Russia Was Scared So They Had to Attack Ukraine, Part II

By Rich Kozlovich Tags:  P&D Geopolitics Edition: Russo/Ukrainian War, and Donald Trump,

In my commentary Russia Was Scared, So They Had to Attack Ukraine! Part I,  I noted so many very knowledgeable and smart geopolitical analysts just keep insisting Russia had to attack Ukraine because they were scared of NATO, so that justified an all out war against a smaller weaker nation as "an act of premeditated self-defense."  Apparently they're all going to the same school of geopolitical consensus thinking, and they're all ....everyone of them ....wrong!  

They get a lot right however, as in this August 24th, 2022 piece by Ridvan Bari Urcosta,  Russia’s Buffer Zone May Have to Wait, outlining how Putin and his band of thugs are going to have to alter their plans because everything they've been doing isn't really working.  But he, like so many, goes on to say:

"Russia invaded Ukraine with the goal of reestablishing much-needed strategic depth on its western borders"

 Nonsense!!!

My response to this is, overall this was a good and informative piece but why is it so many geopolitical writers keep insisting on using this, or similar phrases: “Much-needed strategic depth"?  Against whom exactly did they have this “desperate” need for strategic depth that justified an invasion of a weaker and non-aggressive neighbor?

Not one of the countries shown on the map offered had any intention of invading Russia, and even if they foolishly did, it was thought Russia’s military was of such quality before now any attempt would be disastrous.  I knew better by the way, I just didn’t realize how bad it was. 

This idea that: "Ukraine helps fulfill the Russian need to create a larger buffer zone between itself and the West, particularly NATO states", is again nonsense!

NATO was, and has been from the beginning, blatantly defensive, and quite frankly, they weren't very good at it with members failing to pay their dues.  They can’t possibly believe Putin was afraid of a NATO attack!  

Since before WWII it was the Russians who have been the aggressors and have done everything in their power to destabilize western nations, going back to 1920 with the spies and agents Stalin sent to America, many of whom filled the FDR administration, and they still work to undermine the west.  The only reason Russia objected to any more NATO members is because that prevented them from being the attackers, not the reverse.  

So I keep asking:  Just exactly who was going to attack Russia, now or in the foreseeable future?  

Not one European nation can do that now, and with their economic structure, never in the future, and I mean never as inflation is clearly going to cause serious social unrest, and coupling that with their energy crisis, which is going to get worse,  European nations and the EU's biggest concern is going to be survival.  

So any of this "we have to attack just in case" clabber is nonsense.  And that includes Russia’s traditional enemy, Turkey.  If I was Putin I'd worry a lot more about China than anyone else in the world, including the United States.

This invasion was nothing short of an aggressive effort at revanche, period! Nothing more and nothing less and no matter what claptrap is being spouted, Putin had every intention of conquering all of Ukraine, and more.  The question you should be asking is what should I believe, what I see happened before my eyes, or what they tell me? 

Russia Was Scared, So They Had to Attack Ukraine! Part I

 By Rich Kozlovich Tags:  P&D Geopolitics Edition: Russo/Ukrainian War, and Donald Trump,

The headline is a meme I've been seeing from the beginning of the Russo/Ukrainian War, and it's a gigantic load of horsepucky.  I subscribe to a number of geopolitical sites, and most of them have a fascinating depth of information, insight and mostly pretty good conclusions, by analysts and authors for whom I have develop a great deal of respect.

But they're not always right!

Recently one analyst insisted Russia was pushed into this war because they were afraid of NATO.  Fear they might be invaded and occupied, after all, the farthest Eastern border from Moscow is only a mere 300 miles, so this was justified as "an act of premeditated self-defense." 

So, if that's the case, then why didn't they attack Poland, Estonia, Latvia or Lithuania?  Because they're all members of NATO.

While writers acknowledge Russia was under no threat from anyone....I mean anyone....and certainly not NATO, whose members won't ever pay their dues, the meme is "that doesn't mean the dynamics might change and there just might be a threat some day".  So just in case someone might attack Russia fifty years from now Russia had to attack the Ukraine now.  Really?  Let's explore this.

One writer used the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as an example of such thinking demonstrating that an attack can come at any time. Well, there's only one problem with that kind of example, there was absolutely no indication the United States was going to attack Japan, none whatsoever, and refusing to sell material to Japan to prevent them from attacking surrounding nations wasn't provocation for the attack on Pearl Harbor.  I'll tell you what, we'll come back to that.

All of these arguments are either bad history, flawed logic or a logical fallacy. There was no threat to Russia from anyone, and especially from NATO members. To suggest that just because that may be true today, it might not be true tomorrow justifies “a just in case invasion of a helpless nation", all without one iota of provocation in order to show Russia is so afraid of a European invasion of Russia, but really wants peace with NATO, "or else" we'll attack some other defenseless nation, is irrational. 

This piece in Foreign Affairs, Playing With Fire in Ukraine, actually claims, "Moscow did not invade Ukraine to conquer it", and NATO is a bigger threat to Russia than ever before.  And it appears he's paid to spout than kind of clabber.  Imagine that.

This attack was blatant revanchism, plain and simple, and the foundational foreign policy of Russia for centuries, and if Ukraine joined NATO they couldn't risk such an attack as that would trigger a military response from NATO members, preventing their planned revanchist aggression.  

This policy of "fear and defense" had a justification for vulnerability in the past as Russia is a hordes land nation, and had been swept over many times in their history.  But that's a vulnerability that is now non-existent, and a completely  delusional rationalization for any potential future scenario.  But in 1984 fashion this underlying social fear is being flamed and promoted by an aggressive totalitarian regime.

• If their logic is valid then why isn’t France attacking Germany? Just in case.
• Since Warsaw is only 280 miles from Germany, why isn't Poland attack Germany?  Just is case.
  
• Why isn’t England attacking France? Just in case.
• Why isn’t Spain attacking the Netherlands, or vice versa?  Just in case.
• Why isn't the U.S. attacking Canada or Mexico? Just in case.

 It’s nonsense!

The idea that a "fear and defense" mentality justifies starting a war has to have some underlying logic and provocation, or it's nothing but propaganda, propaganda entirely too many writers are buying into.  

Is there such a thing as a justified "act of premeditated self-defense"?  Yes, as it was with Israel attacking Egypt in the Six Day War.   That was "an act of premeditated self-defense", because Egypt was preparing for an attack on Israel.  There was clear premeditation and provocation by Egypt, and the rest of the Arab world, that rationally justified such an attack.

Where is it with Ukraine, or from Europe or anyone else for that matter?  There was NONE!!!!  In fact, all the fear and provocation emanated from Russia, not to Russia, and why Ukraine?  Whenever did Ukraine attack Russia.  Never.  And that's discounting Kievan Rus history, which is in my opinion foundational to understanding modern Russia.

If they were worried about a "just in case" scenario, then why not attack Turkey, Germany or France, all of whom have attacked Russia in the past?  

 Going back to the Pearl Harbor attack as an example of how an attack can happen anytime to justify this Russian "we're just so afraid" clabber.  That's a logical fallacy known as an inappropriate comparison, and if anything, it undermines that argument.  Irrespective of Japan's flawed logic, the fact remains they were the aggressors. No one else, including the United States, just them.

• Was Korea going to attack Japan? No, so why did they invade Korea? 
• Was China and Mongolia going to attack Japan?  No, so why did they attack China and Mongolia? 
• Were the French going to attack Japan from French Indo-China.  No, so why did they attack them?
• Were the English going to attack Japan from their Asian colonies? No, so why did they attack them?
• Were the Dutch going to attack Japan from the Dutch East Indies? No, so why did they attack them?

Japan initiated the aggression with all these nations, and their alliance with Germany helped justify it.

They didn’t attack the U.S. to prevent being attacked, they attacked in order to intimidate America into staying out of their affairs and continue to conquer, pillage, rape and murder their way across Asia. This was a “leave us alone or else” action, with the Orwellian slogan the “Liberation of Asia”.

The exact same kind of aggressive Orwellian logic they're employing for Russian aggression, in direct  violation of their United Nations obligations. They're “liberating Ukraine from NAZIS” to protect Russia. Russia had no reason to fear anyone, including their age old enemy Turkey. This was nothing but revanchism; conquer, pillage, murder and rape, period.

The question that needs to be asked and answered is this:  Will the UN end Russian membership over this. Answer? Nah, they're even more corrupt than Russia with a foundational value system that stinks to high heaven.  After all, Russia isn't Israel. 

Let's take a trip back in time and remember Czechoslovakia in August of 1968:

"200,000 Warsaw Pact troops and 5,000 tanks invaded Czechoslovakia to crush the  “Prague Spring.”   It was called "the spring" because the citizens under communism sought freedom." 

The Soviet Union crushed that movement, and this is no different.  This is who the Russians were then, and it's who they are now.  This invasion was not about fear for their sovereignty, it was all about tyranny, and any clabber promoting the opposite should be ignored.  

Russia understood the war to be against the West from the beginning, not because the west wanted to attack them but to keep nations from joining NATO, which would prevent Russia from invading them as they saw fit.  They were not going to stop until they absorbed all of Ukraine and officially make it a part of Russia.  That's Russia now, just as it was in the past.  Get over it!