"This post seems to echo Putin’s complaint that the situation in Ukraine is all the fault of the West for expanding NATO towards Russia’s borders. I don’t think the presence of NATO on Russia’s borders is a major concern for Putin."I may echo Putin, but that is not my aim. I am concerned that the USA, having partly been responsible for this war, is now attempting to abandon Ukraine and wash its own hands of any responsibility by claiming that Ukraine started it all.I asked Google this question as I had forgotten who wrote an article which I wished to find again:- "who was the most important us political thinker of the cold war"and I got this immediately."George F. Kennan - WikipediaGeorge Frost Kennan (February 16, 1904 – March 17, 2005) was an American diplomat and historian. He was best known as an advocate of a policy of containment of Soviet expansion during the Cold War."But much later he wrote this:- "OpinionA Fateful ErrorBy George F. KennanFeb. 5, 1997New York TimesIn late 1996, the impression was allowed, or caused, to become prevalent that it had been somehow and somewhere decided to expand NATO up to Russia's borders. This despite the fact that no formal decision can be made before the alliance's next summit meeting, in June.The timing of this revelation -- coinciding with the Presidential election and the pursuant changes in responsible personalities in Washington -- did not make it easy for the outsider to know how or where to insert a modest word of comment. Nor did the assurance given to the public that the decision, however preliminary, was irrevocable encourage outside opinion.But something of the highest importance is at stake here. And perhaps it is not too late to advance a view that, I believe, is not only mine alone but is shared by a number of others with extensive and in most instances more recent experience in Russian matters. The view, bluntly stated, is that expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking. And, last but not least, it might make it much more difficult, if not impossible, to secure the Russian Duma's ratification of the Start II agreement and to achieve further reductions of nuclear weaponry.It is, of course, unfortunate that Russia should be confronted with such a challenge at a time when its executive power is in a state of high uncertainty and near-paralysis. And it is doubly unfortunate considering the total lack of any necessity for this move. Why, with all the hopeful possibilities engendered by the end of the cold war, should East-West relations become centered on the question of who would be allied with whom and, by implication, against whom in some fanciful, totally unforeseeable and most improbable future military conflict?I am aware, of course, that NATO is conducting talks with the Russian authorities in hopes of making the idea of expansion tolerable and palatable to Russia. One can, in the existing circumstances, only wish these efforts success. But anyone who gives serious attention to the Russian press cannot fail to note that neither the public nor the Government is waiting for the proposed expansion to occur before reacting to it.Russians are little impressed with American assurances that it reflects no hostile intentions. They would see their prestige (always uppermost in the Russian mind) and their security interests as adversely affected. They would, of course, have no choice but to accept expansion as a military fait accompli. But they would continue to regard it as a rebuff by the West and would likely look elsewhere for guarantees of a secure and hopeful future for themselves.It will obviously not be easy to change a decision already made or tacitly accepted by the alliance's 16 member countries. But there are a few intervening months before the decision is to be made final; perhaps this period can be used to alter the proposed expansion in ways that would mitigate the unhappy effects it is already having on Russian opinion and policy."-------------------------"After all, Finland, which shares an 800 mile border with Russia, has recently joined NATO without causing a crisis."One crisis at a time, I guess. Even for Putin. And "Finland is capable of fielding a defense force of 280,000 troops, with up to 870,000 reservists. It has the most potent artillery force of any country in Europe, and its air force is in the process of replacing old F/A-18 Hornets with 64 new F-35s. It also has a highly capable armaments industry, including the Finnish-Norwegian ammunition producer NAMMO.""The real reason for the conflict is that Putin regards Ukraine as an integral part of the Russian empire."Russia is not alone in clinging on to ancient history, sadly.
David Ainsworth ● 408d