NATO’s Expansion to Ukraine


While the American invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the intervention in Libya and the supply of illegal weapons to Syrian rebels are relatively fresh in our memory, here we are again being bombarded by words of deceit about the crisis in Ukraine.

By now we should be familiar that Washington, like the fallen angel from heaven, is at its best when it deceives.

By now we should’ve learned how Lucifer tricked the earliest people, by how he careful used words to poison his victims.

By now we know that when America uses the words ‘humanitarian intervention’, ‘democracy’, ‘peaceful protests’, ‘isolation’,  ‘rebel moderates’, ‘international community’, ‘all-inclusive minority-protecting’, it is exercising its right of spreading lies, double standards, and hypocrisy.

NATO’S Expansions to the East

Perhaps the earliest incursion and betrayal of Russian trust regarding Eastern Europe can be traced back to the reunification of East and West Germany in 1989. At the time, Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to a united Germany, as long as Western powers maintain non-incorporation of the united German state into NATO. Nevertheless, Germany joined NATO in 1990, despite previous assurances from George Bush Sr. together with then US Secretary of State James Baker, and then German Chancellor Helmut Kohl.

At issue then was the Soviet withdrawal from East Germany, which they had the right to protect under a treaty negotiated between the allies after World War II. The Soviet leader agreed to pullout 380,000 Soviet troops in the East, under the condition the US and NATO will not expand to a united Germany.

Conn Hallinan best summarizes the exchanges at the time:

The Russians were willing to exit their troops, but only if US and NATO forces did not fill the vacuum. On Feb. 9, Gorbachev told Baker “any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.” Baker assured him that “NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward.”

The Baker-Gorbachev meeting was followed the next day by a meeting between Gorbachev and West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who assured the Soviet leader that “naturally NATO could not expand its territory” into East Germany. And, in a parallel meeting between West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, Genscher told Shevardnadze “for us, it stands firm: NATO will not expand to the East.”

But no one anticipated that the USSR will disintegrate a mere two years later. Having faced an existential challenge after the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO needed to take a decision on how to become a relevant organization after. And by now, it is clear its interests lie in expanding to the East, to Russia’s very borders.

In 1999 NATO membership was given to former Soviet bloc countries, including to Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary. The Atlantic alliance further ate into former Soviet republics with the incorporation of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia in 2004, together with other former Russian allies Slovakia, Bulgaria and Hungary. Another decade would pass until Albania and Croatia joined the NATO. Not to mention big American bases in Turkey, the West now has a united front against Russia, from the Baltic to the Black Sea.

Of course treaties and bases are a different matter from actually conducting wars. The Cold War triumphalism of the Reagan years extended well into the Clinton era, which was marked by Western incursions exploiting Russian weakness in the 1990s, namely the Bosnian War and Kosovo War. Perhaps a reality check is useful for determining which block of countries pose a threat to international peace and order.

In the case of the ‘humanitarian intervention’ in Kosovo, Adam Roberts asked the right questions:

Was NATO right to launch Operation Allied Force without at least making an attempt to get authorization from the Security Council? The argument for having at least tried is that the effort would have shown respect for the UN and would have enabled people around the world to see exactly which states were refusing to authorize action to stop atrocities.

Finally the US will be in Russia’s borders

Indeed it may not be a surprise now that the West’s exploitation of the events in Ukraine is part of a larger pattern of expansion and aggression towards Russia. Except for Belarus, Ukraine is perhaps the last straw Russia will be tackling in the relentless military expansion of the West.

Stephen Kinzer of Brown University sums it up accurately:

From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in Central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders.

Although the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania hosts active forward NATO air bases, seeing the fall of another former Soviet republic presents perhaps the completion of Russia’s suspicion of the West’s intentions.

As if it’s true the West is ‘just all rhetoric’ and ‘all bark but no bite’, in the recent weeks we are witness to NATO advances towards Russia by deploying forces in the Baltics and Poland as well as sending a guided missile destroyer into the Black Sea, an area where Russia sees as the central issue of the Ukraine crisis.

As for Russia’s strategy in the region, with almost all of the former Soviet republics in Eastern Europe now a part of NATO, it is clear it has no intentions to expand. Russian forces are in Ukraine under a treaty, which the Western media often portrays as an ‘invasion force’ except that such a force has been there for the past 15 years.

RT News summarizes the facts well:

  • A Russian naval presence in Crimea dates to 1783 when the port city of Sevastopol was founded by Russian Prince Grigory Potemkin. Crimea was part of Russia until Nikita Khruschev gave it to Ukraine in 1954.
  • In 1997, amid the wreckage of the USSR, Russia & Ukraine signed a Partition Treaty determining the fate of the military bases and vessels in Crimea. The deal sparked widespread officer ‘defections’ to Russia and was ratified by the Russian & Ukrainian parliaments in 1999. Russia received 81.7 percent of the fleet’s ships after paying the Ukrainian government US$526.5 million.
  • The deal allowed the Russian Black Sea Fleet to stay in Crimea until 2017. This was extended by another 25 years to 2042 with a 5-year extension option in 2010.
  • Moscow annually writes off $97.75 million of Kiev’s debt for the right to use Ukrainian waters and radio frequencies, and to compensate for the Black Sea Fleet’s environmental impact.
  • Russia has two airbases in Crimea, in Kacha and Gvardeysky.
  • Russian naval units are permitted to implement security measures at their permanent post as well as during re-deployments in cooperation with Ukrainian forces, in accordance with Russia’s armed forces procedures.

Unfortunately, we can only look back at the concern of Khrushchev in the 1960s and Gorbachev in the 1980s being played out today by the West and Russia, not to mention, perhaps, during the thug war that defeated Russia during the Crimean War in the mid-19th century. We only hope Crimean history does not repeat itself.


Questioning the West’s Intervention in Russia’s Sphere of Influence


While being bloodily engaged in other countries’ affairs, the  hypocrisy of the United States looms ever larger over Russia’s protection of its own interests, doing away with their own morality twisting, and continuing on with a single-sided war of words against Moscow’s legitimate foreign policy.

Not that its mainstream media is to blame for sensationalizing and sugar-coating what in all practical terms is the overthrow of an elected leader by ultra-violent forces in Ukraine, this double standard is a favorite theme of America: from incompetently-informed field reporters (or propagandists?) hailing their news channel’s merit in a world of ever-divided opinion and activism, to its lunatic politicians struggling for relevance (McCain) and consistency (Obama, Kerry).

Never mind the political stunts of American politicians against their own president in the midst of an international crisis, there is a united front against anything about Russia in Ukraine–they just all come in different sour-tasting flavor.

The relentless bad mouthing has been around since the very beginning of the Ukraine crisis, a political calamity hailed in the Western media as a second ‘Orange Revolution’ but which today more looks like a confused ‘blue-yellow-white-red’ colors of the combined flags of the European Union and the United States.

How the West describes ‘Democracy’ in Ukraine

Since when did you describe a protest that has been known for not just harming its own police (as opposed to the violent and quick crackdown by American police against Occupy Wall Street protesters) but also destroying government property? Seeing the footage of warzone Kiev and then later listening to Kerry’s empty description of it as ‘standing peacefully against tyranny’ sure makes for an uncomfortable bowel movement. Since when did you call Molotov-throwing a form of peaceful protest?

Global vs. Regional ‘Intervention’

Quickly describing the Russian involvement in Ukraine as “a 19th century act in the 21st century”, Kerry seems to have forgotten that the opening acts of this decade was his country’s involvement in two major conflicts (Afghanistan, Iraq) that so far has set new records in unraveling the American empire. In fact, he was among those in Congress who voted for the baseless intervention in Iraq.

And how to do you reconcile the geographical proximity of Ukraine to Russia and the United States’ proximity to ‘all’ countries of the world, in intervention and ‘legitimate interests’ terms–words that are so favored by America? Does it seem America is a little bit all over the place while Russia’s interest is a little bit just around its borders?

 International Law: More about That

It is convenient to cite snippets of violations of ‘international law’ thrown by Obama and Kerry against Putin’s intervention in Ukraine. For one, just in case they skipped that page of international law, Russia and Ukraine has standing, legitimate, and mutually-beneficial military agreement.

To begin with, does the United States even recognize the International Criminal Court? It is a fact that the United States has no obligation and does not recognize the ICC, and obviously its mandates and decisions, such as the imposition of war crimes and crimes against humanity verdicts against individuals and/or countries.

So now we have Obama (a former law professor) who throws his self-righteous punches against Putin’s alleged violation of international law? It is not just a forgivable doubles-standard: Russia has a legitimate military agreement with Ukraine. As RT describes it “especially unwelcome is the fact that the so-called ‘invasion force’ has been there for 15 years already.’ It further adds that the military deal between Ukraine in Russia, ‘was extended by another 25 years to 2042 with a five-year extension option in 2010.’

And what about Obama’s continuous violation of the sovereignty of other countries with his drone army with his targeted killings? How do you then question your rival when you yourself don’t even have the decency to hide your own war crimes, instead bragging that I’m ‘really good at killing people’.

Crimea’s Historical Ties with Russia

The same goes for the skipping of facts to fit the mainstream Western media’s narrative of Russia being the aggressor in the Ukraine crisis. For centuries, Crimea and/or the region south of Ukraine has been part of Russia. Crimea was gifted to Ukraine during the Soviet period, and when the USSR ceased in 1991, Crimea was granted autonomy, even culminating in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in 1999.

Fast forward today, the supposed ‘Russian protest tourists’ in Crimea practiced their very own democratic process by voting, by majority, to make Crimea a part of Russia. Instead of reviewing the facts, the West has started its sanctions against Russia and Crimean citizens ranging from visa-free talks to bank assets freezing.

Crimea’s Prime Minister sums up the situation beautifully: “We live here; we can choose our future on our own – since when is it punishable by sanctions…As soon as the Russians for the first time concentrated on defending their interests – and not just Russians, the Ukrainians living here also, everyone got agitated and started talking sanctions. Do we advise America or Germany how to deal with their autonomous regions and tell people what to do?

EU Reluctance to Follow Washington’s Sanctions

At least the crisis in Ukraine is not confined there: EU officials up to the highest levels are unsure how to cope with the situation, highlighted perhaps by ambassador Nuland’s ‘Fuck the EU’ comment, referring to Brussel’s apparent reluctance to engage Russia through military and economic sanctions.

The EU division over how to react to Russia’s stance over Ukraine stems from the economic impact it will have on the fragile economic recovery in the continent. Even its closest ally, Great Britain is not supporting, “for now, trade sanctions…or close London’s financial center to Russians.”

As the EU’s manufacturing powerhouse, Germany is not sure, at least ‘for now’ also, on how to sanction Russia. Like other members of the EU, Germany obtains about half its natural gas supplies from Russia. Also, Russia is the EU’s third biggest trading partner, only behind the United States and China. And the traded goods and services amount to $500 billion in 2012, not to mention major stakes in Russian companies are held my big multinational corporations in the EU. So a trade sanction hurts the EU more than the US.

Regardless of the outcome, there is confidence in Russia’s ability to weather major crises, and this new low in relations with the West will surely be a test not just for Moscow’s patience, but also the persistence of its enemies.

Next Up: Ukraine’s EU Membership: a pretext to NATO Expansion