At a recent event in St Petersburg, Putin compared himself to Tsar Peter the Great, saying:
Peter the Great waged the great northern war for 21 years. It would seem that he was at war with Sweden, he took something from them. He did not take anything from them, he returned [what was Russia’s] … When he founded the new capital, none of the European countries recognised the territory as Russian. They all recognised it as Swedish territory. The Slavs together with the Finno-Ugric people had always lived there. Moreover this territory had been under the control of the Russian state … Why did he go there? He went there to take it back and strengthen it, that’s what he was doing. Well, it seems it has also fallen to us to take back and strengthen
This has led various commentators to claim: “See, we told you Putin’s invasion had nothing to do with NATO or the West. Now even he admits it’s just an imperial land grab!” As someone who has claimed that NATO and the West are partly to blame for the war in Ukraine, do I now have to admit that I was wrong? No. And I’ll explain why.
The first reason is that Putin’s ‘Peter the Great’ comparison doesn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. So if I thought my position was wrong, I would have said so by now.
In other words, there’s quite a bit of evidence that Putin’s an ‘imperialist’ – that he believes Ukraine, or at least parts of Ukraine, rightfully belong to Russia. The most significant piece of evidence in this regard is his rambling 2021 essay ‘On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians’.
So even I admit Putin’s an imperialist – that’s surely case closed? Not so fast.
Saying that Putin’s an ‘imperialist’ isn’t actually a very strong claim. Many people around the world are ‘imperialists’ in this sense. There are Spaniards who see Gibraltar as part of Spain. There are Argentinians who see the Falklands as part of Argentina. There are Mexicans who see Texas as part of Mexico.
The key question is this. When a country’s leaders see a particular foreign territory as, in some sense, part of their own, under what circumstances will they accept the status quo – rather than resorting to conquest? The answer is simple: they will do so when the benefits of accepting the status quo outweigh the costs.
Let’s apply this logic to Russia and Ukraine. What were the costs of invading? There was the possibility that a lot of Russians would die in a bloody war, as well as the possibility that other countries would impose crippling sanctions on Russia’s economy.
And what about the benefits? Aside from the advantages of having a larger territory and population, as well as access to certain natural resources, there were the costs of not invading. And here’s where NATO and the West come in.
Since the end of the Cold War, Russian leaders (not just Putin) have continually expressed their opposition to NATO expansion. And they’ve made clear that NATO membership for Ukraine is an absolute red line. Even the great Soviet dissident Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn believed this, telling Der Spiegel magazine:
The situation then became worse when NATO started to spread its influence and draw the ex-Soviet republics into its structure. This was especially painful in the case of Ukraine, a country whose closeness to Russia is defined by literally millions of family ties among our peoples, relatives living on different sides of the national border. At one fell stroke, these families could be torn apart by a new dividing line, the border of a military bloc.
Then comes the reply: “Ukraine wasn’t a member of NATO, and even if it were, what threat would it pose to Russia?” But this is disingenuous.
Ukraine and the US had already made substantial inroads towards NATO membership. And in any case, whether Ukraine eventually joined NATO is less important than the fact it was in a close military alliance with the US – an alliance that formed after a Western-backed coup that toppled a pro-Russian president.
The ways in which this alliance threatened Russian interests (including its security interests) are obvious, and I have outlined them before. To quote myself:
In opposing a hostile military build-up in Ukraine, Russia was behaving in exactly the same way as Australia did after the recent security deal between China and the Solomon Islands. The Australian Prime Minister announced that China must not build a military base “on our doorstep”, and that doing so would be a “red line”. Is this threat an egregious violation of the Solomon Islands’ sovereignty, or is it a predictable reaction to Australia’s regional interests being threatened?
Returning to the main point of this article, a major cost of not invading was the possibility that threats to Russian interests would actually materialise. And it is this cost (i.e., benefit of invading) that could have been eliminated had the West followed a different policy from 2014 onwards.
For example, the West could have not supported the ‘Revolution of Dignity’. It could have not recognised the post-Maidan government (almost a quarter of whose ministers were from a party the EU denounced as “racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic”). It could have insisted that Ukraine respect the rights of its ethnic Russian minority. And above all, it could have recognised that Ukraine would be best served by a policy of neutrality.
There’s a second reason I don’t have to admit that I was wrong. If you’re going to take Putin’s public statements (in this case, his ‘Peter the Great’ comparison) as evidence of his motivations, then you have to consider all his public statements. And the simple fact is that he has mentioned NATO or the West over and over again.
‘NATO’ appears 40 times in his February 21st speech, and another 9 times in his February 24th speech. The latter even clarifies that “the question is not about NATO itself”, which “merely serves as a tool of US foreign policy”. What’s more, since the start of the invasion, Russia has called for legal guarantees that Ukraine will never be allowed into NATO.
I do not dispute that Putin is an ‘imperialist’ who believes Ukraine, or at least parts of Ukraine, rightfully belong to Russia. My claim is simply that if the West had followed a different policy, Putin would not have acted on this belief by launching his brutal and illegal invasion.
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.
“Note that such a frequency is properly termed ‘uncommon’ not ‘rare’: It might be better to state the difference between whatever it is compared with other vaccines, which are in common use. It’s awkward to access such records, but I’ve come across some Swedish comparisons between annual ‘flu vaccines and both the Pfizer and AZ C-19 products; they did not look very nice. No vaccine product is 100% risk free, like most activities – but the promoters avoid explaining what they mean by terms like “safe and effective”.
As things have panned out, I’m glad I said “no thanks, I might change my mind if it becomes an established product”, when it was offered to me. I suspect that the usual suspects do not want to be open about it, and in effect, proper informed consent is not available unless one does a fair bit of independent work. That is not a proper service to us.
These are the recorded adverse effects of the influenza vaccine and MMR vaccine according to the BNF. Apologies for the formatting.
“For influenza vaccineCommon or very common
With intramuscular use Chills; hyperhidrosis; induration; local reactions; pain
With intranasal useNasal complaints
UncommonWith intranasal useEpistaxis; face oedema
Frequency not knownWith intramuscular useAngioedema; encephalomyelitis; extensive swelling of vaccinated limb; febrile seizure; nerve disorders; nervous system disorder; paraesthesia; presyncope; shock; syncope; thrombocytopenia; vasculitis
With intranasal useGuillain-Barré syndrome”
and
MMR
“For measles, mumps and rubella vaccine, liveUncommonIncreased risk of infection; rhinorrhoea
Frequency not knownAngioedema; arthritis; ataxia; cough; dizziness; encephalopathy; eye inflammation; irritability; meningitis aseptic; nerve deafness; nerve disorders; oculomotor nerve paralysis; oedema; panniculitis; papillitis; paraesthesia; regional lymphadenopathy; respiratory disorders; seizures; Stevens-Johnson syndrome; subacute sclerosing panencephalitis; syncope; throat pain; thrombocytopenia; vasculitis”
“Description of the frequency of side-effects
Very common greater than 1 in 10
common 1 in 100 to 1 in 10
Uncommon [formerly ‘less commonly’ in BNF publications] 1 in 1000 to 1 in 100
Rare 1 in 10 000 to 1 in 1000
Very rare less than 1 in 10 000
Frequency not known frequency is not defined by product literature or the side-effect has been reported from post-marketing surveillance data”
Thanks for that information.
There is no hard evidence that the Covid shots are either safe or effective, or that they ever will be. The incorporation of the Covid-19 shots into the routine schedules would be based on what exactly?
German headline should read –
“Covid Vaccines cause serious injury for one in 5,000 doses – TO DATE”
The future doesn’t look too bright either. There seems to be evidence of the jabbed being more susceptible to further covid infection resulting from vaccine failure and/or a weakening of their immune systems. GVB, Dr. Peter McCollough etc.
All those I know currently ill with the C1984 are fully perforated. And there have been a few.
Add to that growing evidence of infertility
So it’s been a “success” then?
Eugenicist Bill will be pleased, won’t he?
This report on the “vaccine” injury rate is after 2 or 3 doses of the monkey-juice. Prof Bhakdi (and others) predicted that with every booster shot, the rate of adverse effects and the number of deaths it would cause would get worse.
Whilst it is progress that the Germans, and to a lesser degree, the British Government is admitting that they cause damage/death to some (the UK Government has finally paid out compensation to a handful of people) they are still down-playing the numbers affected and are pushing jabs on younger and young people and boosters on people who really don’t need one.
What these very belated admissions demonstrate to Joe Public (or would, if they used their brains and paid attention) is that by having the monkey-juice, you are participating in a mass human “vaccine” experiment. Do these people NEVER look in the mirror and suspect that they see a lab rat looking back at them?
Joe just watches the telly and believes in the adverts, reads the posters and so on. Of course, it there was a proper advertising standards outfit, a lot of it would not be published in any media, or the publishers would be at risk of being prosecuted or sued for damages.
Oi, I have never had a telly to watch
Canada is an interesting case study at present. They currently have the highest fatality rate they’ve ever experienced from Covid despite 86% vaccine coverage & far higher than this in the vulnerable age groups, 70+. So, if you were a Canadian wouldn’t you wonder why you’d taken the risk inherent in the vaccine for no benefit?
Is there anyone who can shed light on what’s happening in Canada or has OWID got the data wrong?
The reports from EudraVigilance that cover all Europe show, overall, a serious adverse reaction of 1 in 424 per jab. Averaged over the last 3 weeks, it is 1 in 111.
The actual deaths from the jabs is unclear, the last total being 46,652, but this based on summing from reactions. There appear to be currently overall 3.22 reactions per death. This makes the total 14,468.
From these death figures, we have an overall death rate per jab of 1 in 62,304. Averaged over the last 3 weeks, it is 1 in 18,380.
Overall, the deaths per case have been remarkably constant at about 1 in 40 average over all 4 jab types.
https://t.me/mikes_stuff/445
These are all short-term effects; In a few year’s time, things could be far, far worse,
That’s true. However, it seems that EudraVigilance monitor cases for a longer time that MHRA. This is evidenced by reports for AstraZeneca which is hardly used in Europe.
MHRA totally fail to follow up any cases – even fail to investigate those unexplained ‘sudden death’ cases currently running at 640.
Definitely. This Winter will see an escalation.
Hi CG, well I have tried to respond to your message – twice in fact but some reason it they haven’t gone.
Cannot find out how to PM you through this site.
Will check this post in a few hours.
So sorry about this as I would like to help.
“As it is, hardly anyone knows that these are the Government’s own data on serious vaccine reactions, and governments are making no obvious effort to tell them.”
Is it me, or is this criminal? Free and informed consent, anyone?