How the US Could Have Prevented the Russo-Ukrainian War AND Kept the NATO Door Open for Ukraine

But why would DC do that? Mass East Slav fratricide is great for the Empire

Unlike many, I don’t see the Russo-Ukrainian war as being primarily about NATO’s posture in Eastern Europe. I think the main reason is the very understandable Russian saltiness over Communists having spun off a regional variant of East Slavs (Rus) into non-Russians and ultimately anti-Russians. The Soviet Union cut off the project of Russian national construction from the Ukraine, giving the competing Ukrainian nation-building project monopoly access. Then massively backed that Ukrainianism with state resources and compulsion. (Considerably beyond what the tsars had done for Russianism in Ukraine.) Without this abrubt state intervention the Ukraine would have probably developed into a part of Russia with a strong regional identity, but one without a strong secessionist movement. Similar to Valencia in Spain, Wales in Britain, Brittany in France, or Texas in the US.

It was precisely this insight that allowed me to correctly conclude over the winter of 21/22 that the threat of war in Ukraine was real. While the rest of the alt-media that knows nothing about Russia aside from its standoff with NATO remained supremely confident that war in Ukraine would not take place. (One wonders if NATO-Russia relations alone had made a Russo-Ukrainian war inevitable why weren’t they able to divine it would happen.)

However, I do see NATO as one of many contributing factors to the war. In fact, in my voice-in-the-wilderness pieces warning about the war I spent about 1/3rd of the space writing about NATO. So while the American Empire this one time isn’t the main cause of the war (that distinction goes to Lenin), NATO can be seen as the straw that broke the camel’s back.

As such it was within Washington’s power to prevent the war if it wanted to. What is more, DC could do this while maintaining that Ukraine remains free to “chose its allies” and that its door to NATO is open.

On the eve of the war in February Joe Biden suddenly discovered that Russians and Ukrainians shared “deep ties” and made the following appeal:

“To the citizens of Russia: You are not our enemy.  And I do not believe you want a bloody, destructive war against Ukraine — a country and a people with whom you share such deep ties of family, history, and culture.”

All of a sudden as war seemed imminent and DC expected a quick Russian victory talk of “deep” Russo-Ukrainian ties became legitimate. If these ties could be mobilized to forestall the imminent Russian takeover then all of a sudden the US would remember them.

Well what if the US had paid homage to these alleged “deep ties” between the two a lot sooner? What if at any time between 2008 and 2020 the Imperial Capital formulated its NATO Ukraine policy thus:

“Ukraine interest in greater military ties with NATO and membership flatter us. Door for Ukraine membership is open and we are committed to accepting it as a member.“

“At the same time we are aware that while NATO is not an ant-Russian alliance, it is sadly sometimes percieved as one.

“Thus keeping in mind the deep ties of family, history, and culture as exist between Ukraine and Russia we do not wish to be a bone of discontent between the two or for NATO to harm these ties.

“Thus we will accept Ukraine into NATO when Russia is also ready to make this step.

“Until then we will not seek military ties with Ukraine or have forces there.”

Very simple. US wants Ukraine but in a package with its partner Russia with whom it shares “such deep ties of family, history, and culture”.

Had this been US policy I don’t think there would have been a war. With such a US stance Kiev would have to act differently, with more realism, creating space for normal Russo-Ukrainian relations. And if these existed Putin would have something to lose by going to war. — A situation that in 2021 no longer existed.

But of course why would that be US policy? Trying to raise tension between Kiev and Moscow and hurt the “deep ties” between Ukraine and Russia had been Washington’s policy precisely.

This war is a godsend for the Empire, especially since it didn’t result in the abrupt Russian takeover.

3 Comments
  1. Yuno says

    “I think the main reason is the very understandable Russian saltiness over Communists having spun off a regional variant of East Slavs (Rus) into non-Russians and ultimately anti-Russians.”

    Deep dive into the real reason for so much MIS-UNDERSTANDING of the roots to this ‘police action’ Laurel & Hardy talkie. Neither a ‘regional variant of East Slavs’… nor any other of the many & various prescriptions which give cover to the attempt to rope the WILD FIELDS into conformity with one imperial[ist]mythos or another…

    that great expanse of the Pontic Steppes now known as “Ukraine” has NE|VER been free of competing claims of ethnos/religion/or gang solidarity. All Lenin & crew did was to recognize the impossibility of reducing the WILD FIELDS to the kind of vassalage which the Rus & others accepted meekly. Even after the Holodomor, the spirit unbroken by eons of evil effort was too much of a thorn in the hide of the hideous atheist ‘caliphate’ in Muscovy.

    True, Makhnov was dead, the Makhnovshchina dream of a stateless society defeated by the joint efforts of commies and fascists who alone had been unable to stand up against the Black Flag horsemen of that guerrilla army. But there was no respite from the sullen resistance to being “Russified,” or any other ‘fied’ – independence as bred in the bone as the miraculous mix of DNA which went into that unbreakable spine of resistance. Tatars, Yids, Alans, stray Greeks and other “Byzantine” breeds, the Scythian blood not watered down, but even more “intensified” by those “Hunnic” additions from the altaic east! And YES… there were SLAVS in that mix – right in the heart of it. But the myth spinners are sadly out of their depth here.

    The Ukie heartland of Huliapole – now under bombardment day and night by the bitter, defeated dregs of the ‘neo-Red Army’ – was the very epicenter of it all – Cossack horsemen ran amuck against the regimented legions of bolshevik conscripts – and this latest playback spares none of the messy effects of a dying army of ‘red’ ants being nipped at now by the mobile forces of their descendants.

    Forget about your dying USSA/USSR empires and their conscripted legions. “ANTI-EMPIRE” means one thing – and one thing alone: No to the STATE No to the TERROR of centralized, uniform religion, economies, politics or science. Zelensky may be a clown, an actor, a liar, and/or thief. But he’s been place at the head of a band of people “fanatic” about their right to their own identity. SIlly Wabbit in the Kremlin will kill off half of Russia before he begins to grok the fallacy of “One people. One history. One country”… a lesson which ‘that other madman’ -= with the moustache – also failed to learn in time.
    “Anti-Russian”…. or Pro-Proto-Stateless-ness? Hoo be da Judge?

  2. David says

    Well, Putin tried for decades to join NATO and was rebuffed. Bill Clinton stood there open-mouthed when Putin said he wanted to join NATO. I mean, Clinton was thinking “Ok — the whole rationale of NATO is to undermined Russia – why is this man thinking he will join?”

  3. RegretLeft says

    Very thoughtful. I have thought that the USSR (aka The Bolsheviks) was from the start -an Anti-Russian project and therefore promoted all sorts of other-than-Russian nation building projects. Including “Ukraine” – fast forward to the 1930s and Industrialization and agricultural collectivization – and the Ukrainians (not necessarily Ukraine) were in the way (hence that little tragedy – the Holodomor). Fast forward to 1956 when the Russians were back in control of the USSR and Khrushchev ceded large tracts of Russia and – horrors! – the Crimea to Ukraine precisely in order to tip the ethnic balance and dilute Ukrainian presence in Ukraine.

    That’s my somewhat potted history – and my wedge into “How the US could have prevented…” – It was Crimea ultimately that was the driver – utterly and obviously unacceptable for that to be other than Russia. So, the time to “have prevented” was 1990, 91 – what as the name of the negotiations/venue that brokered the dissolution of the Soviet Union? In my admittedly hopeless naive world, that’s what “statement” used to do: recognize anomalies destined to become flash points and defuse them: Crimea, at least, had to be pried from “Ukraine” – Khrushchev’s blunder had to be undone. I don’t see any other way this horror could have been prevented. The die was cast most recently in 2014 not 2021,22.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Anti-Empire