Germany Loses Patience with NATO over Ukraine Lies

Indeed it would.
Allready Janukovic was elected for his promise to lead Ukraine to EU. But like most ukrainian politicians before he was corrupt and Putin could buy him. But after Maidan Putin obviously decided, that this goal could no longer be achieved. So as he decided to occupy (russian translation: save, liberate) Crimea in that legendary session on February, 23 rd in 2014, it was clear that Ukraine would never get an ally again.
But he also knew that an Ukraine in war and economic troubles would not be able to join EU and NATO. So actually Russia is most interested in Ukraine not getting in calm water, because that would in mid term mean Ukraine being a member of EU. And that would strategically mean democracy and economic prosperity (like f.e. in Poland) direct on russian border and even more dramatically for russian speaking people.

 

You missed two entities, whose interests should be also taken into account: USA and Ukrainian people. USA wants and does manipulate European nations by using NATO. Ukrainian people do not hate Russia and do not want to fight in the east. They also not embracing the Maidan government in Kiev. Ukraine is lacking intrinsic cohesion. How you can help the post Maidan Ukraine to survive? It is breaking down and Putin and his people realize it very well.

 

Don't get started me on dear old Blighty and it's past imperialism...

I am inclined to differ somewhat with your analysis in your first para that "it's all for deterrence." I think it's all for the projection of US power and implants a psychology in the host nation - which is very much part of its rationale. Recall that the US has it's military deployed to over 150 nations worldwide (source - not that you can ever really trust Wiki for accuracy). No other nation comes remotely close to this. This is US dominance of the world.

On the second subject, I have no real concerns about Russia getting back its backbone. Not because I favour Putin etc. But because I favour greater balance in the world - as we can see from the foregoing US projection of power - one world power is a really bad thing. Besides this Russia can never compare to the US militarily anyway.

But Russia, China and a few others can eventually act as an economic alternative. And that's good imo. Having all the economic and financial infrastructure under the sole control of one nation (more or less) has been a hideous development growing out of WWII. This very much was the US plan btw (see the CFR's War & Peace Studies project - as much as you can anyway, it's still kept completely confidential).

In the last analysis I, personally, am sick and tired of the US starting wars all over the world all the time (39 since the year 2000, and well over 100 in the previous century), in order to suit their divide and conquer play-book to maintain their global economic dominance.

It's well past time for peace and a little sharing. We've suffered the alternative and it's really bloody awful.

 

About US interests that are not complete the same as european and ukrainian I wrote in my first post.

About the ukrainian people I can only tell about facts. They did the maidan although it was dangerous and things were not clear at that times. Even more, they elected a non extremistic, pro european president and parliament twice in free elections. This seems a strong sign for me, which direction the country should go.
I don't know if russia is hated, but every day, ukrainians die by russian backed terrorists the hate will grow (Same as on the other side...).
Actually ukraine does a thing, it never really had done since 1991 - nation building. And this obviously contains russian speakers in the ukrainian held teritory too, as they obviously fight in the ukrainian army and the national guard too. Being ukrainian seems less getting a matter of birth than of will. For me thats modern Nation building, even if it sometimes seems a litte bit pathetic.
But there are two threads. The militaric by the seperatists, that hold some 5% of the country, but claim some 50% being theirs. And the economic, Ukraine has a weak economy, no natural ressources and has to lead an expensive war. That already ruined stronger countries in history. And to help here I meant with help to survive.

 

For an interesting insight into the US strategy about Ukraine, I recommend watching George Friedman's address "Europe" Destined for Conflict" to the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs.

[video=youtube;QeLu_yyz3tc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeLu_yyz3tc[/video]

I thought Friedman's comments about the war in Europe will not result in another 100 millions deaths, was telling. Plus his insights into US foreign policy.

 

War at home and abroad, its the only way a government can justify itself in perpetuity.

 

Haha, you and me both

Yeah, I'm aware of our sprawling military presence around the world, an empire in all but name in terms of power projection. Interestingly enough, this would not have been possible without this agreement signed during WW2, nor do I think the Americans would've started basing so many soldiers abroad, lets not forget how vehemently isolationist they were back then. WW2 served as a catalyst for a change in American foreign policy. Much like the UK continuously meddled in Europe to maintain a balance of power, we now do the same in Eurasia (with the help of the wily Brits as well) and I think all of our bases show this. Whilst some of the bases are power projection, I still hold the initial bases (think Japan, Germany, Turkey, South Korea etc) were/are for deterrence. Any subsequent bases are in line with the Containment doctrine, something we're continuing to implement (only new adversaries have been thrown into the mix).

I disagree. As any Westerner should, I fear a resurgent Russia because they explicitly have objectives counter to our own. The world would be inherently more unstable with multiple centres of power, see: Europe in 1910.

I disagree. The British did a pretty good job at maintaining world peace under Pax Britannica for most of the 19th century (so the US isn't the first instance of a what you describe above). Obviously, it suited Britain to maintain the trade routes so world peace was sort of a knock-on effect, if you will. Nonetheless, I truly believe these "economic miracles" in China and Russia (before 2014 lol) are shambolic at best. The leaders of China are learning what Hitler, Napoleon, Mussolini and Khrushev learnt: manic investment in state led economic growth leads to short term gains but not long term sustainability. Thus, I fear that being the alternative economic order because their economic practices are not sustainable. Not to say that western economic practices are super sustainable, but I'd give us a better shot at figuring it out, since, ya know, we actually invent new things.

Just looking at that link, I think its pretty dubious to claim the US has started 39 wars in the 21st century. Fundamentally, while I'm opposed to war and great power politics, it is unavoidable. Specifically, outside of aliens invading, humanity will continually fight amongst each other until an overwhelming superpower arises that keeps everyone in check. I think we may have reached that point, the real question is whether Russia, China, India etc will accept this and if not, what they can actually do to challenge it (which is scant at best).

It truly is awful and I hope every day that we can put our differences aside and resolve our problems with talking and not bullets. The problem here is that if the US starts standing down per se and scaling back its military rapidly, its just going to leave a power vacuum that while could be filled by the UN, would in all likelihood go to some crackpot dictator.

 

A lot to discuss there. Let me short circuit words and go straight to an interview of George Friedman, CEO of Stratfor, which discusses many of these issues. I'm not a big fan of Friedman, as some are, but the guy knows his stuff. It is necessary to read between the lines on some of the things he discusses - and he has been more open in other presentations, especially the one he gave at the Chicago Council of Global Affairs this last February (HERE).

It is a fairly long presentation and I rarely ever have the time - or patience - to devote to listening to these things. But it's worth the time, as he nicely details US foreign policy. A shorter presentation by Friedman (some 20 + mins) is also very well worth watching for what he actually doesn't say (but it's discretely implied non-the-less) about the Japanese banking crisis and that of the Asian Tiger economies, and how the US built Korea economically for it's own reasons. So wave farewell NATO, and good bloody riddance too, when you consider what was done in Europe by the Gladio teams to cause disruption and dissent to suit US aims.

Anyway, the point to take away here is what the US gives, the US can take away again if it suits them to do so. It's all to do with maintaining US global economic domination for the remainder of the century.

[video=youtube;zpAkT5YnpEA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpAkT5YnpEA[/video]