Let’s Talk About The Day After

I mean after the ‘peace deal’ brings about a ceasefire and an end to the death and destruction……..this is a ‘what then’ post…..

At the onset of this conflict the Ukrainian president promised to arm everyone that would call for a weapon…..if he was successful then that would mean that Ukraine is awash with weapons….that is concerning at least for me.

Why you may ask….

To explain my thinking let us step back to WW2 and the Nazi invasion of Ukraine…..

Ukrainians fought on both sides in the Second World War. By far the majority of ethnic Ukrainians, about 4.5 million, fought in the Red Army against the Germans. Others joined the Communist partisans (see Soviet partisans in Ukraine, 1941–5), who included the prominent commander Sydir Kovpak. There were also Ukrainian volunteer units in the German army, however, specifically the Legion of Ukrainian Nationalists (the Nachtigall and Roland units, which marched into Lviv in June 1941 together with the Germans) and the Waffen SS Division Galizien (est April 1943). By the time the latter unit was formed, it seemed more likely that Germany was going to lose the war, and Ukrainian nationalists wanted to have trained troops and weapons ready for an eventual confrontation with the Soviets. There were also Ukrainians who fought in an independent formation, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), under the leadership of the Bandera faction of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN). In the spring of 1943 thousands of Ukrainian policemen in German service deserted to form the fighting nucleus of the UPA, which then attacked German outposts. At the same time the UPA began liquidating Polish settlements in Volhynia, and this soon escalated into full-scale Polish-Ukrainian ethnic warfare across Western Ukraine. The UPA continued guerrilla warfare against the Soviet authorities into the mid-1950s.

As you can see there were mixed loyalties within the Ukrainian society…..

Some collaborated with the Nazis and committed atrocities against other Ukrainians….and other joined the partisans and committed atrocities against the Nazis and collaborators.

That brings us to today……

A country awash with weapons of all sorts to be used against fellow Ukrainians….is that a possibility?

To my mind there is the real possibility of a civil war….both politically and physically….

Let’s not forget Afghanistan of the 1980s…..we helped create al-Qaeda as a force to fight against the Russian invaders….or the chaos we created in Libya….could we repeating our mistake just to confront Russia yet again?

What got me thinking about this was a report on CNN talking to some troops defending a town in Eastern Ukraine….I noticed they were not flying the yellow and blue flag of Ukraine…instead there was a red and black flag flown on the position….

ODESSA, UKRAINE - May 2, 2016: Neo-Nazi organizations hold a memorial meeting of all confessions. Nazi flags, symbols and theatrical shows in the style of Nazi Germany. The coup d'etat in Ukraine

(This is not the men of the position just an example of the flag I saw)

The neo-Nazi Azov battalion is fighting hard….but for who is their loyalties?

“I have nothing against Russian nationalists, or a great Russia,” said Dmitry, as we sped through the dark Mariupol night in a pickup truck, a machine gunner positioned in the back. “But Putin’s not even a Russian. Putin’s a Jew.”

Dmitry – which he said is not his real name – is a native of east Ukraine and a member of the Azov battalion, a volunteer grouping that has been doing much of the frontline fighting in Ukraine’s war with pro-Russia separatists. The Azov, one of many volunteer brigades to fight alongside the Ukrainian army in the east of the country, has developed a reputation for fearlessness in battle.

But there is an increasing worry that while the Azov and other volunteer battalions might be Ukraine’s most potent and reliable force on the battlefield against the separatists, they also pose the most serious threat to the Ukrainian government, and perhaps even the state, when the conflict in the east is over. The Azov causes particular concern due to the far right, even neo-Nazi, leanings of many of its members.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis

All these weapons were and other NATO members are sending into Ukrainian worries me that we are making the same mistake in Ukraine that we made in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, so many others…..we are arming the future insurrection that would threaten the very democracy we claim to be supporting.

Everyone witnessed the ‘brave’ mayor of a Ukrainian town that stood before the people and told them they had a choice….surrender or fight….FIGHT it was.

Here is a little info on the ‘brave’ mayor…

It was an especially inspiring story of Ukrainian bravery, in a war replete with many of them. In video that spread quickly online on March 2, Artem Semenikhin, the mayor of the small city of Konotop, in northeastern Ukraine, stood on a planter outside the City Council and announced to a crowd that Russian soldiers had told him they would “raze the city to the ground with their artillery” if it did not surrender. Then Semenikhin asked the crowd whether they wanted to fight anyway, and the response was overwhelmingly in favor.

The video was picked up by Western media outlets including Newsweek, the Daily Mail and the New York Times, which also showed a video of armed Russian troops being jeered by Konotop residents. Semenikhin was also featured in a “PBS NewsHour” segment, in which he referred to the Russian troops as “cockroaches.”

There was just one thing missing from those accounts: the fact that Semenikhin is a member of the far-right, ultranationalist Ukrainian political party Svoboda, which emerged in 2004 from the former Social-National Party of Ukraine.

Alan MacLeod, a writer for the far-left website MintPress News, noted on Twitter that in Semenikhin’s interview with PBS, conducted remotely via video, one can see a painting of Ukrainian nationalist icon Stepan Bandera in the background. During the early part of World War II, Bandera led a faction of Organization of Ukrainian nationalists, an openly anti-Semitic organization that collaborated with Nazi Germany and killed Polish and Jewish civilians. At the time, Nazi troops were invading the Soviet Union, which Ukrainian nationalists were hoping to break away from. Bandera later had a falling out with the Nazi regime and was imprisoned in a concentration camp. He remains a highly controversial figure in Ukraine. After Semenikhin was elected in 2015, he replaced the portrait in the mayor’s office of then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko with one of Bandera.

(yahoo news)

This situation needs close scrutiny or we will have another ‘problem’ region ripe for further conflict…..

For those that need a bit more information I will provide a few articles to read…..

https://unherd.com/2022/03/the-truth-about-ukraines-nazi-militias/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cohen-ukraine-commentary/commentary-ukraines-neo-nazi-problem-idUSKBN1GV2TY

Winning ‘hearts’ and PR war, but Ukraine has a “Nazi” problem that NATO and USA do not talk about

The Presence of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine

After the war with Russia is done….the internal conflict could become just as bloody if the situation is not handled by those that created the problem….the US and NATO.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Why Did Russia Let The Republics Go?

Ever wonder (probably not) if Ukraine is so important to Russia why then did they allow it to break away?

The news from Ukraine is redundant….pretty much the same day after day…..US spends like a drunken sailor for Ukraine…..Refugees are still pathetic…..Russia fires a rocket somewhere and the words of defiance on both sides continue….

Now a little historic background for those that have an inquiring mind…..

As the conflict drags on and involves more and more participation by the West, mainly the US, some of us struggle to understand just what went wrong.

With the war raging in Ukraine some people, granted not many, have asked the question how did it all come to this?

Basically they are asking what happened to the old USSR that it eventually lead to the many conflicts that have popped up over the last 25 years or so.

For answer we need to look back in Russian history just a bit….that is if you would like to understand what has happened to bring about the wrath on Ukraine.

The break up of the Soviet Union led eventually to the conflicts in Chechnya, Georgia, and now Ukraine….the only way to understand the situation is to look back to 1991 when the break up began…..

“Why did the Russians, despite all that one would expect from them given the histories of the downfalls of empires, decide not to fight and to let the empire fall?” asked Serhii Plokhii, Mykhailo Hrushevsky Professor of Ukrainian History at Harvard University, at a 29 April 2013 lecture at the Kennan Institute. Plokhii discussed the fall of the Soviet Union in the context of the last five months of the Soviet Union in order to explain why it was not accompanied by the violent conflicts triggered by the collapse of previous empires.

Plokhii argued that the fall of the Soviet Union is a unique case in the history of empires: “Russia let most of the republics go without a fight, without a struggle.” While there were slogans and campaigns for independence among the Union republics in the months before the collapse, none were campaigning for the complete disintegration of the empire. Rather, each was struggling against the central authority to augment its own independent power base. Even the Baltic states, the most independently minded of the republics, operated along these lines. Other republics, such as those in Central Asia, were not struggling at all against the Union for political independence.

It is common for scholars to mark the Soviet Union’s de facto end in August 1991, when Boris Yeltsin suspended the activities of the Communist party on the territory of the Russian Federation. However, Plokhii stated that this action alone did not precipitate the end of the USSR and independence of its constituent parts. Plokhii contended that only the exit of the Baltic States was inevitable at that moment; the status of other republics like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus and Ukraine was not fully understood until December 1991.

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-did-russia-let-the-republics-go-revisiting-the-fall-the-ussr

If more info is needed then another source may assist your understanding…..

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/24/1066861022/how-the-soviet-unions-collapse-explains-the-current-russia-ukraine-tension

Sad few will actually care what the causes are…they have boiled their knowledge down to Ukraine good…..Putin Bad……and the US needs to risk everything to prove the points.

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Ukraine–Historical Background

I am one of those beleagued bloggers that try to help my readers make sense of what went wrong in Ukraine that would lead up to Vlad the Invader attempting to invade Ukraine…..I will admit that most do not want to think about it they will settle for the propaganda spread by their favorite news source.

But I try and will probably fail…..but I can sleep nights knowing I did what I thought was right.

This conflict has been raging for over 2 months….and there has been very little info in the media to try and explain just what went wrong that a war had to be used to solve the situation.

This is my small attempt to help in some form of clarification…..

There are points in Ukraine history that could be part of the problem….like the Clinton NATO thing…..the election of Zelensky……but did you know that Bush I made a promise to the USSR?

The US government today likes to pretend that it is the perennial champion of political independence for countries that were once behind the Iron Curtain. What is often forgotten, however, is that in the days following the fall of the Berlin Wall, Washington opposed independence for Soviet republics like Ukraine and the Baltic states.

In fact, the Bush administration openly supported Mikhail Gorbachev’s efforts to hold the Soviet Union together rather than allow the USSR to decentralize into smaller states. The US regime and its supporters in the press took the position that nationalism—not Soviet despotism—was the real problem for the people of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

Indeed, in the case of Ukraine, President George H.W. Bush even traveled to Kyiv in 1990 to lecture the Ukrainians about the dangers of seeking independence from Moscow, while decrying the supposed nationalist threat.

Today, nationalism is still a favorite bogeyman among Washington establishment mouthpieces. These outlets routinely opine on the dangers of French nationalism, Hungarian nationalism, and Russian nationalism. One often sees the term nationalism applied in ways designed to make the term distasteful, as in “white nationalism.”

When nationalism is convenient for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and its European freeloaders, on the other hand, we are told that nationalism is a force for good. Thus, the US regime and mainstream media generally pretend that Ukrainian nationalism—and even Ukrainian white nationalism—either don’t exist or are to be praised.

In 1991, however, the US had not yet decided that it paid to actively promote nationalism—so long as it is anti-Russian nationalism. Thus, in those days, we find the US regime siding with Moscow in efforts to stifle or discourage local nationalist efforts to break with the old Soviet state. The way it played out is an interesting case study in both Bush administration bumbling and in the US’s foreign policy before the advent of unipolar American liberal hegemony. 

https://mises.org/wire/1991-when-america-tried-keep-ukraine-ussr

As I always state…there is more to a story than the one-sided crap the media would have you believe.

The more you learn…the more you know….

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Citizen Genet Affair

It is the weekend and as a small diversion from the horrific news of the I would like to offer up a little American since there are moves to re-write it….I think it is important to learn it all…the good, the bad and the ugly…..so let’s step into the ‘way back machine’ to the early days of our republic.

I once taught a class on American Foreign Policy from the beginning to recent history……some say the John Adams and his Sedition Act was our first crisis on the international stage….I disagree.

The new nation of United States of America faced its first foreign policy crisis in 1793 when the US and France were at diplomatic odds….

Edmond Charles Genêt served as French minister to the United States from 1793 to 1794. His activities in that capacity embroiled the United States and France in a diplomatic crisis, as the United States Government attempted to remain neutral in the conflict between Great Britain and Revolutionary France. The controversy was ultimately resolved by Genêt’s recall from his position. As a result of the Citizen Genêt affair, the United States established a set of procedures governing neutrality.

American foreign policy in the 1790s was dominated by the events surrounding the French Revolution. Following the overthrow of the monarchy in 1792, the revolutionary French Government clashed with the monarchies of Spain and Great Britain. French policymakers needed the United States to help defend France’s colonies in the Caribbean – either as a neutral supplier or as a military ally, and so they dispatched Edmond Charles Genêt, an experienced diplomat, as minister to the United States. The French assigned Genêt several additional duties: to obtain advance payments on debts that the U.S. owed to France, to negotiate a commercial treaty between the United States and France, and to implement portions of the 1778 Franco-American treaty which allowed attacks on British merchant shipping using ships based in American ports. Genêt’s attempt to carry out his instructions would bring him into direct conflict with the U.S. Government.

The French Revolution had already reinforced political differences within President George Washington’s Cabinet. The Democratic-Republicans, led by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, sympathized with the French revolutionaries. The Federalists, led by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, believed that ties with Great Britain were more important. President Washington attempted to steer a neutral course between these two opposing views. He believed that joining Great Britain or France in war could subject the comparatively weak United States to invasion by foreign armies and have disastrous economic consequences. President Washington issued a proclamation of neutrality on April 22, 1793.

https://history.state.gov/milestones/1784-1800/citizen-genet

Further reading on this historic issue…..

https://www.thoughtco.com/citizen-genet-affair-4147691

The early years of our republic are fascinating….so much back and forth…..start and stop for American foreign policy.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

 

Founders And Political Parties

As yet another election approaches I thought since political parties are all the rage I would take a look at the beginning of the American experiment…..

In the beginning (all great sagas begin with that intro) our Founding Fathers while I may not agree with some of their thoughts did have the right idea about the possible rise of political parties, factions if you will…..

Today, it may seem impossible to imagine the U.S. government without its two leading political parties, Democrats and Republicans. But in 1787, when delegates to the Constitutional Convention gathered in Philadelphia to hash out the foundations of their new government, they entirely omitted political parties from the new nation’s founding document.

This was no accident. The framers of the new Constitution desperately wanted to avoid the divisions that had ripped England apart in the bloody civil wars of the 17th century. Many of them saw parties—or “factions,” as they called them—as corrupt relics of the monarchical British system that they wanted to discard in favor of a truly democratic government.

“It was not that they didn’t think of parties,” says Willard Sterne Randall, professor emeritus of history at Champlain College and biographer of six of the Founding Fathers. “Just the idea of a party brought back bitter memories to some of them.”

George Washington’s family had fled England precisely to avoid the civil wars there, while Alexander Hamilton once called political parties “the most fatal disease” of popular governments. James Madison, who worked with Hamilton to defend the new Constitution to the public in the Federalist Papers, wrote in Federalist 10 that one of the functions of a “well-constructed Union” should be “its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.”

https://www.history.com/news/founding-fathers-political-parties-opinion

Then there is Jefferson who liked the idea of factions….

Thomas Jefferson, who was serving a diplomatic post in France during the Constitutional Convention, believed it was a mistake not to provide for different political parties in the new government. “Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties,’’

With Jefferson as secretary of state and Hamilton as Treasury secretary, two competing visions for America developed into the nation’s first two political parties. Supporters of Hamilton’s vision of a strong central government—many of whom were Northern businessmen, bankers and merchants who leaned toward England when it came to foreign affairs—would become known as the Federalists. Jefferson, on the other hand, favored limited federal government and keeping power in state and local hands. His supporters tended to be small farmers, artisans and Southern planters who traded with the French, and were sympathetic to France.

And so it began!

Fast forward to the 21st century…..

This country has become the embattled nation the Founders feared….

America has now become that dreaded divided republic. The existential menace is as foretold, and it is breaking the system of government the Founders put in place with the Constitution.

Though America’s two-party system goes back centuries, the threat today is new and different because the two parties are now truly distinct, a development that I date to the 2010 midterms. Until then, the two parties contained enough overlapping multitudes within them that the sort of bargaining and coalition-building natural to multiparty democracy could work inside the two-party system. No more. America now has just two parties, and that’s it.

The theory that guided Washington and Adams was simple, and widespread at the time. If a consistent partisan majority ever united to take control of the government, it would use its power to oppress the minority. The fragile consent of the governed would break down, and violence and authoritarianism would follow. This was how previous republics had fallen into civil wars, and the Framers were intent on learning from history, not repeating its mistakes.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/two-party-system-broke-constitution/604213/

Sadly this nation is far from finding a solution to this chaos….if it ever will is still debatable….my thought is that it is doomed….parties will bring ruination to this country….that and the corruption that goes hand in hand with parties.

Any thoughts?

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

A Cure For Homelessness

The weekend begins I will be posting little as it is Spring and the garden needs attention….

There is at least one person that thinks that Hitler was a good example for a cure to homelessness.

A Republican lawmaker in Tennessee stunned his colleagues Wednesday when he shared the story of a homeless man who turned his life around—Adolf Hitler. During a debate on a bill banning homeless encampments on public property, State Sen. Frank Niceley told lawmakers he “wanted to give a little history on homelessness,” Fox17 reports. “In 1910 Hitler decided to live on the streets for a while,” he said. “So for two years Hitler lived on the streets and practiced his oratory and his body language and how to connect with the masses. And then went on to lead a life that got him in the history books.”

“So, a lot of these people it’s not a dead end. They can come out of these homeless camps and have a productive life, or in Hitler’s case a very unproductive life.” In Mein Kampf, the Nazi leader said his anti-Semitic and German nationalist view developed during the years he was homeless in Vienna. Critics said Niceley was wrong about history—Hitler ended up homeless through poverty, not choice—and wondered why on Earth Niceley would consider him an inspiring example, the Washington Post reports. “I’m going to have to apologize to the universe for this guy,” tweeted Democratic state Rep. Gloria Johnson.

The bill, which criminalizes camping along highways and exit ramps and makes it illegal to camp on public or state property, passed 22-10, with Niceley voting in favor. Critics argued that the bill criminalized homelessness itself, perpetuating the cycle of poverty, WCYB reports. As for Niceley, he has a long history of controversial remarks, the Post notes. In October, he said the shift of companies like Ford to the South shows the Civil War “is going on, and we’re winning.”

When I first read the title of this article my first thought was….yes he did….it was called concentration camps.

Be Well

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The Cold War

With the invasion of Ukraine by Russia the term ‘Cold War’ has returned to be part of the reporting and conversation.

But how many these days remember the so-called Cold War, with the exception of us old farts?

Well since it is history the Old Professor is here to help…..after 30 years there needs to be a refresher……

The Cold War (1947–91) was known as such because the presence of nuclear weapons made a traditional war between the rival parties (in this case the United States and the Soviet Union) unlikely as they each had the power to destroy each other and in doing so jeopardise human civilisation as a whole. This was known as ‘Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)’. For that reason, smaller-scale conflict and competition existed but a major ‘hot’ war, such as those in prior decades, was avoided. This period also underlined the importance of ideology in shaping global conflict, principally between capitalism and communism, which produced two incompatible international systems.

The Cold War was responsible for the historical image of a world divided into three zones. The ‘First World’ was the ‘Western’ nations (this is where the term ‘the West’ comes from). These states were allied with the United States, broadly followed an economic system of capitalism, and (at least aspirationally) a political system of liberal democracy. The ‘Second World’ was the Soviet Union and a range of ‘Eastern’ states that were governed predominantly by communist (or socialist) parties who rejected capitalism as an economic model. This conflict between the first and second world went beyond economics and created two irreconcilable international systems – leaving other states a stark choice to operate within one system or the other. That led to some states opting out and declaring themselves ‘non-aligned’ – creating a ‘Third World’. As most of those states were newly formed and/or developing it became a term often used to describe economically poorer states and is still sometimes used as such.

Despite the added ideological element of communism versus capitalism, the Cold War resembled other wars before it in that it became a battle for control over territory. Instead of meeting directly on the battlefield, both sides took part in ‘proxy wars’ as they fought to either support or oppose elements within states who sought to (or appeared to) move between the First and Second Worlds. The most well-known instances of this occurred in Asia, in Korea (1950–3) and Vietnam (1955–75), each of which resulted in several million deaths. As this took place in a time of decolonisation, the goal in this period was not to be seen to directly conquer other states, but to influence their political and economic development and in doing so increase the power of one ‘World’ and diminish the other.

The Cold War

What was old is now new again.

Be Smart….Learn Stuff….

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Where It All Began

Sunday and time for a little early American history……

This part of my series on the founding of this republic…..there are too many that know little to nothing about the beginnings of the United States of America…..and for me that explains why this country is so divided and chaotic.

Some seem to think that this system of government was the brain child of the Continental Congress…..but it began years before the idea of separation from Britain was the call of the day….

The Albany Plan of Union was a proposal written by Benjamin Franklin and introduced during the Albany Congress, which was held in Albany, New York in 1754.

The purpose of the Albany Congress was to have colonial leaders meet with representatives from the Six Nations to discuss how the colonies could work with them against the French. However, the idea of some type of organized union had taken hold with Franklin.

Prior to the Albany Congress, Franklin wrote down his ideas for a union of the colonies, which he called “Short Hints.” He provided a copy to Congress but soon found out that union was not only on his mind but also the mind of others. He recalled years later that “It then appear’d that several of the Commissioners had form’d Plans of the same kind.”

Franklin’s plan defined a permanent federation between the colonies, as a means to reform colonial-imperial relations and to more effectively address shared colonial interests, including making treaties, raising military forces, and levying taxes. The plan, as proposed by Franklin, proposed:

  • A President General, appointed by the Crown.
  • A Grand Council, consisting of delegates from the lower houses of the colonial assemblies.
  • Each colony would have between two to seven delegates, based on the size of the colony.
  • Each colony would have one vote, regardless of the number of delegates it sent.

Albany Plan of Union

This Albany Plan for Union was the first attempt at centralized government in the English colonies….and after a few short years, a revolution and the nation of United States of America was born.

Do learn more on the founding of this country…..

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-albany-plan-of-union-4128842

This country needs to teach the origins of the nation more heavily…..so students can see the trials and tribulations that the men, the Founders, went through to get us to this spot in history.

Class Dismissed!

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Lewis And Clark

Note:  This is a draft I was holding but due to the death in the family I post it now…..

It has been awhile since I gave my readers some history….I will try and rectify my oversight.

We Americans do not remember much of history but I bet everyone knows the story of the Lewis and Clark Expedition of exploration of the newly acquired land out West that we purchased from France.

The movies that most will remember and think that the romantic adventure was all about exploration…..

Sadly those cinematic offerings are shirt on accuracy…..

It’s a story many American children are familiar with. President Thomas Jefferson had just bought millions of acres of land from the French — the famous Louisiana Purchase — and he needed someone to go explore this wild western territory. To that end, he recruited Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, who gathered a team of brave men to go on a journey to the Pacific and back. The Lewis and Clark expedition, or the “Corps of Discovery” as it was known at the time, closely documented the flora and fauna of the uncharted West and befriended the many Native American tribes they met along the way. In particular, they made friends with the young Sacagawea, who served as a guide and translator for the Corps.

This common story, while not entirely false, is highly inaccurate. The real expedition was far more brutal — from violent conflicts with Natives to the whipping of enlisted men. This article will fill you in on all the grim details you weren’t told about in school.

Read More: https://www.grunge.com/235028/the-messed-up-truth-about-the-lewis-and-clark-expedition/

Like most of the history we are taught in school is sanitized to make it seem more noble than it actually was…..

The way that some useless politicians and equally useless individuals are trying to whitewash our history to make it seem like all was blue skies and unicorns…..

I have stated many times that ALL our history should be taught….the good, the bad and the ugly……denying our history does not make it fact.

A country of people running scared of their true history.

History should not be sanitized….it should be taught in all it’s glory and all it’s ugliness….we have had 200+ years of misinformation.

Be Smart….Learn Stuff….

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

The History Behind The Ukraine/Russia Conflict

First I need to say “Do Not Shoot The Messenger’….this is an FYI post that tries to explain what happened to bring this situation to this point in history.

This article cited is adapted from a speech that Scott Horton gave to the Libertarian Party of Utah…..

In his speech on the 22nd, Putin’s argument about the dangers of Ukraine’s independence went far enough to justify taking over the entire country permanently.

To be perfectly clear, I condemn all of this. Even considering what I am about to tell you about the U.S. government’s role in precipitating this conflict, and taking into account Putin’s legitimate concerns about the Donbass region, I think absorbing the Donbass in this way, much less conquering the rest of the country, was totally unnecessary and could end up leading to a wider war in Europe and worse reactions from nations all around. I think it was not just unconscionable, but completely unreasonable. I have a Twitter friend who’s sister’s life is in danger from the war right now. But the Americans hawks say this is all happening because Russian President Vladimir Putin is a megalomaniacal dictator bent on imperial expansion and becoming the next great Russian Czar.

No. It was unreasonable. But it was rational. A reaction. Understandable not in the sympathetic sense, but in the strictly literal one.

The responsibility for the invasion of Ukraine by Russia belongs to Putin, but the new Cold War it takes place within is primarily the responsibility of the U.S. government and its leaders over the last 30 years.

And when I say 30 years, I mean it. Just this last Christmas day was the 30th anniversary of the last day of the USSR. The Communists’ red flag came down, the Red, White and Blue Russian standard went up in its place. The Cold War with the Soviet Union was over. The evil empire was dead.

But then the administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden ruined our great peace and victory at the end of the last Cold War. Instead, they got us into this mess. This was primarily due to the policies of NATO expansion, tearing up important nuclear treaties, the installation of missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, overthrowing multiple governments friendly to Russia, including Ukraine twice in 10 years, spending the last 5 years sending sophisticated arms to Ukraine and increasing harassment by American Navy ships and Air Force planes in the Black, Baltic and Okhotsk seas. They were warned. They thought it would be fine. It wasn’t.

The History Behind the Russia-Ukraine War

There is always two sides to a story…..

The only way to bring this conflict to an end is to try and understand both sides of the arguments…..sometimes I feel that Americans are incapable of this simple technique for they want to hate and they want someone to pay with a heavy price.

Remember this is FYI not my thoughts…. but I do agree with Horton on several of the points he makes.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”