War of Energy not Democracy

How the Washington machine failed to keep its promise and enabled Kremlin to go out of hand

It the geo-political discussion of Russia v Ukraine, the main justification of any form of intervention via NATO or otherwise is to defend ‘democracy’. It is not obvious what ‘democracy’ means to those who say it ad nauseum, especially in the main stream media (MSM). Is Ukraine a democracy? No. Is Canada a democracy? We don’t know. The sitting president of Ukraine arrests his political adversaries and critiques. Some in the MSM say that despite the flaws, Ukraine has made progress TOWARDS democracy. But this is not entirely clear, given the narrative is set by the people telling us it is a democracy in the first place.

Even if Ukraine is a democracy, why doesn’t the US invade or express concerns about Saudi Arabia for example? After all Saudi Arabia is ranked near last as ‘hard autocracy’ by those who rank democracies around the world. They fund terrorist groups. The US collaborates with Saudi Arabia because it has to do with national interest more than ‘democracy’.

Another point made is, why did Putin unilaterally recognise Donetsk and Luhansk? Well, Russia's response to Ukraine rejecting the Minsk accords is to recognise the rebel regions as independent states. This follows the precedent established by the US & Europe during Yugoslavia's conflicts. So it’s not clear why the US would be permitted and Russia not in this context.

So then what is this all about?

Well for starters it’s prudent to look at the role of NATO. From its foundation 1949 NATO was about strengthening western alliance (military and intelligence) in response to a possible invasion by the then Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. This was very much achieved at the end of the cold war when the Soviet Union collapsed. NATO promised that the force will no longer expand eastwards. That did not happen. The justification for NATO remaining as a force post cold war and deciding to expand further east in 1991 was because of the “rise of non-state actors affecting international security, many new security threats emerged”. This is a clear threat to the Russians as it would be the same threat to the US if China decided to place a military base in Mexico. Again, a matter of national interest and security. Even top Washington experts on Russia have dubbed the expansion as ‘ill-founded’ with no relevance to US’ national interest.

What is interesting in all of this is, if the US makes a concession (more like keeping a promise), then Putin stands down. Washington would only need to neutralise Ukraine, expanding it economically and not giving it a false hope that it would join the west. Because this whole time, the west was placing Ukraine as some form of competition to Russia. Which it was not. A great lecture was given on this very issue by John Mearsheimer in the University of Chicago that predicted and outlined all of it. It is painful to see Ukraine’s president STILL asking to join NATO. Putin himself had requested to join NATO. He was rejected. So why aren’t the Washington people taking the easier route? Because there is something else at stake. ENERGY.

Due to the push from the green left and people like John Kerry, the EU and US have been shutting down their Nuclear Plants and sources of energy. Whatever your opinion is on climate change or on the best source of energy, it is not denied that energy security is important to national security. Germany outsources most of its energy supply to Russia. So Putin is virtually in control of its energy security and therefore national security. This will undoubtedly set aside few of the green agendas for the foreseeable future (lol).

As Mike Whitney describes it, the US foreign policy establishment “don’t want Germany to become more dependent on Russian gas because commerce builds trust and trust leads to the expansion of trade. As relations grow warmer, more trade barriers are lifted, regulations are eased, travel and tourism increase, and a new security architecture evolves.” President Donald Trump famously expressed his concerns about this very issue. It was almost hypocritical for Germany needing protection via NATO and cutting a deal with Russia. But Green! Greta!

Many have questioned why the US would further isolate Russia and push it towards China. It doesn’t sound like a particularly prudent strategy. Likewise, No matter your opinion on Vladimir Putin, it is not denied that he is a Western Oriented man. He was after all born in St. Petersburg, a city that is more like a western country than any other Russian place. Therefore, it is not obvious why NATO included smaller countries with no national or organisational interest before Russia. For some, it is pure expansionist ambitions from Washington. For others, a simple hate of Putin and Russian values (AKA traditional Orthodox Christianity with a touch of nationalism). Whatever the reason, it really does not make sense to push Russia towards the accepting hands of China.

So why are the US and allies sending troops to a futile war that they can stop by keeping their promises? Well the same reason they did for Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia, et cetera… Interventionalist policies are okay when certain forced do it (I guess).

But here is what it is somewhat different. Biden is facing a great deal of pressure due to plummeting approval ratings and national unease from border crisis to inflation and an upcoming mid-term election year where he could very much lose the Congress and the Senate. At that point, nothing will be done in terms of the Biden agenda. So clearly they don’t want that to happen. That is why the sanctions on Russia have been relatively benign.

In any case, what is happening is a tragedy. And we don’t know the entirety of the underlying motives. From what is clear, it appears that this was something that could have been halted from its beginning with few minor concessions. But that did not happen. One simply hopes this ends NOW without anymore bloodshed and lasting damage.