I’m torn on this.
My views can summed up as follows:
1. War is terrible. I’ve always been antiwar. We also know from experience that the worst kind of war is devastating wars between Europeans. The World Wars were blamed on nationalism and racialism. The most important lesson we should take from the 20th century is to never again let ourselves be blindly led into a devastating global war which can have all sorts of unforeseen consequences.
2. I don’t support imperialism. I don’t see any inconsistency here though because Russia has always been an autocratic empire. I’m not interested in changing Russia. I only want to change my own country. I don’t want my own country to be an Empire with satellites on Russia’s borders.
3. Putin is largely correct about NATO expansion, the 2014 coup in Ukraine and flooding Ukraine with weapons. While American presidents come and go, the Blob pursues the same foreign policy. The Blob kept us in Afghanistan for twenty years. It was the Obama administration which engineered the color revolution in Ukraine. It was Trump who armed Ukraine with Javelin anti-tank missiles.
4. Ukraine is a puppet state and a NATO satellite that is run out of the State Department. Americans have been arming and training the Ukrainian army.
5. Zelensky, the Jewish president of Ukraine, has refused to stop taking these weapons and to rule out NATO membership. He laughed off the prospect of a Russian invasion. It was bizarre.
6. Ukraine could have remained neutral like Finland. The government of Ukraine chose this disastrous course.
7. Putin is correct that modern Ukraine isn’t a real country. Much of Western Ukraine has historically been more closely linked to Poland and Hungary while Eastern Ukraine has been part of Russia. At the same time, we shouldn’t pretend that Russia is any different. Russia is composed of all kinds of ethnic groups. It has the largest Muslim population in Europe. Russia isn’t an ethnostate. Should Kaliningrad (formerly Königsberg, Immanuel Kant’s city) be returned to Germany?
8. Putin’s goal is obviously to restore the Russian empire and for Russia to be a great power that has its own sphere of influence. He talked at length in his speech about how modern Ukraine came into existence. This isn’t just about Zelensky and NATO expansion although that is part of it.
9. In both of his speeches, Putin spent most of his time condemning nationalists and separatists in Ukraine and how irresponsible it was of the Soviet Union to allow its constituent republics to separate. It will suffice to say that Putin doesn’t believe in states rights. He is preserving the Union.
10. While it is a crude analogy, Putin is really in the role of Lincoln here trying to restore the Russian empire. It is the Ukrainians who are fighting against overwhelming odds to defend their country. Thus, it is hardly surprising that there is so much sympathy for them. Most Americans look at this on television and all they see and all they know because no context is presented on television is that Putin has invaded Ukraine and is trying to bully and crush these people to get his way.
11. Finally, when you see bombs falling on White kids in apartment buildings and millions of White people becoming refugees and a much larger state trying to crush a smaller state, it is difficult not to sympathize with their plight. So, I totally understand the way that normies are looking at this and reacting to this who don’t even know what I know about this dispute. I’m not against the Ukrainians.
12. Nick Fuentes thinks this is awesome. There is nothing awesome about this. This isn’t a video game. This is one of the worst things that has happened in years on so many levels.
13. It is a tragedy that it has come to this. Ukraine could easily become another Syria, Iraq or Libya with Russian forces bogged down in a Western-backed insurgency that goes on for years. As many have pointed out, it is a huge gamble. The bottom line is that this should have been avoided and all three parties (NATO, Russia, Ukraine) bear some level of responsibility for the outbreak of violence.
“When Russia’s Vladimir Putin demanded that the U.S. rule out Ukraine as a future member of the NATO alliance, the U.S. archly replied: NATO has an open-door policy. Any nation, including Ukraine, may apply for membership and be admitted. We’re not changing that.
In the Bucharest declaration of 2008, NATO had put Ukraine and Georgia, ever farther east in the Caucasus, on a path to membership in NATO and coverage under Article 5 of the treaty, which declares that an attack on any one member is an attack on all.
Unable to get a satisfactory answer to his demand, Putin invaded and settled the issue. Neither Ukraine nor Georgia will become members of NATO. Russia resolved that it would go to war to prevent that from happening, just as it did on Thursday.
Putin did exactly what he warned us he would do.
Whatever the character of the Russian president, now being hotly debated here in the USA, he has established his credibility. When Putin warns he will do something, he follows through.
Days into this Russia-Ukraine war, potentially the worst in Europe since 1945, two questions need to be answered: How did we get here? And where do we go from here?
How did we get to a place where Russia—believing its back is against a wall and the United States, by moving NATO ever closer to Russia’s borders, put it there—reached a point where it chose war with Ukraine rather than accept the fate and future it believed the West had in store for Mother Russia? …”
Pat Buchanan, of course, is right as always.
We don’t have any democratic control over the Blob or the foreign policy establishment. It is constantly engineering these devastating conflicts. Ukraine is only the latest example.