If we PutHumanityFirst, humanity will rise and make the world a better place for human beings.
In the whole philosophical black holes or rather, rhetorical propaganda devices surrounding the invasion of Ukraine by Putin, a number of unfortunate arguments have been made to justify the invasion. From where I stand, none of them make sense. I think that if you are supporting the invasion, you better be getting paid, so we are clear you have sold your soul.
Prior to any arguments being made for the invasion, Putin’s premise for the invasion is roughly – recognising the independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Then the sorry arguments started rolling in.
The first that made rounds was that Russia is only protecting its interests and security. Some said how would the US behave if such a situation developed in neighbouring Mexico or Canada. Evidently, this ignores Putin’s aforementioned premise of recognition of independence of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. For these people doing the soft Putin apologia, how would they react if Mexico or Canada started doing what Russia is doing? Imagine if Mexico said – “we are sitting here on the border to The US, we are looking over at Arizona, California, and Texas. We see a lot of people who look like us, we hear a lot of people who speak our language, and some of them – allegedly – wants to be part of Mexico. As such, we recognise the independence of those areas. Just because we don’t feel they are being treated that well, we are going to send some tanks over.”
So the idea here of if The US was Russia and Mexico and Canada did what Ukraine did, how would The US react completely ignores the similar thought experiment of what if the US was Ukraine. That one, they have not thought about.
After debunking the first argument, they move to whataboutism. What about all the nations The US have invaded. Well, firstly, thanks for admitting Russia is invading Ukraine and not push Putin’s lies of “special military operation” in Ukraine.
Now, this seems to me as a better position than the previous argument. Unfortunately, for those making it, they have now accepted it is wrong what Putin is doing. While you can make a case that The US does not have the morality to accuse or prevent another nation from invading another nation, you now have to deal with answering the question – “if there is any nation who could stop Russia from invading Ukraine, which country is most equipped?”. The US. You can’t say China, they have a “no limit friendship” with Russia. So where does that leave your argument? In the trash.
Another popular argument is that NATO breeched an agreement with Russia about expanding east. Sigh.
The subject of the grievance is whether the US and its Western allies promised the Soviet Union during negotiations over the reunification of Germany that they would not allow NATO to expand its membership east of the Cold War border. Such an agreement was never made,” NATO says in a fact page on its on its website, one of multiple pages that addresses the Russian allegations. “NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949 — and that has never changed.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, a divided Germany and the four powers that had occupied it since World War II were discussing whether the country should be reunified. The treaty they signed in 1990 extended NATO into East Germany, which had been zoned to the Soviet Union. To appease the Soviets, it also granted the territory a “special military status” that ruled out the stationing of foreign NATO forces there.
The agreement said nothing about NATO’s ability to expand farther east, a process that began with the admission of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary as members in 1999. Subsequent agreements, like the NATO-Russia Founding Act in 1997, also made no mention of a prohibition on eastward expansion.
The source of controversy, however, is centered around statements made during the negotiations by Western leaders — particularly James Baker, the US secretary of state, and German Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher. One key statement came during a Feb. 9, 1990, meeting between Baker and Gorbachev.
After explaining why the U.S. wanted the reunited Germany to stay within the framework of NATO, Baker told Gorbachev that “if we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east.”
“I put the following question to (Gorbachev),” Baker recounted in a letter to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl. “‘Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces, or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift 1 inch eastward from its present position?’”
Also, a country cannot be a part of NATO if the country has a disputed territory(ies). As such, Putin annexed Crimea to ensure Ukraine can’t join NATO. In addition, Ukraine didn’t get the required votes to be part of NATO, as France and Germany voted no. Then there are some justifying the invasion based on something that has not happened end will not happen.
This invasion is now a strong reason for Ukraine to join NATO.
All these brings me to what is evidently a dissonance in the invasion. But I’m not sure why it is not being said enough.
So the claim is that Putin does not want NATO near Russia’s borders, however, he is invading Ukraine – a country that shares borders with Romania, Hungary, and Slovakia who are all NATO members. Putin does not want to move close to Russia’s borders but he wants to go and meet them but invading Ukraine then share borders with NATO countries?
Make it make sense.
Next we’ll see why Putin didn’t have to invade Ukraine while Trump was in power.
#PutHumanityFirst: the hope for a greater future
Put Humanity First 