Finland and Sweden want to join NATO. But is that a good choice for their citizens, their populations? Under the current agreement with Russia, both countries enjoy a nuclear umbrella — in the event of nuclear war, their populations will not be decimated by nuclear bombs and/or the subsequent radiation.
But in joining NATO, that nuclear umbrella goes away. So does joining NATO make the people of Finland and Sweden safer? Unaligned, the two countries are under no threat of being attacked by Russia, but in joining NATO, both countries are now part of the nuclear confrontation between US/NATO versus Russia, and so, as a consequence, both countries would face annihilation in the event of nuclear war.
It would seem that joining NATO has very little gain for either country and potentially everything to lose. Under such circumstances, one has to wonder about the rationality of their political leadership in making such a questionable decision to join NATO. It does not appear to be a very rational choice.
The US/NATO vendetta against Russia using Ukraine as the pawn will lead to the destruction of Ukraine. It also brings in the nuclear specter. And by the way, the sanctions mean starvation around the world. The Russia-haters in the US and NATO don’t care.
Where Are the Peacekeepers?
What one should be asking oneself about the conflict in Ukraine is where are the peacekeepers? It is obvious that a settlement of the dispute would be very beneficial to all the parties — Europe, Russia, and most of all Ukraine itself, for, if this war in Ukraine continues and no doubt escalates, the entire country will be ravaged.
But where are the third-party peacekeepers who might aid in brokering an agreement between Russia and Ukraine? No one seems to be stepping up to this task despite the clear benefits for all.
The areas of Ukraine that the Russian military has taken over have a majority of ethnic-Russians in their populations, so it isn’t unrealistic for these areas to be incorporated into Russia — that’s called democracy or rule by the majority. The deal would include the guaranteeing of the new borders of Ukraine against any further incursion by Russia, along with the compromise that Ukraine remains unaligned with NATO. Those are the obvious parameters of such an agreement.
Why would Ukraine entertain such an agreement with loss of territory? Because they are facing devastation to the middle and western parts of their country — currently relatively unscathed — as well as the loss of the entire coastline, including Odessa, so that Ukraine would become completely landlocked, and so no longer benefit as a lucrative transit point for the eastern trade route.
But instead of stepping up to encourage such an agreement, the West has elected instead to open the floodgates of military aid to Ukraine. Clearly, the West, egged on by the US, doesn’t want peace, but is willing to sacrifice Ukraine in order to debilitate Russia. That’s why there are no peacekeepers. The West is using Ukraine to wage covert war against Russia.
This will not end well for the West, certainly not for Ukraine.
Waging war, even indirectly, is an unpredictable animal. The current generation of would-be diplomats in the West seems to have forgotten this fact. And Kennedy’s sword-of-Damocles remark relative to the threat of nuclear war is still very pertinent today — perhaps more pertinent than ever.
Outbreak of War
The Ukrainians are NATO’s pawns in NATO’s undeclared war against Russia. They are going to get steamrolled by the Russian military.
The responsible party for causing this war in Ukraine isn’t Russia but NATO — its reckless expansion eastward despite legitimate Russian security issues.
The real victims here are the Ukrainian people, now brought to the slaughter by NATO’s relentless ambitions.
Neocons in Foreign Policy and Nuclear War
Russia lost 27 million in WW2. That is the basis of their fear of NATO and of Europe. That is the reason why this war in Ukraine happened. Europe has invaded Russia twice in history, and it isn’t an abstract thought that there could be a third invasion. In fact, Russia considers NATO’s reckless expansion eastward as the third — stealth — invasion.
Russian Losses in WW2