Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,
Throughout his presidential campaign, Donald Trump frequently mentioned having a confidential strategy to resolve the conflict in Ukraine.
He implied that he could bring an end to the conflict shortly after taking office. However, the war persists to this day. Presently, Trump and his administration are engaging in discussions with Russian president Vladimir Putin and Russian officials in an attempt to find a resolution to the conflict and potentially normalize relations between the United States and Russia.
Nevertheless, a major obstacle stands in the way of ending the Ukraine-Russia conflict. This obstacle is NATO, the outdated Cold War entity that should have disbanded with the conclusion of the Cold War, similar to the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.
Instead of disbanding, NATO not only persisted but also ultimately became the primary cause of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.
This crucial point seems to elude the U.S. mainstream media. For them, the war commenced when Russia invaded Ukraine. Anything that transpired before the invasion is deemed inconsequential by the mainstream media. However, the events leading up to the invasion are crucial, especially as they may pose a significant challenge to achieving a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia.
Following the surprising end of the Cold War, the U.S. national-security establishment — comprising the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA — found themselves without a major official adversary, i.e., Russia (or more precisely, the Soviet Union), resulting in the termination of the lucrative Cold War scheme that had empowered the national-security sector with significant power and taxpayer-funded resources.
The Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA were in a state of panic. Initially, they proclaimed their willingness to engage in the “war on drugs.” Subsequently, they transformed their former partner and ally Saddam Hussein into a new enemy, utilizing him to instill fear in the American populace for about 11 years. Their interventionist and fatal foreign policies in the Middle East led to the retaliatory 9/11 attacks, setting them on a course for the “war on terrorism” to replace the Cold War’s “war on communism.”
However, they never lost sight of the prospect of rebranding Russia as a renewed official adversary, part of a new Cold War, particularly considering the deeply ingrained anti-Russia sentiment within the American populace. This is when they began leveraging NATO to expand eastward toward Russia’s borders by incorporating former Warsaw Pact members.
An essential aspect to note is that U.S. officials had assured Russia that NATO would not expand. They repeatedly asserted that NATO would remain exactly where it was.
This turned out to be a falsehood. Instead, NATO was utilized to extend eastward, permitting NATO’s missiles, tanks, weapons, troops, and aircraft to encroach closer to Russia’s borders. It is noteworthy that NATO includes Germany, the nation responsible for immense devastation and loss of life in Russia during the two world wars.
Why would U.S. officials undertake such actions? To resurrect their official adversary — and significant source of funding. They were not prepared to relinquish Russia as America’s official enemy. They were fully aware — beyond any doubt — of how Russia would react to the escalating proximity of U.S. and German missiles, forces, tanks, aircraft, and armaments to Russia’s borders. They knew that Russia would respond unfavorably — very unfavorably. They knew this because they were certain that they would react in a similar manner if Russia initiated similar actions in Cuba.
Furthermore, Russia had continually warned them of the consequences if they threatened to absorb Ukraine into NATO. Russia would intervene to prevent such a scenario. Consequently, NATO proceeded with its plans to absorb Ukraine, fully aware that this would provoke Russia into taking action.
Therefore, when Russia did intervene, U.S. and European officials, along with the U.S. mainstream media, cried out, “Aggression! Aggression!” Legally speaking, Russia had no justification for invading Ukraine, while Ukraine possessed the legal right to join NATO. However, what U.S. officials, European officials, and the U.S. mainstream media steadfastly avoided addressing — and continue to avoid addressing — is that, pragmatically, U.S. officials had reneged on their promise to Russia not to expand NATO eastward, which essentially fueled the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
Why is this pre-invasion history crucial with regards to a peace treaty? If one were to take the official U.S.-European narrative seriously — that Russia invaded Ukraine due to being an aggressive nation bent on global conquest — how can they reach a satisfactory resolution to the conflict, when the actual reason for Russia’s intervention was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO?
Consequently, how can Trump assure Russia that Ukraine will never become a NATO member? He can provide his word. He can even formalize it in writing. However, it is common knowledge that the U.S. government does not uphold its promises and is prone to deceit. Indeed, everyone is aware that the U.S. assured Russia that NATO would not advance eastward, only to defy this pledge.
Moreover, even if Russia places trust in Trump and accepts his assurances, Trump could unexpectedly pass away from a heart attack tomorrow. Furthermore, in four years, America will likely have a new president. What then? How can Russia be certain that a new president will not suddenly announce Ukraine’s absorption into NATO?
Therefore, the most reliable guarantee to offer Russia would be the complete dismantling of NATO.
Without NATO, there is no possibility of NATO abruptly incorporating Ukraine. Additionally, the absence of NATO means no more former Warsaw Pact nations as NATO members.
However, the likelihood of Trump dismantling this Cold War remnant is unfortunately minimal, which will significantly impede achieving enduring peace in Ukraine.
Loading…