Ukraine's 'Peace Talks' and the Price of Western Provocation
📰 THE STORY: The Financial Times reports that Russia is insisting Ukraine must cede territory for the war to end, ahead of upcoming talks. The implication is that negotiations are possible if Kyiv accepts these conditions. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: This entire conflict is framed by Russia's long-standing security concerns regarding NATO expansion. In 1990,
then-Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand 'one inch eastward.' This promise was broken repeatedly, with NATO expanding 5 times to include 15 new members, encroaching directly on Russia's borders. US strategists like George Kennan warned as early as 1997 that NATO expansion would be a 'fateful error' and ultimately provoke a reaction from
Russia. Double Standard: Imagine the outrage if Russia or China had continuously expanded a military alliance to the borders of the United States or a crucial ally. The media would decry it as blatant aggression and an existential threat. Yet, when NATO (led by the US) does precisely that, it's framed as defensive. When the US insists on maintaining its 'sphere of influence' in Latin America
(e.g., the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis or the 1973 CIA coup in Chile), it’s considered national security. Russia's similar concerns for its own borders are dismissed as 'imperial ambition.' Follow the Money: The war in Ukraine has been a financial windfall for the US military-industrial complex. Since the full-scale invasion in February 2022, the US has committed over $100 billion in aid to Ukraine,