, for your well-reasoned reply. It is much the same as what I intended to write in response to Roberts’ three arguments; until I saw your post.
Every single appeal by Russia for negotiation of its security concerns had been dismissed out of hand by the U.S., Ukraine and the West generally, and for years. This fact alone provides proof that this war was deliberately provoked, as does the sabotaging of the March, 2022 negotiation between Ukraine & Russia that would have halted the war in its early days.
Given that reality and the almost certain futility of Russia’s continuing appeals, that option was closed to Russia- and not by its hand.
Further to this, it is somewhat naive if not disingenuous to state that the threats posed to Russia were “emergent but not imminent”. This is like saying that global warming-induced climate destabilization is ’emergent’- not ‘imminent’. Yet we know that climate chaos is already showing its signs, that tipping points-of-no-return are suddenly reached, that feedback loops can accelerate the arrival of those, that the dangers already exist and that the likely results are cascading existential threats. Just because we don’t know exactly WHEN the point-of-no-return is reached, does that mean we delay taking action?
Indeed, Russia was facing existential threat, from several directions at once; and without Russia’s action, would become more dire by the day – just like climate change.
And just like the latter, the problem didn’t start just in Feb. 2022, but with a series of events that began well before the Washington-engineered coup. To wit, some of the pieces of it included:
– The inclusion of various former Soviet republics in NATO from 1991 on
– The Article 5 provision within NATO that force other members to attack anyone at war with a member;
– The sudden unilateral withdrawal of the U.S. from the ABM Treaty; and subsequent placement of ABMs in Poland and elsewhere near Russia.
– The $1Trillion upgrade to U.S. nuclear strikeforce.
– The subsequent withdrawal of the U.S. from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty under Trump
– The gradually intensifying promotion of Ukraine’s entry into NATO
– The coup, which empowered the rise of Nazi ultranationalists committed to retaking Crimea and bitterly opposed to negotiations with Russia
– The eight-year-long Nazi-led war against ethnic Russians in the Donbass autonomous regions, which suddenly took a sharp escalation at the end of 2021.
– The growth of U.S. funding and training of Ukraine Armed Forces and encouragements to retake Crimea, and discouragement of any negotiations.
– Intensifying anti-Russian hysteria in the West, promoted as part of “Russia-gate”; and with it, attempts to starve Russia via economic sanctions.
– U.S. meddling in Georgia to foment regime change there as well.
There can be little doubt that all these evidenced U.S. intentions to bring Russia to its knees. The ABMs, and placement of NATO weapons on its border would have allowed a state of nuclear blackmail, as Russia would no longer be able to rely on the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) protection.
In short, Russia faced a certain future in which it would be forced to capitulate to any U.S. demand- facing extinction, unless it acted to prevent those conditions from arising.
We have only to ask how the U.S. itself would react if the situation were reversed such that every one of those conditions were imposed on us through a Russian military pact operating in a hostile Mexico and/or Canada.
If Russia was indeed facing an imminent existential threat in Feb ’22 (which I disagree that it was, see below), it has only gotten worse since then due to its war in Ukraine. Finland and Sweden have joined NATO, Ukraine has become an armed camp for the foreseeable future, and Russia has been at least temporarily separated from Europe economically and culturally, to both areas’ detriment.
The list of reasons you provide does indicate a ramping up of long term threats and a worse security environment for Russia, but there’s no imminent threat to the nation’s security worthy of justifying an offensive war. NATO was ALREADY in Russia’s backyard, in Poland and the Baltics … now, it’s in Finland too! Nato in Ukraine therefore was not a new threat.
The affairs you mention in Ukraine (fascists taking power in the coup, mistreatment of Russian ethnics, enmity against Russians, etc.) are internal to Ukraine. Much as we may hate them, in a world of nation states, internal affairs must remain internal and are not the business of other nations, unless things truly rise to the level of genocide. If we were against the Nato interference in the ex-Yugoslavia and Tibet and Xinxiang and etc., then we must also be against Russia’s interference in Ukraine. Once Crimea was taken over bloodlessly in ’14, Russia had no further business in Ukraine.
As for Russia’s security and preservation of MAD, you are aware that Russia has nuclear subs circling the oceans and which, just by themselves, would bring on the end of the world through nuclear winter. Russia also has hypersonics and other missiles which are impossible to hit in flight practically … especially in an all out attack. Heck, Russian nukes going off over Russia itself would be adequate to set off the end of the world. There is no winnable nuclear war or indeed winnable war of any kind between nuclear powers. That is precisely why USUK should have avoided egging on and provoking Russia in its near abroad as they have and as they are doing with China in Taiwan.
Good day. I recall having replied to your argument on NATO expansion (which is essentially the same as it was some time ago) in a comment to another article on CN some months ago. I will reply to it again here, with some addenda.
Your first argument concerns the security considerations that led to this war.
“The list of reasons you provide does indicate a ramping up of long term threats and a worse security environment for Russia, but there’s no imminent threat to the nation’s security worthy of justifying an offensive war. NATO was ALREADY in Russia’s backyard, in Poland and the Baltics … now, it’s in Finland too! Nato in Ukraine therefore was not a new threat.”
You are making two claims here:
(1) The non-imminence of the threat made it unnecessary to initiate an offensive war.
(2) The non-newness of the nature of the threat implies that it was either not genuinely sufficiently threatening to Russia’s security, or that it did not add any additional danger to Russia’s situation.
I find both claims weak in multiple ways.
(1) is bad for the reason I provided in refutation of Roberts’ point (3). If a war is inevitable, it is no longer a question of the morality of beginning it, but of minimization of the loss to be expected from the war. That made a preemptive offensive war preferable to a responsive defensive one by minimizing the military build up in Ukraine and by avoiding infrastructural and civilian damage within Russia proper.
I am aware that you do not think war was inevitable (and your conviction seems ultimately based on the belief that MAD would have been sufficient to deter any military threat manufactured by the US via its bloc). I find this aspect of your argument also thoroughly unconvincing, because MAD is grounded in a mutual belief in the credibility of the adversary’s threat. Evidently, however, the neocons in Washington and London did not consider the threat by Russia sufficiently credible to deter expanding NATO up to Russia’s borders and crossing numerous other red lines (many instances of which have gone essentially unpunished save for retaliation against the Ukrainian proxy itself). So there is no particularly compelling reason to believe that they wouldn’t have attempted military aggression using Ukraine as a base of operations (whether by direct or indirect means – the latter being more likely, using their fascistic and ideologically addled proxy regime).
In addition, the full encirclement of Russia would have facilitated (para)military as well as other types of aggression not only because of the increased difficulty of a successful military response to these, but the international perception of Russian failure to respond to the aggressive expansion as weakness, which would have made it harder to oppose the American empire even for sympathetic nations such as China.
(2) is bad for the obvious reason that an additional threat isn’t less threatening just because it isn’t unprecedented in nature. In brief, Ukraine joining NATO would have brought its long shared borders with Russia and its substantial manpower fully into the control of the US apparatus. Finland is indeed a threat (and its decision was profoundly foolish), but it (and Sweden) already were de facto NATO proxies due to decades-long infiltration of their governments and propagandization of their populations by the US.
I do not speak for Russia’s non-response to their joining NATO, except to suggest some factors of consideration:
(a) Their military manpower is less substantial than Ukraine’s was.
(b) The shared border is shorter (1340km vs 2295km).
(c) The susceptibility of the Finnish population to aggressive action in some form against Russia is arguably lower (many of them have a strong Russophobic feeling which lingers from World War II, but they don’t have a substantial neo-Nazi presence and influence or abject governmental corruption to exploit).
(d) It is generally unwise to get involved in multiple conflicts simultaneously (I do not suggest that Russia would have waged war against Finland if it hadn’t been at war with Ukraine, but it was likely a consideration).
(e) The calculation has changed – NATO is looking weaker, not stronger, as a result of this war, and the hollowness of the US and European economies and militaries have been revealed. This doesn’t make them a non-threat, but it makes the prospect of getting overrun by NATO proxies less plausible.
(f) There is hope of a new security framework arising from the resolution of this conflict. I am not sure how probable this is or what its nature will be, but it may be sufficient to mitigate Russia’s security concerns arising from NATO.
Your second argument (I feel it is worth responding to, albeit not relevant to what I myself mentioned) concerns the recent political and social history in Ukraine, including the coup and the ethnolinguistically Russian populations in Donbass.
“The affairs you mention in Ukraine (fascists taking power in the coup, mistreatment of Russian ethnics, enmity against Russians, etc.) are internal to Ukraine. Much as we may hate them, in a world of nation states, internal affairs must remain internal and are not the business of other nations, unless things truly rise to the level of genocide. If we were against the Nato interference in the ex-Yugoslavia and Tibet and Xinxiang and etc., then we must also be against Russia’s interference in Ukraine. Once Crimea was taken over bloodlessly in ’14, Russia had no further business in Ukraine.”
I think this argument is problematic as applied to Ukraine in at least two ways:
(1) The coup was as much Western-backed and orchestrated as it was by neo-Nazis. The resulting government was hand-picked by members of the US State Department (including, of course, the particularly notorious Nuland). In addition, the US retains control over Ukraine’s internal affairs due to the utter corruption of the Ukrainian government. This makes Ukraine’s sovereignty de-facto nonexistent, being a proxy for US use.
(2) There were actual human rights issues at play, including de facto cultural as well as the potential for literal genocide. The shelling of civilian areas has continued since 2014 in the Donbass, and neo-Nazism / far-right extremism is prevalent not only in the neo-Nazi (para)militaries but in its influence on government policy. There is plenty of precedent in world history of secession in the face of persistent abuse by a government in power (including no less than the US itself).
As an aside, I will also say that your use of Tibet and Xinjiang as examples of human rights issues (albeit ones not rising to the level of necessitating military intervention) makes me suspect you are someone who takes the US’ propaganda against their adversaries seriously.
I agree with your analysis here. I may be an avid anti-war person, but I couldn’t see how Putin could have avoided the USA/NATO determination to destroy Russia as it is and split it in five for the corporatist vampires to suck out the highly desired resources Russia sits on.
There was also the fact of the Ukrainian army’s imminent invasion of the Donbass after their 7 or 8 years of shelling had killed some 14,000 people. Putin has apologized to the families of those killed for not having intervened sooner.
It’s obvious that you do not live in Russia and you certainly did not live in a country which suffered three major invasions through Ukraine and lost 25M+ people in the last one.
Good day. I am not sure what you have in mind in this response. Perhaps you intended to reply to another poster?
rethink stalin..
“..Historian Samantha Lomb on the Stalin Constitution and Soviet Democracy..”: hxxps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhBcU-SghAY “..Stalin’s Constitution (Open Access)..”: hxxps://www.routledge.com/Stalins-Constitution-Soviet-Participatory-Politics-and-the-Discussion/Lomb/p/book/9781138721845
“..While Stalin led the USSR, Socialism advanced and Imperialism retreated.. What Stalin means to Me..”: youtube.com/watch?v=s0lENgiob_Q? “..USSR ..rich, secure, cultured and meaningful lives ..Harpal Brar’s ..Perestroika, the complete collapse of revisionism..”: youtube.com/watch?v=eV2lTkCRrfI
“..all ..obsessional anti-communism ..dedication to fighting imaginary hordes of “Stalinists” ..right-wingers ..conservatives ..centrists ..liberals ..Trotskyists ..anarchists..”: skeptic.ca/Parenti_Left_Right.htm “..If capitalism could adapt ..to the systematic improvement of ..the masses ..would not be capitalism..”: hxxp://ciml.250x.com/archive/5classics/english/stalin_crisis/stalin_16th_congress_cpusb_excerpts.html
What does he know about Russia going forward into the 21st century?
What’s of more vital interest to American readers of CN in the present moment is; how deep is his understanding of the US lemming populace today?
Are you suggesting that having an historical perspective cannot usefully inform one’s opinions of the present and expectations for the future? Of course, an historical perspective does not confer infallibility, but it can be extremely valuable.
What do YOU know about Russia in the 21st or any other century?!
Your implied superiority complex is hardly a way to convince us of the merits of your argument. Your clumsy English means either you aren’t very good at presenting a written case, so why would anyone trust your reasoning, or you don’t live in the U.S., making your vague claim about “lemming populace” irrelevant. Any blanket claim casting any group as all the same is the very definition of bigotry.
I suspect your knowledge about Russians and about Americans is about as deep as your knowledge of lemmings. FYI, lemmings don’t go around leaping off cliffs. They’re actually several species of tough little animals that manage to survive in a harsh climate, willing to fight would-be predators and even human researchers.
While I appreciated this piece, I’d also like to read one that thoroughly examines what you’d just mentioned.
But the Ukraine / Russia war will never end, it is the kindling for the holocaust to follow, which without a doubt will culminate in nuclear destruction. And yet Britain and a few other European States are playing a game of nuclear chicken with Putin, without a chance of any European capital surviving such an encounter. The cause of World Unrest is coming from the USA.
that is certainly the great danger at present absent the overthrow of capitalism
Thanks for this excellent interview. Reason and scholarship are hard to come by, especially in neoliberal America. While I agree the war could have been avoided, the warmongering of our government overseas has now turned to censoring its own citizens’ constitutional rights to free speech also. Spreading darkness across the globe is not a way forward into a better world. We, more than anyone, should know better. The peace dividend was a military/industrial complex boondoggle. Exceptionalism is a cudgel we are using on ourselves to hide the sight of widespread national failures.
“I disagreed with his decision for three reasons: (1) notwithstanding Ukraine’s progressive military build-up, a dire existential threat to Russia was emergent rather than imminent; (2) the chance of diplomacy succeeding was slim but not non-existent; and (3) going to war was an enormously dangerous and destructive step to take, not just for Russia and Ukraine but for Europe and the rest of the world.”
Strange Professor Roberts does not mention the Ukrainian escalation of shelling and terrorism of Donbass and the massing of troops that indicated Ukraine was about to invade Donbass with all the deaths and destruction that would entail. Putin had a clear ‘Responsibility to Protect’ the Russian speakers of Donbass and RTP is often cited by the US in its wars against Yugoslavia, Libya, and elsewhere.
Agreed. It was not only predicated on the build up of Ukrainian troops and the escalation of shelling, but also on clear documentation, setting forth plans for the attack, some of which was described in the English language version of TASS, but also published with screen shots of the documents themselves by the Russian version of TASS – planning for which was also set forth in documents published earlier- see, for example, Scott Ritter’s must-see documentary Agent Zelensky Parts 1 and 2. (I would have added website citations, but CN prevents their inclusion.)
Professor Roberts simply ignores this information, as does Natylie Baldwin in her otherwise excellent interview.
It is clear to this reader that the Russians were very careful to observe the legal process before initiating the Special Military Operation. Don’t forget that Putin was not only trained as an intelligence officer, he was also educated as a lawyer. I’d urge that one also review the legal arguments articulated by Foreign Minister Lavrov.
Regardless, what choice was there in the face of a clearly intended imminent attack to destroy the resistance of Donetsk and Lugansk republics after they had declared their independence, and given that the Minsk signatories France and Germany had never had the intention to enforce the Accords, or to prevent such an attack and protect the people of the Donbass from final destruction. Instead, their intention was just the opposite, i.e., to allow the Ukrainian Army time to be trained by NATO to facilitate the destruction of the resistance.
So, IMHO, Article 51 was the appropriate vehicle for Russia to assist with collective limited military action.
And if anyone questions the legality of the formation of the two republics as a predicate to their invoking Article 51, then one must also be forced to interpret the UN Charter as upholding the sovereignty of a government whose predecessor came to power in an unconstitutional coup and which had been engaging in genocide or ethnic cleansing for over eight years
As for the US, UK and NATO, it is hypocritical for them to condemn the SMO, given their own intervention in Syria under their doctrine of “Right to Protect”- moreover, the intervention in Syria was done under false pretenses.
Why Professor Roberts hasn’t addressed these issues with more carefully crafted logic is confusing to this reader. He is an esteemed scholar, but I wonder if the pressure from the British Establishment has forced him to pull his punches on this matter, or risk being
marginalized and de-platformed in the UK and EU.
My opinion only.
If he pulls punches in one area, without using clear signaling equivocating words, ignoring inconvenient facts of which it is improbable he is unaware, then one has to question where else he may be doing the same.
Yes, John A, you raise a very key point. That impending attack on the Donbass by Ukrainian forces certainly made the existential threat much more “imminent” than “emergent”.
Agree completely!
To discuss other alternatives to the Feb Decision to invade Ukraine is to ignore the military buildup by ukraine, the several years’ prep of massive defense fortifications in East Ukraine, and finally the evident plan by Ukraine to attack Donbass.
I for one do not believe that Putin had any other alternative, particularly with the ongoing nato missile buildup in Poland and Romania with possible flight times to moscow of minutes, i.e. it became seriously existential for Russia to blunt this buildup.
The nutcases in DC were convinced that they could bring Russia to its knees and hence they totally ignored Putin’s security proposals in Dec 2021. What rational leader could ignore this giant middle finger to serious proposals.
Interesting interview but the real miscalculation lies in the West. Somehow, Washington, Paris and Berlin were so divorced from reality that they really thought that the “mother of all sanctions” would destroy Russia within 3 months. Instead the sanctions boomeranged and “our” governments were so afraid of their own populations that they imposed press censorship and a ridiculous narrative based on “a fight for Ukrainian democracy.”This must constitute the most flagrant failure of intelligence in the last 100 years and has deep implications for the way we view ourselves. The Russians were prepared and now we have a formidable war machine primed and ready. As President Xi said to Vladimir Putin, we will change the world for the next 100 years.
Agree completely that Washington D.C.’s assertion that our involvement is “a fight for Ukrainian democracy” is absurd . It’s a blatant lie just as large as LBJ ‘s Gulf of Tonkin and Bush Jr’s weapons of mass destruction lies. These are gigantic, deliberate, and unfortunately successful, attempts to mislead the American public. I’m still optimistic that Zelensky will be run out of Ukraine by an uprising of his own people or his military. The sooner the better.
I’m surprised this historian leaves out key factors in his view that Russia should not have “invaded” as with his saying the threat was emergent not imminent.
Hadn’t the emergent threat been continually emerging for many years previous, with efforts to negotiate entirely fruitless? Didn’t Merkel reveal the West’s falseness? Wasn’t Putin already under pressure as too “soft”? Then we have the blanket word “invasion” without qualification of what kind of military action the SMO was, which in itself risked further critique on “softness,” and this criticism continues in the political reality of what Putin faces.
Roberts’ own view here “perhaps [Putin]did not anticipate the determination and recklessness of the Western proxy war on Russia” also weakens his argument. Perhaps an interview is not the right forum to deal with these considerations.
”Had the Istanbul peace negotiations succeeded and war come to an end in spring 2022, those who argue Putin’s decision for war was right at the time he took it, would have a much stronger case to argue. But the prolonged nature of the war, the extent of its death and devastation, the real and continuing threat of nuclear catastrophe, and the prospect of an endless conflict, leave me unconvinced that it was the right thing to do.
It is highly likely Russia will in due course secure a decisive military advantage that will enable Putin to credibly claim victory. But it remains to be seen whether or not what Russia gains will have been worth the cost it will have paid.”
‘Yes, but’ … ‘If only’…’ history will tell’…” Hmmm, Is this what we pay historians for?!
The most important “facts on the ground,” I would suggest, are that Russia is part of the European neighborhood. And unless continental tectonic plates shift in a dramatic way, things are likely to remain that way.
In contrast, the US is not part of or even near the neighborhood at all, though it still feels entitled to call the shots. The US role in Europe really does fit the definition of a “carpetbagger.” It’s not a resident and its interests in Europe are its own. All the shots it calls are first and foremost for its own benefit. Ukrainians now are just the latest nation to be used as cannon fodder for US ends. And since this is the modus operandi of US foreign policy, unless stopped, Ukraine will surely not be the last to be used and discarded. At some point, a dying empire usually destroys everything it can, in tantrum, just for spite.
The European leaders are truly the most banal and irresponsible in the world. They are the enablers of US neocon lunacy. The death and destruction in Ukraine is theirs just as much if not more. Not to mention that they are throwing the European public under the bus for the sake of America’s self-serving interests. You want to have war crime tribunals? Let’s start with the European Commission.
“The most important point about the Russia-Ukraine war is that it was the most avoidable war in history. It could have been avoided by Ukraine implementing the Minsk agreements. It could have been avoided by NATO halting its build-up of Ukraine’s armed forces. It could have been avoided by a positive U.S. response to Putin’s common security proposals of December 2021. Putin pulled the trigger, but it was Ukraine and the West that loaded the gun.”
Not much more in this interview, sadly.