What if they gave a war and nobody ever heard about it? That’s what the Trump administration is trying to pull off in its military campaign against Venezuela. Trump has made no effort to convince the American people to support regime change. And he’s inventing a fake non-organization, like SPECTRE from the Bond films, to declare as evil terrorists.
What If They Gave a War and Nobody Ever Heard About It?
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The TMI Show" talk show. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
19 Comments. Leave new
Can’t wait to git’ my Secret Venezuelan War Ribbon that I will have to tat to my azz.
Much as when Putin lined up his forces on the Ukrainian border, it sure likes we are going to be at war within a few days. What happened to the president who was asking for a Nobel Peace Prize? I liked him much better.
Just a historical note. As Russia assembled troops on its border with Ukraine in late 2021, it sent the Biden administration drafts of two proposed treaties, one regarding US directly and one regarding NATO of which the US is controlling member.
In lieu of military conflict on the other side of that border, Russia offered negotiations to finally address its security concerns, regarding the expansion of NATO eastward, which had been first presented as a condition for dissolution of the USSR and about which reminders had been given to, but ignored by, the US/West continually for the following 30+ years.
In that period, in stark proof of the validity of Russia’s concerns, US/NATO essentially doubled it membership, in the direction of Russia, and made public its plans to have Ukraine become a member (e.g.: see “2008 Bucharest NATO summit” at Wiki). Then Obumma carried out the 2014 coup in Ukraine. Eight years of civil war followed as the new, US-controlled government began a massive military offensive in eastern Ukraine against its population of ethnic Russians, many of whom are Russia citizens.
Russia waited two months for a response from the Biden administration on the draft treaties but heard nothing. Of course, Biden, to perhaps his only credit, never tried to so blatantly gaslight his base by claiming to be a “peace president.” The first Trump administration (pre-Biden) had begun robust financing of the Ukraine military.
The two treaties can be read at the links below:
US: tinyurl.com/t5zcaxns
NATO: tinyurl.com/2chk2y6w
A historical note that doesn’t use the word “Crimea”! What else did you fail to mention?
Do you mean that Crimea is 90% ethnically Russian … that the Ukraine independence declaration, as part of the dissolution of the USSR, allowed Russia to retain, under lease, its naval base there, with up to 25,000 military troops, in the port of Sevastopol that had historically served as the Russian/USSR’s only warm water port from 1783 … that this lease had been renewed just a couple years before the 2014 coup? Do you mean that the US is angry because Putin outmaneuvered the coup plotters who, characteristically extremely naively, thought they would steal the base from the Russian navy?
Thank you, falco! Let’s also mention that Crimea was not historically part of Ukraine, and was only combined with Ukraine in 1954 by proclamation of Nikita Khruschev. His proclamation did, however, include the proviso that the Crimean parliament could, by majority vote, secede from Ukraine if it so desired. At the time, the two were pretty much the same as two US states–it was like combining, say Maryland and Delaware.
After the coup in Kiev (fueled by at least 5B in US money and cheered on by the presence of US Sens. McCain and Murphy), the Crimean Parliament met and authorized a plebescite on whether to stay in Ukraine or secede and rejoin Russia. In heavy turnout, 90% of Crimean voters approved reuniting with Russia. The US sent in a polling team afterwards, and a US-conducted poll confirmed that the vote was representative of the sentiments of the people of Crimea.
Thank you, brother martin!
Apologies … I didn’t mean to blindly defend NATO here. NATO should have worked with Russia to keep long-range missiles further from Russia’s borders, and similar such details. NATO’s failure justifies Russia seeking a solution. But, the “solution” that Putin chose was a bad one. Having a legitimate grievance doesn’t justify the death and destruction that he unleashed. Likewise applies to events where Ukrainians started the violence.
A good, comprehensive solution instead should end all the violence; give Russia enforceable, verifiable, security guarantees from NATO; and should restore the Donbas, etc. and Crimea to Ukraine.
It was precisely “security guarantees” that the USSR made as an integral condition of its dissolution 30+ years ago. (Did you not notice ?!?) It was precisely “security guarantees,” to which I gave two links in my first comment, that were presented to both the US and to NATO two months before Russian troops entered Ukraine. Russia began peace negotiations with Ukraine shortly after, if not actually before, that invasion.
A draft agreement was announced about six weeks after the war began. Immediately, the hideous clown Boris Johnson, then UK PM, was dispatched by Biden to destroy that set of “security guarantees” presumably acceptable to Russia. Several subsequent draft agreements, with, logically, decreasingly favorable conditions, have been offered by Russia along the way that were similarly rebuffed.
NATO is the representation of US military presence in Europe. What “NATO should” do/have done is what “the US should” do/have done. It is, and has been from the dissolution of the USSR, complete, bipartisan US policy to destroy Russia and harvest its riches and resources. (see RAND report “Extending Russia” tinyurl.com/c9htem5a) The US government has NO regard for Ukraine nor its people. Ukraine is merely, YET ANOTHER, proxy that will have to be completely destroyed, if necessary, for the attempted satisfaction of US cosmic greed and blinding obsession with global control.
The modern West’s first invasion of Russia was by Napoleon. Then came the Crimean War. Then came the invasion by the initial “coalition of the willing” in 1918 after the Russian October revolution. Then came the Nazi’s in WWII who killed 27 million (15% of its population and 2/3 civilians) before they were driven back to Berlin. Then, instead of US extending the gratitude to its WWII ally, that it richly deserved, the “Cold” War was begun. That was allegedly ended (remember the diversionary “Peace Dividend”) with the dissolution of the USSR. The Ukraine project was officially begun in 1992 when Ukraine/NATO contact was initiated. With Clinton, the “economic shock treatment” (as the execrable US legacy media chirped) was administered with the inside assistance of Russian President Yeltsin. That abuse was so severe that Russian life expectancy began to drop. (see “Failed Crusade” – Stephen F. Cohen) Note: this listing is not necessarily comprehensive. Nor is it clear if Clinton felt the pain he had wrought on Russia.
Putin’s first major peccadillo was to rescue Russia from the US abuses of the 1990’s. He oversaw the reconstruction of the Russian economy and, justifiably, per the paragraph above, has led the development of a military at least two, If not three, generations technologically superior to that of the US.
The 2014 US coup in Ukraine was another proof of the validity of USSR security concerns voiced decades earlier. (All the details of US “meddling” in Russian affairs from 1992 to 2014 have not been included.) After that, any and all of the many western pleas for preservation of Ukraine “sovereignty” have been total gaslighting/projection. Two fraudulent Minsk agreements ignored by western guarantors (Germany and France), massive fortifications erected in the Donbas and ensuing killing of some 14,000 ethnic Russians, some Russian citizens, finally brought Russian troops into Ukraine.
As shown above, the massive loss of Ukraine lives (intended and, for the most part, military only) is the fault of the prodding of US/NATO to ignore the many off-ramps that have been provided by Russia.
The return to Ukraine of Crimea and the other four oblasts that have petitioned for and received annexation into Russia will never happen. The two centuries of western abuse are over. With the ego-sodden performances of the deranged*** Trump, called peace negotiation, but really only bald-faced, 180° reversed, demands for Russia capitulation (to save face for Trump), only loss of more territory to Russia can be expected.
The more the US/NATO push Russia the more they will lose. The more their numbskull presidential hopefuls joyously promise the US the world’s most lethal military the sooner and more destructively their empire of piracy, chaos and blatant genocide will deservedly collapse.
The continued US fantasy that Russia can be dictated to, much less defeated, must end if the US has any desire for a future. Ninety per cent of the world’s population, similarly abused by the US, from economic, to proxy, to frank war, are in complete agreement with Russia … and its unshakeable ally, China
——————-
*** but significantly less deranged than the utter, suicidal fool, Biden, who precipitated the war
Thanks for going into all the dirty details, falco. To summarize what you wrote:
1)Russia had no intention of engaging in a long bloody war in Ukraine.
2)NATO has no interest in giving Russia “security guarantees,” because NATO exists to guarantee Russian insecurity.
To brother martin: Thanks for reading & summarizing
The web site won’t post my response. 🙁
Part 1:
As is the case in many of these multi-year conflicts, each military has become adept at reciting the wrongs that haven happened over the years … to its side. Each military has concluded that death and destruction is the only language understood by the military … on the other side. The civilians on both sides suffer from the death and devastation visited upon them, accidentally, to such a level that some start describing it as genocide.
Part 2:
This approach to solving the conflict is self-perpetuating, but it doesn’t determine who is right, only who is left. I have a lot of sympathy for the soldiers who have rightly concluded that the best way to get their families out of this mess is to side with their local kingpin, but the kingpins who exploit this have no such excuse.
Last part:
In no particular chronological order, the proper solution is:
1. All people must be provided their inalienable rights, including security, financial restitution, freedom of movement, and democracy.
2. All the death, destruction, and devastation must cease.
3. The need to punish must be replaced with truth and reconciliation.
Anyone who says otherwise is itching for a self-perpetuating fight.
I certainly agree with the parameters to achieve the “proper solution.”
Assuming we are both Americans and the the only thing we can hope to change is America, while I would suggest that America needs considerable work in those areas, am I correct to assume that you would maintain that America needs
little, if any, such work?
Every nation that is involved needs to take steps they can towards a reasonable solution. If there is a step that a nation fears to take unilaterally then let’s do that as a treaty where the nations agree to work together. My focus is on the present and the future; what can we do towards #1, #2, and #3 now and upcoming?
There are many who instead want to focus on the past. If that includes you, go for it. IMHO, that has value within a truth and reconciliation phase that is underway but, prematurely, a focus on the past too easily derails forward progress, which is why I personally stay away from the topic.
Or putting it another way, solving the problems here and now is higher priority than figuring out what went wrong in the past. There is a time for the latter, but at present that is lower priority and potentially derailing, so let’s defer that.
I’ll take that as: “Correct, America needs little or no such work.”
Ack, am I that hard to understand? Nope. Please accept my it as: America needs considerable work in those areas.
So do other nations. But I really don’t want to get into arguments about which nations have historically failed worse than the others. On the other hand, if we can figure out how to get America and/or other nations to take steps towards #1, #2, and #3, I’d gladly work with you towards that!