War in Ukraine – Part 1
- anon
- Sep 28, 2022
- 9 min read
Updated: Jun 17, 2023
Disbelief and confusion before the war
(DE - April/ May 2022) When the army of the Russian Federation invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 and surrounded and bombed cities a little later, I was shocked. I had not expected that at all. I had dismissed the warnings by US intelligence agencies and the US government that an invasion was imminent and an event was being staged as warmongering.
Memories of the “pre-war period.”
Weeks before the attack, Russia deployed its troops on the border with Ukraine. Russian President Putin insisted it was a manoeuvre, and he did not intend to invade anywhere.
Concerned European and US politicians made their way to the Kremlin, and the chair across President Putin’s overlong table never got cold. However, the public did not find out what they talked about or what the Russian president demanded. Did he openly threaten to invade Ukraine if his demands were not met? Why could these demands not be met?
All visiting politicians were tight-lipped! No records of these meetings were published! Why were we, the public, not allowed to know anything about the content of these negotiations?
In contrast, US President Biden diligently, almost every week, published the content of intelligence reports predicting an attack by Russia on Ukraine and publishing scenarios of how the Russian side could stage an event. Allegedly, an emergency was to be created so that Russian soldiers could rush to the aid of those under pressure. Such disclosure of intelligence is quite unusual.
Like me, many remembered Hitler’s staged invasion of Poland in 1939 and, more recently, in 2003, the justification of the American-led Iraq war by non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
Throughout history, it was pretty common to construct reasons. So why shouldn’t Russia do the same? Yet I believed in warmongering and the usual anti-Russia propaganda of the US rather than an attack by Russia.
Why did I not believe in an invasion but dismissed the signs as a threatening gesture towards Europe and the USA and, more importantly, a display of power towards China to impress them as a partner in the Eastern power bloc?
A war of aggression by Russia seemed pointless.
To put it simply, the war did not make any sense. Questions upon questions ran through my mind. What spoke for it, what against it?
What could Russia gain by invading and destroying Ukraine?
Putin spoke of a fascist regime in Kyiv that had to be removed from power. He also talked of having to prevent the genocide by Ukraine in the Donbas.
Ukraine is known as a corrupt country. But I also experienced in Ukraine, and in my encounters with Ukrainians, a lot of pathos and national pride, which had nationalistic features.
For example, in Ukraine, the Russian language has been banned at school. Teachers who let a Russian word slip are held accountable. And yes, there are radical right-wing groups in Ukraine, but how influential and powerful they are was never, and still is not, an issue in our media.
In fact, I know too little about Ukraine to condemn Putin’s claims outright, as the media, politicians, and many citizens in Germany, Europe and the USA are doing.
But what is evident to me is that Russia is not different or better than Ukraine. So why would Russia claim to want to save the neighbouring country?
Moreover, who should govern Ukraine afterwards as a so-called puppet government loyal to Moscow? Usually, a political “substitute” is ready and waiting in such situations, but there is no counter-candidate to President Volodymyr Selensky being built up.
I found that no comprehensible motive for war emerged from these assertions.
In addition, the timing was, in my eyes, another argument against a war of aggression.
Why should Russia torpedo the commissioning of its second gas pipeline at the very time when Nordstream II was completed and about to start? Surely, it had to be clear to President Putin that Germany, now in the face of war, would have little chance of resisting the massive pressure from the USA demanding that Nordstream II be stopped, a pressure which had gone on for years.
The Russian president had prepared his country well for sanctions and prioritised the energy business with China to compensate. However, Russia’s economy and its population would still suffer from sanctions. To what end?
What could be gained from a war in Ukraine worth that price? A denazified and demilitarised Ukraine? I found that hard to believe.
The Russian government’s anger about NATO’s eastward expansion for years seemed more plausible.
The Russian president kept saying: You haven’t listened to us! And that is true. He always highlighted clearly and unambiguously NATO’s eastward enlargement as a threat to Russia. However, the NATO members’ reaction was merely uncomprehendingly shaking their heads.
When Russia 2014 annexed the site of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, Crimea, every politically thinking person knew what it was all about. Ukraine wanted to become a NATO member; if that had happened, Russia would have lost this location and access to the Mediterranean.
While NATO member states repeatedly affirmed that Ukraine’s membership was not imminent in the foreseeable future, NATO nevertheless held a joint manoeuvre with Ukraine in the Lviv region in September 2021.
Does this counter the assurances of the Western allies, or is Putin suffering from paranoia?
In line with the wisdom of the Dakota: “Great Spirit, keep me from judging a man until I had walked a mile in his moccasins“, perhaps I could feel the spot where Putin’s shoe or moccasin pinched when I considered his perspective.
Was NATO, from a Russian point of view, really a threat?
Once again, I cannot answer this question unequivocally, but Vladimir Putin’s speech at the 43rd Munich Security Conference at the beginning of 2007 is clear.
German translation: http://www.ag-friedensforschung.de/themen/Sicherheitskonferenz/2007-putin-dt.html – Putin’s full speech at the 43 Munich Secuirty Conference on the 21 Feb 2007 in English: https://newslog.cyberjournal.org/putins-full-speech-at-munich-security-conference/
However, Russia and the NATO states interpret NATO’s statements on eastward enlargement differently.
Some agreements speak against a threat from NATO.
The following article/link provides an overview and source of information https://www.br.de/kultur/warum-die-nato-erweiterung-fuer-putin-ein-vorwand-ist-100.html.
On the other hand, one cannot simply play down this NATO-Ukraine manoeuvre.
Just imagine if Finland and Sweden, which are not NATO members but feel connected to NATO and hold joint manoeuvres, would jointly conduct manoeuvre battles with Russian troops on their territories. In the front yard of the EU and NATO?!
Or, what almost led to war in 1962, if Russia stationed missiles in Cuba, and Cuban and Russian soldiers would hold joint manoeuvres in Cuba. Or in Venezuela! Right on the doorstep of the USA.
EU and US politicians always stressed that Ukraine and all other states must have freedom of choice regarding their military and defence alliances. This is, of course, a matter of sovereignty.
But would this argument also apply if neighbouring states were to ally themselves with Russia? Again, I doubt it, and history allows for these doubts.
That does, of course, not justify war! Yet, I would like to ask the NATO member states if they wouldn’t blame themselves for being inconsiderate and unsympathetic to Russia’s needs.
NATO’s eastward expansion brought NATO troops and NATO weapons directly to Russia’s northwestern border, namely Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. In addition to the Baltic states, the EU and NATO member country, Poland, stood out as a proponent of massive armament, including nuclear missiles on its territory. Although it does not have a direct border with Russia, Poland has consistently pushed for weapons. For years, Poland had created a scenario of threat from Russia. It accused Russia of not respecting the INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty), which entitled NATO to station missile systems in Poland, close to Russia.
More details on this treaty are at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/INF-Vertrag
Poland has repeatedly offered itself to the United States as a missile site. From a historical perspective, it is plausible to explain Poland’s fear of Russia (Hitler-Stalin Pact and Soviet occupation, oppression and incorporation into the Eastern Bloc). Yet, could this be the predominant and only motive? Be that as it may, Russia may have perceived Poland’s aspirations with a shudder.
I hate to say it, but politicians, as we all know, are human beings after all and, as such, can be offended or hurt.
Rumours in the media of humiliations could have driven Vladimir Putin to an unpredictable fury. For example, when US President Barack Obama mocked Russia during the Crimea crisis in 2014 as a “regional power” that “was standing alone”, he is said to have struck President Putin. Putin may have long felt disrespected and insulted by the EU, NATO and the US.
However, all these politically and psychologically understandable reasons in no way seemed so severe at the beginning of the year 2022 that Russia’s president would wage a war of aggression on Ukraine.
When everyone is staring at one point, then look around you!
The obvious didn’t get me anywhere in my search for explanations. Then I noticed that the media was not staring at other significant powers like America and China.
China’s role and interest
In my view, an attack would only amount to long-term trench warfare. In the news broadcasts, military experts attested that the Ukrainians had no chance of sustained military success. So it’s a war of destruction of life, industry and infrastructure!
I couldn’t see what such a war would do for China, Russia’s friend. At the start of the 2022 Winter Olympics in China, President Putin and President Xi Jinping demonstrated unity and partnership.
The fact that the planned “New Silk Road” would run through Ukraine and have a hub in Kyiv was no secret, but the media gave little attention. I argued that no sensible person, and certainly no economist, would set up and expand a trade route through a country in war. So, I imagined China would not urge Russia towards war or positively encourage it.
China’s leader Xi Jinping supported Putin’s argument that Europe, the US and especially NATO were not meeting Russia’s security needs. China later abstained from voting in the UN Security Council to condemn Russian aggression. But would a destructive war be in China’s interest?
It seemed that Russia could not expect much support from China, especially not militarily. China has other methods of expanding and using its power.
What did make sense to me, however, was that China could watch the reactions of the Western bloc very closely. If, for example, it were to annex Taiwan one day in the not-too-distant future, it could prepare itself or prevent potential sanctions. Such a “simulation” indeed represents an opportunity that would give China an advantage. But would this be enough of a reason to support or even tolerate a war?
The USA and its interests
In my perception, US President Joe Biden appeared like a warmonger. For example, he warned of an attack by the Russian army on Ukraine almost every week, referring to intelligence. But, this is by no means a reason to trust the American government.
However, the media did not even begin assessing America’s role and interests in this conflict and establishing connections.
The question of the Biden family’s personal and economic connections with Ukraine was taboo because US President Donald Trump had tried to instrumentalise these contacts in the election campaign and would have liked to have found something to discredit Biden. No one wants to fool themselves by associating with Donald Trump.
Background knowledge on this from the following source from 20.10.2020: https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/us-wahlen-biden-trump-burisma-100.html
However, there must be deeper contact between the current US President Biden and Ukraine because he was in Ukraine as Vice President under Barack Obama in 2014 to help fight corruption. At that time, his son Hunter had been appointed to the supervisory board of Burisma, a company suspected of corruption. President Selensky did not side with President Donald Trump, for whom an implication of his democratic rival’s son with corruption and bribery would have been welcome.
Still, I didn’t want to get caught up in rumour and intrigue; I wanted to gain insight into the powers that be in world politics.
So I drew up a chart to get a visual overview of the world situation, based on my knowledge and common sense.
This simple chart demonstrates that China is only in a significant power-political and economic conflict with the USA. Otherwise, it has only an ideological disagreement with economically dependent Europe.
Europe maintains economic relations with all of them. Otherwise, it raises the moral finger, knowing fully that it can’t take any consequences. NATO enlargement to the East and EU membership seem like wild cards in this game with Russia, to show that one could also make trouble.
The United States, on the other hand, has to deal with two enemies: China and Russia.
At the same time, relations between Germany and Russia are a painful thorn in the side of the USA.
For years, the various American administrations have urged Germany to stop Nordstream II and not to increase its dependence on energy imports from Russia. Instead, they strongly recommended American gas and oil. After all, dependence on America is not bad, as the USA is one of the good guys. But Germany has been stubborn. Until now!
So the USA would benefit the most from a Russian invasion of Ukraine. The positive ties between Europe, especially Germany and Russia, would be destroyed at a stroke. The USA would emerge from this conflict stronger as the supreme power in the Western bloc. With a bit of luck, the Europeans might also recognise that a dependence on China is not good either, and do something about it. This way, this opponent could also somehow be weakened.
For this very reason, because there was nothing to gain for Russia but a lot to lose, and the political opponent, the USA of all people, would be strengthened, I did not believe in an attack by Russia on Ukraine.
I was wrong. (TA)
Background knowledge on Ukraine – some sources: https://www.lpb-bw.de/ukraine-wirtschaft https://www.bpb.de/themen/europa/ukraine/272720/analyse-ueberraschende-entwicklung-mit-offenem-ausgang-die-ukraine-usa-beziehungen/ https://ukraineverstehen.de/dubowyk-use-und-ukraine-blinken-besuch-2021/
Links to articles - War in Ukraine
War in Ukraine - part 1
Comments