By Alexander G. Markovsky | June 18, 2024
Image: Ukrainian flag by ???? ???????. CC BY-SA 2.0.
In a speech delivered on August 1, 1991, in Kiev, President George H.W. Bush urged Ukraine to consider risks associated with independence. He delivered a clear warning to Ukraine, stating that “…. freedom is not the same as independence. Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.”
The President’s warnings fell on deaf ears. Ukrainian leaders were not pursuing national interests. Instead, they were motivated by unfounded hostility toward Russia. The outcome proved catastrophic.
On August 24, 1991, Ukraine, driven by “suicidal nationalism,” seized the opportunity presented by the impending collapse of the Soviet Union to proclaim its independence. Once the excitement and promises of democracy and prosperity faded, the Ukrainian people, who had never experienced self-governance, were confronted with the harsh realities of governing a nation. Subsequently, despite impressive resources, Ukraine failed economically and politically.
Ukraine inherited one of the world’s largest agricultural and industrial bases from the Soviet Union. It used to be called a breadbasket of Europe. Its economy produced airplanes, ships, locomotives, turbines for hydropower plants, electrical motors and transformers, and a vast assortment of consumer goods. Donbas coal mines were a major supplier of the Soviet Union’s steel mills and power plants. Additionally, Ukraine manufactured various military hardware, such as tanks, missiles, and jet fighters. With a well-educated population, Ukraine could have become one of Europe’s economic powerhouses.
Unfortunately, Ukrainian leaders either failed to grasp or intentionally ignored that the Ukrainian economy was closely intertwined with the Soviet Union’s economy. Therefore, Russia was a natural, or rather the only, market for Ukrainian goods and services. Despite this, Ukraine abandoned Russian markets and aligned with the European Union. It was an absurd idea, as it would necessitate a significant overhaul of the Ukrainian economy to comply with European regulations and standards. Such a massive endeavor would require both time and substantial financial resources.
In the end, the EU displayed no interest in Ukrainian products. Consequently, Ukraine lost the Russian market, and the economy crumbled. Ukraine was no longer able to sustain itself, and its entire existence relied on foreign aid, ultimately resulting in Ukraine losing sovereignty and becoming a pawn of foreign interests.
In no other area did “suicidal nationalism” manifest itself as severely as in the realm of domestic policy, which eventually contributed to the ongoing conflict.
After the chaotic collapse of the Soviet Union, Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, where most residents were Russians, fell under Ukrainian jurisdiction. The sentiments towards Russia in these regions, varying from acknowledging Russian as an official language to seeking complete autonomy from Ukraine, have been ingrained in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. These emotions were further solidified by the removal of Ukraine’s pro-Moscow, democratically elected president Yanukovych in a coup d’état that the United States sponsored in 2014.
Kiev could accept a limited autonomy for the belligerent East, similar to the American states, which it demanded from the outset, and avoid a bloody conflict altogether. But newly elected president Petro Poroshenko ignored President Bush’s warning not to “… seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism.” Instead, it elected to use military force to subdue the Russian population of Eastern Ukraine. It has been shelling Donbas, including the use of artillery supplied by America, destroying the cities, and killing thousands of civilians indiscriminately for years (something the Western media ignores entirely). This “suicidal nationalism” was one of the reasons behind Russia’s eventual annexation of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions.
In foreign affairs, “suicidal nationalism” also overrode national interests. Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO membership, ostensibly for security reasons, disregarded Russia’s repeated warnings over the past three decades about the existential threat of NATO’s eastward expansion. The push for Ukraine to become a member of NATO would not and could not ensure Ukraine’s security. Instead, the effort has put Ukraine in mortal danger for breaching the terms of the 1997 Treaty on Friendship between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, which explicitly stipulated Ukrainian neutrality (section 6, page 148).
Ukraine’s unwavering pursuit of NATO membership, fueled by political inexperience, recklessness, and a heavy reliance on foreign aid, was an illusory goal that served no national purpose and tragically led to a preventable war. By now, it is self-evident that the pursuit of NATO membership resembles chasing a mechanical rabbit (video here). Yet Zelensky and Co. still do not realize that their tireless endeavors and sacrifices have been in vain, as NATO membership has never been an attainable reality. For obvious reasons, NATO members, unlike Ukraine, want to avoid direct confrontation with Russia.
Indeed, even Ukraine’s strongest supporters cannot escape the fact that during the thirty years after declaring independence, it has failed to produce any notable accomplishments. On the contrary, inept Ukrainian leaders have plundered most of the resources they inherited from the Soviet Union, exacerbated internal incompatibilities, and incited an unnecessary war with Russia, the ravages of which continue to erode the remaining fragments of its once-thriving heritage.
In the annals of history, it would be difficult to name another instance where a nation consistently made decisions detrimental to its own national interest, ultimately leading to self-destructive outcomes. As this dysfunctional and corrupt failed state crumbles, there is a haunting fear that Ukraine will be left a wasteland for future generations. Konrad Adenauer’s words, “History is the sum of things that could have been avoided,” ring so especially true for Ukraine.
Alexander G. Markovsky is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research, a conservative think tank that examines national security, energy, risk analysis, and other public policy issues. He is the author of “Anatomy of a Bolshevik” and “Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism, She Adopted It.” Mr. Markovsky is the owner and CEO of Litwin Management Services, LLC. He can be reached at alex.g.markovsky@gmail.com
Yesterday, one of the Nazi Azov commanders announced an official protest over the incompetence of the Commander of the Joint Forces of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, Zel fired the Commander of the Joint Forces of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Notably, this was only a few months after Zel appointed this incompetent chap to this position.
The significant sway with which the Nazi faction still holds over Zel and the govt should noted, as this event clearly demonstrates. The Nazi problem in Ukraine is real, and it really is a problem.
Peloni
All of what you say is good.
It strikes me that all these Fascist states, such as Ukraine post Coup and such as Gaza take different forms but…
What united them though is that they step outside of parliamentary forms of rule
This was the essence of the Coup and also of Gaza while also dispensed with elections
With Global heating of the planet as a result of the warming effect of TOO MUCH CO2.
With the science making clear that the lab leak theory is promoted against Tony Fauci…this is another road to Fascism.
All those on Israpundit who did not comment when I gave the URL of the Eddie Holmes video
That’s opening the door to that form of fascism
A society can only take so much
The whole system veering towards Fascism
And the model to study is the Nazis taking power in 1933
You need to seriously study that period.
Tell me how Hitler did it?
Is the changing situation in France not similar
Tell me…
@Felix
This is almost true. The problem is that the system is more broken than it is in need of reform, so I would characterize it as I expect the system to be fixed, and by that I mean that the govt by the consent of the governed will be reinstituted. The nature of the American people will hopefully take over from there.
You see, it isn’t that the Republic has been corrupted, but rather that the Republic has actually fallen. You can’t claim that a representative govt rules a nation in which the representatives are chosen by the elites and not the public, so America is at the moment one principle away from being fairly characterized as a Republic, and that principle is that the will of the public should choose its govt. After that is fixed, the reforms which would safeguard the nation from being captured by foreign influence and international cronyism could be pursued, but only after the Republic itself is re-established.
@Felix
The details of Trump’s plan are of course unknown. Orban gave voice to a popular sentiment of what Trump might do, but Trump later qualified his silence about Orban’s comments to be out of respect for his Hungarian ally rather than deference for the accuracy of his statement. In fact the comments made by Trump in the interview I posted yesterday are likely the best evidence of what he will do. Ukraine is not going to be in NATO, period, and that is a big statement by itself. Recognizing this fact will be important for Putin, allowing him to be negotiable on other matters, albeit not the four provinces which voted to become part of Russia. I also believe that Trump will likely provide (SELL not GIVE) Ukraine with arms enough to defend its borders, but not of the type which Ukraine is being stocked with today by Washington’s psychopathic Uniparty.
One way or the other, Zel will likely go away, either to one of his world wide mansions or six feet under, as the war will be ended, and the war is all that stands between the will of the people and their choosing another peace candidate to replace the last one which had betrayed/oppressed them, which was Zel. The Nazi’s in Ukraine will not be irradicated by negotiation, and I would argue that Ukraine faces the very same problem which exists in Gaza in this respect. Notably, in Gaza the infection is deep and wide, but in in Ukraine it remains deep but not universal. Also, after Ukraine has finally accept that they have lost the war, well, that is the period in which I would be most concerned about the potential of a wider popularization of the Ukrainian Nazi problem. They will build every failure and every mistake of the past decade as the doing of the Jew Zel and the outcome of this possibility is quite concerning. In any event, these are just my own thoughts such as they are, but I think they are not entirely without merit.
Recover comment
I agree with all. But I go much further. The international capitalist system to which you are devoted is geared for world nuclear war
Out of which they engineer neo fascist states in America and in Europe.
This can only be stopped as in 1933 Germany by socialist revolution
That is my position to which you are opposed
You expect reform of the system
Peloni
What will Trump do?
@Felix
You should not consider that the support for Ukraine is by the Democratic party, alone, nor even a faction of that corrupted institution, as the RINOs support of the Nazi/Natinoalist Monist faction is upto their elbows or higher. Do recall the visits of McCain and Desantis in support of the Maidan fractionalization of Ukraine. It is a bipartisan, swamp based, Deep State project, intended to regime change Russia back to the 1990’s, or so I would argue.
I also disagree that the fascist element in Ukraine is source of the tragedy in Ukraine. Rather I place it upon the American support for the Monists, which is only partly Nazi, though the Nazi element is the more reactive and to a point influential of the two groups. Hence, the current events have nothing directly to do with the Holodomor or Bandera, but only indirectly, as it is the source of only part of the Ukrainian problem which is entirely irrelevant to, though useful for, the aims of the American problem, which is centered around power, greed and the deployment of their globalist agenda. Or so I would argue.
@Adam
This is hardly true. Do you believe that the nationalism of Farage in England is suicidal? What of that of Trump in America? Or of Bibi in Israel? No, nationalism is not inherently suicidal, IMO, rather it is the cloth which ties a nation to itself, and for which its the preservation demands its leaders to demonstrate a competent balance between tradition and innovation to hold the nation together as one and prevent such subdivisions as Ukraine, for example, chose to pursue. Tradition, while not sacrosanct, must be considered in effecting any changes for that change not to have a harmful effect upon the unity and integrity of the nation for which the changes are intended to support.
More specifically, let us consider your reference to America and how American leaders pursued a course of success while Ukraine pursued a course of failure.
Do recall the point raised in the Declaration of Independence.
Hence, the colonies were reacting to a “long train of abuses and usurpations” which they listed. Indeed, they fought a war against great odds and which led to such a determined animus to jolly old England, that they chose to make a govt for themselves which was foreign to every aspect of English rule. This was the disaster of the Articles of the Confederation. Had America maintained faith to what I would agree was the suicidal nature of its war with England, ie the govt the chose to replace the English crown, America would quite certainly met a fate far less successful than what did take place. Fortunately for everyone, the Americans, unlike the Ukrainians, recognized that they were on a path of self destruction, and unlike the Ukrainians the Americans chose to change their obsession of casting off English govt in its entirety for some radically unique, while pathetic, form of govt under the Articles. Having the prudence to be self critical and seeking something which conserved the good of the past, ie the English traditions which form the foundation of the Constitution, led America to adopt this new form of govt, the result of which is the successful history of the American nation.
Contrasting with this, Ukraine acted to sever itself entirely from Russia, while claiming for itself a nation which included a large ethnic Russian minority which held a strong traditional ties to its Russian past. As time passed, rather than choosing a path which was more conservative and which might have been more accepting of the sentiments of its ethnic Russian citizns, Ukraine repeatedly chose a path which was more radical, and by doing so isolated, politically marginalized and ultimately targeted the sentiments of its Russian minority, in parallel with the Ukrainian govt coming to exist in greater and greater support from donated subsidies of the USAID, the American fund used to manipulate and topple foreign nations to benefit American foreign policy.
Striking a balance between conservation of the old traditions and ties while seeking reforms which will create new currents in society is essential to hold the fabric of any nation together. In fact, Ukraine failed this test, miserably and repeatedly. The result is the catch 22 in which Ukraine is today fighting a war it can not win, led by a despot who will not recognize the limits of his authority.
Hence I would offer that prudence rather than radicalism is what saved America from its anti-English sentiments, while radicalism rather than prudence is what has doomed Ukraine to be consumed by its anti-Russian sentiments.
Addressed to at least Peloni
The issues are of crucial importance. I cannot do otherwise than characterise the move of large sections of the Democratic party behind the Bandera Fascists (remembering the long Nazi history and the Coup February 2014) as being essentially Fascist.
For Zionism not to be crystal clear on this is a great betrayal of Jews.
Our opponents like Adam have to be forced to face certain critical issues.
We need to narrow it down to the essence.
The issue of the history is critical
1. The 1917 Revolution and subsequent civil war. These coincided with the 1918 to 1920 massive Pogroms
2. The creation of the Holodomor fake news
3. All this interplay of these Fascists of Bandera in the Holocaust as it weaves it’s way into the present
This is the essence. Stick to that.
@ peloni. Please post in this space the comment Z just sent to you concerning the “suicidal nationalism” of the American thirteen colonies in 1776 with today’s refusal of Ukraine to surrender its indpendence to Russia today. I thin my comment iluminates the “suicidal nationlism” of Ukraine today.
Most if not all nationalisms are “suicidal” in some sense. Take the American War of Indpendence, also known as the American Revolution, as an example. When the thirteen colonies declared their independence from Britain in 1776, it appeared even to sympatheric observers in the British parliament, as well as to many Ameerican “colonists,” that they were committing suicide. Did the colonists really believe that they could take on the military might of Great Britain and win? The strongest navy and one of the strongest armies in the world. And what would happen to the Revolutionsleaders if they lost? And in fact many historians over the past 250 years have written that tthe colonists” victory was an almost inexplicable fluke. Yet nations and peoples do take “suicidal” risks when they conclude that their longstanding imperial overlord is irretrevably hostile to them, leaving them no choice but to secede from it. This is what motivated the colonists in 1776, and it is what motivates the Ukrainian nationalists today.
I agree with inna1.
@Felix
The tone is that of an open forum. The terms are 400 words and no ad hominem attacks. There is no right think here, but feel free to draw out the bad faith arguments being made as not one of the comment so far has yet to address the basis of Markovsky’s argument, including your own.
In fact the trio of supporters of Banderaism lodged at the centre of Israpundit have made mincemeat of Israpundit. You may have three editors but same are unable to row back against these determined liars.
The method of lying is very clear. If they do not like the sound of something they definitely will not answer. But proceed to spout another barrage of lies. Thus the debate falls down and contributors will be less and less.
In the final analysis I blame the three editors totally and completely. They set the tone and indeed the terms of the discussion.
I repeat my question: was Nigel Farage correct when he said the extension of NATO to Russia’s border made the war inevitable?
@Adam
Sanctions placed on Russia do not work at all. The majority of Russians support the aggression the same way as in the USSR Soviet people supported Stalin’s regime. Russia is a country with a tyrannical President Putin, a corrupt government, and a passive frightened population. Several fighters – Nemtsov, Starovoitova, Navalny, and some others – could not get enough support and were killed by Putin.
@Ted
Mr. Markovsky was “offended when someone refers to NATO as a peaceful alliance”. I do not remember anyone who called NATO a peaceful alliance. It was started as a defensive union against the aggressive USSR after WWII. We know how aggressive the Soviet Union was, and how Stalin funded and supported Hitler, helping him to come to power. It was in the past. Now the world has a different reality. But what about Russian aggression in Lithuania, South Ossetia, and Georgia? What Russia was doing and is doing in the Middle East? Now we are discussing what is going on in Ukraine. I am repeating – Ukraine is an independent country and she has a legal right to join any organization she wants, the same way as Baltic and Eastern European countries that joined NATO. She did not attack RF, it’s a fact. She did not have any intention to do so. She did not present any threat to RF. Russia had too many resources, and too big an army to be afraid of a small Ukraine, which demilitarized in 1994, was under Obama’s embargo (ended by Trump), and was too weak to be afraid of. Russian propaganda (“demagoguery “) comes from Mr. Markovsky.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-145829476
I think it was an X account.
@Laura
Is there a reason why you chose not to provide the source I requested?
Laura is right.
The onlyplausible explanation I can thonk of as to so many seemingly intelligent people are supporting Russia’s agression and genocide in Ukraine is that they have suffered severe financial losses as a result of the sanctions placed on Russia beginning 1n 2022. Many companies as well as individuals invested in these companies have millions of dollars of reasons for supporting Russia’s agression and genocide. As it says in one of the New Testament’s gospels, “Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”
It would never occur to you Peloni, that your sources are fake news originating in Moscow.
@peloni. It would seem there are a lot of things that happen in this world that you are unaware of, Peloni. There is no question that the Yeltsin administration forced Ukraine to become independent. Even if Ukraine petitioned the dying Soviet Union to grant it independence, this would have no meaning since onece it became known that the Soviet Union was scheduled to be dissolved on December 31, 2024, although of the former “Union Republics,” declared their desire to become independent after the Soviet Union dissolved. They really had no choice but to make such a declaration because they would immediately cease to exist along with the Soviet Union, leaving their legal status in limbo. However, Ukraine did not actually become independent until 1991, aftere the Soviet Union had already ceased to exist. And that was Yeltsin’s uniilateral decision, not Ukraine’s. It is also true that Russia, when it expelled Ukraine and all of the other former union republics from Russia,, also initialed an agreement with the now-suddenly-independent Ukraine to the effect that deliniation of the precise border between Russia and Ukraine, and the furure status of Crimea could be the subject of future negotiations between the two parties. However, the agreement also stipulated that tCrimea would be under Ukrainian administration until all the final status issues were resolved. I don’t have the numerous websites on the WWW that narrate this history at my fingertips. But you can find them yourself with no trouble if you actually want to learn the facts.
It must be understood (for anyone who may be searching for answers and who has come onto the site for the first time, or returning after an absence) that the site of Israpundit has been taken over by forms of conspiracy thinking that would take your breath away. Especially on the big ones – Covid and vaccines and the biggest of all Global Warming. I can think of noone writing on the site who is an exception.
And as I anticipated nobody has taken on board the biggest event of all Nigel Farage has named the NATO push to the East as being the cause of the war…and everything!
Creepy!
@Adam
I am not sure of the event to which this statement might be referencing, but I can assure you that Ukraine left the Soviet Union under its own choice, and in a manner which they refused to recognize the call of autonomy for the Dombas. In fact, Ukraine overwhelmingly, to the point the election result was somewhat universal, voted to leave the Soviet Union in a popular referendum while still under the suzerainty of the Soviet Union.
https://www.ukrweekly.com/old/archive/1991/359102.shtml
This was following the failed Soviet coup on Gorbachev, so perhaps you are referencing some other event. It is true that Crimea did not want to be part of Ukraine, and succeeded from Ukraine months before Ukraine succeeded from the Soviet Union. The US pressed Yeltsin to reject the Crimean plea to be taken in as part of the Russian state, and Yeltsin, true to form, did as the Americans requested, thus abandoning Crimea to be made part of Ukraine. Was this perhaps the event you are referencing?
This is true, as it was a result of the American imposed shock therapy, which ultimately led to the state assets being bargained off to those who would later be acknowledged as the Ukrainian and Russian Oligarchs. Notably, it did not turn out well for either Russia or Ukraine, until Putin came to power and employed Lawfare tactics (similar to what is now being used in the US) to make an example of what would come of those Oligarchs which challenged the interests of the state in what came to be known as the Yukos trial. It remains to be an interesting curiosity, that while the Americans today are using Lawfare to destroy their nation, Putin used it to preserve his own. The only way which this might be effected in either America or Russia, though, is thru a strong presidency. This fact was a feature, not a bug, I would argue of both nations’ uses of Lawfare, respectively. In fact, the reason that Putin was able to use such tactics grew from the seeds of corruption which Yeltsin planted when he overthrew his nation’s parliament, making the presidency significantly more powerful in the constitution which he wrote with his own hand and which he was later supported for having done by his American handlers, so to speak. When Putin was quickly able to contain, and to some extent control, his Oligarchs, the West recognized that Ukraine might achieve a similar outcome. Indeed, among the purposes of the American staged Orange Revolution of 2004 in Ukraine was to eliminate the strong presidency which had up to that date been a feature of that woefully corrupt and failing Frankenstein nation.
Notably, none of this is related directly to Markovsky’s argument, but rather is a response to your own comments, which do not address Markovsky’s comments at all. Just FYI.
Markovsky writes:
Another good analogy to Mr. Markovsky’s “suicidal independence” theory would be someone who condemns a family for leaving their comfortable apartment because of a “suicidal” wanderlust, when actually they were evicted against their wishes by their landlord.
@Laura
I am wondering in which Neocon source this might be found, or if it is sourced to some Ukrainian milblogger. In any event, I would be interested knowing, if you have the link.
Notably, if my guess as to the sourcing is correct, and I am very much convinced that I am correct, you should be aware of the fact that the fake news passed as news reports from the West are very much designed to present Russia as an imperialistic, warmongering, unstable, crumbling totalitarian regime. But I would still be interested in the source which inspires your conclusion here, such as it is.
Peloni–you have me at a disadvantage as respect to the facts or alleged facts described by Markovsky, because I am niot an expert on the history of Ukraine or much the less the history of Ukrainian nationalism. Howver, I have been able to learn a few facts by the Ukraine’s independence in 1991 by consulting A Carnegie Institute report dated from2012, when U.S.-Russian relations were still fairly good.
1. Ukraine did not become indpendent in 1991 because of “suicidal nationalism,” or nationalism of any kind, but because President Yeltsin in that year expelled Ukraine and all the other former Soviet Union republics from the Russian Federation. Ukraine was not clamoring for independence from Russia. Russiaforced it on them. Once independent, the Ukraine governments coped as best they could. The former Soviet authorities had governed Ukraine as a source of raw materials and some manufacured goods for the benefit of Russia, not Ukraine. When independence was forced on them, successive Ukrainian governments did their best to cope, but poverty, unemployment, etc. were widespread. According to a Carnegie Institute report, Ukrainian ‘oligarchs” eventually took over Ukraine, much as they had taken over Russia. A Carnegie Institute report dated 2012 considered this a positive development, because the Ukrainian oligarchs, like their Russian counterparts, at least had some administrative experience. More later
Tell me again, Russia is not imperialistic:
I think they understand very well that Farage has pinpointed the big issue…it was mainly about NATO expansion to Russia border making defence of Russia
… Impossible!
So they will cowardly disappear
Thanks Peloni
He shows as more principles than all
The reality, not smart Alec debating points, is our only hope to avert nuclear war
Why people not responding here to this?
@Felix,
Indeed
@Michael
My response was to those who responded with a response which was off target as I explained. You did not comment at all, til now, which was why I did not respond to the comment which you did not make.
First it must be said that Farage is a patriot, a nation defender. The BBC call him right wing but the joke’s on the BBC now.
I can easily prove that Trotsky would have been on his side in this.
For Britain and wider this is going to potentially expose the lies and liar. I have just tweeted
“An astounding very strong statement from Nigel Farage “I stood up in the European parliament in 2014 and I said: ‘There will be a war in Ukraine.’ Why did I say that? It was obvious to me that the ever-eastward expansion of Nato…”
That’s enough. He identified correctly cause!! “
Peloni,
You left out me. Shouldn’t I be grandfathered into these things?
Of all the “authorities” to cite, Markovsky chose George H.W. Bush, who first declared that we are creating a “New World Order”. This is silly.
@Ted
The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation was an agreement between Ukraine and Russia, signed in 1997, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other.
Under Article 2:
In accord with provisions of the UN Charter and the obligations of the Final Act on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the High Contracting Parties shall respect each other?s territorial integrity and reaffirm the inviolability of the borders existing between them.
As for the willingness of Ukraine to join NATO (a defensive union against possible Russian aggression) – as a sovereign country Ukraine has the legal right to join NATO as other neighboring countries have already done and continue doing. BTW, in 2000 Putin told George Robertson, the Secretary General of NATO at that time, that he wanted Russia to join NATO but would not like to go through the usual application process…
The last sentence of the article: “…all parties involved desired this war, except for Putin.” So the author is saying that Ukraine desired this war?!!!
Or maybe thousands of Russian soldiers, who are dying on the battlefield in Ukraine without any reason, desired this war?! So, if Putin did not want this war, why did he start it?! I don’t know, Ted, why you respect this author so much. He is a Russian propagandist, it’s that simple.
@inna1
Markovsky replied:
@Ted
I am confused. What factual evidence the author is talking about? One of the facts is the signing of the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 by Russia, the USA, and the UK. The Memorandum prohibited Russia, the USA, and the UK from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine and respecting the signatory’s independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
The author, who is repeating again and again the Russian propagandistic narrative, insists on Ukraine’s misbehavior towards Russia, her willingness to join NATO, her Nazis, her failure to produce any notable accomplishments (?), her Russian-speaking population’s unwillingness to stay in Ukraine… Rationally thinking people cannot accept these arguments, even without knowing all the details. The main point is that Ukraine is now, and WAS after the dissolution of the USSR, an independent sovereign state, and everything, including her Nazis (Russia has much more of them), her economy, her national language (Ukrainian), Euromaidan in 2013 (against President Yanukovych’s decision not to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU), instead choosing closer ties to Russia), and the fact that there is corruption and betrayal in the Ukrainian government – all these cannot justify Russian aggression. The author attempts to persuade readers that Ukraine is guilty of this horrific invasion and that small Ukraine was a threat to huge hostile Russia with enormous resources and a tyrannical insane President (Putin, who changed the Russian Constitution to stay in power, who already sold Siberia to China, who’s people, except in Moscow and St. Petersburg, live in poverty…) are naive and weak. He is repeating this propaganda in his many articles, pretending that what he is saying is facts. No, they are not.
@inna1
@Adam
@Laura
Markovsky’s critique below is quite accurate and apply to you each in turn. You fail to address a single fact raised by him as you are each shadow boxing with your own straw men arguments.
It would be nice to have a response which was responsive to the discussion put forward by Markovsky, so it would be quite useful for us all if you could explain why the documented facts cited by Markovsky are not supportive of what he actually did say, rather than addressing issues which you each raised, but were in fact completely irrelevant to Markovsky’s argument.
@Inna1
Markovsky replied as folows:
@Joseph36
I don’t quite understand why you suggest going to Wikipedia. Ukraine did not present any threat to Russia. In 1994, Russia, the US, and the UK signed the Budapest Memorandum, confirming Ukraine’s independence. For recognition of her independence, Ukraine had to return to Russia 1,200 nuclear warheads and other weaponry developed in Ukraine while she was a part of the USSR. Ukraine obeyed. To justify her aggression Russia is talking about the Ukrainian Nazis, Ukraine’s willingness to join NATO, and the necessity to defend the Russian-speaking population. Putin is repeating that the population of Crimea had a referendum (under Russian guns), and people voted for seceding from Ukraine. All this is bullshit. Alexander Markovsky wrote several articles about the Russian invasion with the same narrative: “Ukraine… incited an unnecessary war with Russia.” Nothing can be further from the truth. Ukraine, a country much smaller and weaker than RF, did not have any intention to start the war with Russia. She is suffering a lot, and the EU, the USA, and NATO do not give her enough weapons to win the terrible war. Of course, there are some Nazis, corruption, antisemitism, and bad government (Zelensky and Co.), but all this does not change the fact that RF is Aggressor and Ukraine is Victim.
Dear Mrs. Laura, I think you will be able to understand more about Nationalism and History only after you check the data on the ‘Crimean War’ that you find in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War
Here you can compare the losses of all the countries participating in that war [between 16 October 1853 and 30 March 1856]. However, if you don’t find Ukraine among the participants, that shouldn’t disappoint you…
However, you don’t have to ask President Biden about this alleged “omission” because then the Americans were preparing for a Civil War, probably as they are now! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War (April 12, 1861 – May 26, 1865)
The question I sometimes ask myself is what will happen after the ‘curtain falls’ on the Tragedy that the Whole World sees happening in Ukraine?
Ted, Peloni and Ev: please post my reply to Mr. Markovsky in this space even though I know you disagree with its contents. I think it contains information that some of your readers may wish to know.
I can think of another recent example of :suicidal nationalism:” Russia when it launched its agressive war against Ukraine of February 24 of 2022. , bringing on itself severe international sanctions sanctions against it;” persuading'” Sweden and Finland, for years friendly neighbors, to join NATO; prompting hundreds of foreign corporations to withdraw from Russia, taking their expertise in many industries with them; causing the value of their petroleum and natural gas exports to drop by more than 25%;making most Western-manufactured goods unaffordable to most Russians; “persuading” many of their most highly skilled and wealthiest citizens to flee abroad; losing tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of their most productive citizens to suffer death or permanently disabling injuries; creating a severe labor shortage; causing a sharp increases in alcohol consumption and gambling, which are signs of stress on their population; causing numerous businesses to default on their debts or forcing them to file for bankrupcy; bringing some of their largest corporations, including Gazprom, to the brink of bankrupcy; exposing the inadequate training of Russian soldiers, and the corruption and.or incompetence of much of their officer corps. All this for very modest military progress in a totally unnecessary, pointless war that would do nothing for Russia even in the unlikely event of total victory.
As for the Ukrainians preferring to fight to preserve their independence rather than surrendering to an invader bent on depriving them of their national independence and national culture; has Mr, Markovsky ever heard of something tthat thirteen colonies did in 1776?
So, Ukrainian nationalism is a bad thing, but Russian nationalism is great. Got it.