ISSUE #114: The Ukraine invasion was anything but "unprovoked."
“Russia is widely believed to have been taken aback by the West’s assertive and unified response to its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine,” reads a CNBC article.
"The diplomatic visit underlines the importance of the Russian relationship for China, even in the face of international blow back against Moscow after its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine earlier this year,” writes CNN.
“They were attacked by an unprovoked act of war,” said Killary... oh sorry, Hillary Clinton.
If the invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked, why do the warlords and their media have to add the word “unprovoked” every time the conversation about the war starts? I’m not being biased toward Russia but ask yourself: If you are not a child trafficker, do you need to carry a flag saying “I’m not a child trafficker” every time you go out? I don’t think so. If someone does this, the public skepticism against that person is going to increase, and rightly so.
"Right now if you're a respectable writer and you want to write in the main journals, you talk about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you have to call it 'the unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine," Chomsky said.
"It's a very interesting phrase; it was never used before. You look back, you look at Iraq, which was totally unprovoked, nobody ever called it 'the unprovoked invasion of Iraq.' In fact I don't know if the term was ever used — if it was it was very marginal. Now you look it up on Google, and hundreds of thousands of hits. Every article that comes out has to talk about the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine."
"Why? Because they know perfectly well it was provoked," Chomsky said.
"That doesn't justify it, but it was massively provoked. Top US diplomats have been talking about this for 30 years, even the head of the CIA."
It’s hard to argue against the point Chomsky made because there is a long history of the main figures of the US empire saying that the continuous provocation of Russia is going to end up in the invasion of Ukraine, and that’s precisely what happened.
Behind the clouds of “unprovoked invasion” formed by the non-stop ranting by the media, there shines the sun of truth.
Here are a few examples:
Henry Kissinger, writing in his 2014 article for The Washington Post, said, “A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country [ West, primarily Ukrainian, and East, mainly Russian ] to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction.”
“Ukraine should not join NATO.”
John Mearsheimer - geopolitical scholar from the US - in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome."
Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist, writing a column in the FT this year warned that "NATO enlargement is utterly misguided and risky. True friends of Ukraine, and of global peace, should be calling for a US and NATO compromise with Russia."
For more references, you can check this thread out:
The Western leaders knew that NATO expansion toward Russian borders was going to provoke the country, but they didn’t back down, and now that Russia has reacted militarily, they want us to believe their fart-brained fairy tale that Russia is the aggressor.
Rand Corporation, a Pentagon-funded organization, released a paper in 2019 titled “Extending Russia - Competing from Advantageous ground” explicitly stated to continue to threaten Russia over Ukraine joining NATO in order to force Russia to act as an aggressor.
“While NATO’s requirement for unanimity makes it unlikely that Ukraine could gain membership in the foreseeable future, Washington’s pushing this possibility could boost Ukrainian resolve while leading Russia to redouble its efforts to forestall such a development,” stated the paper.
If I am an evil psychopath with a desire to dominate others, and I know my actions are going to cause a conflict between two people, one of which is my enemy, I have every incentive under the sun to provoke that conflict as long as I have something to gain as a result of that conflict.
Even if, for a moment, we believe what they tell us about the triggers of the war, what explains the West’s attempt to make sure that no peace settlements take place between Russia and Ukraine after the war had already started?
This is not to mention the violent uprising that Washington insisted in 2014 to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Kyiv, which led to a fracture in the nation that Kissinger warned us about. The Eastern part which was Moscow-loyal refused to acknowledge the new government, while the Western part of the country was inclined towards US/EU and supported the new government. This led to a civil war in the Donbas region (the Eastern part of the country) that would continue for 8 years and the civil war saw the shelling of Russian-speaking Ukrainians by the far-right nationalists of Ukraine that increased exponentially during the days leading up to the war.
The US could have prevented this war, first by not continuing to expand NATO towards Russian borders, and second by not shredding peaceful treaties, but they chose war over peace because that’s how imperialists operate. The only way to maintain imperialism is to make sure that there is no one to threaten the status quo, and that explains the “no rivals develop” strategy of the US after the collapse of the USSR.
“But Harry, if the US wanted to fight Russia, wouldn’t it fight directly instead of keeping Ukraine in between?”
Congressman Adam Schiff had already answered this question back in January of 2020 as the road to war was being paved: "so that we can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here." The US doesn’t have long-standing cultural or social relations with Ukraine as it has with Britain, but it’s in the geostrategic interest of the empire to fight Russia in Ukraine because neither it would lose American lives nor would its infrastructure be going to waste.
The US is achieving everything it can by funding a proxy war in Ukraine, be it fighting its enemy, or increasing internet censorship and anti-Russian propaganda, or expanding military, or enriching military industrial complex, or prettifying its image as an interventionist, and all it costs is some dollar bills it can print anyway.
If you still think the US didn’t provoke Russia or stands nothing to gain from the conflict, you either doesn’t have a functioning brain matter between your ears or you knowingly want to be a simp of the most powerful empire in the history of mankind.
When you highlight this important fact about the war in Ukraine, you get ridiculed by the empire simps who call you names to silence you, and that’s expected. As Chris Hedges said in his report, “Historians who point out the onerous Versailles conditions imposed on Germany after World War I as a cause of Nazism and World War II are neither excusing Nazi Germany nor are they smeared as its defenders.”
Telling the truth about war doesn’t mean you are a “Russian puppet,” but hiding the truth, whether knowingly or unknowingly, surely means you are a “Washington’s puppet.”
Thank You for reading the entire article. I would love to hear feedback from you.
Put some coins in my digital hat if you like my work:
Every day, I do my best to bring my best to your screens, but I can’t do it full-time without your support. If you find my work valuable, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account here. Any amount is more than appreciated.
Talk to me on Twitter:
SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE: