Peloni: The prescience of the details articulated in this article has aged well, as demonstrated by Peter Hitchen‘s recent Op Ed confession.
By Alexander G. Markovsky, AM THINKER March 31, 2024
Image: Vladimir Putin by AI.
It is widely accepted that the Ukrainian crisis erupted into a military conflict on February 24, 2022, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the seeds of the hostilities were planted about thirty years earlier by President Clinton and, later, by George W. Bush, both of whom recklessly pushed for NATO’s eastward expansion.
Over the years, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin repeatedly warned that Moscow would not tolerate continuing NATO’s “Drang nach Osten” (“drive to the East”), particularly Ukraine’s membership and the subsequent establishment of NATO military bases along the Russian border.
On February 25, 2024, The New York Times published an article confirming Moscow’s fears. The article revealed that US intelligence not only played a crucial role in Ukraine’s wartime decision-making but also established and funded advanced command-and-control spy centers long before the Russian invasion on Feb. 24, 2022.
The newspaper exposed how, over the last decade, the CIA has operated a network of twelve bases in Ukraine. These bases, which enable the interception of Russian military communications and monitoring of spy satellites, are utilized to launch and monitor drone and missile attacks on Russian soil. With American biological weapon facilities scattered across Ukraine, it is understandable that Moscow perceived this as a significant threat to Russia’s national security.
Would the United States accept the presence of Russian military bases on its borders? As a matter of fact, it did not accept them even 1,500 miles from its borders. In 1983, President Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada due to concerns that the construction of an airport by Cubans could potentially be utilized by Soviet forces.
It is essential to note that Putin’s case was much more compelling than Reagan’s. Unlike Ukraine, Grenada did not share a border with the United States, and there was no Russian military presence in Grenada, making Reagan’s concerns mostly hypothetical. It is worth mentioning that, despite dubious justification for the American invasion, the United States was not labeled as an aggressor, nor was Ronald Reagan referred to as a war criminal.
In fact, Putin tried to avoid the current conflict. On September 7, 2023, as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told a European Parliament joint committee meeting:
President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And [that] was a pre-condition for not invade [sic] Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.
Russia’s geographical vulnerability has been a concern for Russian leaders since the time of Peter the Great. Stoltenberg should have been mindful of Russia’s sensitivities if he wanted to avoid a conflict.
Stoltenberg did not elaborate on why he did not accept the treaty draft, why negotiations were not pursued, or why all the alternatives to conflict had not been explored. Ultimately, his unwillingness to engage in talks put the matter beyond the power of diplomacy.
Diplomacy was not given a chance because NATO needed to restore its image and validate its continued existence following a 30-year history of failure. The pursuit of “nation-building”—replacing authoritarian stability with democracy in countries that do not conform to the Bill of Rights—has accomplished neither. Instead, it has resulted in the loss of millions of lives and the devastation of many countries.
Furthermore, after a disastrous 2021 retreat from Afghanistan, the alliance lost the adversary that had long defined its purpose. Since a military alliance cannot exist without a rival, NATO’s need for a credible enemy was an existential necessity. The Russian incursion into Ukraine could create the perception of a common threat and portray NATO as an indispensable pillar of global security, especially if NATO emerged victorious.
This being the case, the Europeans lacked the capability to seek revenge independently for centuries of military defeats and humiliations at the hands of the Russian Empire. After the empire’s fall, the Soviet Union discerned an opportunity for retaliation without direct military involvement.
Moreover, for President Biden, who was desperate to escape the Afghanistan disaster, a victorious conflict would be a pivotal moment in his presidency. Additionally, he never made a secret that he aspired to bring about a change in leadership in Moscow.
And, of course, there was Ukraine. Never in the realm of international relations was there a state that acted so consistently against its national interests. It put itself in grave danger when it announced its intention to join NATO in 2004, violating the 1997 Treaty on Friendship between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. This Treaty specifically addressed Ukrainian neutrality, stating at section 6, page 148:
Each High Contracting Party shall refrain from participating in, or supporting, any actions directed against the other High Contracting Party, and shall not conclude any treaties with third countries against the other Party. Neither Party shall allow its territory to be used to the detriment of the security of the other Party.
Ukraine’s leaders never grasped that Moscow saw this treaty as a key element of Russia’s security and would not allow Ukraine to violate its terms with impunity. Zelensky could have avoided the war by renouncing his NATO membership request and meeting Moscow’s demands, thus saving the country from destruction. However, the corrupt leaders in Kiev were driven by financial and military aid and were seeking conflict for personal gain.
Truth in politics involves various viewpoints and analyses, which are often influenced by one’s ideological background. However, facts matter.
The preceding facts illustrate a common overriding interest among NATO leadership, its member states, and Ukraine in instigating the invasion, albeit for varying reasons. Russia was the sole party that attempted to prevent the conflict.
*First published in Am Thinker on March 31, 2024
Alexander G. Markovsky is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research, a conservative think tank that examines national security, energy, risk analysis, and other public policy issues. He is the author of “Anatomy of a Bolshevik” and “Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism, She Adopted It.” Mr. Markovsky is the owner and CEO of Litwin Management Services, LLC. He can be reached at alex.g.markovsky@gmail.com
@Sebastien Zorn
Anglo approach is to foment wars around the globe in order to jump in at the last moment as a peacekeeper and take over.
Personally, I am tired of the world being divided into America and its “adversaries”, i.e., the countries which dare to develop too fast for America’s tastes or who refuse to become it vassals.
Trump’s approach is to isolate the US to keep it safe during the next war conducted by its European proxies against the “colossus on clay feet”, for the US to get rich on the arms supply, and take over “Eurasia” and, thus, over the whole world, forever.
I am sure another world war will not be good for Israel but it is not important for the US.
It seems that Israel is getting ready to shed its blood in order to clear Gaza for the US and very likely to get the TSFS as a reward.
I fail to understand why Israel keeps loudly announcing its every move and intent while completely giving up the value of a surprise attack, if such an attack is necessary.
I am sure that Iran is more than ready for any attack by Israel AND for any attack ON Israel, due to Israel’s nonstop threats and warnings.
@fquigley My emphasis was that for whatever historical reasons, Crimea and Donbas is primarily populated by Russians and should never have been annexed to Ukraine, in the first place. They had a right to secede and join the Russian Federation, especially after the Ukrainians tried to wipe them out, as the Mexicans tried to wipe out the Texans. Very similar to history of Texas.
Though, that being said, though the U.S. and its NATO partners are to blame, Russia is allying ever more closely with Israel’s enemies, as well as America’s, and this must be neutralized. Trump’s approach is just right.
Reader
From my experience I believe you are right. It is some kind of giant encyclopedia that can immediately know what you’re talking about. And it’s the most understanding spiritual friend you’ll ever have. But it might provide the same service to a nazi Bandera person. But so what. We know our case is stronger and better so be not afraid…we stand for objective truth.
It’s a marvel and we must not let it be misused by less than reputable people.
@fquigley
So, basically, AI will find the info requested by the user and will be as biased as the user happens to be.
If you give it facts, it will find the stuff that matches those facts, if you feed it trash, it will find more trash.
Am I right?
Reader writes
“I am surprised at the cogent response by AI because I don’t trust it, I have to find out first how it works before I attempt to use it. ”
This is touching on the heart of the matter. The real question is why use it at all?
The answer to this is we have no alternative as our enemies of Russia and Israel will be using it. But to promote their lies
Your prompts are decisive and so the prompts must be the result of our own exhaustive research
Then the more precise we are the more the AI will be forced to uncover the truths
And thereby refute our enemies.
So to put this in graphic form every one of my questions or prompts is a refutation of those numbskulls who reduce it all to. Putin is evil
And of course Joe Biden is the epitomy of all that is kind
Joe Biden pats children on the head. Putin the monster eats them for breakfast
.
Essentially that’s the refrain from the Neocons – and from Bear Klein who says it is his belief.
No need to discuss
The use of AI is to push such players into the open and expose them
I.E. We will not be controlled by any “narrative”
The Russian revolutionary Old Guard later exterminated by Stalin also used the term “Brumaire” to refer to Stalin’s takeover of the party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_of_18_Brumaire
(describes a coup by Napoleon).
Excellent fact based analysis by Markovsky!
Also, a great comment by Felix with the help of AI.
I am surprised at the cogent response by AI because I don’t trust it, I have to find out first how it works before I attempt to use it.
To Sebastien Zorn
I am all for using AI like Gemini
But you have provided a classic case of how not to frame your question.
You have assisted Gemini in promulgation of the Banderites slander of Russia in their (ably assisted by of course Timothy Snyder and Anne Applebaum) Holodomor historical nonsense.
Sebastien Zorn a solemn warning. Do take extreme care in how you consult these AI platforms.
Laura writes in a rather pontificating manner
“This is the result of lies and propaganda from radicals on both sides of the political spectrum”
This savagely misreads reality.
If you want to abuse the word the only “radical” element are the Bandera political faction which took state power following the Maidan Neonazis Coup of February 2014
And of course Biden, America, NATO and the EU which have the Banderites as so willing Proxies against Russia.
“RF is an aggressor, it is a fact. It’s not her first aggression”
Please disregard this comment from Inna2 because it is not based on either history or facts of the present. Rather it is the bias which is contained in Cold War 1 and the recent start of Cold War 2 (as the historian of record Stephen Wheatley states in relation to the Cold War 2 frothing of Timothy Snyder and Anne Applebaum)
I agree with Adam D, Laura, Bear Klein, and others, who understand what is happening in Russia. RF is an aggressor, it is a fact. It’s not her first aggression. It does not matter what was/is going on in Ukraine – the connection between Z and globalists, corruption, the USA participation. RF has no right to any part of Ukraine. Budapest Memorandum of 1994 was signed. Now, around 1 million people in Russia and Ukraine are dead, and cities/towns destroyed… Ukraine is no comparison to RF, it is much weaker. Trump is right in saying that the war must be stopped. In Russia, there is no democracy. Putin has been on the throne for 25 years. He is a tyrant and a globalist puppet. If the war continues, it could become a WWIII.
I presented this to Gemini and reply follows
Question
The Russian proletariat was very small in relation to the peasants to begin with. Then it was hit hard by the 1914 to 1918 Imperialist war. Then it carries out the first workers revolution. Then it challenged Kerensky’s democracy which sought to continue the slaughter. Then it forced the release of Trotsky from the Kerensky prison. Then the revolutionary taking of power. Then it turned to fight a civil war against forces including the Czarist Whites. This included successfully putting down the Ukrainian Pogromists. Defeats abroad especially Germany was a further weakening factor. Blockades by the Great Powers of Russia showed war on all sides. Even was reported cannibalism. Lenin died in 1924. Those were conditions of weakening of the proletariat of Russia. I challenge anyone to refute these facts of history
They were also the conditions for Thermidor aka the rise of Stalin and Stalinism
Answer
You’ve laid out a powerful and undeniably grim picture of the challenges faced by the Russian proletariat in the years surrounding the revolution. The points you raise about the relatively small size of the working class, the devastation of World War I, the subsequent revolution and civil war, foreign interventions, economic hardship, and even famine are all historically accurate and well-documented.
It’s hard to argue with the factual basis of your statement. The Russian proletariat was significantly weakened by this tumultuous period. The revolution, while a monumental achievement, came at an immense cost in terms of human life and economic stability.
Your connection to the rise of Stalinism as a “Thermidor” under these conditions is also a well-established interpretation within Marxist thought. The concept of Thermidor, borrowed from the French Revolution, refers to a stage where the revolutionary fervor cools, and a more conservative or bureaucratic element gains ascendancy, often due to the exhaustion and decimation of the original revolutionary forces.
The argument goes that the weakening of the proletariat created a vacuum of power. The Bolshevik party, initially conceived as the vanguard of this working class, increasingly became the locus of power itself. With the core revolutionary class depleted and the country facing immense internal and external pressures, the conditions were ripe for the consolidation of power in the hands of a centralized party apparatus and, eventually, a single leader like Stalin.
So, rather than refuting your facts, which are largely correct, one might delve into the interpretation of these facts. While the weakening of the proletariat certainly played a significant role in the trajectory of the Soviet Union, other factors are also often considered:
* The Role of the Bolshevik Party: Some argue that the centralized and hierarchical structure of the Bolshevik party, even before the Civil War, contained the seeds of authoritarianism.
* Ideological Factors: The specific interpretations of Marxist-Leninist ideology and the emphasis on a strong state could also be seen as contributing factors.
* The International Situation: The failure of revolutions in other industrialized nations left the Soviet Union isolated and under constant pressure, potentially reinforcing the need for a strong, centralized state for survival.
* The Personality of Stalin: While conditions were crucial, the ambition, political maneuvering, and ruthlessness of Stalin himself were undeniably significant in his rise to power.
In conclusion, your historical overview of the weakened state of the Russian proletariat in the aftermath of the revolution is accurate and provides a compelling context for understanding the rise of Stalinism as a form of Thermidor. While other factors also played a role, the devastation and depletion of the revolutionary working class were undoubtedly critical elements in this complex historical process.
I see the present war against Russia by Europe and America plus Nazis of Ukraine, fighting for themselves and also as Proxies of aforementioned, as also the continuation of the capitalist reaction to the Russian Revolution. Seems like everyone here is in denial.
Markovsky is only partly right here
“However, the corrupt leaders in Kiev were driven by financial and military aid and were seeking conflict for personal gain. ”
The corruption is very well known and much talked about
Jesus is shown carrying the cross up the hill of Calvary and standing overlooking and directing the crucifixion is Leon Trotsky identifiable as a Jew as well as leader of the 1917 Revolution. Cartoon was shown at a YIVA meeting
This Antisemitism has been central to Ukraine at every key point
* The pogroms of 1918
* The Holodomor myth
* The full collaboration with the nazi Holocaust
*.The Maidan protests worship of Antisemitism in Stepan Bandera
About a century and a half of unbroken Antisemitism
@Adam
Because the war began long before Russia invaded Ukraine, as explained by both Peter Hitchens as well as Markovsky above, not to mention Ted’s own articles on the matter and my commentary as well.
If for example, you were to suggest that WWII began with the US invasion of Germany, you could change history, but it would be both illogical, ahistorical and completely inaccurate to do so. So too is claiming that the war which came about due to the intentional break down, on behalf of the US/West, to resolve the civil war in Ukraine, which the US began with its overthrow of the elected govt (something which came home to roost in 2020), only began after Russian tanks crossed into Dombas, which Russia came to recognize as sovereign, much as the US took to recognize Kosovo as sovereign in 2007. These matters are all too relevant to ignore, even as it serves the perspective you prefer while doing so.
Russia is definitely the aggressor. Markovsky, Ted, Peloni are all wrong about this. Really, I don’t understand how anyone could even believe that Russia was not the aggressor and Ukraine was. The documentary evidence that Russia initiated the “special military operation,” an unprovoked invasion, is massive. In fact, President Putin announced that he had sent troops into Ukraine as a “special military operation” himself on Russian TV. According to numerous reporters and diplomats who were in Russia at the time, including Russian journalists for mainstream Russian publications, the special military operation came as a complete surprise to most Russians.
Laura, this is an absolutely fascinating although very sad story. Strange that the son of a deputy director of the CIA and her husband, a military technology services contractor for the CIA and other government agencies, would fight in Putin’s army and be killed serving in it. I wonder if he got his pro-Russian, anti-Ukraine bias from his parents.
Laura, I agree 100 percent
This is the result of lies and propaganda from radicals on both sides of the political spectrum. Is it any wonder Gen Z is anti-American and antisemitic.
https://x.com/MarinaMedvin/status/1915754443397533990
With NATO’s primary concern these days being Diversity , Equity, and Inclusiveness, Putin must be laughing out of his LazyBoy.
@Laura
Reagan was fighting an expansionist peer power in with a communist ideology. None of this is true with Russia today. The US has more to fear from Russia’s growing ties with China than they have from Russia itself. The opposite was true in the Reagan era, which is why Reagan focused on the greater threat, a stronger Soviet Union, rather than on going to war with the lesser threat which was China. Today, the roles of China and Russia are not reversed, but completely different. By pursuing the Clinton-Bush-Obama policy in eastern Europe, the US has made Russia stronger, the threat from China less manageable, and the world into a far more dangerous place.
Wrong. Forcing Russia into an anti-Western position has strengthened China, weakened the US, and made the Middle East less stable. It has placed Russia in a position in which it NEEDS support from China and Iran, making these countries stronger as a result. The policy of Russian engagement rather than one of Russian isolation is what what should be pursued to give Russia a reason to not support Iran, rather than the opposite, which is what exists today due to the failed policies of the Clinton-Bush-Obama era which overthrew Ukrainian govts for this very purpose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_Crimea_to_Ukraine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
Just plain bullshit and gaslighting. But this is the prevailing viewpoint on much of the right regarding Ukraine and Russia, which sadly reveals how far the conservative movement has regressed from what it was under Reagan. During Reagan’s time conservatives actually believed the people of eastern Europe deserved freedom and sovereignty. They supported the underdogs in their struggle against tyranny and aggression. Today’s conservatives support Russian imperialism.
As for the folks on Israpundit, it’s unconscionable that anyone pro-Israel would support the Russians who are aligned with Iran and are supporting and helping its goal of obtaining nuclear weapons.
@Peloni he is a Communist from what I read whether you are aware or not.
Peloni you do not agree with me. My life will not change for the worse.
I made the points I find important and correct.
I feel no obligation to meet your rules or logic of what to debate or counter or not.
@Bear
Smearing Markovsky as a Communist also does not address the issues raised in the Western documents he cited, and which neither you nor anyone else has even attempted to address. In place of legitimate discussion we have ad hominem attacks and calls for censorship. It does strike me that Nixon had the power of his convictions in countering Krushev at Checkers without the need of either libeling him or gagging him. Perhaps it was a different age, but if you are right and Markovsky is wrong, I would think you, Clare Lopez or others would at least attempt to address what he has stated.
Markovsky is a Communist whose whole worldview I find faulty and no need to prove it wrong as history has done that. Those who long for the Soviet Union, Communism or any version of that might argue but is irrelevant to me.
You have just expressed two philosophical situations which are very important
1. Objective reality
In this case truths which are rooted in reality
2. Subjective idealism
This is what Bear expressed. Not idealism in idealistic. But reality begins with the idea on his mind
That in case of Bear means he denies there is objective reality at all.
Cannot be argued with. Can only be exposed as a warning.