In his 2014 article ‘Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault’, John Mearsheimer said the U.S. should “publicly rule out” NATO membership for Ukraine, and aim to make the country an economically prosperous, “neutral buffer” between Russia and NATO. This, he argued, could defuse the conflict that had already sparked clashes in the Donbas.
Instead of heeding Mearsheimer’s advice, the U.S. doubled-down on its policy of ignoring Russia’s security demands. NATO troops began military exercises in Ukraine in September of 2014. By June of 2020, Ukraine was recognised by NATO as an “Enhanced Opportunities Partner”.
And in November of 2021, the U.S. and Ukraine signed a “Charter on Strategic Partnership”, which declared that the U.S. “supports Ukraine’s right to decide its own future foreign policy course free from outside interference, including with respect to Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO”.
The supposed reason the U.S. followed this policy is given in the quotation above: it cares about the principle of national sovereignty. Ukraine’s post-Maidan government aspired to join NATO, and Russia shouldn’t get a veto over this. Whether Ukraine eventually joins NATO is a matter for Ukraine and NATO.
I say “supposed” because there’s a more cynical reason why the U.S. followed the policy it did: to antagonize Russia, with the aim of “overextending and unbalancing” the Russian economy and armed forces.
In any case, America’s supposed concerns about the principle of national sovereignty were outlined even more clearly in a speech Biden gave on 15th February, shortly before Russia’s invasion. He declared:
Nations have a right to sovereignty and territorial integrity. They have the freedom to set their own course and choose with whom they will associate.
Sounds pretty reasonable, doesn’t it? The only problem is the U.S. flagrantly ignores this principle in its own foreign policy. The most recent example concerns the new security agreement between China and the Solomon Islands. Here’s what the White House had to say:
If steps are taken to establish a de facto permanent military presence, power projection capabilities, or a military installation, the delegation noted that the United States would then have significant concerns and respond accordingly.
In other words, the U.S. objects to China building military bases close to its ally, Australia, and if China does so, the U.S. will “respond accordingly”. Now, the US probably wouldn’t invade the Solomon Islands to prevent China building a military base there, but it might impose crushing sanctions with the aim of destroying the Solomon Islands’ economy.
Such sanctions would obviously constitute a gross violation of the Solomon Islands’ freedom to “set their own course and choose with whom they will associate”.
Scott Morrison, the Australian PM, even announced that a Chinese military base in the Solomon Islands was a “red line” for Australia and the U.S. This is interesting because it’s exactly the same phrase William Burns used in 2008 when warning of Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion. Here’s what Burns said:
Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.
So America’s foreign policy is basically: do as I say, not as I do… and if you don’t do as I say, I will “respond accordingly”. What’s the upshot of all this?
It’s not that Russia should just be able to invade its neighbours with impunity. It’s that if the US had applied the same principles to Russia that it applies to itself (and its allies), we might have been able to prevent the war in Ukraine.
The West cannot claim that Australia’s concerns about Chinese military bases are entirely legitimate but Russia’s concerns about NATO bases are entirely illegitimate. I mean, it can, but not by appealing to any general principle. “Might makes right” is fine when you’re the global hegemon, but it’s not going to fly when China’s just as powerful as the U.S.
Following the policy outlined by John Mearsheimer may not have prevented the conflict. (Perhaps Russia would have invaded anyway – we can’t be sure.) But doing the exact opposite surely made the conflict more likely.
Of course, this is largely a moot point, since there’s good reason to believe the people in charge of U.S. foreign policy actually wanted a war with Russia.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
This begs the question ‘what is the billionaire class’s business model?’
What is their motivation to deny the proles free movement and access to abundant energy? Why does farming nutritious food for all appall them?
Why is the economic elevation of those living in the developing world no longer considered a priority?
Consider their bottom line.
They are seeking to run the planet like a business and to reduce costs. Labour is normally the biggest cost in a business.
If they now have AI and robotics to do their donkey work they no longer see a human workforce and therefore human consumers as being necessary for their business model.
Listen to what they say openly:
Humans (created in God’s image) are problematic useless eaters, our exhalation of CO2 is considered bad for the planet, therefore we are the ‘carbon’ they wish to reduce.
what they want is to own the planet, for themselves and their heirs, they want the worlds population reduced so that there is more for them to own, the remaining population of normies will be there slaves, who will live out of site in ghetto towns, and who will be treated as battery farm animals, once useful life is deemed at an end they will be finished off hence the projects in Canada, and the tests on putting old people down during the covid years. Of course what the billionaire idiots don’t realise is, that once they have achieved their ownership of the earth, they will as humans have always done whose main motivation is greed and power, they will start to fight one another, as they demand and desire other territorys. The green zealots at the top of the tree are barbaric, greedy, misanthropes who are using politicians and people to do their bidding, but once done they will be disposed of just like any other no longer useful piece of trash.
Yes they really are seeking to steal the green from the goose. Why would they not do that when elected governments have put all the pieces (Globalisation) into place for them to do this?
Governments accommodate virtually every wish they desire. Establishment politicians careers and parallel earnings are often so interlinked with these people they are mere puppets.
We are in an age of full blown Corporatism, It is evil, it will distinguish our sovereignty our freedoms and our liberties. All establishment parties are fully signed up to the corporate agenda and as long as the majority of people continue to vote for them they will continue to do the bidding of the corporatists.
Excellent research, Mr Morrison. Thank you.
Sadly, it’s just yet more “Daily Sceptic publishing Climate Denial”, as Wikipedia puts it… someone bomb Wikipedia already, please.
‘Climate denier’ is another idiotic term used by half wits. They lose on science so they resort to name calling.
Yes there is a climate.
Yes it does indeed change.
Yes I do believe in the 4 seasons.
Yes I do believe in weather.
No I don’t believe that Co2 controls climate since no scientific proof exists for that assertion.
No I don’t believe that Co2 a trace chemical 400 parts per million which falls out of natural processes and which is mostly recycled, causes weather.
No I don’t believe that mankind’s output of 5% of Co2 has any impact whatsoever on anything.
No I don’t believe that a few temp stations in airports and along highways provides proof of hottest days evah.
Yes I believe in science, namely that natural cycles, solar activity, oceanic convection systems, and other many:many relationships result in local, regional climactic patterns.
Mr Alarmist—“Climate Change is real and happening now”
Mr Denier—–“Oh really so where can I see this climate change”?
Mr Alarmist—-“You can see it everywhere”
Mr Denier——“So can I see it from my bedroom window”?
Mr Alarmist—–“Yes”
Mr Denier——“What does it look like”?
Mr Alarmist—-“Well it doesn’t look like anything as such”
Mr Denier——“But didn’t you say I can see it everywhere”?
Mr Alarmist—-” Yes but I meant you can see it’s effects”
Mr Denier——“And what are those effects”?
Mr Alarmist—-“The effects are changes to the climate”
Mr Denier—– “When did the climate start changing”?
Mr Alarmist—-“Well it has always changed”
Mr Denier——” If it has always changed why not just say climate is real and happening now”? Why bother calling it climate change, when climate would suffice”?
I would love to see a story of the political classes doing something useful. The whole swamp needs draining
Never happen unfortunately.
It is the usual struggle to be the Leader of the World (or Bliar complex). They live to be surrounded by the adoring masses. Then they need to programme these adoring masses to adore, work, reproduce & die.
Only problem with this strategy is their are now so many of these would be ‘Bliars’ all striving for the top spot that they will end up fighting each other.
The proposed mandatory jab in Austria also revealed another ‘weakness’ in their plans, as they found they could not lock the unjabbed in their homes as planned, because they were the same 20% who kept the Country running!
Les rois du monde se battent entre eux
C’est qu’y a de la place, mais pour un pas pour deux
Et nous en bas leur guerre on la fera pas
On sait même pas pourquoi tout ça c’est jeux de rois
Roméo et Juliette, 2000
Davos coming soon, this years theme.”Rebuilding trust”, which is laughable I would no more trust someone who is a member or who attends the WEF, than I would Charles Manson.
Lol.
I used to think the James Bond film baddies were unrealistic and now I can see Ian Fleming was way ahead of the game.
I suppose we could point out that “Rebuilding trust” acknowledges, if nothing else, that trust has gone. Trust once lost is very difficult to regain.
‘Ben Pile estimates that both Bloomberg and Hohn are funding green organisations’
They are not, simply one link in the chain.
It is us, the long suffering taxpayers, who are funding all of this.
‘UK government revenue from energy taxes totalled over £38.1 billion in 2019′
Bloomberg and Hohn are simply leeching off the rest of us, via government ‘green levies’ and subsidies.
On a separate point, the government receives about £1200bn in receipts and spends about £950bn
You know where the rest goes.
Governments, typically, are rubbish at running anything. The government is the problem, not the solution.
There are very few problems in this country that could not be solved by a smaller public sector.
Picky point but the “green” in “green billionaires” should always be written in quotes.
Whenever I read about billionaires I am always reminded of Steve Sailer’s fictitious, ironic “NAABP” – “National Association for the Advancement of Billionaire People”. He is very cynical about their motives especially with regard to mass immigration. It’s a play on the NAACP – National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
NAABP (National Association for Advancement of Billionaire People) buys Gang of Eight, by Steve Sailer – The Unz Review
The man-made climate change hoax and racket is about one thing only:
money and power for a different set of people.
Absolutely nothing else.
0.04%?
C’mon man!
From global warming to climate change to “climate and environment”.
If the policies are wrong because you got it wrong, don’t change policy, blur the lines, confuse the issue, obfuscate.
The dumb public won’t notice.
I quickly scanned the article before reading it, and when I do this I always see certain names and phrases sticking out. As my eyes scroll down up pops things like Ed Miliband, Net Zero, Collectivist, John Kerry , Guterres, “denier”, greenhouse gas, UNFCCC etc. ——-It is almost like my brain has a bit of software in it that identifies all the evil. Then sure enough as I read the article all the evil becomes clear. But then people like me are “the “deplorables”. We don’t accept being easily manipulated. We know that climate models are not science, We know that Polar Bears are not in trouble, We know that the data gets adjusted to fit in with a narrative. —–But ofcourse saying stuff likes that gets you into a spot of bother, or as Mark Twain pointed out, “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble, it’s what you know for sure just ain’t so”. Many eminent people have lost their careers for “knowing it ain’t so”. ————-Some lost their life ——JFK
Climate change and net Zero only happens in rich Western countries where philanthropy, fake charities and foundations are allowed to abuse the lax and largely unregulated tax deductions that are given by western governments to all spending by these organizations. This can amount to from 20% up to 74%. This means that our taxes are funding most of what these organizations spend. These are oligarchy organizations influencing government policy which is supposed to be illegal. These organizations have set up such an impenetrable web of numbered tax free organizations, it is impossible to audit or regulate. The way to limit the power of these organizations is to remove or severely limit their abuses by altering the tax rules.