Ukraine: It's Actually about Us

Why the "Screw Ukraine!" and the WWIII-boosters are both WRONG

Instead of helping suffering Ohioans on President’s Day, Biden went to Kiev

Ukraine was invaded. Who cares?

Ukraine provoked Putin. NATO had him “encircled.” George Soros engineered a coup against the government in Kiev anyway.

And don’t forget America’s “bioweapon labs” in Ukraine!

And how about helping Americans at home first? Like the people suffering in East Palestine, Ohio.

These are the key arguments some Conservatives are using against any American involvement in Ukraine since the war erupted a year ago. The Biden administration, on the other hand, is pumping more money into Ukraine than Moscow spends on its entire Defense budget.

How come no one is talking about a third option? Why do otherwise educated commentators and “experts” not see more possibilities than just Neo-Buchananite isolationism on the one side, and neoconservative/neoliberal interventionism on the other?

There is another way. One that actually serves the national interest of all Americans. Whoever they voted for.

First let’s dispense with the gross fallacies of the “Screw Ukraine” crowd before we identify what a realistic approach to Russia’s invasion should be.

Putin was “Provoked”

How does a nation ranked 29th in the world for military power provoke the nation ranked 2nd in the world? How does a country with no nuclear weapons, which has only had 21 years to build an independent defense force, pose a threat to a nation with 11 time-zones and more than 5,000 nuclear weapons? Right.

NATO Enlargement caused the War

The North Atlantic Treaty Alliance Organization is a voluntary club of likeminded nations that pledge to collectively defend one another. It is not the Warsaw Pact, the Cold War counter to NATO, a fake club created by one country, the USSR, with other nations forced, under threat of violence, to be members.

The NATO Alliance’s founding document is clear: any nation can join if it wants to, but they must be a functioning democracy and they must be able to contribute to the collective defense of all. It’s your choice to join, but you can’t be a freeloader.

Yes, after the Cold War NATO expanded toward the East, toward Russia. But only because the former slave-nations of the Warsaw Pact wanted to be part of the club of nations that had won the Cold War. No one forced Poland, Hungary or the Czechs, for example, to be part of the Alliance. In fact their road to membership was a rocky and lengthy one, as each had to prove they had shed the undemocratic trappings of Communism and had the wherewithal to contribute meaningfully in military terms to the collective defense of all in NATO. (Trust me on this one. I spent 5 years inside the Hungarian Ministry of Defense working on getting Hungary into the military club that is NATO!)

Note, also, that in the 1990s Russian President Boris Yeltsin even floated the idea of Russia joining NATO when he was in the Kremlin! There was, however, an issue with the first requirement for membership: being a democracy. By the point remains: how is a club you want to be a member of a threat to you? Also: why should a country outside of NATO have a right to veto any other nation joining the Alliance? Why does Moscow have a say in whether Ukraine - or any other country - is allowed to join any international organization? If you wanted to join the local Muscle Car club, can your neighbor down the road, who hates Mustangs and Camaros, have a right to block you joining?

George Soros and Obama’s Meddling

George Soros is a wicked individual. Just watch the interview they tried to bury in which he shows no remorse for collaborating with the Nazis, even though he himself was Jewish, during WWII.

And yes, the Obama State Department was actively meddling in the domestic politics of Ukraine when it had a pro-Russia leader. But it wasn’t Soros or Obama that forced then Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to renege on his vow to the Ukrainian people to establish closer ties to the European Union. And it wasn’t Washington that told him to suddenly do a 180 and lock Kiev back into a subservient relationship with Putin and Moscow. Viktor Yanukovych’s betrayal of his people was what cost him his presidency, not anything Victoria Nuland or Soros’ Open Society minions had plotted.

Former Ukrainan Presidnet Viktor Yanukovych decided to betray his people

The Biolabs: “Putin had to invade!”

Yes there were biological research labs in Ukraine. Yes the US was helping to fund them. But for all the “Conservative” voices who shout, “Putin had to invade!” there isn’t one who asks two very simple questions: Firstly, who built the labs? And secondly, why did America help fund them? They don’t ask these question for obvious reasons. Because the answers deflate the ‘Putin is justified’ mantra.

The Ukrainian labs were built by Moscow, when the Soviet Union had a massive illegal bioweapons empire and Ukraine was just one republic of the Soviet Union. When the Cold War ended, and Ukraine became independent, it inherited these frightening facilities, and very wisely, once Kiev was out from under the grip of Moscow, America realized we had a perfect opportunity to find our what the Soviets had really been doing in those facilities in direct contravention of the 1972 Bioweapons Convention. (For full details of Moscow’s illegal bioweapons empire read the autobiography of the defector who helped build it).

After Moscow lost control of the labs in 1991, Congress agreed to help fund them with the goal of promoting research into the types of weapons that could be used against American citizens by a rogue nation or terror group. Funny how that detail never makes into the screeds and rants of the “Putin is a good guy!” squad.

And don’t forget, Ukraine also inherited the world’s 3rd largest arsenal of nuclear weapons when the Soviet Union collapsed. We didn’t need to know about those weapons, because we had our own, more advanced, nuclear arsenal, but we didn’t want a new, potentially unstable nation to have access to the world’s deadliest weapons, so what did America do, in collaboration with the UK and Russia? We arrogantly convinced the new government in Kiev to give their most powerful guarantee of national sovereignty to Moscow, and then signed the so-called Budapest Memorandum in which we promised to protect the Ukrainians if they handed over their nukes to the Kremlin.

Thus, as a result of U.S. pressure, Ukraine had no deterrent nuclear capability when Putin decided to invade 17 years later.

There are several other accusations I could list and counter, but these are the most important. But let us at least address the “Ukraine is full of Nazis!” canard.

Yes, Antisemitism exists in Ukraine. As it does in every country of the region, and even in America. Just look at the Democrat party and its Jew-hating members Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. But we’re supposed to believe that a nation which elected an avowedly Jewish President is somehow a hive of Fascism? As opposed to Russia, a nation where the President actually has no issue with Nazis. Here is video of Putin’s former Deputy Prime Minister, Dmitry Rogozin, at a public NeoFascist rally, making the Hitler salute. What was his punishment? Putin made him the Director of his Space agency, the Russian equivalent of NASA.

As for the much ballyhooed Azov Battalion, yes it was a magnet for irregular militia types with less than savory politics in the past, but it has been purged more than once. Were it really a hotbed of Hitler fanboys, would members of the now nationally integrated army unit be invited to make an official visit to Israel, as they did last December? I think not.

Zelenskyy, the Jewish President of a state you are meant to believe is “fascist”

Ukraine: A Realistic Response

Ukraine’s survival as a nation in the face of unprovoked Russian aggression matters to the United States for many reasons. Not least of which is because we told them to give their nukes to Moscow in exchange for our protection. Is America’s word irrelevant?

More clinically important than whether or not America can portray itself as a country that keeps its promises, is an “honorable” nation, is the question of cold national interest. Why does (another) war in Europe matter? Well, why did it after before?

A murderous former KGB colonel invading free independent countries isn’t good. Ever. Many Americans said Hitler annexing Austria and even invading Poland is irrelevant to the US. Until Hitler’s buddy, Imperial Japan killed thousands of sailors and civilians in Pearl Harbor. But the truth is, Hitler’s actions in Europe were wrong before and after the attack on Hawaii. Why? Because a bully being a bully is bad whether or not they’re bullying you right now. Chamberlain’s head in the sand approach was always wrong. Would you have agreed with Chamberlain in 1938? Would Reagan have said Hitler’s invasion of Poland is something we can just ignore?

Don’t misunderstand me. Another 500 million dollars for Kiev is not the answer. (Unless, of course, you’re the ‘Big Man’ who gets 10%). But wanton aggression against any independent and free nation is wrong. Why? Well, I’m glad you ask.

Say we pull out. The Neo-Buchananites win. America stops providing any support, and without Washington’s lead, the enthusiasm of the rest of our NATO Allies gradually dwindles until Kiev is totally isolated. Eventually Russia captures the rest of free Ukraine and the whole of a once independent nation is forcibly integrated into the Russian Federation. What would happen then?

Given that Putin has said Poland, and the Baltic states were just as “illegitimate” as Ukraine, those (NATO) nations would likely be attacked next, with Ukraine being used as a forward canton to deploy Russian forces further into the heart of Europe.

At that point Washington would have to say: “We stand by our Article Five commitment to our NATO allies. We will deploy US troops to fight Russia on NATO soil, and we are prepared to use nuclear weapons, as we were during the Cold War.”

Or Washington could say ‘No.’ We then turn our back on Poland, the Balts, Hungary, and the rest of our Western Allies. Where Russia ends up, how many formerly free nations would be sucked up into the Federation would simply be a function of Russia’s military prowess, their economic strength and the courage of those who have been invaded.

Would America be safer at that point? With multiple countries gobbled up by Moscow (again), what would the Americans of Polish, Hungarian, Czech, or Ukrainian heritage do? Especially on Election Day? But more importantly, what would America’s other enemies do? What would China do if Russia was successful in violently annexing Ukraine? What would Iran think if other nations fell and their ally America just stood and watched? How about the jihadi groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda that still exist in a diminished form today? What would they think about the ‘Great Infidel’ America turning its back on Poland, the most robust Christian nation in Europe? Wouldn’t they be buoyed by the evidence of our fickle and cowardly behavior?

Yes the price of gas matters. But that will be the least of our worries when we send a signal to every nation and non-state actor that hates us: America is no longer America. Americans don’t care when free nations are enslaved and innocent people are killed, even citizens of nations we once called our “friends.” That is not an America I want to live in. And at that point it wouldn't even be America, because America would be long dead.

That it why we should help the Ukrainians fight for their freedom, just like other countries helped a bunch of colonials fight for their freedom and create America two and half centuries ago.