“Pulling away from Europe and NATO is a terrible, terrible mistake. It endangers every agreement and alliance we have.”

I don’t agree with that sentiment.

I don’t remember the specifics, but from what I’ve read, for the last 10 or 11 years our government, under mostly Democrat presidents, has reneged on promises and agreements that we made about not expanding NATO. Doesn’t that mean that we are at least partly responsible for the fighting that is going on there? I think that any balanced coverage should include those facts in the discussion.

I think it is also an open question as to whether or not Russia is really intent on reconstituting the old U.S.S.R. empire, or just trying to protect and reclaim the Russian enclaves in the Ukraine.

I didn’t like the way the president of the Ukraine was recently belligerent toward our U.S. president in the oval office, for all the world to see. Before meeting with President Trump he conferred with Democrat politicians, and before that with British and French officials. He promised a deal for the U.S. on rare earth metals which was allegedly presented to us in a way that was contrary to Ukrainian law and, had we gone into that country and built the infrastructure to mine those metals, could have been easily disavowed by the Ukrainians and been given to the British. Very fishy. Two recent foiled attempts to kill our president were by individuals who are said to have had Ukrainian connections. Something very wrong there.

When I was teaching Freshman English Composition many years ago, I never tried to influence my students to favor my opinions, but I did encourage them to diversify their sources when researching a topic. I think we should all do that, especially for topics as controversial as the Ukraine situation. I don’t think we are betraying longtime allies. We are recognizing that these allies have bled us dry of men, money and materiel, for a very long time. I think it would be foolhardy to get talked into another European war.

Firstly, Happy Easter to everyone. For me, today is a moment of reflection on the important things in life, and not just on whatever it was that I gave up for Lent. I hope that you’re enjoying your day.

But before I get to my point, I want to thank DT for elevating my extended comment to a post of it’s own. Further, I want to thank ghost, Walt and John for their respectful, though differing comments. This is what I would hope that the rest of the internet could be: Differing views presented without name-calling or ad hominem. Gentlemen, all.

Ghost, my reply to you is the easiest: We’re going to have to agree to disagree here. I think that the best example of “maximum isolation” is North Korea, and that is not what I’d like the US to do. We are bettered by being involved around the world.

Walt, you encouraged me to diversify my sources, and that is a hard thing to do. First of all, while I admit to my own biases, I also think that very few of us are able to successfully get out of our own “bubbles of confirmation bias”. Everywhere I go, the algorithms that feed me my next thing to read or view are basing their suggestions on what I’ve previously read. Their goal is to keep my eyes glued to their screens, and presenting me with information that I won’t want to consume is, in a way, an encouragement for me to change the channel.

That said, I did try. I googled “promises regarding NATO expansion”, and got a list of references. The first is an article from a place called “The National Security Archive” entitled “NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard“. It is a longish-article, and I confess to having only skimmed it, but the gist is that Gobachev had agreed to a unified Germany joining NATO, but that there were several implications that NATO expansion wouldn’t go further east than that. The next article was something from Harvard entitled “There was no promise not to enlarge NATO“. This article isn’t terribly long, and it makes the opposite case: Not only was NATO expansion not promised, but that implicitly, Gorbachev had agreed to it….

“…During the 1990 summit, Zoellick says President Gorbachev accepted the idea of German unification within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization based on the principle that every country should freely choose its own alliances….” [my emphasis]

So which is it? Did the agreement on unifying Germany include a provision limiting NATO expansion or did it not? I guess it depends on who you ask.

I finished my search by reading a portion of the third article on my list, this one from a British think-tank called Chatham House: “Myths and misconceptions in the debate on Russia“. This is a very long article….113 pages….and no, I did not read it all. But here are a few snippets….

“… the majority of the myths presented here have become embedded in Western policy discourse as a direct result of deliberate Russian lobbying and disinformation. Several of the myths are prevalent not only because they arise spontaneously and out of good faith, but also because it is in the Kremlin’s interest to cultivate them….”

“…Myth 03: ‘Russia was promised that NATO would not enlarge’ Contrary to the betrayal narrative cultivated by Russia today, the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990. Moscow merely distorts history to help preserve an anti-Western consensus at home. In 1990, when Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to a united Germany’s incorporation into NATO, he neither asked for nor received any formal guarantees that there would be no further expansion of NATO beyond the territory of a united Germany. The dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the USSR transformed the security situation in Europe. Russia’s new leaders did not question the principle that countries in Europe were completely free to make their own security arrangements. Similarly, the NATO–Russia Founding Act signed in 1997 recognized the ‘inherent right’ of all states ‘to choose the means to ensure their own security’….”

“…Myth 07: ‘Russia is entitled to a defensive perimeter – a sphere of “privileged interests” including the territory of other states’ The idea that Russia should be entitled to an exclusive sphere of influence in other states, notably in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, is deeply problematic. It is incompatible with professed Euro-Atlantic values around states’ sovereignty and rights to self-determination. It is detrimental to geopolitical order and international security, as it implicitly gives licence to Russian actions – territorial aggression, annexation, even outright war – that risk creating instability in Russia’s neighbours and Europe more widely. It effectively entitles Russia to dominate neighbouring states and violate their territorial integrity. And it misconstrues contemporary geopolitical realities, such as Russia’s grudging acceptance of a second player in its vicinity – China (specifically, in relation to the expansion of China’s influence in Central Asia). Betrayal aside, it is doubtful that it is even within the gift of the West to concede a sphere of influence to Russia – or that such an understanding would work if somehow established. Failure to critically re-examine geopolitical doctrines on this subject risks reproducing reductive Cold War-era postures. And while some post-Soviet and Eastern European states – and even their populations – may desire closer relations with Russia, none of them want to sacrifice their sovereign rights….” [my emphases]

To John’s point, if Pax Americana means that America must put it’s fingers into every potential hot spot around the globe, then no, I do no endorse that. I view the Tucker Carlson/JD Vance/Marco Rubio line regarding “warmongers searching for never-ending wars” (paraphrased) as a slur and saying it diminishes their influence and their roles. No one is mongering for war. No one wants war to never end. Everyone wants peace….the only question is peace on whose terms? I believe that there is a point where the stability offered by our support in certain instances justifies the cost of providing that support. Regarding any hypothetical future acquisitions of Greenland or parts of Canada as American soil, I go back to what I highlighted above: Every country should choose it’s own alliances. If the Greenlanders or the British Columbians or the Saskatchewegians (that’s prolly not right, but you get my point) see value by coming under our flag, then I’m OK with it. But we don’t have the right to just snatch them into our fold because we think that it should be. I don’t want vassals.

This is beginning to be too long for a comment, but I’ll end with something that Youtube brought me last night….an interview of Anne Applebaum with Jordan Harbinger. I had never heard of either of them (again, the algorithm), but on looking around, Harbinger is some sort of lawyer with a small Youtube channel, and Applebaum is a journalist/historian/author who lives in Poland. I watched the entire hour and a half video, and I can’t recommend the whole thing, mainly because I just don’t like Applebaum. She has a complex history….she’s written for both the Washington Post and The Atlantic, neither of which endere her to me, but she’s also had a position at the American Enterprise Institute, which does. The interview was held in February, so it is slightly dated. What really chapped me about her came at the end of the interview when she brought out the complaints about Musk’s access to government databases and the authoritarian path that she sees Trump taking us on. She complains that by firing wide swathes of the .gov, Trump is instilling only like-minded troops into his government. However, she completely misses the one-sidedness of the Biden administration (not to mention the lefty leanings of the fed.gov dating all the way back to Lois Lerner.). Anyway, the interview is divided in to chapters, and if you only want a small portion, I recommend the chapter on “The history of Russian aggression”, beginning at 20:16.