To refer to the iconic 1964 film Dr. Strangelove, did you “learn to stop worrying and love bombs” to the Europeans? You may be wondering. After all, in 1956 the Soviet Union sent 200,000 soldiers to Hungary. The West sent no weapons to the Hungarians. They called for changes to the Soviet regime and considered sending troops. In 1968, the Soviet Union sent troops to Czechoslovakia to crush the liberalization movement in the “Prague Spring.” The West did not send weapons to the Czechoslovaks. They did not seek changes to the Soviet regime or consider sending troops. (In fact, he said the US is not actually involved.)
Of course, the very persuasive reason for this was that Damocles's atom sword was hanging from everything and miscellaneous. Why then President Ike Eisenhower explicitly stated why he was worried about causing a nuclear conflict in Hungary. However, now, Russia is no longer the Soviet Union, so Moscow has given up on all nuclear weapons.
Or, you might think of it when you think of the stabbing of Western Europe's chest.
(In fact, Russia can still burn the world.)
In the wake of Friday's dust between Ukrainian Presidents Voldymi Zelensky and President Donald Trump and JD Vance, the UK and France reported to the telegraph that they are developing a “coalition of will” aimed at “building security assurances including British troops on the grounds of Ukraine and Fighter Jets.”
Now, this is not as sinister as it appears, as it only happens after a ceasefire is established. The troops will also not be under the NATO flag and will form a deterrent. Nevertheless, why do Europeans continue to cross the red line, which has always been considered inviolable, like Hungary and Czechoslovakia? And will Russian President Vladimir Putin accept the NATO forces under another Ukrainian name, where Kyiv-Nato connections are unthinkable?
Have you awakened the advocates of democracy?
Written on Sunday, American thinker Uilliam Mac Ruaidhri points out the irony of the “principle” stands for Europeans. “The European leaders in Brussels have declared themselves as “the leader of the free world,” he writes.
Ruaidhri then provides a brief history of the current Ukrainian conflict. In a nutshell, Ruidri said the war began in 2014 with the expulsion of then-President Viktor Janukovic. His supporters, mainly in Donbas, later left, which led to a civil war. Despite the mediation of an agreement designed to achieve peace later, Donbas was subjected to intermittent fire.
“Kiev blamed Russia on artillery,” Ruaidri said. “The Donbas residents blamed Kiev. Who was negligent? Do you know?” In any case, after years of failure to negotiate, Russia decided to infiltrate.
To put it in fairness, Ruaidhri's historical analysis seems a bit gentle. Anyway, he might be right to state that Europe is “delusional.” As he gives his opinion:
I wonder if it's time for those displaying the Ukrainian flag to rethink what it means? Specifically, does that mean that Europe's economic calamities and its wars support a massive, inefficient bureaucratic machinery that denounces breasts like the Nack Drag's Neanderur? Or does it mean visiting door-to-door, dragging men into war and supporting the Ukrainian army to force draft?
…In regards to peace, Zelensky and Brussels constantly use two phrases: “permanent peace” and “security guarantee,” but their proposals are vague and unrealistic. In the real world, security guarantees mean American boots on the ground in Ukraine.
Of course, the argument that “Ukraine had the right to self-determination, and Russia had no business aggression” is compelling. However, a more detailed historical analysis reveals that the problem is less simple.
The power of expansionism
Now many say that expansionism is always a threat when it comes to Russia's actions.
Russia may agree.
Let's talk about expansionism. NATO, the North American treaty body, was created to counter the Soviet Union. Therefore, the collapse of the evil empire in the early 90s made it reasonable for NATO to stand in a way. This is especially true. After the Berlin Wall fell, Russia pulled its troops back into the border and undoubtedly began to act more like Americans. Why perhaps he even had an opportunity to build a friendly connection with Moscow. It should be noted that being characteristically European and Christian like us could have been a culturally consistent ally with China.
Instead, pseudo-elite globalists expanded NATO to a very border in Russia. This was the equivalent of Russia or China, which formed military alliances with Mexico, Cuba, Canada and the Bahamas. In fact, the alliance has since been more than doubled in size, despite US Secretary of State James Baker guaranteeing Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would extend “not one inch (far) east.”
Then there was talk of Ukraine joining NATO. Here, don't forget that this country has been part of the Russian/Soviet United States for over 200 years. It also includes a pipeline network, where Russia is promoting energy business and promoting the economy. Therefore, Putin said that for Moscow, Russia's NATO was a red line.
Do you think he didn't mean that?
Careful principles
Of course, Ukraine's awakened “defenders of democracy” are in principle fantasized about themselves. But here is the real principle: just the doctrine of war. And one of the elements is that the proposed military action is immoral, unless it does anything better than harm. Is this the case when you play chicken with Putin?
Some may wonder now: Why should we be something we should step on gently? The answer comes down to what is called the “Monroe Doctrine” of Russia. Like it or not, you can't stomp into another great power backyard like the T-Rex in Jurassic Park. That great power, in this case Russia will not retreat. Make the lost face global and the message “We don't even protect our gateway” makes it a non-starter.
But really, perhaps the European Chicken Hawks should listen to someone they admire, Barack Obama. “The 1980s are now calling for their foreign policy,” he dismissed the notion that he considers Russia to be our main geopolitical enemy in a 2012 debate.
In this regard, Trump appears to be clearly trying to reset US-Russia relations. And why? If we can awaken “Soviet Europe” and break the bread, we may also be able to make the unwake Soviet Moscow an ally.
