Above, US Patriot air defense missiles deployed near the Polish border with Russia<\/p>\n
What the so-called Russian experts and politicians all forget is that the US does not have troops scattered about in Poland, Romania, the Baltic states and other Eastern European late comers to NATO because Washington cares about these countries and feels morally obliged to protect them from Russia, which does not want them.\u00a0In truth, Washington doesn\u2019t care a hoot about Ukraine, Poland, Romania and neither do Americans.<\/p>\n
The reasons for Washington\u2019s presence in Eastern Europe are entirely different.\u00a0 One reason is that Washington wants the countries as locations for missile bases such as Washington has placed in Poland and Romania.\u00a0 These bases are on Russia\u2019s borders leaving no response time to nuclear missiles launched from them.\u00a0 The bases give Washington the advantage in a confrontation to back down Russia.<\/p>\n
Another reason is that the NATO countries provide customers for the US armaments industry. Washington keeps pressure on NATO members to \u201cdo their part\u201d and spend more on their own defense. So much of the analysis and commentary about the current situation in Ukraine presents Washington and NATO as rescuers on white horses riding to the defense of states threatened by Russia. If Russia really were a threat, Washington and NATO would not be so aggressive.<\/p>\n
The Soviet Union had Eastern Europe as a buffer.\u00a0 Most Russian experts at the time concluded that the Warsaw Pact was a net drain on Soviet resources.\u00a0 Responsibility for these countries today is the last thing Russia wants.<\/p>\n
All Russia wants is for the US to get military bases off her doorstep.\u00a0 This is a reasonable demand, and compliance with it would relieve the tensions that otherwise could break out in war.\u00a0 Washington\u2019s aggressive policy seems designed for one reason only: to cause a war.<\/p>\n
Few people understand that the US sanctions against Russia are based entirely on lies and are in effect acts of war. \u00a0That Russia has tolerated them is interpreted by Washington as Russian weakness. \u00a0The reason Russia gets so much abuse is that she doesn\u2019t do anything about it.<\/p>\n
The narrative is that Russia invaded Ukraine by accepting the vote in Crimea to be reunited with Russia. Until 1991, Crimea had been part of Russia since 1783. \u00a0The vast majority of the people who live there are Russian. \u00a0Between 1991 and 2014 when the US overthrew the Ukrainian government in a coup, Crimea was occupied by Russia as Russia\u2019s Black Sea naval base is there. \u00a0The Russian forces were already there, because Russia had a long term lease on the area.<\/p>\n
It was the US that invaded Ukraine while the Kremlin was preoccupied with the Sochi Olympics. \u00a0The US plan was for the puppet government it installed to revoke the lease and kick the Russians out of their naval base. \u00a0It was an audacious plan that had no chance of success. \u00a0To prevent Americans from understanding the situation, the narrative was started that Russia invaded Crimea.<\/p>\n
There are Americans who pose as Russian experts who maintain that Putin has territorial ambitions to restore the Soviet empire. \u00a0These people are not experts. They are liars. \u00a0If Putin has territorial ambitions, why did he not reincorporate Georgia into Russia? \u00a0Why has he refused for 8 years to honor the vote of the Donbass Russians to be returned to Russia? \u00a0The Donbass area, like Crimea, is historically part of Russia. Both were transferred to the Ukrainian province of the Soviet Union by the Soviet government, but Russians, not Ukrainians live there.<\/p>\n
In US universities and think tanks, researchers\u2019 analyses come to conclusions consistent with the views of those who fund their research. This is why there are no more Stephen Cohens who give an independent objective analysis of the real situation. \u00a0Indeed, in the US today an objective analysis is considered to be pro-Russian and the author is said to be a Russian agent.<\/p>\n
As a result, we get a one-sided story. \u00a0The problem with one-sided stories is that the implication is the other side is entirely to blame and hasn\u2019t a leg to stand on. \u00a0This is the position that Russia finds herself in, and it is the reason that the West doesn\u2019t listen to a word she says. \u00a0It is very dangerous to ignore Russia when she says she finds the situation intolerable. \u00a0Russia seems at times to be masochistic, but sooner or later she will bite back.<\/p>\n