I devised these four views during discussions with my member of Congress, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash., no relation), who is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee and former chair. He, of course, believes view #1 and thinks that NATO expansion was needed to deter Russian aggression. But he told me that view No. 2 is plausible though wrong.
If you believe the official narrative coming out of D.C. and out of most of mainstream media, you too will think that view No. 1 is correct and that the U.S. is as innocent in the crisis as a newborn baby.
Given the history of U.S. lies and aggression with respect to foreign policy and with respect to overseas interventions, one would have to be naive indeed to believe view No. 1.
I believe the evidence points to view No. 4 being correct: The U.S. intentionally provoked a war. But it is possible that view No. 3 is closer to the truth, and that ideological fervor led the architects of U.S. policy in Ukraine to be blinded to the obvious likely results of their policies; however, that seem unlikely, because both diplomats and the RAND Corporation had told policymakers that trying to expand NATO into Ukraine would lead to war.
My reasons for holding view No. 4 are documented in "Senior U.S. diplomats, Journalists, Academics, and Secretaries of Defense say: The U.S. Provoked Russia in Ukraine." In short:
In the view of Rep. Smith, NATO expansion was necessary to prevent Russia from taking over not only Ukraine but also the Baltic states. (Likewise, he thinks that U.S. military actions near China are needed to deter Chinese aggression in Taiwan.) My view is that NATO expansion provoked the very war that is now being touted as justification for said expansion.
Despite the CIA's valiant efforts, many of the facts about what happened in Ukraine are available to the public. It's quite amazing that—so soon after the ignoble end to the disastrous 20-year war in Afghanistan—mainstream media, Congress, and most of the public have been so easily bamboozled by government propaganda into supporting yet another disastrous, avoidable war. The war has killed hundreds of thousands of people; displaced millions of people from their homes; devastated Ukrainian infrastructure; greatly increased military budgets in Europe, the U.S., and Russia (money sorely needed for climate mitigation and other urgent exigencies); increased inflation and shortages worldwide; and increased the risk of World War III and nuclear annihilation. Moreover, it's a war that Russia is now winning—a fact that increases the risk of escalation.
A negotiated end to the war in Ukraine is urgently needed.
I devised these four views during discussions with my member of Congress, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash., no relation), who is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee and former chair. He, of course, believes view #1 and thinks that NATO expansion was needed to deter Russian aggression. But he told me that view No. 2 is plausible though wrong.
If you believe the official narrative coming out of D.C. and out of most of mainstream media, you too will think that view No. 1 is correct and that the U.S. is as innocent in the crisis as a newborn baby.
Given the history of U.S. lies and aggression with respect to foreign policy and with respect to overseas interventions, one would have to be naive indeed to believe view No. 1.
I believe the evidence points to view No. 4 being correct: The U.S. intentionally provoked a war. But it is possible that view No. 3 is closer to the truth, and that ideological fervor led the architects of U.S. policy in Ukraine to be blinded to the obvious likely results of their policies; however, that seem unlikely, because both diplomats and the RAND Corporation had told policymakers that trying to expand NATO into Ukraine would lead to war.
My reasons for holding view No. 4 are documented in "Senior U.S. diplomats, Journalists, Academics, and Secretaries of Defense say: The U.S. Provoked Russia in Ukraine." In short:
In the view of Rep. Smith, NATO expansion was necessary to prevent Russia from taking over not only Ukraine but also the Baltic states. (Likewise, he thinks that U.S. military actions near China are needed to deter Chinese aggression in Taiwan.) My view is that NATO expansion provoked the very war that is now being touted as justification for said expansion.
Despite the CIA's valiant efforts, many of the facts about what happened in Ukraine are available to the public. It's quite amazing that—so soon after the ignoble end to the disastrous 20-year war in Afghanistan—mainstream media, Congress, and most of the public have been so easily bamboozled by government propaganda into supporting yet another disastrous, avoidable war. The war has killed hundreds of thousands of people; displaced millions of people from their homes; devastated Ukrainian infrastructure; greatly increased military budgets in Europe, the U.S., and Russia (money sorely needed for climate mitigation and other urgent exigencies); increased inflation and shortages worldwide; and increased the risk of World War III and nuclear annihilation. Moreover, it's a war that Russia is now winning—a fact that increases the risk of escalation.
A negotiated end to the war in Ukraine is urgently needed.
Who Is to Blame for the War in Ukraine?
6
48
13.04.2024
I devised these four views during discussions with my member of Congress, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash., no relation), who is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee and former chair. He, of course, believes view #1 and thinks that NATO expansion was needed to deter Russian aggression. But he told me that view No. 2 is plausible though wrong.
If you believe the official narrative coming out of D.C. and out of most of mainstream media, you too will think that view No. 1 is correct and that the U.S. is as innocent in the crisis as a newborn baby.
Given the history of U.S. lies and aggression with respect to foreign policy and with respect to overseas interventions, one would have to be naive indeed to believe view No. 1.
I believe the evidence points to view No. 4 being correct: The U.S. intentionally provoked a war. But it is possible that view No. 3 is closer to the truth, and that ideological fervor led the architects of U.S. policy in Ukraine to be blinded to the obvious likely results of their policies; however, that seem unlikely, because both diplomats and the RAND Corporation had told policymakers that trying to expand NATO into Ukraine would lead to war.
My reasons for holding view No. 4 are documented in "Senior U.S. diplomats, Journalists, Academics, and Secretaries of Defense........
© Common Dreams
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Belen Fernandez
Gideon Levy
Nikkei Editorial
Kenneth Cohen
Bernd Riegert
Patrick Gathara
Srecko Horvat
Ivan Lorenčič
