NATO, a Club of Warmongers, is the Big Obstacle to Peace in Ukraine

He suggested that he would be able to resolve the conflict within a day of so of taking office.

That obviously was political hyperbole because the war is still going on.

Trump and people in his administration are now talking to Russian president Vladimir Putin and Russian officials in an effort to find a way to end the war and normalize relations between the United States and Russia.

There is one great big obstacle to bringing an end to the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

That obstacle is NATO, the old Cold War dinosaur that should have gone out of existence with the end of the Cold War, just as the Warsaw Pact did.

.

.

Instead, NATO not only remained in existence, it ultimately became the root cause of the war between Ukraine and Russia.

.

That critically important point is purposely not mentioned by the U.S. mainstream media.

For them, the war began when Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022.

Nothing that preceded that invasion matters to the mainstream media.

What came before the invasion is simply considered irrelevant.

.

But it’s not irrelevant, especially because it might well prove to be an insurmountable obstacle to a lasting peace between Ukraine and Russia.

.

Collapse of Soviet Union

With the surprise end of the Cold War, the U.S. national-security establishment — i.e., the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc.— lost its big official enemy — Russia (or, to be more exact, the Soviet Union), which meant the end of the big Cold War racket that had kept the military-industrial complex in prosperity in terms of power and taxpayer-funded largess.

.

The Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc., were panicking.

At first, they announced that they were willing to participate in the “war on drugs.”

They then converted their old partner and ally, Saddam Hussein, into an official enemy, who they used to scare the American people for some 11 years.

Then, their interventionist and deadly foreign policy in the Middle East brought about the 9/11 retaliatory strikes.

They were off to the races again, with the “war on terrorism” replacing the Cold War’s “war on communism.”

.

But they never lost sight of the possibility of having Russia as an official enemy again, as part of a new Cold War, especially given that the anti-Russia Cold War sentiment was so deeply embedded within the brain of the American people.

They began by using NATO to expand eastward toward Russia’s border by absorbing former members of the Warsaw Pact.

.

An important thing to note, the U.S. officials had promised Gorbachev in 1990, that NATO would not expand "one inch" beyond East Germany. It would stay, they repeatedly stated, right where it was.

It was a lie.

Instead, NATO was used by the Deep State to expand eastward, which enabled NATO’s missiles, tanks, weapons, troops, and planes to get ever closer to Russia’s border.

It’s worth mentioning that NATO includes Germany, the nation that wreaked untold death and destruction on Russia and East Europe in the two world wars.

.

Why would U.S. officials do that? To get their official enemy — and big cash cow — back. They were not ready to let go of Russia as America’s official enemy.

They knew — as an absolute certainty — what Russia’s reaction would be to having US and German missiles, forces, tanks, planes, and armaments getting ever closer to Russia’s borders.

They knew Russia would react negatively — very negatively.

The reason they knew that was because, that is precisely how they would react, if Russia began doing the same thing in Cuba.

Moreover, Russia repeatedly told them what would happen, if they threatened to absorb Ukraine into NATO. Russia would invade to prevent that from happening.

Thus, not surprisingly, NATO threatened to absorb Ukraine, knowing full-well that that would provoke Russia into invading.

.

Thus, when Russia did invade in February 2022,, US and European officials and the U.S. mainstream press cried, “ Russia is guilty of unprovoked aggression!”

They were right from a legal standpoint, Russia had no legal right to invade Ukraine, and Ukraine had the legal right to join NATO.

But that is a simplistic PR mantra spouted by the government-subsidized Corporate Media

.

In 2014, Russia helped defend the ethnic Russians in East Ukraine, who were being killed and seriously wounded by the Ukraine Armed Forces, UAF.

But what US and European officials, and the Corporate Media steadfastly avoided confronting — and still avoid confronting — is that, as a practical matter, these officials had broken their promise to Russia not to expand NATO eastward, and, as a practical matter, that was the reason for the Ukraine-Russia war.

.

All that pre-invasion history is important in case of a peace treaty, because if one takes the official US/EU narrative seriously — that Russia invaded Ukraine because it is an aggressor nation that is hell-bent on conquering the world — then how do the US/EU arrive at a satisfactory resolution of the war, given that the real reason Russia invaded Ukraine was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO?

.

How does Trump guarantee Russia that Ukraine won’t ever join NATO?

Sure, he can give his word.

He can even put it into writing.

But everyone knows, the US government does not keep its word, and everyone knows,  the US government lies.

Indeed, everyone knows,  the US  promised Russia NATO would not move eastward, but it did anyway.

Moreover, even if Russia believes Trump and takes him at his word, Trump could die from a heart attack tomorrow.

Moreover, four years from now, America will presumably have a new president.

What then?

What assurance does Russia have that a new president won’t suddenly announce that NATO is absorbing Ukraine.

.

Therefore, the best assurance that Russia could be given would be the total dismantling of NATO. 

With no NATO, there is no threat of NATO suddenly absorbing Ukraine.

Moreover, no more NATO means no more former Warsaw Pact members as members of NATO. 

.

But what are the chances Trump will bring an end to this Cold War dinosaur?

Very slim, unfortunately, which will make it very difficult to arrive at a lasting peace in Ukraine.

..

THERE ARE AT LEAST 8 PROVOCATIONS THAT LED TO THE UKRAINE- RUSSIA CONFLICT  https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/there-are-at-least-8-p...

By Willem Post

.

1) The US-led NATO expanded beyond East Germany to the borders of Russia, after promising Gorbachev not to expand by "one inch" beyond East Germany in 1990. Russian leaders were lied to again.

.

2) At the 2008 Bucharest summit, NATO agreed, Ukraine and Georgia would become members, but did not specify how or when this would happen. Russian objections were ignored.

.

3) The US fomented, organized, and financed the illegal Coup d'Etat in Kiev in 2014, which deposed Yanukovych, a legally elected President, and left about 100 people dead and severely wounded.

The US spent at least $5 billion from 1990 to 2014, per Victoria Nuland, to set up Ukraine NGOs, subsidize Ukraine Media, buy West-leaning politicians, to lead many parades with flags, etc., in preparation of the Color Revolution that would push Ukraine into the EU and NATO, in due time.

From 1990 - present, thousands of West European companies expanded their operations to Ukraine and other East European states, and to Russia.

The “Revolution” often became violent during 2013 and 2014, because a major part of the population, likely of Russian origin, wanted to continue the status quo.

.

4) From 2014 to February 2022, the Kiev government armed forces, UAF, with NATO arms, decided to attack, kill and severely wound about 15,000 of its own citizens in East Ukraine over an eight-year period, because those citizens, did not agree with the US-installed clique in Kiev in 2014.

Russia supported the ethnic Russians to prevent increased genocide.

The UN/EU/US/UK/NATO encouraged Ukraine by staying silent, or saying "Ukraine has a right to defend itself".

Those ethnic Russians have been living there for about 400 years

5) Ukraine Presidents Poroshenko and Zelensky sabotaged the Minsk Agreements, with silent approval of NATO and Merkel and Sarkozy/Hollande, the “guarantors”.

The frequent Minsk meetings by the parties were futile. Russian leaders were hoodwinked again.

The West's aim was to give Ukraine time to build its armed forces with NATO training and weapons.

Those Agreements would have given limited autonomy to East Ukraine, while remaining part of UKRAINE

.

6) In early February 2022, an army of at least 100,000 of the Ukraine Armed Forces, UAF, increased its long-distance shelling of East Ukraine by a factor of 3 to 5, likely a prelude to an assault on East Ukraine.
This was subsequently confirmed by captured Ukraine POWs.

.

7) On February 22, 2022, Russia finally said "enough is enough", and invaded Ukraine to put an end to the ethnic cleansing in East Ukraine. 

Russian troops entered Ukraine 1) with the aim of forcing Kiev to halt military attacks on East Ukraine, 2) to ensure its own security, and 3) dismantling a regime that fostered the growth of neo-Nazism in the country

.

8) During March/April, 2022, a Russia-Ukraine agreement was partially negotiated and initialed in Turkey, but PM Johnson interrupted the peace process by visiting Kiev to tell Zelensky to keep on fighting with NATO backing.

Zelensky, with no military skills, agreed to fight a war of attrition against a much larger and better-armed opponent

Ukraine, remaining population about 25 million in Kiev-controlled areas, of which 10.7 million are pensioners, could never win the war of attrition.

.

The forces of Russo-phobia, propagated by the subsidized, government-controlled Corporate Media in the US and EU, were working overtime to keep the US/EU populations in hate-Russia mode, while falsely claiming Ukraine was "winning".

.

After 3 years of fighting, East Ukraine is in total ruins.

Russia annexed over 20% of Ukraine, and its own real GDP is growing at 3.5 to 4.0 percent, far in excess of the US and the EU, despite sanctions.

Russia, with many highly educated STEM graduates, became more united, due to the existential war effort, and more sovereign, due to a huge increase of "Made in Russia" products and services that used to be imported from Europe.

A major return of Western companies to Russia would “increase dependency/decrease sovereignty”, as happened after 1990.

Both sides lost a total of about 2 million dead and seriously wounded.

Russia has annexed 4 provinces, where the people voted by 90% or more, to rejoin Russia, as they did in Crimea by over 96% in 2014.

.

As part of the Ukraine Peace talks, Russia and the US have decided to co-operate with each other in large-scale ventures, such as to extract rare-earth minerals from Russian soil for export to the US.

.

After the Ukraine conflict is settled, the Euro elites, after decades of tying the economy into climate-policy knots, and spouting hateful Russo-phobia to unify/rally/control/brainwash the population, will need to shift to Russo-neutral, if they want to do business with Russia, all while justifying spending much more on all sorts of NATO weapons to fight Russia, which does not attack, unless provoked.

Quite a hat trick!

.

The Euro elites are using Orwellian measures, such as censorship, misinformation labeling, throwing out elections if they do not like the results, freezing out major political parties, blacklisting people, companies, social media, etc., jailing political opponents (as in Rumania), to cow/brainwash/disenfranchise the population, similar to what the USAID-subsidized US Corporate Media are still doing. 
The federal government buys tens of thousands of expensive subscriptions to subsidize those Media, as was revealed by DOGE.

.

‘A ceasefire only benefits those who are retreating’: Russia’s top foreign relations experts and actors react to US-Ukraine talks

By Georgiy Berezovsky

Politicians, journalists, and analysts react to the news of a proposed 30-day ceasefire

.

Following the high-level talks between US and Ukrainian delegations in Saudi Arabia, two major developments have dominated the media landscape. First, Russia has been proposed to agree to a 30-day ceasefire. Second, Washington is resuming military aid and intelligence support for Kiev. How Russian politicians, experts, and journalists are responding to this latest turn in negotiations – our report has the details.

Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs:

The final statement of the [Ukrainian and American] delegations shows that the meeting in Saudi Arabia has gone according to the US plan. The White House aimed to pressure Ukraine into acknowledging the need to align with its demands for a swift cessation of hostilities (a full ceasefire rather than the partial one mentioned by Kiev). In return, Washington promised to resume military assistance to Ukraine, which was previously suspended: agree to a ceasefire, the US said, and you’ll get back what you had before. 

There’s some ambiguity regarding the agreement on resources, which may need to be revised and approved. And there’s still no clarity on security guarantees for Ukraine. It seems both issues are still being considered, as negotiations continue. The suggestion that Europe should be involved in the peace process indicates that Ukraine won’t be left all alone. 

Overall, Ukraine has swallowed its shame (and Zelensky’s humiliation) and capitulated by expressing “the Ukrainian people’s strong gratitude to President Trump, the US Congress, and the people of the United States for facilitating meaningful progress toward peace.” It didn’t express gratitude for US support, but rather for facilitating progress towards peace. As Rubio noted, the ball is now in Russia’s court, which aligns with US intentions. Ukraine has complied, and now, Russia is expected to enter the game. 

US National Security Advisor Michael Waltz has hinted that there are certain undisclosed agreements, but for now, we can only speculate about them. If we focus on the published text, the proposal in its current form contradicts Moscow’s repeatedly stated position that no ceasefire will occur until the parameters of a comprehensive agreement ensuring lasting peace are established. In other words, the fighting will continue until a viable resolution is devised. 

However, since the US publicly shifted its stance from being a side in the conflict to an assertive mediator (something Trump announced during his memorable meeting with Zelensky), it has become apparent that the dynamics have changed. The Roman numerals seem to have switched places: the XXI century looks more like the XIX century as personal diplomacy between monarchs takes center stage, overshadowing ideological commitments and even military achievements. The outcome will depend on their personal agreements or the lack thereof – in any case, we will soon see the result. As for the royal persons holding these discussions, it is clear whom we are talking about.

.

Fyodor Lukyanov, the editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs. ©  Sputnik/Kristina Kormilitsyna

.

Vice Speaker of the Federation Council Konstantin Kosachev: 

The outcome of the US-Ukraine talks in Jeddah reveals a clear truth: Zelensky’s attempts to make “the tail wag the dog”may have worked with Biden, but not with Trump. 

The terms are set by the Americans, not the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians merely agree with what they are told, bowing and scraping. Just look at the absurdity of the following statement, “We’ll sign the resource agreement when it suits Washington”! Zelensky is backed into a corner. As White House press secretary said, “Trump put Zelensky in his place.” 

Russian troops are advancing, and so, dealings with Russia will be different. Any agreements (and we recognize the need for compromises) will come on our terms, not America’s. This isn’t just bravado; it’s an acknowledgment that real agreements are still being forged on the front lines – a fact Washington should understand. 

For now, the main thing is not to let any extraneous comments disturb US-Russia negotiations. Let the negotiators do their job. Victory will be ours.

.

Vice Speaker of the Federation Council Konstantin Kosachev. ©  Sputnik/Maksim Blinov

Head of Rossotrudnichestvo Evgeny Primakov:

What’s ours is ours, and what’s yours – we’ll talk about that later. That’s pretty much Trump’s famous “art of the deal” in a nutshell. So, it’s hardly surprising that the proposed ceasefire in exchange for renewed military aid and intelligence for Ukraine comes off as blatant manipulation. But I believe the game is much more complex.

First, starting with a door-slam approach is simply unprofessional. As they say in Odessa, that’s not how business is done.

Secondly, let’s consider the pause that the Americans have subtly suggested. Nowhere did they explicitly state that they expect an immediate ceasefire from Russia. A special envoy from Trump, Steve Witkoff is heading to Moscow; the US announced plans for a phone call between Trump and our president, and new negotiations with Russian officials have been announced.

What might this indicate amidst the rapidly changing situation on the Kursk front, where our forces are driving out Ukrainian occupiers and liberating one settlement after another? Trump himself has mentioned that the Ukrainian forces are retreating, so it’s clear the White House understands what this pause means for the situation on the front. I suspect that the unstated part of this deal involves pushing Ukrainian forces out of Kursk region.

Thirdly, what is clear and directly follows from President Putin’s statements, is that we have very specific conditions for any peace agreement. A mere ceasefire won’t satisfy us; we need a resolution that addresses our interests and acknowledges the fundamental reasons behind the conflict.

These include Ukraine’s neutral status, the rights of ethnic Russians, and our territories in the Donetsk People’s Republic, Lugansk People’s Republic, Kherson, and Zaporozhye regions. Under any circumstances, Ukraine must not pose a threat to Russia. This means we must prevent any risks of revanchism, which logically entails that Ukraine should not maintain offensive military capabilities or embrace an aggressive Nazi ideology aimed against Russia. Therefore, it will be necessary to dismantle several political and social institutions of the current Ukraine, and the education system must also be reformed. How willing is the US to include these issues in the negotiations? In any case, we have already outlined these conditions from our side.

And if we’re talking about dismantling Ukraine’s future military potential and ensuring its neutrality, then both these points completely contradict the idea of sending military supplies or placing NATO “peacekeepers” there.

.

.

Head of Rossotrudnichestvo Evgeny Primakov. ©  Sputnik

.

Political analyst Sergey Markov:

Reasons why Russia might refuse a ceasefire:

1. A ceasefire would be exploited by the West and Ukraine to halt the advance of the Russian army, strip it of its initiative, supply the Ukrainian army with more weapons, continue extensive mobilization in Ukraine, and strengthen the repressive and anti-Russian nature of the Ukrainian political regime

2. The experience of the Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 agreements clearly demonstrates this pattern

3. The consistent dishonesty of Western politicians and media regarding the conflict, as well as their refusal to acknowledge their own and Ukraine’s culpability, strongly suggests that history will repeat itself 

4. Russian President Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials have repeatedly stated that what Russia needs is lasting peace, not just a temporary ceasefire

5. The West cannot really be trusted 

6. Russia is advancing.  A ceasefire always benefits those who are retreating.

.

.

Political analyst Sergey Markov. ©  Sputnik/Nina Zotina

.Journalist and VGTRK contributor Andrey Medvedev:

Here’s a proposed negotiation position: establishing a 30-day ceasefire, but Ukraine must guarantee free exit from the country for all categories of citizens. 

Another requirement could be the withdrawal of all Ukrainian armed forces units beyond the borders of Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, along with the transfer of all territories to Russian authorities and the deployment of our military units. Essentially, this would align the situation on the ground with the norms of the Russian Constitution. They could pull back in a week and our troops could move in within another week, followed by two weeks for securing and fortifying the borders. 

While we probably won’t see such a scenario unfold, it would be an ideal option. Because this kind of ceasefire would lead to irrevocable consequences for what remains of Ukraine. I know it’s not very probable, but it’s nice to dream.

.

.

Journalist and VGTRK contributor Andrey Medvedev. ©  Sputnik/Kirill Kallinikov

.Philosopher Alexander Dugin:

Trump is eager to end the war in Ukraine because his opponents from the Deep State have regrouped and launched a massive counterattack against him and Elon Musk. However, he has no clear plan on how to achieve this; he is simply not ready to withdraw from the war unilaterally yet. This is precisely the trap laid by the Democrats. Without resolving the Ukraine issue, Trump risks getting increasingly bogged down. That’s the swamp for you. 

A ceasefire is not a serious proposition, especially when Ukraine is clearly starting to lose. But it will take time for everything to fall into place.

.

.

Philosopher Alexander Dugin. ©  Sputnik/Kirill Kallinikov

.

Valentin Bogdanov, Head of VGTRK Bureau in New York:

What does a 30-day ceasefire really mean? This is where things get tricky. Waltz claims that Ukraine is supposedly ready for peace. The problem is that in Kiev, the word “peace” often comes with various adjectives (the most popular being “just”) that twist it into something Orwellian – a peace that quickly turns into war. This was evident the night before the negotiations, as Moscow faced a massive drone attack, which was followed by the good news of the liberation of Sudzha. For the Armed Forces of Ukraine, taking a 30-day pause to recover from setbacks in Kursk region is an ideal strategy, especially considering their experience in undermining numerous other ceasefires since 2014. This is particularly true if America continues to send weapons and provide intelligence support to Ukraine. 

Does Trump understand this? He probably does. That’s why, asserting control at this interim stage, he first states that it takes two to tango (once again excluding Ukraine) and then indicates that he will soon call Putin. According to Trump, the Russian leader giving his agreement to the US offer would bring the parties “75% of the way”, and dealing with Russia is “easier”. However, success doesn’t come from nowhere; an agreement still needs to be reached. Therefore, a subsequent round of negotiations is expected in Moscow, where, according to Axios, special envoy Witkoff is about to arrive.

Washington has yet to present any concrete proposals. Moreover, discussing proposals with subordinate proxies (an accurate description of the Kiev regime based on Rubio’s recent comments on the nature of the Ukraine conflict) is hardly productive. Given that Russia’s fundamental conditions are well-known – chiefly, lasting peace that considers our interests and demands – it’s clear that achieving such peace requires addressing the root causes of the conflict.

If Trump manages to resolve these issues within 30 days, that would be fantastic. In three days it would be even better; three hours would be nothing short of spectacular. But there’s also a chance he might not succeed at all. In that case, the ball – which Rubio has confidently claimed is now in Russia’s court – could easily turn into a weight dragging him and Trump down.