CFR: Ukraine Crisis, It's the Wests Fault

I am so tired of hearing about the evilness of the East, Russia in particular regarding Ukraine. This whole coup staged by the US/EU/IMF/NATO totally stinks and if anyone will look back to the breakup of the Soviet Union and what happened then they will see this expansionist imperialism for what it is.

Mainstream, Hawkish Group Blames the West for the Mess In Ukraine

We’ve previously reported that it’s the West’s encirclement of Russia – breaking a key promise which led to the break-up of the Soviet Union – which is behind the Ukraine crisis.
Council On Foreign Relations: The Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s – Not Putin’s – Fault

Wiki: Council on Foreign Relations

Well yeah but bringing that up also brings out the deniers of history and the anti-Russians crowd. I suppose "technically" speaking the West can disavow anything if it suits their purposes. Certainly NATO encircling Russia would fall into that category.

According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire.

But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West.

The West’s triple package of policies — NATO enlargement, EU expansion, and democracy promotion — added fuel to a fire waiting to ignite. The spark came in November 2013, when Yanukovych rejected a major economic deal he had been negotiating with the EU and decided to accept a $15 billion Russian counteroffer instead.

And how is any of this even applicable? Perhaps a trip down memory lane will help clear the cobwebs. NATO's non-expansion was agreed between the East and West as a requirement for Russia's removal of troops from East Germany.

Moscow has long asserted that the Soviet Union allowed Germany to unify only in return for a pledge from Washington never to expand the Atlantic alliance. Former advisers to Presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have transcended partisan differences in dismissing the Russian claim. An internal State Department review during the Clinton era concluded that no legally binding prohibition on NATO enlargement emerged from the era of German unification.
NY Times: Enlarging NATO, Expanding Confusion

No "legally" binding prohibition, please. I guess Russia should have simply brought in more lawyers and not taken the Wests word for anything. But lately who could take the word of any western country. I sure wouldn't and I live here.

Note: These articles will take some time to read through but if you really want to understand what's going on in Ukraine they are worth the read.

a reply to: Bassago

If the CFR is going against the West? Keep an eye on the Stock exchange and banking cabal!

Sounds to me like the pit of vipors are starting to eat their own.........

If American Citizenship doesn't give us the basic rights we thought it did, why are you expecting any difference?

Loophole is a legal term. This situation didn't even require a loophole. I've typed it all day today. Legality doesn't make something right or wrong.

a reply to: seeker1963

If the CFR is going against the West? Keep an eye on the Stock exchange and banking cabal!

Sounds to me like the pit of vapors are starting to eat their own.........

Yeah I found this interesting as well.Not the information which I already knew but that they would be saying this. As you said banking danger ahead was all I could think of as well.

S&F for you Bassago! Great find!!

This is literally staight from the horses mouth, the CFR would know what has caused the Ukrainian crisis and John Mearsheimer has stated the obvious, for any who can see beyond the western MSM propagnda outlets.

Now this does lead to some intersting questions.

1. Main question, what kind of chess move is this? The CFR are at the core of the evil that has been running Amerika since its inception in 1921?

2. Why would they throw the National Endowment for Democracy under the bus so to speak?

Had to add this, I am very interested in hearing the opinion of those who have so vocally supported the westerrn script of the Ukrainian events. How can you still fault Russia with this clear admission?

a reply to: Bassago

Not saying its morally correct.however any country would make the same advances if said country was a world super power,simply to protect its interests. What I dont like is how we hide behind moraliTy to sell protecting our interest, I feel it would be better to have a dialogue with our people. That may be impossible for security reasons

a reply to: TechniXcality

So soldier, if things get really messed up and US lands in Ukraine to fight Russia, would you go to the war abiding the oath made to the US Army?

Also, is it true that soldiers who went to Iraq and Afghanistan were earning $10K a month?

If things mess up bad, I am heading to the woods. No interest in fighting for Bankers of the west and Oligarchs of the east.

a reply to: elementalgrove

2. Why would they throw the National Endowment for Democracy under the bus so to speak?

The only reason that makes any sense is that Western actions were not totally in the plan of the CFR. Most likely the US and NATO got greedy and jumped the gun. Western expansion is a huge temptation.

a reply to: TechniXcality

Not saying its morally correct.however any country would make the same advances if said country was a world super power,simply to protect its interests.

Possibly, probably but to me this shows short sighted planning and simple greed. We had no need to expand to Ukraine except to support imperialist interests. If we hadn't then Crimea would still be part of Ukraine instead of Russia.

Just more short sighted greed and ambition from what I can tell.

Btw, no Russian invasion into Ukraine as per an expert

en.ria.ru...

Putin Would Not Be Lured Into Military Invasion of Ukraine - Expert

Smarty pants Putin !! He can keep on sending his unofficial green men to fight for rebels and keep away from the economic sanctions of all sorts.

However, I hope Putin recognizes DPR and LPR and then supplies them with good weapons and training to do the job themselves. Takes 3 months to train a soldier usually but fast track training can make it happen in 4 weeks skipping lots of theories in between.

a reply to: victor7

Well if I was still in yes. However I think your question is a matter of personal philosophy You've stated you would protect your interests and there is nothing wrong with that,it is your prerogative. I would protect our interest as a nation so long I felt our leaders had our best interest as a society in mind which is certainly in question these days, but then it always has been,right?

I want to say thanks for sharing and brining updates to the site, as it is a heated topic. Looking more into the info provided.

Just want to have a moment of silence for the loss of many civilians and others as well as the displacement of many. Such as an American volunteer with the Donbass Battalion/ Ukraine side who lost his life yesterday(he was interviewed by Vice Dispatch 66). He mentioned, and of course how he felt about separatists taking advantage of the situation, that he is witnessing that there's something very wrong with how Ukraine is being run-"The Political elite has to be destroyed here".

a reply to: Bassago

Russia invaded Ukraine.

Your info has been posted time and again and debunked, yet here we are again, with a new source which links back to the other sources used in the mentioned threads.

While your post uses the name council on foreign relations, none of the links actually go to the document in question. They go to blog sites for the Washington post.

Can you link to the actual CFR document?

Also former east bloc nations would not have charged to the west had they not been occupied by the soviet union for 50 years.

a reply to: TechniXcality

In my views, an American should have gone to war in 1991 Gulf I but not in 2003 Gulf II. Yes for Afghanistan to smash Talibans and no for Kosovo against Serbia (Kosovo was truly political to show Russia in a weak light).

Those Americans who think NATO expansion eastwards and outright encirclement of Russia is right, they will probably pack their own gear and show up at the recruitment centers.

War are the near ultimate product of business and politics. Thanks to internet lots of information can now be obtained and deciphered to make own conclusions. I conclude that fighting for Bankers or Oligarchs is demeaning oneself and washing away all the self respect as a human being. These folks have set about demeaning the basic human dignity of the "more vulnerable" people and would not get me services for their evil causes.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Your info has been posted time and again and debunked

Uh huh. Show me.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I found this here
From the site:

Since its founding in 1922, Foreign Affairs has been the leading forum for serious discussion of American foreign policy and global affairs. It is now a multiplatform media organization with a print magazine, a website, a mobile site, various apps and social media feeds, an event business, and more. Foreign Affairs is published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), a non-profit and nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to improving the understanding of U.S. foreign policy and international affairs through the free exchange of ideas

It appears to be a good source.

I have to say I agree with the article, for the most part.

a reply to: kx12x

Thank you kx12x, this was one of the links within the articles of the OP. Probably should have added it but I'd hoped folks would actually read the links.

As I mentioned, this is history, for many younger folks this is unknown information. For "pro west" folks this is stuff to be avoided. For people who just want the truth, well this is gold.

Edit to add:

U.S. and European leaders blundered in attempting to turn Ukraine into a Western stronghold on Russia’s border.

ETA: Shared above already. (slow browser sorry!)

The article shared in the OP source, is by John Mearsheimer:

From our September/October 2014 Issue

According to the prevailing wisdom in the West, the Ukraine crisis can be blamed almost entirely on Russian aggression. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the argument goes, annexed Crimea out of a long-standing desire to resuscitate the Soviet empire, and he may eventually go after the rest of Ukraine, as well as other countries in eastern Europe. In this view, the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 merely provided a pretext for Putin’s decision to order Russian forces to seize part of Ukraine.

Published By The Council On Foreign Relations

a reply to: dreamingawake

You left out the next part:

But this account is wrong: the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West.

a reply to: kx12x
CFR


I used the sites search function to find this article / analysis and its not showing up on the CFRs website. Maybe someone can double check and see if it comes up?

@ Bassahgio -
There was never and agreement by NATO to not expand. NATO discussed this issue when the USSR collapsed and decided a sovereign nation could join if they chose. What NATO did do was to allow countries that border Russia to join NATO however NATO bases / Forces would not be deployed. This would be one of those issues where you guys make the claim of an agreement yet never can produce anything to back it up.

If you check a globe you will see its not possible to "encircle" Russia. That bs is the same bs argument used when Ahmadinejad was President of Iran. Another argument that was debunked on the Iran threads and debunked presently in the Russian threads.

Russia, like the US, does not get to make plans revolving a 3rd party sovereign nation without their input. If Russia was so much better than the west then the nations the USSR occupied for 50 years would never have run to the west when the USSR fell.

As I stated before - your thread and its content has been posted time and again and debunked time and again.

ETA - John J. Mearsheimer - author - is not listed on the CFR website as a member.