Over the last few weeks, the images coming out of Ukraine have been horrific. Thousands of people have been displaced, hundreds have died—and there does not seem to be any negotiable end in sight. Russia’s Putin has seemingly unleashed a violent war of aggression on a neighboring, sovereign country who, for all intents and purposes, was simply minding its own business.
But are we getting the complete story, or simply what the Western media and power brokers want us to believe?
Indeed, there is no justification for the bombing of civilian targets and wreaking havoc on innocent men, women and children. Let that be clear.
However, the canard that Russia is attacking Ukraine as a “land grab” action, or that Putin desires to resurrect the old Soviet empire’s glory, does not play out when confronted by facts.
The tussle between these two countries has been many years in the making. Ukraine and Russia have had political and cultural ties dating back to medieval times. The Soviet Union fell hard, and its republics quickly fractured and became independent. But the relationship between Russia and Ukraine was always unique—some would say a “one people” relationship.
Yet, the overly aggressive expansion of NATO has pricked the Russian bear’s nose.
For Russia, a Ukraine that is part of NATO and right on its border is simply unacceptable. With most of its old satellite nations now in the NATO orbit, Russia, rightly or wrongly, fears for its safety.
In the Russian strategic conscience, Ukraine as a NATO member is an existential threat.
Back in 1994, Ukraine gave up its nuclear arms. This was formally done via the Budapest Memorandum, a document signed by Russia, the US and the UK. The document promised that no aggressive action would be taken against Ukraine if it surrendered its nuclear weapons and that said countries would respect its territorial integrity. Keep in mind that at the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine had the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
The one major exception to the promises made by these countries was in the instance that they had to defend themselves from possible Ukrainian aggression.
Recently, Putin recognized the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent, which are largely Russian speaking and identify more with Russian culture than Ukraine proper. Ukraine for its part, has been extremely aggressive in trying to get these regions to heel. There has been an ongoing conflict that has killed over 14,000 people. Many in these two regions felt that the government in Kyiv had a boot to their neck. After Russia’s recognition, there were celebrations in the streets of the regional capitals.
The military actions taken by the Ukrainian government against these two regions, combined with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky’s adamant insistence on joining NATO, may have been a crossing of the red line for Putin.
There’s one more thing: Zelensky wanted his nukes back, or would be open to the purchase of them should Ukraine’s membership in NATO be turned down.
Last year, Ukraine’s ambassador to Germany was quoted as saying, “Either we are part of an alliance like NATO and also make our contribution to strengthen this Europe, or we have only one option; to rearm ourselves.”
Certainly, Putin took him seriously
Thus, either way, Russia saw nuclear weapons on their front porch.
Although he is portrayed as a madman and a megalomaniac, Putin may be neither. Rather, he is reacting to what he sees as aggressive moves to militarily isolate his country.
Does this justify a massive military invasion causing thousands of casualties on both sides? Perhaps not. There might have been a diplomatic solution if both sides were amenable—but Ukraine was not in the mood for concessions.
The West has heartily thrown its support behind Ukraine. The old Cold War fears of an aggressive Russia were breathed new life. There has been a great deal of moral outrage against the invasion, and Zelensky is seen as the new Churchill who will, “never give up.”
But before one gushes with admiration, keep in mind that Ukraine is the world’s epicenter for sexual exploitation with thousands of Ukrainian men and women sold into sex slavery and brought to other countries. It is also synonymous with money laundering and the paying off of politicians for financial gain, both domestic and foreign.
Foreign relations, and certainly wars, are a messy business. Someone once said that the first casualty of war is the truth.
It is with this in mind that we hope for a peaceful settlement of the present hostilities.
We also hope for a balanced truth that takes in all the data, and that facts will not get lost in the tidal wave of emotions.
--------------------
Joseph M Bianchi is an independent journalist based in Greenville, SC. His work has appeared in national and international publications.
