UKRAINE HAS ALREADY LOST AN ESTIMATED 100'000 SOLDIERS, MANY CIVILIANS HAVE BEEN KILLED, MILLIONS HAVE FLED THEIR HOMES AND EUROPE'S ECONOMIES ARE BEING DESTROYED. WHAT WAS IT ORIGINALLY ABOUT AND WAS IT REALLY WORTH IT?
September 22, 2022
Due to current developments, many people forget what the Ukraine conflict was originally about. The West could have prevented all this suffering. But he didn't want that. So let me remind you what the original point was and ask those who curse Russia if it was really worth it.
The threat to Russia
Russia has had only one interest in Ukraine since the end of the Soviet Union: it wanted Ukraine to become a neutral country, a kind of bridge between East and West. This was all the more true after the eastward expansion of N.A.T.O. Russia would also have liked to see Ukraine as a "pro-Russian" country, but that was never mandatory. A Ukrainian neutrality was what was important to Russia.
The West orchestrated the Maidan coup in 2014, as I have shown meticulously in my book on the 2014 Ukraine crisis has over 100 pages and more than 150 sources. The Maidan brought to power a radically nationalist and anti-Russian government in Ukraine which, with Western backing, has quickly evolved into a full -fledged Nazi government . The Ukraine was consistently developed into an anti-Russian base.
After the Maidan, Ukraine committed in its military doctrine to bring its armed forces into line with N.A.T.O. standards, and when that was done, it was openly written into Ukrainian military doctrine that Ukraine wanted to recapture Crimea militarily. The issue here is not whether one thinks Crimea is Russian or Ukrainian, it is a question of understanding whether Russia, which sees Crimea as its heartland, had reason to feel threatened. We will return to the Crimean question at the end of this article.
With Ukraine on its border, Russia had a state whose army fired on ethnic Russians in the Donbass, which openly planned a war against Russia, was openly anti-Russian, and in all of which was not only supported by the West, but downright cheered on. This is something that every country in the world would perceive as a threat, or would the U.S.A. allow such a development in Mexico?
WHEN THE UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT ZELENSKY OPENLY THREATENED TO ARM UKRAINE WITH NUCLEAR AND THE HIGH-RANKING REPRESENTATIVES OF THE WEST PRESENT IN THE HALL APPLAUDED, A THREAT TO RUSSIA HAD ARISEN THAT WAS PROBABLY NOT A COUNTRY OF THE WORLD WOULD ACCEPT. THE EXAMPLES OF IRAN WITH ITS NUCLEAR PROGRAM AND THE EXAMPLE OF IRAQ, WHICH THE U.S.A. ATTACKED AND BOMBED INTO THE STONE AGE BECAUSE THEY ALLEGEDLY SUSPECTED WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION THERE, SHOW HOW SENSITIVELY THE WEST REACTS TO A COUNTRY'S NUCLEAR ARMAMENT, EVEN IF ONLY POSSIBLE.
The West provokes
THE WEST STATIONED THOUSANDS OF N.A.T.O. SOLDIERS IN UKRAINE UNTIL THE END OF 2021 UNDER THE GUISE OF TRAINING MISSIONS. THE FACT THAT N.A.T.O. COUNTRIES TRAINED UKRAINE'S SOLDIERS WHILE THE COUNTRY OPENLY PLANNED A WAR AGAINST RUSSIA IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY RUSSIA HAD EVERY REASON TO ALSO PERCEIVE N.A.T.O. AS AN ADVERSARY AND A THREAT.
In Kyiv, because of the support of N.A.T.O., it was believed that in the event of a war, N.A.T.O. would support Ukraine by any means, including soldiers. The disappointment in Kyiv was great when N.A.T.O. did not send any soldiers after the start of the Russian intervention. Apparently, N.A.T.O. promised this help to the Ukrainian government behind closed doors, as all Ukrainian leaders stated in early March 2022 . In the event of a confrontation with Russia, Kyiv firmly counted on military intervention by N.A.T.O..
Russia has consistently maintained its "red lines" on Ukraine throughout 2021, eventually issuing an ultimatum from the U.S.A. and N.A.T.O. in December 2021 for mutual security guarantees, which included, among other things, not accepting Ukraine into N.A.T.O., not to station foreign soldiers in Ukraine and to establish Ukraine's status as a neutral country. And Russia had openly stated in this context that – if the West did not want to negotiate about this – it would be forced to protect its own security with "military-technical means".
IT WAS THUS CLEAR TO EVERY OBSERVER THAT RUSSIA WOULD INTERVENE MILITARILY IN UKRAINE IF THE WEST DID NOT RESPOND. THE WEST REJECTED THE NEGOTIATIONS AT THE TURN OF THE MONTH JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2022, EVEN THOUGH IT KNEW WHAT WOULD COME AFTER THAT.
Was it worth it?
In essence, the question was whether Ukraine would join N.A.T.O. and whether N.A.T.O. would be allowed to station soldiers in Ukraine. The West could have prevented the escalation and suffering if only it had allowed Russia to keep Ukraine a neutral country.
IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE WE ARE TODAY, YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF: WAS UKRAINE'S N.A.T.O. ENTRY WORTH ALL OF THIS? WAS UKRAINE'S N.A.T.O. ENTRY WORTH ALL THE SACRIFICES IN UKRAINE? WAS JOINING N.A.T.O. IN UKRAINE WORTH MILLIONS OF REFUGEES? WAS UKRAINE'S N.A.T.O. ENTRY WORTH DESTROYING EUROPEAN ECONOMIES AND THE PROSPERITY OF THE PEOPLE OF EUROPE?
To anyone who objects that Crimea is Ukrainian and that Ukraine therefore had every reason to plan to retake it, I ask the same question: would retaking Crimea have been worth all the consequences and sacrifices just mentioned?
IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER WHAT THE ORIGINAL POINT OF EARLY 2022 WAS AND THAT ALL THE SUFFERING COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED IF KYIV AND THE WEST HAD RENOUNCED UKRAINE'S POSSIBLE N.A.T.O. MEMBERSHIP.
Would a neutral Ukraine really have been worse than what we are seeing now?