Before callously calling for the death of Russian President Putin, Tim Cox (Herald letters, May 6) would do well to review the root causes of the Ukraine war – unrelenting NATO expansion.
What they DIDN'T want was NATO with nuke missiles within 4mins of Moscow, and a belligerent Nazi state on their borders treating ethnic Russians like Israhell treats the Palestinians.
“The war began with the violent overthrow of Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, a coup that was overtly and covertly backed by the United States government in the service of NATO expansion.” (Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia, Jeffrey Sachs 3/8/23)
The main reason why the US/Western imperial powers wanted Ukraine was for their vast agricultural and mineral wealth which is now shown by the deal Trump made with Zelensky. Trump will now defend Ukraine to get that wealth. That was always the intention of the Capitalist class and the reason they hate Putin . Putin stopped them in Russia and now in Ukraine (although he wants that wealth for many of the same reasons). It's what the Western "civilized" nations have done to the global South for centuries...extracting their natural resources and keeping the indigenous populations in dire poverty.
Surely a more accurate classification would be "pulling NATO towards Russia's western borders"?
Maybe it would be pertinent to inquire as to why all of those states, especially the two most recent to join, felt the need to join NATO? Possibly they were afraid of something, and the perceived NATO membership as providing some measure of protection against the source of that fear?
Nonsense. A thought experiment for you. Would the US tolerate Russian military bases in Canada or Mexico? They didn't tolerate them in Cuba, when what provoked the USSR back then to place missiles in Cuba were US missiles in Turkey aimed at the USSR. All nations are entitled to security.
I was making no comment regarding RU view of E European states choosing to join NATO. Also I was making no comment as to if it was sensible for us to allow those E European states to join.
I was merely reflecting upon the fact that the states themselves have to choose to do so, and must have had reasons for doing do. We hardly forced membership upon them.
Similarly something must have changed for Finland and Sweden to suddenly decide to give up their neutral stance, and decide to join. What possible change could that have been?
As to UA actually joining, it was unlikely prior to 2014; and as I recall France and Germany vetoed it joining. After the 2014 annexation of Crimea, it was impossible for UA to join, unless it was willing to give up Crimea, which it was not, still is not willing to do.
Theoretically a rump UA (after giving up Crimea, and the portions RU has annexed in the east) could join. However that is also unlikely, as the war would have to end, RU would not accept even a rump UA joining, and at least some members would likely still veto it.
As to short and intermediate range ballistic missiles, that is all rather moot these days.
If e.g. the USA wanted to have a preemptive short range strike on RU, it would be just as easy (or even easier) to launch from a sub in the Arctic. Those systems have improved quite a lot since the 60s.
The same actually applies regarding RU nuke armed subs launching to the USA, although there they'd probably choose a launch from the Atlantic or Pacific.
So to that extent, the balance of terror still exists, and either party could easily achieve preemptive nuclear strikes with submarine launched ballistic or cruise missiles.
Hey JB .. .did you ever think that maybe why Finland and Sweden joined NATO is because they were afraid what the USA would do to them? As Kissinger said, it's dangerous to be an enemy of America but it's fatal to be America's friend.
When there are free and fair multiparty elections in Russia perhaps we'll find out what Russians really want. Not just the views of the elites who still view citizens as cannon fodder to be sacrificed their ambitions and fantasies.
The pressure to expand NATO seems to come from those countries that find themselves too close for comfort to an aggressively expansionist Russia. The attack on Ukraine led directly to Sweden and Finland joining. We don’t need Putin propagandists thank you.
If you're unironically quoting both Kissinger and Chomsky, doesn't that raise some alarm bells? I don't think there's a single person anywhere in the west who thinks those are both good men.
What they DIDN'T want was NATO with nuke missiles within 4mins of Moscow, and a belligerent Nazi state on their borders treating ethnic Russians like Israhell treats the Palestinians.
“The war began with the violent overthrow of Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, a coup that was overtly and covertly backed by the United States government in the service of NATO expansion.” (Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia, Jeffrey Sachs 3/8/23)
The main reason why the US/Western imperial powers wanted Ukraine was for their vast agricultural and mineral wealth which is now shown by the deal Trump made with Zelensky. Trump will now defend Ukraine to get that wealth. That was always the intention of the Capitalist class and the reason they hate Putin . Putin stopped them in Russia and now in Ukraine (although he wants that wealth for many of the same reasons). It's what the Western "civilized" nations have done to the global South for centuries...extracting their natural resources and keeping the indigenous populations in dire poverty.
"Pushing NATO to Russia's borders"?
Surely a more accurate classification would be "pulling NATO towards Russia's western borders"?
Maybe it would be pertinent to inquire as to why all of those states, especially the two most recent to join, felt the need to join NATO? Possibly they were afraid of something, and the perceived NATO membership as providing some measure of protection against the source of that fear?
Nonsense. A thought experiment for you. Would the US tolerate Russian military bases in Canada or Mexico? They didn't tolerate them in Cuba, when what provoked the USSR back then to place missiles in Cuba were US missiles in Turkey aimed at the USSR. All nations are entitled to security.
To understand why the west is so Russophobic, I suggest you read this: https://dearscotland.substack.com/p/the-origins-of-russophobia-or-russia?utm_source=publication-search
I was making no comment regarding RU view of E European states choosing to join NATO. Also I was making no comment as to if it was sensible for us to allow those E European states to join.
I was merely reflecting upon the fact that the states themselves have to choose to do so, and must have had reasons for doing do. We hardly forced membership upon them.
Similarly something must have changed for Finland and Sweden to suddenly decide to give up their neutral stance, and decide to join. What possible change could that have been?
As to UA actually joining, it was unlikely prior to 2014; and as I recall France and Germany vetoed it joining. After the 2014 annexation of Crimea, it was impossible for UA to join, unless it was willing to give up Crimea, which it was not, still is not willing to do.
Theoretically a rump UA (after giving up Crimea, and the portions RU has annexed in the east) could join. However that is also unlikely, as the war would have to end, RU would not accept even a rump UA joining, and at least some members would likely still veto it.
As to short and intermediate range ballistic missiles, that is all rather moot these days.
If e.g. the USA wanted to have a preemptive short range strike on RU, it would be just as easy (or even easier) to launch from a sub in the Arctic. Those systems have improved quite a lot since the 60s.
The same actually applies regarding RU nuke armed subs launching to the USA, although there they'd probably choose a launch from the Atlantic or Pacific.
So to that extent, the balance of terror still exists, and either party could easily achieve preemptive nuclear strikes with submarine launched ballistic or cruise missiles.
Hey JB .. .did you ever think that maybe why Finland and Sweden joined NATO is because they were afraid what the USA would do to them? As Kissinger said, it's dangerous to be an enemy of America but it's fatal to be America's friend.
When there are free and fair multiparty elections in Russia perhaps we'll find out what Russians really want. Not just the views of the elites who still view citizens as cannon fodder to be sacrificed their ambitions and fantasies.
The pressure to expand NATO seems to come from those countries that find themselves too close for comfort to an aggressively expansionist Russia. The attack on Ukraine led directly to Sweden and Finland joining. We don’t need Putin propagandists thank you.
If you're unironically quoting both Kissinger and Chomsky, doesn't that raise some alarm bells? I don't think there's a single person anywhere in the west who thinks those are both good men.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Actually Russia annexed Crimea in 1783 - shortly before the USA was formed.