Without claiming to be an expert at socio-political sciences, Val shares his out-of box impressions about the world's affairs.
The war will end and leaders will shake hands. That old woman will keep waiting for her martyred son. And those children will wait for their hero father. I don't know who sold our homeland, but I saw who paid the price.
-- Mahmoud Darwish
Some Double Standards in Self-Defensive Strategies
There was nothing in the original version of this post -- which I deleted -- that was remotely suggestive of my "blaming Ukrainian people for causing their suffering with the Russian invasion".
And yet, soon after I posted that article I received a notification from Google Adsense that monetizing of such article had to be stopped due to the above reasons. For a moment I believed that my article was really making such an impression, and didn't hesitate to delete it.
Not because of that shitty monetizing warning, because I had made less than ten bucks there in more than 6 years -- but because I momentarily believed that other people might get the same impression.
I am never taking sides with any warring party, and I felt equally sorry for the innocent people of the Middle East when they were bombed by the western allies in Bush's war, and in Vietnam war, and any other non-defensive political war.
So no one can tell me that I am "blaming the victims for being victimized".
As an out-of-box free thinker, I have been bothered by my hasty deleting that article, in which I basically stated that "it's the Ukrainian President's stubborn refusal to give guarantee to Russians that Ukraine, being a Russian immediate neighbor, won't join NATO -- which is causing all that civilian dying ."
May everyone remember the Cuban crisis back in the 60s which almost started the WW3? America didn't allow Cuba to build up Soviet missile bases on its territory -- which was in America's immediate neighborhood.
HOW IS THIS RUSSIAN ACTION DIFFERENT -- OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS HERE?
Let's continue by asking some healthy logical questions.
Like, why is NATO still around at all?
There is no other military treaty in the world for which NATO would serve as a counterpart. It was organized during the Cold War, with the Warsaw Pact protecting the Soviet Union's block.
Then, as we all know, the Soviet Union fell apart, and so did the Warsaw Pact. But now, without anybody out there to "plot any hostile intentions against America" -- NATO stayed.
As a matter of fact it didn't just stay, but kept expanding, soon having over 75 military bases scattered around the globe.
The simple question is: WHY?
Only an extremely paranoid head could generate the idea that anybody would ever attack one America heavily armed with nukes. Hey, this is a nuclear age, time to wake up from any existential fears.
Remember Einstein's words: "I don't know what weapons will be used in a WW3, but I know that the WW4 will be fought with bows and arrows."
In all previous wars ever fought, leaders of the defeated initiator of the war had a chance to hide in a remote part of the world -- like so many Nazis fled to Argentina, for example. But where the hell do you hide once that the global atmosphere is totally contaminated by radiation?
Which brings us to the initial question: Why is NATO still around -- if not for a psychological advantage at spreading a global hegemony, for intimidating, coercing, blackmailing, and dictating the allowable economic connections.
Is there any left over way of reasoning about why Putin doesn't allow the further expansion of NATO -- especially if those bases would be in his very neighborhood?
Would YOU act any differently? Why the heck do you keep dogs, and guns, and security cameras, and alarm systems, and watch for any suspicious activities in your own neighborhood?
If you don't read newspapers you are uninformed. If you read newspapers you are misinformed.
-- Mark Twain
Will We Ever Be Told Anything but Lies?
Maybe this remake of that article would have waited for a bit longer, hadn't my eye been caught by today's Kim Iverson's you tube report dealing with this incredible secretive limitations imposed on journalists covering the war in Ukraine.
That, plus my already brewing need to revamp this article, was enough of a prompt for it.
Kim was telling us how no officials, political or military were making themselves available for an interview. Moreover, journalists are not even allowed to the warring zone to see -- in person -- what's going on.
And then, maybe the strongest point she was making was the incredible propaganda machinery preventing Americans to know the truth about that war.
I have no idea what is meant by "American government doing some money laundering there", and even less: "American politicians having some heavy shares in the defense investments". I am not educated in matters of the Stock market -- wouldn't know the first thing about it -- but when I read about this stuff, it just intuitively sounds like some "mon(k)ey venture".
Actually "monkey" enough so that the people are not supposed to know anything about it.
Well, I can just add to Kim's report what I have been saying all along about our being "informed citizens": We know nothing, and those most telling details have always been classified.
Indeed, what do we really "know" in politics?
Weren't we lied about America being victorious during the Vietnam war -- let alone the lie about the very reason for America's involvement there? Nine years later, and some fifty thousand dead American soldiers later, with another as many veterans committing suicide tormented by the horrors of that combat -- what is that telling us about our "being informed"?
When the veterans of Bush's war cry telling how ashamed they are for obeying orders to commit atrocities against civilians -- what should we believe of the official reports?
When the world's renowned experts in metallurgy claim that it was impossible for the heat of the plane's fuel to melt down to the ground the metal structures of the Trade Centers -- so it had to be a well organized and timed implosion -- how much do we really "know" about the 9/11 tragedy?
Okay, I don't know about you, but when somebody lies to me a few times, I tend to discredit them with anything they say -- and this war in Ukraine is no exception at all.
(Also, time and time again have I expressed my suspicions about this covid-19 racket, but that's the theme for another place).
The world is full enough of hurts and mischances without wars to multiply them.
-- J.R.R. Tolkien
For an Epilog
Is anybody of a sound mind asking themselves these days one basic thing: Why did Putin decide to attack Ukraine now -- why not before, if he had "any greedy ideas to expand his territory?
Isn't it just too obvious that the time is coinciding with Ukraine's intention to join NATO?
And then, there are reports from people living there that "Ukraine is the most corrupt country in Europe".
Another report says that "the biggest problem in Ukraine is not Russia, but their own government". Is that why their province of Donbass is aspiring to join Russia?
I don't know anything about their President Zelensky, but I simply don't get some good vibes about the dude, and whatever I may say here stems from those received vibes only.
He apparently started his life career as a standup comedian, now filthy rich, with properties (also) outside of the country, and receiving some shitloads of money from the US government. The most recent handout was allegedly 40 billion American bucks -- and if I were a cynical person, I might say how the Ukrainian elite (that one of the alleged corrupt kind) must be laughing all the way to the bank.
But I am not a cynical person. I just have a kind of dark sense of humor. You know the kind -- like Zelensky was using as a standup comedian.
And all that still doesn't mean that I "know" anything about the dude, except maybe that he has been doing quite well for himself -- ever since he told that last joke on the stage.
Now, I remember all those stories attacking Trump. And even though I think of him as just another lousy alternative to Joe Biden -- for sake of being objective, I never liked that he was attacked for "his hairstyle, his short fingers, his wife's accent, for his young son's possible mental handicap..." and so on. That, per se, had absolutely nothing to say about his readiness-or-not for presidency. (So many other things did).
Likewise, I will not badmouth Zelensky's presidential qualifications which I know nothing about -- albeit, I can't understand why he is allowing his civilians to die, rather than give Russia that crucial guarantee about not joining NATO, if that means so much to Russia's sense of security that they were going to a risky war for that.
I just don't get it.
There is a lot of rumor going on that American government is behind this whole crappy conflict, while pushing NATO eastwards in Europe. Even Chinese expressed their displeasure about that dubious military ambition.
Well, it will be interesting one day when much of the enigma over this conflict disappears, and we hear some juicy stories about the star players in the whole thing. Historical truths have this nasty habit of showing up sooner or later.
Okay, this remake of the original article did repeat its main arguments, with some additions, but I will end it up that same way I did it with that one -- by admitting that all this is merely my own view based on information which may be as true or false as any other circulating these days.
With the whole world somewhat worried about a possibility of a global war, maybe we-the-world, deserve to hear something other than lies from those who have been sworn to represent our best interests. After all, they should make an exception once in a while and speak truth.
Of course, unless that oath was but a laughable formality to start with.
This content reflects the personal opinions of the author. It is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and should not be substituted for impartial fact or advice in legal, political, or personal matters.
© 2022 Val Karas