“I know that the conquest of English America is an impossibility. You cannot, I venture to say it, you CANNOT conquer America…As to conquest, therefore, my Lords, I repeat, it is impossible. You may swell every expense, and every effort, still more extravagantly; pile and accumulate every assistance you can buy or borrow; traffic and barter with every little pitiful German Prince, that sells and sends his subjects to the shambles of a foreign country; your efforts are for ever vain and impotent—doubly so from this mercenary aid on which you rely; for it irritates, to an incurable resentment, the minds of your enemies—to overrun them with the sordid sons of rapine and plunder; devoting them and their possessions to the rapacity of hireling cruelty! If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms, never! never! never!”
– William Pitt the Elder, speaking in the House of Lords on 18th November 1777 in opposition to the war against the rebellious American colonists.
There are some things about the views of supporters of President Trump, and of Americans in general, about the situation in Ukraine that I understand very well. Consider this Bloomberg clip from the President’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly on 25th September 2018. The caption to the video says gleefully, “Watch the German delegation’s response at UNGA when Trump says “Germany will become totally dependent on Russian energy if it does not immediately change course.” The German delegation had a good laugh at the American rube and his silly ideas about not being dependent on Vladimir Putin, and all the sophisticated people on both sides of the Atlantic laughed with them.
They are not laughing now. They are still asking for money, though. In the face of such arrogance, it is no surprise that President Trump and a great many of his countrymen are saying, “We tried to warn you about Russia but you laughed. It’s nice that you ‘stand with Ukraine’ now, but you can do it with your own money. Bye.”
That, I get. I don’t agree with the view that the conquest of a country in Europe by Russia can safely be ignored by the US, but I can understand it.
What I do not get is how many Americans whose views I normally admire have moved from saying, “This war is sad, but it’s none of our business” to speaking as if Ukraine were morally in the wrong for continuing to fight. To take one example, here is a recent tweet from Elon Musk:
What I am sickened by is years of slaughter in a stalemate that Ukraine will inevitably lose.
Anyone who really cares, really thinks and really understands wants the meat grinder to stop.
PEACE NOW!!
Similar impassioned pleas for “peace” are being made by many accounts that I follow on X that belong to Americans who are proud supporters of the right to bear arms, people who would until recently have considered themselves spiritual descendants of those unconquerable Americans praised by Pitt. It seems to me that the position of the Ukrainians now is very like that of the Americans then, right down to the invaders of their country being reinforced by wretched hirelings from far away who have been sold by their leaders and sent to die in a the shambles of a foreign war of which they know nothing.
Were the Americans of December 1776 culpable for not laying down their arms when all seemed lost? Should the famous painting of Washington crossing the Delaware be covered up in shame?
Washington not caring about the meat-grinder
#/media/File:Washington_Crossing_the_Delaware_by_Emanuel_Leutze,_MMA-NYC,_1851.jpg){kind=link}
“It seems to me that the position of the Ukrainians now is very like that of the Americans then, right down to the invaders of their country being reinforced by wretched hirelings from far away who have been sold by their leaders and sent to die in a the shambles of a foreign war of which they know nothing.”
First, the British were not “invaders” and it was not a “foreign war”; every American colonist in the Thirteen Colonies was a British subject until independence.* As to “wretched hirelings” (I presume the poor old Hessians are implied by this), the success of the American Revolution was due in no small part to the support of the Kingdom of France, which threw plenty of its own “wretched hirelings” into the fight.
* You might just as well argue that Union forces were “invaders” during the US Civil War. The key difference is that the Union was successful in dealing with its rebellion but the Crown was not.
The American Revolutionaries fought willingly, they volunteered. There was no draft, there was no coercion forcing Americans to fight the British. In fact, only about one third of the Americans were in favor of the Revolution, while another third were loyalists against the rebellion, and another third were moderates/indifferent/undecided. The soldiers who fought the British were only drawn from the families of patriots who wanted to fight the British. The sons of loyalist families were not forced to fight.
In Ukraine it is illegal for men between the ages of 18 and 60 to leave the country, and this horrific policy is enforced at the barrel of a gun. I personally know two Ukrainian young women who fled Ukraine with their families after the invasion started. Their brothers and male cousins are stuck in Ukraine fighting in the war not because they want to be there, not because they have chosen to be there, but because they have to be there. Men are forced to stay inside of the country, forced to serve in the military, forced to fight the Russians. This is a state mandated policy.
I’m sure some of the Ukrainian soldiers want to fight, but what percentage? I do not know. But either way, it is a very big difference between the American Revolution and this Ukraine-Russia war. There has been a tremendous amount of coercion employed by the Ukrainian government against its own people to force men to fight in this war, whether they want to or not.
I take your point, JJM, but the term “invasion” can be used in a looser sense – for instance I have often seen D-Day described as “the invasion of Europe”. In a similar way, William Pitt spoke of the “conquest” of America, despite the fact that the whole point of the war from the British POV was to keep the Americans British.
Personally, I’d have a bit more sympathy for the cause of the Ukraine war if everyone fighting the Russians had freely chosen to do so. If every man were legally permitted, as the women and children are, to flee the country if they so chose. If every Ukrainian man had the freedom of choice to decide for himself what to do.
A Ukrainian girl I spoke with freely told me that her cousin’s friend refused to fight and had to hide in a basement for months and very rarely ever left the basement for fear of being spotted in public by the authorities and forced into a uniform and shoved into the Ukrainian military. Eventually he was caught and now he is fighting in the war.
What happened to the libertarians of Europe who are against military conscription? They seem to be silent.
I’m still against military conscription, by Ukraine or anyone else. But it does not change my view of the wickedness of the Russian invasion. It’s like when someone is the victim of a violent crime on the street: they don’t have to be perfect, or even good, in order to have the right to fight back.
Since the formation of NATO in 1949 the United States has poured untold trillions of dollars into the defence of European countries against the Soviet bloc. We have continued to pour trillions of dollars into it even after its main mission disappeared when the Soviet Union dissolved.
The vast overwhelming majority of Americans cannot even find Ukraine on a globe, due in part to the government indoctrination system that has been put into place in the US instead of an educational system, in large part because of the influence that Europe and its socialism have had on us. We’re trying like heck to get rid of that monstrosity, since it has done nothing but damage to the country and its people.
To whine that “Americans aren’t doing enough” is possibly (not probably, in my estimation) even correct, but the consensus is that we’ve simply had enough of the Euro-trash telling us what to do and how/where/when to spend the taxpayer’s dollars, all the while seeing almost every single country in Europe go down the route to totalitarianism. The UK and its thought police are simply one example of the extinguishment of liberty in that country, and the EU with its attempts to completely eliminate any hope of representation of the peoples of the various countries is another.
“Not my monkey; not my circus” is becoming the prevalent attitude here with regard to European squabbles since we’re going to have lots and lots of problems of our own trying to fix the last 33 years of socialist rule (minus the brief period in which Trump actually got anything done during his first term) from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our federal government. The last four years of the Biden-cabal rule has darned near destroyed the economy here…and now we’ve got Europe asking us to foot the bills, both monetary and butcher’s, for yet another war. No thanks.
What percent of Ukrainians serving in the military would still be doing so if it were legal for Ukrainian men to flee the country and legal for Ukrainian men not to serve in the military? 50%? Genuine question, I am not sure.
This is not pointed out nearly enough. NATO should have been disbanded in around 1993 after the USSR dissolved.
I don’t think the comparison is good, because the nature of the wars were completely different. The American revolution was mostly a series of small engagements man on man or maybe some cruel cannons, not the hellscape high tech meat grinder in Ukraine. And the patriotic imagery you evoke in Washington’s crossing of the Delaware was almost symbolic in nature. It was a “we aren’t dead yet” moment. The subsequent Battle or Trenton was very small, I think only a couple of dozen people were killed.
However, I shared your disdain for the ugly swing in MAGA land from “Ukraine needs to make the most of a bad situation” to “Ukraine is bad and just as bad as Russia”. This is plainly not true, and I think the swing of the MAGA base in that direction is shameful. However, what I also find quite disturbing on the other side is the attitude of “Stop them in Ukraine so we don’t have to stop them in Berlin and Paris.” While I understand the sentiment, and it makes sense from the point of view of EU funding of the war, I find the attitude of using Ukraine as a shield quite horrible. If Ukrainians want to fight to the last man, woman and child that is their business. But Ukraine should do what is best for Ukraine, not what is best for Europe. Europe using Ukrainian bodies as a buffer zone is not a position I’d be proud to hold.
What I am missing is what those who oppose a treaty now think is a good strategy. What should Ukraine and its supporters do? Should they fight until the last drop of blood of Ukraine is spilled on the battlefield? I see no way to force the Russians out by force. Maybe a mile here or there, but entirely? Ukraine will run out of men long before Russia. And as for Crimea, Russia will defend it like they would St. Petersburg. So what is the plan? All wars end in some sort of peace treaty, even if it is Versailles. So what sort of peace treaty is obtainable better than the one being worked on? What is going to change in the next twelve months that will advantage Ukraine? All that will happen is a lot more people dead and a position that is not substantially different than today.
As to the second amendment, of course I 100% support the Ukrainians right to self defense. However, I do not support the press ganging of young men into a meat grinder that seems to me to be entirely futile. I entirely oppose conscription at any time in any circumstance even if we use the “all out war” justification that seems to cover all manner of sins of the Ukrainian government.
Do I want to see Putin win? Of course not, his aggression is entirely unacceptable. But we don’t live in a world of right and wrong, we live in a world of “what is the best we can do.” The War hawk’s fantasy of Russia humiliated, Ukraine restored to pre 2014 borders and Putin’s bloated corpse hanging on a tree in Kiyv is simply not going to happen. So what is the next best thing?
No you wouldn’t, you are a Putin fanboi, a repeated apologists for Russian imperialism. Oh and I assume you don’t think Israel should have conscription either, right? UK & USA should not have had conscription in WW2 either, right? 😀
In other words, you think Russia should still dominate Eastern and Central Europe and are perfectly OK with them reoccupying whichever bits they want.
Exactly correct. As long as Ukraine is willing to fight, they should be backed.
I do.
Russia’s economy is smaller than Italy, for God’s sake, and if Europe was less morally bankrupt, the war would have ended last year if Ukraine had been backed at the scale it should have been. It is still not to late for that to happen.
Putin Fanboi is a big improvement on Kremlin Bot, yes? Sounds like I’m moving up in the world!!
America has always been a giving country. We give foreign aid, we support friends in fights, we have an outward-looking history.
Until now.
We have internal problems – money problems, partisanship extremes, immigration crises – that are now causing us to adopt and cheer Trump’s America First – Fortress America – view. We’re withdrawing.
I think that is the main driver of our attitude to the Ukraine catastrophe.
But we like to keep thinking of ourselves as charitable, friend-supporting people, so we look for excuses to pull out that make us feel less selfish.
“Nazis! Corruption! No voting! Dying kids!” I think these are all ex post facto excuses that give us stronger reasons to stay home, to keep our money home, while not feeling like shytes.
Not proud of this, but it is our money, and we look to need it ourselves more than ever. We’re just human.
I’ll add Part 2, that the American Right views Ukraine as Team Biden, and so we hates them all.
Perry de Havilland (Prague)
I do.
Does it involve some fantasy of Europe stepping up and tripling their financial support, or Trump doubling down and providing weapons that they have never provided before?
Another way to resolve the conflict is to have a sit down chat with Putin over a cup of cocoa and convince him of the error of his ways. But that is unlikely to be successful either.
“I’ll add Part 2, that the American Right views Ukraine as Team Biden, and so we hates them all.”
Yes, because like everything that happens anywhere in the world, it’s all really just about America, isn’t it?
The following is completely off topic, for which I apologise, but I still thought it worthy of sharing.
In the long-running case of Michael Mann vs Mark Steyn a DC Superior Court judge has today reduced the original punitive damages awarded against Steyn by a DC jury from one million dollars to a mere $5,000.
“[Americans] have an outward-looking history.”
Actually, that’s highly debatable. Isolationism has been a longstanding American leitmotiv.
Now, thanks to your Dear Leader’s – shall we say? – rather eccentric behaviour since 20 January, you may be isolated in many more ways than you’d counted on.
“In the long-running case of Michael Mann vs Mark Steyn a DC Superior Court judge has today reduced the original punitive damages awarded against Steyn by a DC jury from one million dollars to a mere $5,000.”
That is good news and well worth sharing. Though the case should have been tossed out of court years ago.
This is very true. Moreover we have seen a complete roll-over which will only enable every tuppenny-ha’penny twat to have a go.
Natalie…
I get your general points but I’m going to play pedant here. US independence had nothing to do with the “British”. As a socio-politic concept “Britain” didn’t exist at that point. “America” – as in The United States Of is an older thing than “Britain” as a legal entity.
As to NATO disbanding in the ’90s… Yeah, right. Let’s disband an extremely effective alliance because it has proven itself…
The alternative to supporting Ukraine with as much military equipment as it takes is western armies eventually fighting Russia at some point over the next ten years. It may indeed come to that given how dire the current western technocratic elite are. But lets not kid ourselves this will ever really end if whoever leads Russia sees that they can invade their European neighbours and advance their borders.
This is exactly correct.
Of course not. Nine years ago in a famous speech and in famous writings as wellthe Distinguished University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer predicted that the western Russophobic approach to foreign policy would eventually lead the Russians to decide that they have no other choice than to invade Ukraine. He was right.
https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4?si=QiUNK8XwzhmlB4T0&t=1
I do not believe that Russian influence over Belarus is an existential national security threat to the United Kingdom any more than the UK having influence over Ireland is an existential national security threat to Russia.
Countries with shared borders, shared history, shared language etc… should have influence over one another, should have friendly business relations, should have travel back and forth and welcome each other. Russia is a solid middle power and actively preventing Russia from having any influence whatsoever over countries in its neighborhood is a recipe for endless bloody wars with Russia in perpetuity.
“As a socio-politic concept ‘Britain’ didn’t exist at that point. ‘America’ – as in The United States Of is an older thing than ‘Britain’ as a legal entity.”
I’m not so sure. The Kingdom of Great Britain was established in 1707. By the time the rebellious colonists of the Thirteen Colonies named themselves the United States of America, the legal identity of Britain/British had been established for almost 70 years.
NATO was a great treaty alliance to have in place when the USSR existed because Communism is a horrible and dangerous ideology that we had to protect against.
USSR does not exist anymore, so there is no legitimate purpose for NATO anymore. Europeans largely secretly agree with me because if USA stopped funding NATO then NATO would naturally dissolve anyway. At this point, NATO exists to enrich the Defense Manufacturers, enrich the Lobbyists, enrich the Military Industrial Complex, and in order to take American Taxpayer Money and use it to pay for the National Security and Defense of Europe. These are the real reasons NATO exist now. It has nothing to do with protecting against Communism.
The time has come for Europe to pay for its own National Security Defense and Military. NATO should be disbanded post haste
On a lighter note, and maybe a bit off topic, Shane Gillis, standup comic, has a great take on George Washington.
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dySe9g1olk
Gillis: 6′ tall (huge by that days’ norm), red haired, and maniacal from having bad teeth for decades (and probably mercury poisoning adding to the craziness), had a sword and knew how to use it, etc. That guy charging at you at the head of any army, a rabble even, would make the most hardened “wretched hireling” or “invader” turn and run.
Last part of the linked vid is Gillis’ bit about Down Syndrome but it gets cut short in this vid. Before you judge him on making fun of people with Downs, check out his whole bit…it’s sympathetic, loving even.
JJM
Yes, because like everything that happens anywhere in the world, it’s all really just about America, isn’t it?
American support of Ukraine IS about America, is about our vision of foreign policy. Ironically what we hear all the time is that European support of Ukraine is really about Europe. I presume you are equally disapproving of that.
@bobby b
I’ll add Part 2, that the American Right views Ukraine as Team Biden, and so we hates them all.
I think there is a small part of that, I think it was a huge mistake for Zelenskyy to seem to favor Harris by visiting that munitions factory (though in fairness to him he really didn’t do what he was accused of — but perception is reality.) Like I said before though, Zelenskyy is a guy trying to fly a tiny kite in a hurricane. I think diplomatically he has done well (though the Oval office debacle was a huge mistake, that I think he was largely set up for.) I think really you hit it on the first part — we Americans want to settle this thing so that we can get on with sorting things at home out. It is a massive distraction from what is important to us, and it is particularly annoying when the people to whom it is more significant, that is to say Europe, seem to be unwilling to do their fair share. And we need to get away from it. Since we are in very, very deep shit at home. The idea that we can throw away hundreds of billions of dollars into a big nasty money pit is not in line with the drive toward budgetary sanity. America is, in reality, one of the poorest countries in the world when you consider our debt.
It is one of the things that is rather unique about Trump. Most American presidents are mainly concerned with foreign affairs because they get to dance on the big stage and seem like historic statesmen. Trump is primarily a domestic policy president, which is something really very rare, and desperately needed.
Europe’s lack of preparation does not constitute America’s emergency. Especially so when Trump last term warned and complained and yelled about the pathetic levels of military spending in Europe, and they did their usual snort of derision as Europeans often do to Americans, especially Americans like Trump, omg, he is so gauche. And now they are hitting us over the head with their begging bowls.
Ironically the people who it seems to me come out looking the best is those garlic sniffing snail eating French. They have always been rather keen on their own military independence, building their own planes and weapons and having an actual independent nuclear deterrent, unlike the Brits who seem to need to take their submarines and missiles back to America just to get an oil change. And, also I think, ironically, Europe’s best tool for dealing with Trump is Macron (though Starmer was smart to schmooze with the whole royal visit thing. I bet the French are mad at themselves now for cutting off their King’s head.)
Most of the British laid down their arms long ago – in response to a series of government regulations. The days when the British National Rifle Association was much bigger than the American one, and when there was an extensive Constitutional Club network in the United Kingdom are long gone.
As for hostile foreigners invading the land, raping and killing, well that is something the British have some experience of – but they are sent to prison if they complain about it too much. A people who can not defend themselves – who are (mostly) unarmed and fearful of being sent to prison if they say the wrong thing – can not really defend Ukraine or anywhere else. A point that Vice President Vance tried to explain – but was doubted even by people who should already known what he said was true, long before he said it.
As for President Trump – he is trying to SAVE Ukraine (and save Russia) – save the people of both the Ukraine and Russia, the people rather than the leaders of either nation.
That is the truth – whether people want to believe it or not.
President Trump may fail – it may not be possible to save the people (the ordinary people) – but at least he is trying to save them.
And not a word in the post about Romania, or other nations where democracy has been snuffed out on the orders of the “international community”.
The international establishment hates both freedom (such as Freedom of Speech) and they hate democracy – as is shown by their actions.
Something tells me that lateral manouevres, like President Trump’s resumption and expansion of US LNG production and exports, will be far-more effective at putting the Russian bear back into his cage than any amount of military posturing. President Trump warned Europe years ago that they would end up as Russia’s bitch if they continued down their path of destroying their own energy industries and becoming dependent on Russian gas. And he was right. Europe wibbles on Ukraine because Russia keeps their lights on and their homes warm. And now President Trump takes the steps he can take to try and help Europe out of the hole it dug for itself, a hole which he warned them long ago they were digging for themselves, a warning they scoffed at to his face. That bastard!
A majority of Americans are now highly-sceptical of anything to do with Ukraine because of the ongoing revelations of the vast and blatant influence-peddling of the Biden crime family. Explain to me how this is the fault of President Trump.
Russia cannot be beaten by Ukraine military means, no matter how many Ukrainians others are willing to see killed trying. Ukraine will run out of Ukrainians before Russia runs out of Russians, and the war is far-more popular among the Russian people than it is among the Ukrainian people. High and noble principles are all very well, but in a conflict between reality and principles, reality will always prevail. Better to start thinking of, promoting and supporting actual, real actions that will make Russia end the war because it cannot continue. You could start with nukes, fracking and coal powered electricity generation. Oh, wait – you demolished all your coal-fired power plants, didn’t you? And nukes are off the table? And fracking is the work.of the Devil? Well, welcome to your choices when it comes to keeping the lights on. Do you want to keep being Putin’s bitch, in which case, good luck with that. Or do you want to positively and effectively stand with President Trump and the majority of Americans who aupport him – because he’s about the only one who can pull you out of the hole you dug yourself into. You don’t got many other choices. Let us know.
llater,
llamas
Well, if Trump wanted to continue the Biden policy of continuing to wage this war against Russia through Ukraine by sending hundreds of billions of dollars he could do it, except that there would probably be some kind of rebellion against him from the Republican Congressmen. But Trump could still do it with the support of about 50% of Congressional Republicans in Congress and a majority of Congressional Democrats.
So, it is Trump’s decision to negotiate with Putin instead of continuing the war. It is Trumps fault if the war comes to an end largely on Putin’s terms.
@ Shlomo Maistre – total, complete misdirection on your part. The question was – how is the scepticism of the majority of Americans about supporting Ukraine, caused by the blatant influence-peddling in the region of the Biden crime family, the fault of President Trump?
You managed to answer a completely-different question, one I never asked, in fact, I don’t quite know what question you were answering. Full marks for misdirection.
llater,
llamas
Pretty much.
But, sarcasm aside, commenting on an OP specifically about America’s role, yes, it really is just about America.
Oh you’re right I misunderstood
Imagine thinking NATO was there to face down the threat of communism, you are not daft enough to actually believe that 😀 No, it was there to face down the threat of Russian imperialism. Why do you think it is so common to see Russian armoured vehicles in Ukraine circa 2025 flying not only Russian but Soviet flags? These were not separate things no matter how much you pretend they were.
The way that some MAGA types appear to have fallen down the Moscow rabbit hole, like the odious Candice Owens, is depressing in itself, given that what this war is about in many ways is independence, autonomy and liberty. Like the original 13 colonies that signed the Declaration of Independence 249 years ago (the 250th celebrations are next year, which could be interesting), Ukraine was under the Soviet Empire, sorry Union. Many senior Communist Party officials were from Ukraine; several leaders of the SU were from there. Etc, etc. There are strong cultural and religious and economic links. Just as there are similar links between the UK and its former colonies (English language, Common Law, certain views about the constraints on political power,etc). But, boys and girls, Ukraine is now an independent nation state. Just as the US is, and (gulp) Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India are. (Although Mr Trump appears to have designs on Canada that would have warmed the cockles of George III’s heart.)
So I don’t fully understand how some on the hard, MAGA right are disdainful of Ukrainian independence, because to take such a view is to memory-hole America’s own rise to greatness. But then there has always struck me something a bit, well, un-American about MAGA.
Perry:
“you think Russia should still dominate Eastern and Central Europe”
Eastern and Central Europe was freed NO thanks to NATO at all. NATO played no role in this.
NATO was unable (and did not try) to free Eastern Europe until the USSR imploded.
The West (al of it, including Reagan) played absolutely no role in the implosion of the USSR. It fell under its own rot.
Fraser Orr
March 12, 2025 at 5:30 pm
Well said.
Not off topic at all, and speaking of historic analogies: what does our illustrious commentariat think about the Vietnam war?
A glorious and just war for freedom and democracy (for the Vietnamese people or at least the South Vietnamese)….
Johnatan:
“So I don’t fully understand how some on the hard, MAGA right are disdainful of Ukrainian independence”
It’s not a matter of being disdainful. It’s a matter of how much are you able and willing to invest in it. But, sentimentalism acknowledges no material constraints.
And it’s not Ukrainian independence that is at stake – rather the control of the Crimea.
It’s a matter of how much are you able and willing to invest in it. But, sentimentalism acknowledges no material constraints.
I don’t think those who want to push Putin’s armies out of eastern Ukraine are sentimentalists, given what has happened. It is not sentimental or foolish to stand up to dictators who have gone on the record for wanting to turn a country into a vassal state, and are in mourning for the Soviet Union. That’s about the most incorrect term to use for such a mindset. When NATO was originally formed to contain the Soviet Union, the likes of Harry S. Truman and others were not crazed idealists. (Truman was a hard son of a bitch, thank goodness.)
This is about incentives, as in, if you invade this bit of territory, we will resist it and reverse it and not on terms of your choosing. The Russian army and its navy have been badly mauled. All this guff from Trump about how the Ukrainians/European allies have no cards (like this is a poker game) seems to overlook that Putin is not exactly rolling along, either. (Getting N. Korean troops is hardly a good sign.)
And to say that it is all about Crimea is a bit disingenuous. It is about eastern Ukraine as well, given how much is made by Putin and his regime of how they speak Russian and are “really” Russians, etc. And there is this long-standing notion, which certain foreign policy “realists” sometimes bring up, that Ukraine, or a large bit of it, is a “buffer zone” and that Kiev has no business forming pacts, trade deals or the like with any Western entities, from NATO, the EU, down to membership of anything vaguely non-Russian in its alignment and so on. (This is a good overview.) No independent nation worthy of the name can tolerate having a neighbour treating it in this subordinate and humiliating fashion. And the humiliation is part of the point.
There is nothing remotely “sentimentalist” about taking this view. Look at history; look at what dictators do. Give them an inch, and they take a mile.
We could use a few more George Kennans in public office right now, rather than this nonsense.
Side-point: I wonder how long Marco Rubio lasts in office. When I see this man speak, he looks like someone who has lost his soul, or is in a hostage video.https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/marco-rubio-regretting-he-took-the-job-social-media-roasts-secretary-of-states-sour-look-during-trump-zelenskyy-clash/articleshow/118651984.cms
Europe using Ukrainian bodies as a buffer zone is not a position I’d be proud to hold.
One could say the same of the Baltics, etc. If they want to be protected, then of course this is up to the locals to make that decision. And they will know that “we” – as in European countries, and anyone else willing – have their backs if they want our support. That’s not treating the locals as a “buffer”, as such. Ukraine is, more or less, a democracy, albeit an imperfect one. If they wanted to sue for peace and be absorbed under Russian control, we’d have no option but to pull our support out and draw a line that we can defend, with all the consequences.
Jacob:
And it’s not Ukrainian independence that is at stake – rather the control of the Crimea.
So why did the Russian army attack the northern border of Ukraine – was it purely to install a puppet regime and then exit and leave it alone? That seems highly unlikely. Russian “little green men” have been fermenting trouble for 20 years in the eastern side of Ukraine and this is not just a play for Crimea, which was part of Ukraine since the mid-50s, and only under Russia from the 1780s through to immediately after WW2.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26532154
It is not even as if Russia proposed some sort of joint use deal of Crimean ports, access to the Black Sea, etc. With Putin, it is either he grabs X, or that’s it.
Ukraine was part of the USSR until around 1991
“Only” is doing a bit of heavy lifting for 160 years
Crimea really has been under the same sovereignty as the city of Moscow (Russian Empire, USSR, Russia) from around 1780 until 1991.
The Crimea was not inhabited by Ukrainian speakers before the 1780s – other than captured slaves.
The forces of Islam were powerful in the area.
As for Perry’s claim that NATO was founded to oppose “Russian Imperialism” as opposed to Soviet Marxism.
Your claim is false Sir. The United States was interested in containing Marxism – that is what NATO, and other alliances around the world, were for.
Russian patriots tended to get a bullet in the back of the head under Soviet rule.
As for real “Russian Imperialists” such as the Empress Elizabeth (if only Elizabeth had lived a few months longer – the world would have been rid of the legend of Frederick “the Great”), or Catherine the Great (ironically of German origin) or Alexander the First or Alexander the Second, they were, rightly or wrongly, widely admired in Europe – the idea of a setting up a professional alliance (a NATO type structure) against them would have been considered absurd.
The Ukranians have been openly allied with the clique that is seeking to destroy my country, led by Obama and the Clintons. I have no sympathy for them.
The Ukrainian government (let alone “Ukrainians”) quite rightly don’t give a flying fuck about Obama or the Clintons or Biden or Trump. They only care about who is or was running the US government at any given point in time. They had to deal with the corrupt Biden family if they wanted aid, so they did. What did you expect?
Ukraine’s government only cares about US (& indeed anyone else’s) internal politics to the extent it impacts their ability to get aid fighting Russia. And Ukrainian internals politics likewise should be of little to no interest to the US government, because backing Ukraine serves the US & European geopolitical interest in seeing Russia contained as far east as possible.
I understand many Americans no longer see that geopolitical interest, but that will also come with a profound long term cost. But I’m not going to waste my time pointing out what that is if you can’t see it or can’t be bothered to.