The real story of the Russia-Ukraine crisis
Did Russia start the Crisis in Ukraine?The dominant narrative in the West is that Mr. Putin has angered Russia by annexing Crimea and fomenting civil war in eastern Ukraine, while Ukraine seeks to protect itself and join NATO.But look a little deeper, and look a little further back, and the main problem with the Ukraine crisis is that the fantasy of western left-liberalism has run up against the walls of realpolitik.Especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, liberalism has flourished in the West, believing that it is supposed to go nowhere and that the logic of realism, in the 21st century, is irrelevant and should be consigned to the dustbin of history.After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Soviet leaders wanted U.S. troops to stay in Europe and NATO to maintain the status quo because that would ensure the stability of a unified Germany.But neither the former Soviet leaders, nor the new Russian successors, want NATO to expand.But Clinton slapped them in the mouth.Clinton was a “liberal icon” at a crucial time in history, and he made two grand strategic plans: first, he supported the eastward expansion of NATO in Europe.Second, support China’s participation in the free trade system in Asia.Clinton believes that NATO’s eastward expansion will liberalize all of Russia.It also believed that China’s entry into the world trading system would liberalise the country as a whole.Both, it seems, have hit a wall, and this is typical: liberal fantasy against the wall of realpolitik. The first round of NATO’s eastward expansion took in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in 1999.Russia’s reaction to the first round of enlargement was unenthusiastic, but not drastic. After all, the country is still in ICU after being ripped apart, and has no capacity to control NATO’s expansion.Liberalism tasted sweet head, the 2nd wave expands east, arrange on immediately.On the heels of the second eastward expansion, the man biden sent to China today, U.S. Ambassador to China Nicholas.Burns (second from right) Burns was an ambitious and capable man who, as America’s plenipotentiary envoy to NATO at the time, had the power of an imperial Envoy.He visited seven countries in one go: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.To examine the possibility of their joining NATO.(defense conditions, ideology, laws and regulations, NATO requirements).At the end of the day, some countries, such as Lithuania and Estonia, did not meet the requirements for NATO membership.But the United States is pressing NATO to lower the “threshold” for joining, so that friends and brothers can add as much as possible.Burns inspection report, at the NATO summit proposed that Bulgaria, Ireland, Latvia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, these seven countries, all want to join NATO.The 2004 enlargement, the biggest in NATO’s history to join seven countries in one go, brought Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the Baltic states, close to Russia’s western borders.The bill was passed by acclamation at the NATO summit, with no opposition, liberal leftists, in wild celebration.Putin, who had just won his first term in office, was dealing with the hostage crisis in Beslan: Chechen terrorists took 1,200 students, parents and teachers hostage in the southern Russian city of Beslan.It killed 396 people, including 31 terrorists.Russia was powerless to deal with NATO after the home bombing, only verbally protesting.At NATO’s third eastward expansion conference in 2008, when the United States wanted a bigger one, President Bush authorized Burns to give Putin a gift: to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO.Yes, bringing Ukraine into NATO in 2008 is already planned.At the conference, Germany and France led the opposition. This was the first time that Germany and France openly opposed the expansion, believing that including Georgia and Ukraine would invite Russia to declare war directly.Indeed, civil war broke out in Georgia during the Beijing Olympics in August 2008.The fighting is between Georgia’s government on one side and South Ossetia, which unilaterally declared independence in 1990.The pattern of war is exactly the same as in Ukraine today.The Georgian government forces were overwhelming and quickly occupied 70% of the territory of South Ossetia. Russia rushed out troops and invaded South Ossetia, repelled the Georgian government forces and took control of the capital of South Ossetia, with the intention of continuing to attack south ossetia.Western forces intervened immediately, but did not send troops.In the end, an agreement was signed for Russian troops to withdraw from Georgia, but for South Ossetia to remain independent.After this battle, NATO’s liberal wing was given a cold shower.For seven years, from 1999 to 2008, the expansion went smoothly, with more than a dozen countries joining, and liberals had taken it for granted that it was going to go smoothly and they didn’t think, Putin, he really knows how to fight.The new NATO summit was overshadowed by the war in Georgia, and its ambition to include Georgia and Ukraine was hit by realism.Germany and France are once again warning the United States to stay out of Ukraine and Georgia.Eventually, at the 2009 enlargement conference, Ukraine and Georgia were scratched out and Albania and Croatia, two less important countries, were added instead.After the meeting, NATO tried to save face. “NATO supports the aspirations of Georgia and Ukraine to become members of NATO when the time is right,” the alliance’s secretary-general said.Two months later, Putin met with Bush, and Putin told bush in no uncertain terms: “If Ukraine joins NATO, it will cease to exist.”What will cease to exist?Is Ukraine no more, or is NATO no more?Putin didn’t say.But after Georgia, NATO, especially in continental Europe, began to cool off.NATO’s eastward expansion has gone from every five years to every nine, and on the other hand, the instruments of eastward expansion are softening.NATO enlargement, it’s a kind of military enlargement, too conspicuous.Therefore, the eastward expansion of the European Union was adopted. In 2009, Europe announced the Eastern Partnership Of the European Union, which aims to bring more eastern partners into the ECONOMIC system of the European Union.This, of course, is an old wine in a new bottle. Both NATO and EU expansion are aimed at gobbling up Russia’s strategic space.From this point on, Britain and the United States increased their investment, spending more than $5 billion to provide funds for anti-Russian and pro-American individuals and organizations in Ukraine to help Ukraine pursue: “a better future.”Soon after, National Endowment for Democracy President Gershman wrote in The Washington Post that “Ukraine joining Europe would hasten the demise of Russian imperialist ideology represented by Vladimir Putin.”It was made clear that Ukraine had never been brought in to give it a “better future”, but to kill Russia.With the financial support of Britain and the US, the eastward expansion plan has indeed “blossomed”.The Ukrainian revolution broke out, and European Union flags and Ukrainian flags appeared on the streets of the capital.Ukraine is a “deeply divided country”, with a decidedly Pro-European west and a more Pro-Russian east.Every election in Ukraine looks like a coup d ‘etat.The people of western Ukraine wanted to join the European Union, and they wanted to accept the enlargement of the European Union, after all, the economy of the European Union is more developed and attractive.The president of Ukraine in 2013 was Viktor Yanukovych, whose father was a truck driver in Belarus and mother was a nurse of Russian origin. The president is a very typical Eastern European Pro-Russian figure.Three years into the European Union’s eastward expansion, opinion, policy and negotiations seem ready, and a free trade agreement between Ukraine and the EU is on Mr Yanukovich’s desk.A divided country with two different opinions, a pro-European west that wants to join the EU, and a Pro-Russian east that doesn’t want to fight With Russia.Putin also called Yanukovych many times, you said to build relations, as well as small, Putin told Yanukovych: after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine’s economy is entirely supported by Russia, Russian investment, Russian low-interest loans, low-price exports, one after another let Ukraine benefit hundreds of billions of dollars.Ukraine saved $82.7 billion just by selling natural gas to Ukraine at a very low price, and Russia invested another $33 billion in the country during those two years.Russia has never been so generous to a country.”In the future, Russia will provide an additional $15 billion in low-interest loans to Ukraine, starting with $3 billion this month,” Putin added.Mr Putin is right: Russia has never been so generous to a country.Mr Yanukovich is a Pro-Russian figure in eastern Ukraine, and Russia has offered such generous terms that he would, in good sense, reject the EU.So in late 2013, Mr. Yanukovych announced that he was rejecting a free trade agreement with the European Union.As soon as the decision was announced, Ukraine exploded and he completely ignited the anger of the half of the people who wanted to join the European Union.Continuing mass protests in the capital, violent clashes and anger, have set Ukraine on fire.In January 2014, Yanukovych decided to resign the cabinet, but the protesters did not give up, vowed to remove Yanukovych.In February 2014, Ukraine’s parliament voted to oust President Viktor Yanukovych, who had already fled to Russia by helicopter overnight.Ukrainian police later named “Janu” as a wanted target.In March 2014, a month after Mr. Yanu went into exile, Crimea voted for independence and subsequently joined the Russian Federation.Ukraine’s new US-backed prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, took office.Putin, on the other hand, has made a speech that clearly implies that Ukraine has broken with Russia, and that I would rather have Ukraine cease to be a functioning state than allow it to be controlled by the West.Translation: “I’d rather kill Ukraine than have it for the West.”Putin’s actions are not hard to understand. Napoleon fought in Russia, Hitler fought in Russia, and the vast Ukrainian region was a strategic buffer for Russia during those wars.Just imagine Hitler would have taken Moscow without Ukraine.No Russian leader is going to let Ukraine fall out of Russian control. It’s as if Canada or Mexico were to announce tomorrow that they would ally themselves with Russia and join the Russian military system. Do you think the United States would jump to its feet and intervene?Until today, Ukraine, under the leadership of the actor president, has talked about joining NATO again, which has once again intensified Russia’s massive mobilization of troops on the Russian-Ukrainian border.That triggered the crisis in Ukraine.In the West, too, there is a constant backlash against enlargement. These realists argue that Russia is not a climate, that it is a declining hegemon, that there is nothing to fear, that its population is ageing, that its economy is unitary, that its governance is rigid.How could such a country be a rival to the West?You just let him lie there, buy his energy, so he can afford to drink.But you leftists, you want to piss him off, you piss him off, who gets it?But from the Clinton era, through Bush, Obama, Biden, with the exception of Trump, who didn’t want to mess with Russia at all, the rest of the post-Cold War presidents have all followed liberal policies.Finally pushed Russia to where it is today.It is now the political task of the West to exaggerate and demonise Mr Putin.Although Mr Putin is an autocrat, there is no sign that he is mentally ill.But the western left-wing media, which has made a habit of demonising Mr Putin for two decades, instinctively resent any deal with him.In their eyes, Putin is a modern-day Hitler who will backtrack and tear up all the promises and peace agreements he signed.So with Putin, force, not talk.That’s why most left-wing governments in the United States are reluctant to talk to Putin.The consensus is that Putin will swallow Ukraine, but even a moment of sober reflection shows that he will not, and that it will be very difficult even to establish and maintain a puppet regime.Ukraine is no small country. It is the second largest country in Europe, after Russia, with 44 million people.And at least half of the Ukrainians are anti-Russian, especially in the west. Russia could take the Ukrainian capital, but just like the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, the United States in Afghanistan and Vietnam.In war you can win, but in strategy you lose.It would be easy for Mr Putin to take The capital, but could he take the whole of Ukraine?Even if Mr. Putin captured all of Ukraine, how much would it cost him to carry out an expensive occupation?On the first day of the war, the West will impose sweeping sanctions on Putin and the Russian economy will suffer.What was the end result of the WAR in Afghanistan, which cost two trillion dollars?It’s not all chicken.But Putin, two trillion to occupy Ukraine?Does Putin not know that the invasion of Afghanistan was one of the most important factors in the collapse of the Soviet Union?There is no prospect of Russia occupying Ukraine militarily, let alone in the long term, or even in the short term.What about puppet regimes?Install a Pro-Russian president to lead Ukraine?Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine’s elected president in 2013, was Pro-Russian enough, but what happened?It was overthrown by the revolution.It is perfectly fine for Putin to install an unelected Pro-Russian puppet president, but the question is, how?Ultimately, it is up to the military to maintain this puppet regime inside Ukraine.Otherwise, it will be overthrown again by pro-European voters.It was never an option for Russia to go directly to Ukraine.For Mr Putin’s part, the better outcome is two: first, the use of force, through military deterrence, to extract concessions from Europe and promise that Ukraine will not join NATO.The United States certainly does not want this, but it is possible that Germany and France, who want peace in Europe, and Ukraine, who is involved, will talk to Mr Putin.Second, Ukraine splits into two, supporting the pro-russian population and the independence of the east, on the Georgian model, or on the South Ossetian model.The advantage is that dividing Ukraine in two would require less military support and less economic effort than a full-scale occupation or a puppet regime in Kiev.The best of these two plans is the first, the second, in other words, the two plans, Ukraine: “Ukraine neutral” or “Ukraine divided”, the choice.You Ukraine, either stay neutral or wait to break up.After all, in 2022, there are few good solutions, and both sides are moving towards more and more extremes.One of us has to sacrifice. Russia?Eu sacrifice?Or Ukraine?Imagine if, over the past 20 years, NATO’s eastward expansion had been less aggressive and more realistic, if the bear wanted wine, you could have given him wine, and he would not have been at war with you today.