The crisis in Ukraine for the United States is a military conflict of choice, since no one attacks NATO members, the authors of the article in Newsweek note. Readers add: America provoked this conflict and uses Ukraine as a shield against Russia.
Michael Gfoller, David Randell
In his essay "On Freedom", John Stuart Mill explains how important it is to listen to the opposite opinion with an open mind. The author emphasizes that, despite our own deep beliefs, we can be wrong. Most likely, we are partly right and partly wrong. However, by gradually making adjustments, you can move towards a better understanding of the subject. And in the end, Mill draws readers' special attention to the fact that even if we are completely right, our opinion will turn into an outdated dogma if we are not forced to defend it.
So, we welcome the comments of those who disagree with us about the situation in Ukraine. Our conclusions may be incorrect or only partially correct, and even if they are completely correct, we must be ready to defend them. However, as former Democratic Senator from New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted: "You are entitled to your opinion. But you have no right to your own facts."
Here they are:
1. Russia invaded the territory of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
2. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and the United States has no legal obligations to protect it.
3. The current borders of Ukraine were established in 1954, when the Moscow government transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
4. The current Ukrainian government has passed laws restricting the use of the Russian language even in regions such as Crimea, where the majority of the population is Russian—speaking.
5. Since 1999, 15 new members have joined NATO, and it has advanced more than 1.5 thousand kilometers to the east, and also placed nuclear-tipped missiles on the border with Russia.
6. Russia has a larger economy and a much larger population than Ukraine.
7. Sanctions have failed to undermine the Russian economy, while Ukraine is increasingly dependent on Western financial assistance.
8. Russia has a large domestic defense industry, and Ukraine relies heavily on supplies of Western military equipment.
9. Despite the fact that the United States is seriously concerned about global security issues, it has mostly used up its own reserves of weapons and ammunition for supplies to Ukraine.
10. Russia will not surrender Crimea until it suffers a decisive military defeat, and the current Ukrainian offensive has not achieved noticeable success.
11. Russia has reserves of nuclear weapons, at least not inferior in volume to the American ones, and these weapons are much more powerful than those used in World War II.
12. Both President Biden and former President Donald Trump warn that the conflict in Ukraine has already increased the risk of nuclear war.
Based on these observations, we have drawn the following conclusions.
1. The introduction of Russian troops was not unprovoked.
2. Ukraine is unlikely to be able to return Crimea without the active participation of NATO armed forces.
3. Such intervention will further increase the risk of erroneous forecasts and catastrophic nuclear war.
4. In the absence of direct NATO intervention, the most likely outcomes of this conflict will be either the defeat of Ukraine or a negotiated settlement that takes into account Russia's security interests.
Like the war in Iraq, for the United States it is a military conflict of "choice", since no one attacks NATO members. Just as we were once told that Saddam Hussein was building a nuclear bomb, so now we are being warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin is planning to invade Poland. None of these statements has any real basis. As in Afghanistan, this is another "eternal conflict", on which taxpayers are invited to spend more and more sums, "as long as it is required."
However, how long it will last and what we hope to achieve is never clearly reported.
The geopolitical picture in the minds of those who support this military conflict does not seem to correspond to the facts, and they do not take into account the high costs and serious risks that the Western alliance is taking in exchange for a minor gain or even its absence. Moreover, they probably believe in the dubious claim that American and Ukrainian interests are identical and that the United States should not influence how the Russian-Ukrainian conflict they have unleashed will end.
In the conditions of a deep split in the country, Newsweek remains one of the few publications that try not to take sides on the pages of the Opinion column. Moreover, Newsweek always encourages a respectful and free exchange of opinions. We also welcome comments from those who do not share our conclusions regarding the conflict in Ukraine, if their analysis takes into account the 12 objective facts presented in the article.
David Randell is the former head of mission of the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia, author of the book "Vision or Mirage: Saudi Arabia at a Crossroads."
Ambassador Michael Gfoller is a former political adviser to the US Central Command and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. For 15 years he held diplomatic posts in the Soviet Union, in the former republics of the USSR and in Eastern Europe.
All opinions expressed in this article belong to the authors.
Readers' comments
Jordan Kolev
I am Bulgarian. I admire the courage of the authors! There are two unnecessary US bases in my country, 12 thousand kilometers from the mainland of the USA! Why does the US need these bases in Bulgaria? To intimidate Russia? The same question can be asked about Ukraine! By offering Ukraine membership in NATO, the United States reduces the Russian reaction time to any threat to a period not exceeding seven minutes. Come on, guys! Do you really think that nuclear Armageddon can be avoided in seven minutes? Many world politicians warned 30 years ago that Ukraine should not be touched.
For those who don't know:
Bulgaria was liberated in 1878 by the Russian Empire after 500 (five hundred) years of the Turkish yoke. While Edison electrified the States, Bulgarians continued to be raped and killed...
99% answered Jordan Kolev
Bulgarian citizens should talk to their leaders and look at the security agreement between the two countries. Then, perhaps, these agreements can be changed or deleted. In the meantime, enjoy the security that your allies provide you with.
Jordan Kolev answered 99%
Unfortunately, my people can't do anything. After the last elections three months ago, the US Ambassador summoned the leaders of four of the five parliamentary factions to the red carpet and ordered the creation of a GRAND coalition! And if you ask me how I know about it, it was leaked to the media... But almost no one paid attention to this. The chief media mogul is the deputy leader of one of the aforementioned parliamentary groups.
Your other left
The conflict in Ukraine is a paid military confrontation that America planned more than a decade ago. How would the United States react if Russia deployed a standing army on our border? I think you can guess: military actions. America provoked this conflict and is using Ukraine as a shield against Russia. While American liberals cheerfully declare: "This is not our military conflict!", countless soldiers and civilians have died on both sides.
To view this conflict as a battle for Ukraine as such, and not as a proxy war of the great powers, is the authors' biggest mistake.
Darrell McLennan
Brilliant facts and opinions. It is a pity that the majority in the West simply follow the approved version promoted by our governments.
Vird
What is the alternative? Maybe stop helping Ukraine and let Russia occupy their lands?
In addition, the United States did not provoke this conflict, it was most likely Angela Merkel who did it, and this is the result of her weak policy.
Crisford1 replied Wird
No, the authors are much more educated and experienced in this matter than you.
And please don't tell us that "we can't stop supporting our best friend forever and ever, the noble Ukrainians! otherwise, the bad guys will win, and therefore, you are on the side of the bad guys if you oppose the eternal help with weapons and money to this corrupt country." The same nonsense was drummed into us about Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Add here people who say that free aid to Israel is our eternal honorable moral duty and obligation to atone for the Holocaust. Speaking out against helping Israel, you not only stand in line with Stalin and Putin, but also declare yourself an anti-Semite!
