A Conservative writer wants the West to be nicer to Putin. WHY?
‘Diplomacy will require, yes, “appeasing” Putin a little and recognizing that he has rational strategic interests. The West is quick to dismiss Russian grievances with NATO expansion as nothing but a pretext for imperial ambition, but the West has made no serious effort—despite repeated warnings—to restrain its own imperial ambitions in Putin’s backyard. It doesn’t take a “Putin apologist” to understand that Western meddling in Ukraine has been needlessly provocative, and that it poses an obvious, logical threat to Russian security.’
WHAT IS THE “OBVIOUS LOGICAL THREAT” THAT NATO AND THE WEST POSE TO “RUSSIAN SECURITY”?
Thanks for the link, great site, I am going to send them some money.
The end game is becoming clear now: Russia will have a land corridor to The Crimea, the eastern provinces will become independent members of the Russian Federation, and Ukraine will be a landlocked, poverty stricken (even more than now) rump.
The US and NATO will attempt to maintain, in this rump, a modern day SS Galician division, committed to waging a guerilla insurgency against Russia, using US and NATO weapons, supplied free of charge, in the hope of bringing Russia to its knees.
Spetznatz will kill all these bastards in short order.
“Ukraine” will be a dystopian dump, and America will have achieved another triumph.
The “threat” we should be concerned about is not the threat to Russian security, but our own.
Coming to a diplomatic solution to this war would not be to appease Russia, but to avert disaster for the West - not just the possibility of World War 3, but the very real result of further wrecking our already devastated economy, which is already happening.
That’s the basic point of the article, with which I agree.
