But doing so would involve recognizing we helped create and sustain this tragedy, and ought to reexamine NATO (and the CIA). Official Washington would fly into a rage at anyone who tried this.
Good piece. Thanks. I think, though, that you underplay the violent US-backed coup d’etat of 2014 which overthrew the elected Ukrainian government that was committed to neutrality and replaced it with a pro-NATO/EU puppet government. State Department under-secretary Victoria Nuland boasted that the US had ‘captured’ Ukraine for the bargain price of $5 billion as she dictated who would serve in the new government. The aim was always to use Ukraine to drag Russia into a costly war, a strategy outlined in the 2019 RAND Corporation document “Extending Russia”. This whole process entailed putting the extremist (actually neo-Nazi) ultra-nationalist faction in control of Ukraine and accepting that it would probably lead to the effective destruction of the country. But as always with the US’s forever wars, the point was not to ‘protect’ Ukraine or help Ukraine ‘win’ the war but to ensure that the war should go on and on, and the money keep flowing into the coffers of the ‘defence’ contractors and weapons manufacturers.
"Why don’t we have a more vigorous debate about this in the West? Perhaps because if we start to ask even a few questions, it might quickly come apparent how NATO is a source of problems, not solutions — and how much better all of our lives could be without any NATO at all. For some in D.C., that’s a scary conversation indeed." ===>
Surely, surely you're stating it incorrectly. The primary reason is clear as day - that you know about and say so yourself "[NATO’s] worth hundreds of billions to arms dealers." Ergo, you needed to have phrased it as "it might quickly become apparent how NATO is the source of solutions, not problems - and how much worse all of our ETFs and 401Ks could be without any NATO at all". And it the special military operation were to be ended, there is even a hedge for those arms sales- a more direct (now moribund) Wall St. connection where BlackRock signed up w/Zelensky [1] [2] [3]
Thank you for this deeply researched and courageous piece. You’ve articulated with rare clarity how NATO’s post–Cold War expansionism has inverted the logic of deterrence by transforming what was once a defensive alliance into an engine of perpetual escalation. Your historical reconstruction from George Kennan’s warnings to Operation Goldfish shows how the cycle of provocation and denial became structurally embedded in US policy.
One dimension that deserves even more attention is the moral inversion driving this policy. The language of “democracy promotion” has become a fig leaf for geopolitical containment, erasing the line between defense and aggression. Meanwhile, the weaponization of Ukraine has undermined both its sovereignty and its future, ensuring its destruction in service of a Western narrative of “standing up to autocracy.”
Equally important, your invocation of the physicians in Nagasaki reminds us that the nuclear question is not merely strategic but civilizational. We’ve entered an era where the scientific and moral communities, not the politicians, must reclaim the global conversation on survival. If the 1980s saw doctors speak truth to power, perhaps this decade demands that historians, strategists and moral philosophers do the same. Your essay is a vital contribution to that awakening.
The word "Therefore" is powerful, explicitly excluding the idea that the event started on the day of the event. insisting that there is a context to the event that must be understood to understand the meaning and implications of the event. It begs the question of WHY. I use it as a STARTING POINT in discussions about event. I will ask my interlocutor about what he thinks the "therefore" is. Occasionally I come across an opinionated uninformed person who looks at me like a deer caught in the headlights because he has never considered the antecedents of the event. And that's what the therefore is there for.
"Therefore, on 24Feb2022, Russia invaded Ukraine."
"Therefore, Hamas launched a military campaign against the IDF on 7Oct2023"
"Therefore, Israel has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, the majority of whom were women and children, and most of whom were not Hamas and who were in fact civilians".
"Therefore, Trump commanded the US navy to destroy certain boats in the waters between Venezuela and Trinidad".
Excellent rundown of the situation. Thank you for being such a strong voice on this!
Got to keep producing those weapons and destroying them. Can't make money in the weapons business if the pot isn't stirred.
Thank you for the insightful article
Good piece. Thanks. I think, though, that you underplay the violent US-backed coup d’etat of 2014 which overthrew the elected Ukrainian government that was committed to neutrality and replaced it with a pro-NATO/EU puppet government. State Department under-secretary Victoria Nuland boasted that the US had ‘captured’ Ukraine for the bargain price of $5 billion as she dictated who would serve in the new government. The aim was always to use Ukraine to drag Russia into a costly war, a strategy outlined in the 2019 RAND Corporation document “Extending Russia”. This whole process entailed putting the extremist (actually neo-Nazi) ultra-nationalist faction in control of Ukraine and accepting that it would probably lead to the effective destruction of the country. But as always with the US’s forever wars, the point was not to ‘protect’ Ukraine or help Ukraine ‘win’ the war but to ensure that the war should go on and on, and the money keep flowing into the coffers of the ‘defence’ contractors and weapons manufacturers.
"Why don’t we have a more vigorous debate about this in the West? Perhaps because if we start to ask even a few questions, it might quickly come apparent how NATO is a source of problems, not solutions — and how much better all of our lives could be without any NATO at all. For some in D.C., that’s a scary conversation indeed." ===>
Surely, surely you're stating it incorrectly. The primary reason is clear as day - that you know about and say so yourself "[NATO’s] worth hundreds of billions to arms dealers." Ergo, you needed to have phrased it as "it might quickly become apparent how NATO is the source of solutions, not problems - and how much worse all of our ETFs and 401Ks could be without any NATO at all". And it the special military operation were to be ended, there is even a hedge for those arms sales- a more direct (now moribund) Wall St. connection where BlackRock signed up w/Zelensky [1] [2] [3]
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/28/zelenskyy-blackrock-ceo-fink-agree-to-coordinate-ukraine-investment.html?msockid=3a1e285de05868d32c703e20e1fb69df
[2] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2024-002526_EN.html (click on answer top right)
[3] the moribund angle: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-05/blackrock-halted-ukraine-fund-talks-after-trump-s-election-win?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Bonus: Assange got it right
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sd1VUYlI-w0
Another great article from a true humanitarian. It’s important to have people like you speak out.
Thank you for this deeply researched and courageous piece. You’ve articulated with rare clarity how NATO’s post–Cold War expansionism has inverted the logic of deterrence by transforming what was once a defensive alliance into an engine of perpetual escalation. Your historical reconstruction from George Kennan’s warnings to Operation Goldfish shows how the cycle of provocation and denial became structurally embedded in US policy.
One dimension that deserves even more attention is the moral inversion driving this policy. The language of “democracy promotion” has become a fig leaf for geopolitical containment, erasing the line between defense and aggression. Meanwhile, the weaponization of Ukraine has undermined both its sovereignty and its future, ensuring its destruction in service of a Western narrative of “standing up to autocracy.”
Equally important, your invocation of the physicians in Nagasaki reminds us that the nuclear question is not merely strategic but civilizational. We’ve entered an era where the scientific and moral communities, not the politicians, must reclaim the global conversation on survival. If the 1980s saw doctors speak truth to power, perhaps this decade demands that historians, strategists and moral philosophers do the same. Your essay is a vital contribution to that awakening.
The word "Therefore" is powerful, explicitly excluding the idea that the event started on the day of the event. insisting that there is a context to the event that must be understood to understand the meaning and implications of the event. It begs the question of WHY. I use it as a STARTING POINT in discussions about event. I will ask my interlocutor about what he thinks the "therefore" is. Occasionally I come across an opinionated uninformed person who looks at me like a deer caught in the headlights because he has never considered the antecedents of the event. And that's what the therefore is there for.
"Therefore, on 24Feb2022, Russia invaded Ukraine."
"Therefore, Hamas launched a military campaign against the IDF on 7Oct2023"
"Therefore, Israel has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, the majority of whom were women and children, and most of whom were not Hamas and who were in fact civilians".
"Therefore, Trump commanded the US navy to destroy certain boats in the waters between Venezuela and Trinidad".
All very 1980s Russian propaganda.
Good summary. Thanks.
Yes, thank you.