Ukraine and Russia

How reliable is the word of America, and by extension American proxies like NATO and, to a lesser degree, the European Union? If you are a westerner, chances are that your history education has been fairly Americentric. The successes of America and nobility of her founding principals have come to inform much of our popular understanding of history and politics, and American values such as democracy, capitalism, and liberalism have become the values by which we judge other nations and states. For many, the “goodness” of a state is determined by how similar it is to America. Paradoxically, despite this Americentrism, we are seeing a rejection of America, by those both on the political left and the political right. No one really seems to have faith in America or the American ideal, yet we are still compelled to cling to the American ideal because there is not a palatable popular alternate. The continued dominance of America renders any alternative system or world order as detestable in the minds of the populace simply on the grounds of it not being American. In this construction, with America being the ultimate good, those who oppose America or simply want to live in accordance to what is natural to them are enemies, and these enemies are condemned as fascists. If the ultimate good is Americanism, the ultimate evil is fascism, and many of America’s moral claims come from its proclaimed opposition to fascism. This is why we see Americans, and by extension westerners, so often decry their opponents as fascists. This labeling is often associated with the left, but on the right conservatives will decry Stalin as a red fascist, claim the Chinese communists are fascist, that devout Muslims are Islamofascists, and the Black Lives Matters and social justice warriors are fascistic as well. In the American paradigm, the enemy is always fascism, regardless of who that enemy is or their beliefs.

The actions of America are always defended as noble oppositions to creeping or real fascism. Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi were likened to Hitler, which gave America the justification it needed to kill them and “liberate” their people from tyrannical rule. Alas, the people of Iraq and Libya were not oppressed liberals yearning for American style democracy and freedom, and once those strongmen were removed, those nations fell into an anarchy from which they have yet to recover. If Hussein and Gaddafi were fascists, then America’s removal of them and the subsequent consequences of that demonstrates that those nations required fascistic rule to be successful and to ensure the well being of those peoples. In the cause of anti-fascism, America and the west has made many a blunder, but these mistakes are soon forgotten and the cause of anti-fascism never ceases in its destructive march. This is where the current events in Ukraine come to fruition.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the economy of Ukraine has been tied to Russia. This is a product of Soviet integration, but also due to the cultural, historical, and linguistic ties between the two nations. For example, in Ukraine there were factories that constructed helicopter engines that could only be mounted in chassis that were built in Russia. When Russia and Ukraine were part of the same country, this did not pose an issue, but with independence, new trade deals had to be arranged that accommodated the existing degree of integration between the Ukrainian and Russian economies. As Russians and Ukrainians shared a similar kinship with similar outlooks, Russia and Ukraine were able to serve each other and benefit from their close ties. Alas, these ties were disturbed when Viktor Yanukovych, with some popular support, decided to pursue Ukraine’s affiliation and eventually membership in the European Union. The first step in this process was free trade between Kiev and the EU.

Unfortunately, free trade between Ukraine and the EU would have economic ramifications for Russia. With the existing preferential economic arrangements between Russia and Ukraine, if Ukraine’s economy were to be linked in such a way with the EU, Russia would, by its agreements with Ukraine, find itself flooded with goods and resources from the European Union. This would have major consequences for Russia, and thus Russia said that if Ukraine were to follow through with European integration, Russia would have to end its preferential economic relationship with Ukraine. Now Yanukovych seemed to be a believer in European integration, but considering how dependent the Ukrainian economy was (and still is) on Russia, losing preferential status with Russia would devastate the Ukrainian economy. Thus, Yanukovych was forced, not by Russian threats or coercion, to renege on his plans for Ukraine to join the EU. Economic integration with Europe would have been suicide for Ukraine. This is not to say that Ukraine could not have worked on strengthening its own economy and worked towards eventual European integration, but in 2013 the Ukrainian economy was not in a position to do this. Alas, the economic realities did little to sway those who were hellbent on EU membership. With western backing, pro-Europe demonstrators laid siege to Kiev’s Maidan square in protest of Yanukovych and his failure to enact integration and free trade treaties with the European Union. These protests were indeed western-backed. Western intelligence was present in these protests, organizing the crowds and ensuring conformity within the ranks. There were also many non-Ukrainians who crossed the boarder into Ukraine to participate in these demonstrations. It was soon made apparent that this “Euromaidan” movement was not simply pro-Europe, but that it was anti-Russia and anti-Russian. One could not be both pro-EU and pro or indifferent to Russia, to be pro-European demanded that one oppose Russia.

Viktor Yanukovych was forced to leave office, and forced to flee to Russia so that he would not end up like another Hussein or Gaddafi. Once out of office, his successors, first Oleksandr Turchynov and then Petro Poroshenko, would begin to implement policies which targeted Russia, but also those ethnic and Russian speakers within Ukraine. The Euromaidan appealed to those living in west Ukraine, many of whom have close links to Poland, the west as a whole, and are Catholic. But for Ukrainians in the east, many of whom feel a common kinship with Russia, speak Russian, and are Orthodox, Euromaidan served as an act of western supremacy and domination over the east, and emboldened the government of Kiev to ban the use of Russian as a secondary language, to remove monuments and signage that acknowledged the shared history of Russia and Ukraine, and relegated Russian-Ukrainians as second class citizens as best, or a dangerous fifth column at worse. In response to this, eastern Ukrainians sought independence from the rule of Kiev, forming several breakaway republics. Most notably, Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk, with Crimea being annexed by Russia and Luhansk and Donetsk forming the state of Novorossiya. The succession of these regions and the establishment of these breakaway republics was what instigated the Ukrainian Civil War, which is still ongoing.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea can be seen as a somewhat cynical act. If Russia sought to protect Russian-speakers in Ukraine, it should have annexed all of the breakaway republics in 2014. But, the annexation of Crimea was an act of pragmatism. Crimeans welcomed Russian annexation, but it was also in the security interests of Russia, as Russia could not afford to allow the geographically strategic Crimean peninsula to be occupied by an evidently hostile power. Luhansk and Donetsk do not have the same strategic or economic value as Crimea does, and thus annexing those territories was not really in the interest or even feasible for Moscow. Moscow, with German and French support, negotiated with Ukraine and her breakaway republics to establish the Minsk II agreement. Minsk II would allow Kiev to retain Luhansk and Donetsk, but would compel Kiev to grant those regions more autonomy including the freedom to utilize Russian as a secondary official language. Minsk II is a good agreement, as testified by every party signing off on it. However, Ukraine has consistently failed to abide by the Minsk protocols. With western, mainly American, British, and Canadian support, Kiev’s military has continued to receive aid and training with the stated goal of crushing the breakaway republics and forcing them back into Ukrainian fold. As such, the war in Ukraine continues, not because of Russia’s actions, but because those who rule Ukraine feel that with the backing of the west they are at liberty to use whatever methods are required to obliterate the east and make them submit, without facing any repercussions.

The war in Ukraine has effectively been in stalemate since 2015, with no end in sight. Ukraine’s economy is on the brink of collapse due to endemic corruption that has existed since its independence, but also due to war costs and reduced trade with Russia. Ukraine needs either Russia or the European Union to survive, but for this to happen they need to accept Minsk II. Ukraine hoped that with American backing, they could reconquer their lost territories, thus rendering Minsk obsolete, and then fully break from Russia to join the EU and NATO. Ukraine was not anticipating what has now become an eight year long conflict, and is at an economic breaking point. Either Ukraine takes Luhansk and Donetsk now, or they will be forced to abide by Minsk, which America and her English speaking allies view as a victory for Moscow. Furthermore, America seeks to have the Nord Stream II pipeline from Russia to Germany canceled. America wishes to cut off Russian gas to Europe, firstly by creating a hostile Ukraine which will forbid Russia the use of its pipelines, and secondly by canceling Nord Stream. America wants Russia broken and weak, like it was in 90s, so that Russia can become another satellite of the American world order. Thus, America is desperate to get what it wants and needs from Ukraine before Ukraine itself collapses and is forced to abide by Minsk. All the current talk about a Russian invasion of Ukraine is meant to force Russia into invading Ukraine so that Germany will be pressured into canceling Nord Stream. The annexing of more Ukrainian territory is not something that is needful or desired by Russia, unless Ukraine were to join NATO and thus become an existential threat to Russia.

NATO has had no real stated purpose since the end of the Cold War. The real purpose of NATO was to create American military outposts in Europe, and to station American nuclear weapons on the continent. However, NATO was conceived to be a defensive organization. NATO was not meant to seek out wars, but instead to ensure that Soviet aggression would be met by a unified front should war occur. With no Soviet Union, and no European power seeking to invade or conquer other European states, NATO really is, on paper, purposeless. Yet, in the 1990s America used NATO to wage a war of aggression against Yugoslavia. Like we have seen before, the Yugoslav Wars were presented to westerners as a one-dimensional affair, with the new Hitler of Slobodan Milošević waging a genocidal war against his ethnic enemies. Of course, the events that occurred in Yugoslavia were far more complex than what western sources had us believe, but this did not matter. For Russia of this time, which was also fighting an internal war with an ethnic and religious minority, NATO was shown to be an extension of American power, one which was interventionist and not reactionary. NATO post-Cold War was now evidently a threat to Russia, more so than it had been to the Soviet Union, which is why the verbal promises made to Russia that NATO would not expand eastward was so important to President Putin.

Alas, NATO did continue to move eastward, which demonstrated to Russia that America and the west are not trustworthy peers. For America, treaties, geopolitical norms, and state relationships are only enforced when they benefit the interests of America. These agreements mean nothing, as shown for example with America’s posturing over Taiwan. I would not call myself a friend to China or the CCP, but in 1979 America recognized Taiwan as a part of China. From the Joint Communique of the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China, “The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China”. In this same agreement, it states “The United States of America recognizes the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China. Within this context, the people of the United States will maintain cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations with the people of Taiwan”. Therefore, it both hypocritical and a violation of previous agreements for America to denounce China for seeking to integrate a region which it already recognizes as part of China. Now I, like many Americans, would like to see an independent Taiwan, as I would also like to see an independent or British Hong Kong, but just because I would like these things to be, it does not make them the geopolitical reality, and it is not worth going to war over something already ceded. America’s protestations against China is not about the well being of the Taiwanese, but instead a way to antagonize a perceived enemy to American hegemony, an enemy because they have succeeded by being the antithesis to America’s so called values of democracy, liberalism, and so on. American universalism is thus falsified again. So with America proven to be an untrustworthy, dishonest, and unreliable partner, Russia was left to chart its own course apart from America.

The people of Luhansk and Donetsk were effectively stateless. Their de jure state of Ukraine sees them as separatist terrorists, whereas what should be their de facto state of Russia still wants Minsk to be followed and for those territories to be reintegrated into the state of Ukraine. This was the norm until Russia gave the peoples of Luhansk and Donetsk Russian passports in 2020. Ukraine had six years to implement Minsk and retain its jurisdiction over those regions and people. With the conflict continuing, it is not unfair to say that Ukraine is waging a war of extermination. Maybe not extermination in the sense of killing all of the people in Luhansk and Donetsk, but extermination in the sense that Ukraine will only be satisfied when there is no distinction in the east from the west. Ukraine does not want these people and if they will not receive them, then it falls to Russia to accept them, which is why they were made citizens of the Russian Federation.

Currently, there is concern that Russia may go to war with Ukraine and seize its breakaway regions. Russia has consistently denied these accusations. The west has condemned Russia’s military exercises on her western boarder as a troop buildup to create an army of invasion. Every year, Russia conducts war games in one of its geographic regions. The previous war games were conducted in the east, and focused on countering Chinese tactics and military doctrines. Almost every year, NATO amasses a massive force to conduct war games in the Baltic states and Poland. NATO officials claim the target of these games is not Russia, but everyone knows it is. Russia conducting war games against the west is not exceptional. What is exceptional is how the west is using these games to justify further sanctions on Russia. Paradoxically, the more America warns of a Russian invasion, the more likely it is to happen. As the west, mainly America, Britain, and Canada send arms to Ukraine to fend off a supposed invasion, the Ukrainians use said arms against the now Russian citizens of Luhansk and Donetsk. So when Russia states that they have no interest or intention of invading Ukraine I believe them, but I also know that the way Ukraine keeps pushing, Russia may eventually be forced to invade and take land. At this point, it serves American not Russian interests for Russia to invade Ukraine; as such, an invasion gives America cart blanche to force German capitulation over Nord Stream and reason to further assault and weaken the Russian economy.

In Putin’s essay On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians (which I recorded), Putin states that the goal of the west’s Ukrainian project is to create and anti-Moscow Russia. Ukrainians, Belarusians, and Russians are either a single people or are one of a common kin. American liberal universalism demands that liberal values be universal. Russia is too large and powerful to have American liberalism forced upon it, but liberalism demands universalism. Thus, with Ukraine, we have a country and people just similar enough to Russia, that is both smaller and weaker and that can therefore be compelled to embrace liberalism, democracy, etc. and therefore demonstrate to the world the universality of them. It does not matter if Ukraine is anti-liberal in orientation, employing literal neo-nazis to wage war in Luhansk and Donetsk, as “liberalism” has been defined as opposition to Russia. The Ukrainian army is not fighting for liberal democracy, it is fighting to crush a people whom the government of Kiev sought to erase, and America and the west are supporting them in this cause only because they see it as a way to oppose and weaken Russia. Liberalism, democracy, and “freedom” as principals are used by America in service to power. Russia, China, Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq, and so on were not enemies because they did not share these values, they were enemies because they either challenged or could exist outside of American power. American power is totalitarian, and to us it may seem like a benign form of totalitarianism as we get to enjoy consumerism and Hollywood movies, but it is totalitarian nonetheless. You have the freedom of choice as long as you choose liberalism and democracy, and all other ways of life, ideology, or faith must either be bent to fit with American values or be destroyed. If you prefer your old values, then you are a fascist, not because you espouse fascism, but because you do not believe in the superiority of the American way.

Link to the Joint Communique of the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China: https://www.ait.org.tw/our-relationship/policy-history/key-u-s-foreign-policy-documents-region/u-s-prc-joint-communique-1979/

If you are able to donate I would welcome your support on Patreon or via the crypto wallets below: https://www.patreon.com/godkingandnation

Bitcoin: bc1q3q8qaff3d2zllj3yx7jtszrs349xv4av2r8mg3

Ethererum: 0x072E4EE9268AfAA436A8f4BBdAF775b28007eCD4