Welcome to the peace initiative for Ukraine in which you can contibute by raising your awareness as well as your consciousness[+] and spirit to the modes[+] of neutrality[*], decency, respectfulness, wisdom[*], objectivity, mastery of the intellect, surrender (ego and mind to God’s will), and finally peace (inner then outer). To properly grasp everything, we recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative in the order that we[*] designed it, which is listed in the CONTENTS. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we urge you to do it, please. With this article we continue the “Meeting the Demands for Ending the War” segment with a focus on Why should Ukraine guarantee that it would not join NATO?
Most of uninformed people are fooled into believing that NATO is a peacekeeping, defensive, inclusive alliance (with an unwritten "open-door" policy) that has never invaded or attacked any country to occupy or conquer it, thus they believe that there is no viable reason for Russia to feel threatened by it. However, Serbs, Afghanis, Libyans, Syrians, and many others would beg to differ. And, NATO has been very antagonistic and hostile toward Russia as it defended the countries, which NATO attacked in no self-defense and contrary to peacekeeping.
Some joke that calling NATO a defensive alliance is like calling Ukraine a democracy. Another one goes: If NATO is a defensive alliance, Wagner is also a defensive military group, lol.
In this video[»], German Member of Parliament Sevim Dağdelen explains simple truths and myths about NATO.
In this short video[»], NATO is exposed as a military branch of the international banking cartel.
How can any person with brain cells still believe that an alliance bombing Yugoslavia/Serbia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and other countries (that never threatened any NATO states) is “purely a defensive alliance” is anyone’s guess. If defending its economic interests and its world hegemonyis termed as “defensive”, then NATO twisted the meaning of the word to suit its agenda.
Many people[+][+] call it therefore the North Atlantic Terrorist Organization (as opposed to North Atlantic Treaty Organization).
There is one twofold question that might end all questions on this topic:
if NATO is a defensive alliance defending its members, why did it attack countries[+] (former Yugoslavia[+], Iraq[+][+][+][+][+][+], Afghanistan[+], Libya[+], Syria1[+][+][+][+], Somalia[+][+], Yemen[+][+], etc.) that never threatened to attack any NATO state, and why is it spending billions of dollars on Ukraine that is not its member?
If “defensive” means defending its economic and political interests abroad, then the same justification applies to all other militaries – should Russia, China, and others also bomb other countries that threaten their economic and political interests?
The rationale for the creation of NATO was that it would be a defensive alliance to stop the former Soviet Union from invading Western Europe. However, when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, if its claims were truthful, this organization would have been dismantled, its purported purpose now moot. Instead, since the mid-1990s, successive US administrations have regularly pushed for NATO expansion in Eastern Europe.
If not earlier, since 2005, when a US-puppet regime was installed in Ukraine through the Orange revolution, save for the period between 2010-2014 under President Yanukovych, the US has been calling all the shots in Ukraine and Ukraine lost its sovereignty and independency to the NATO states. With the victory of Viktor Yanukovych in the presidential elections of 2010, the Ukrainian parliament voted to drop NATO membership aspirations from the national security strategy. Perhaps precisely because of this, Yanukovych was unconstitutionally ousted with the help and funding of some NATO states.
Here is further evidence of NATO not being merely a defensive alliance given in form of testimonials from many prominent figures in NATO states:
🔵 On 18 February 2022, former leader of the UK's Labour Party (2015-2020), Jeremy Corbyn, alongside 11 Labour MPs, cosigned a statement[+] in which, among other things, they "refute the idea that NATO is a defensive alliance".
🔵 On 9 July 2022, Mairead Maguire, Irish Nobel Peace Prize Winner, stated[+]:
“NATO –the US-dominated global war machine – whose policy is ‘full dominance spectrum,’ contrary to its claims, is not a defensive organization. Its purpose has been to act as an instrument for US world domination and to prevent all challenges to US hegemony. It should have been disbanded in 1991 after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, but instead expanded into 15 new countries.”
🔵 "NATO must focus on its original purpose of collective defense instead of pursuing geopolitical ambitions." – Cem Özdemir, German Minister of Food and Agriculture
🔵 "NATO should prioritize the defense of its member states rather than engaging in external interventions." – Matteo Salvini, Deputy Prime Minister of Italy and Minister of Infrastructure and Transport
🔵 “NATO is a tool serving US imperialism.” – Marine Le Pen, French presidential candidate. Björn Höcke (leader of the German AfD party) agrees: "NATO is an instrument of American hegemony."
🔵 "NATO has been used as an aggressive military alliance, expanding and provoking conflicts." – Ron Paul, US presidential candidate
🔵 "NATO is an organization of aggression." – Andreas Mölzer, Former Member of the European Parliament from Austria
🔵 "NATO is a war-making machine." – George Galloway, Former Member of Parliament of the UK
🔵 "NATO has become a tool of intervention and regime change." – Nigel Farage, Leader of the UK Brexit Party
🔵 "NATO perpetuates military interventions and arms races, prioritizing geopolitical interests over peace." – Pablo Iglesias, Spain's former Second Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Social Rights
🔵 "We need to regain our sovereignty, leaving NATO's integrated military command." – Giorgia Meloni, Prime Minister of Italy
Plus, the testimonies of some Latin American leaders (the actual list is much larger):
🔵 "NATO represents a threat to world peace, serving the interests of a few powerful countries." – Evo Morales, former president of Bolivia
🔵 "NATO is an instrument of imperialism and interventionism." – Álvaro García Linera, former vice president of Bolivia
🔵 "NATO's interventionist policies undermine the principles of sovereignty and self-determination." – Pedro Castillo, former president of Peru
Here are a couple of many pieces of evidence that NATO was planning an OFFENSIVE with Ukraine against Russia long before the Russian army even entered Ukraine, which is also evidence that NATO states, especially the US never took the Minsk agreements[+][+] seriously and were planning a military confrontation with Russia:
➡ In 2016, a video[»] showing Americans militarizing and prepping Ukraine to fight Russia, featuring US Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Amy Klobuchar giving a warmongering pep talk to soldiers in Ukraine in December 2016, preparing for a proxy war[+][*] with Russia. Militarizing Ukraine to kill Russians is certainly an offensive provocation. Lindsey Graham said "Your fight is our fight."
➡ Then-UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace said[»] at a news conference during the NATO summit in Vilnius on 12 July 2023 that the UK and some other NATO states had been and building up Ukraine's military capabilities before the start of the armed conflict in February 2022: "Also, before this invasion, Britain with Sweden, Canada, the United States were investing in Ukraine and building their capabilities". What for? For Ukraine joining NATO despite Russian objections (as this anti-Russian military bloc poses a threat to Russian security), for killing Russian ethnic minorities in Donbas, and for plans to go on an offensive to retake Crimea.
➡ In the spring of 2019, which is three years before the start of the Russian military operation in Ukraine, the Pew Research Center conducted research[+] on Americans’ and Germans’ views on whether their country should use military force to defend NATO allies (such as Ukraine) against Russia. Why was it at all necessary to conduct this costly research if the issue was not realistic?! This is just one of many pieces of evidence that prove that NATO was preparing to fight Russia long before Russia even attacked Ukraine. Consider that.
➡ In December 2021, CIA leaker David Ignatius told the Washington Post[+] that the US was supporting an anti-Russian military insurgency in Ukraine.
In December 2021, just a couple of months before the attack, the Russian administration released a list of demands[+] toward Western countries, including a legally binding guarantee that NATO would not expand any further to the east[+], particularly opposing the accession of Ukraine into the alliance. As the Foreign Minister of Russia Sergey Lavrov and other Russian authorities clearly pointed out, Ukraine’s membership in NATO is a "red line" for Russia because that would mean having NATO troops near the Russian border. NATO rejected it all.
These Russian demands are very reasonable because NATO had been attacking or engaging in military operations in many countries[+] (Yugoslavia[+], Iraq[+][+][+][+][+][+], Afghanistan[+], Libya[+], Syria[+][+][+][+], Somalia[+][+], Yemen[+][+], etc.) that never threatened to attack any NATO states, all under a pretense of anti-terrorists or anti-piracy operations, taking justice in their own hands, as well as having a military presence in Kosovo and Iraq, which has nothing to do with NATO being alleged “a defensive alliance, whose purpose is to protect our member states” as Kosovo and Iraq are not member states. Therefore, Russia has every right to be concerned about the unprovoked and unjustified buildup of NATO military bases in all NATO states around Russia’s eastern borders.
Enlargement of NATO[+] has decreased stability and prosperity in Europe as it has been engaging in attacks that have nothing to do with the defense of NATO states, even in Africa, where it has no business interfering. NATO was initially aimed at promoting stability and cooperation, and at building a Europe united in peace, democracy, and common values but it degenerated into the US-led killing machine with the US arms manufacturers hugely profiting from NATO enlargement and evermore military bases.
This Russia's demand about keeping Ukraine out of NATO may seem meaningless because NATO intervenes and provides military aid also to countries that are not its members (e.g., military interventions in Yugoslavia, Libya, and Afghanistan) so it would defend Ukraine anyway but main point is that Russia doesn't want military bases anywhere near its borders. If Ukraine joined NATO, just like the Baltic states, it would be obliged to host military bases, which would be able to attack Russia. What other purpose do all these military bases have?! Also, NATO or the US would be able to put nuclear weapons in Ukraine just as the US already did at six bases in five NATO member countries, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey, while the UK and France have their own nuclear forces[+]. So, Russia's concerns and demands are justified and very logical.
Also, since 2014, NATO has been providing weapons to the Ukrainian Army, which has been tyrannizing and killing Russian ethnic minorities for eight years, so this had to stop. This is why Russia demanded the demilitarization of Ukraine, which refers to NATO because it is NATO that militarizes Ukraine.
If all Russia wants is to have Ukraine as a buffer between NATO and Russia because it fears its territorial integrity is threatened, then this is a fair plea.
Russia perceives NATO as an offensive alliance that poses a threat to Russia and therefore Russians demand that NATO provides legal guarantees for prohibiting neighboring Ukraine from ever joining NATO but NATO isn't going to allow Putin or anyone else to dictate the terms of the alliance.
Therefore, Russia demanded that from Ukraine.
Russia demanded that Ukraine honors the treaties it had with Russia, which included Ukraine “not to enter into any agreements with any countries directed against the other party” – in 2008, Ukraine applied to join NATO, which is Russia's adversary, and in 2014 Ukrainians signed the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement, which was directed againstRussia because Ukraine had to stop trading with Russia, which has caused many losses to Russia. So, in 2008, Ukraine violated Article 6 of the “Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation”[+][+] from 1997, as well as the “Treaty on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet”[+], whereby Ukraine agreed to lease Crimean naval facilities to Russia and allowed Russian Navy troops to be stationed in Crimea – it would be impossible to have adversaries, both NATO and Russian military bases there, which would mean that Russia would be kicked out, which is exactly what new US-puppet regime in 2014 wanted and therefore Russia had to reclaim Crimea, as Russian fleet had every right to be there, which is what Crimea native residents wanted anyway. Although this application was revoked in 2010, in June 2017, the parliament passed a law making integration with NATO a foreign policy priority[+], despite the fact that the majority of the public did not support it as polls showed that only 40% people were for it at that time[+][+][+], and on 7 February 2019, Ukrainian parliament amended the Constitution to state[+][+] Ukraine's strategic objective as joining the NATO.
NATO has every right to refuse to enter any legally binding contract that would go against its alleged "open-door" policy (which is not a policy but more of a justification). Every sovereign nation has the right to apply for membership and NATO has the right to accept it. However, Ukraine had obligations to stay neutral and not to strengthen its security at the cost of Russia's security.
From 1991 until Russian SMO in February 2022, NATO has lured 11 eastern European countries and 3 former Soviet republics (in the Baltics) into its alliance. None of those countries were pressured to join NATO but joined voluntarily, after being subjected to fearmongering from NATO officials about a supposed threat or attack from Russia.
The eastward expansion of NATO is seen by Russia as breaching a promise not to do so that NATO allegedly made to Gorbachev, which ended the Cold War. So, when this promise was broken in the eyes of Russia, another Cold War started with Ukraine paying the prize with armed war and huge loss of life.
As we already mentioned earlier in the segment on Crimea, after Ukraine applied to join NATO in 2008, Russia was faced with the horror prospect of NATO forces in Crimea, where the Russian Black Sea Fleet has been stationed since 1783. Logically, it was not possible to have two rival superpowers stationed in the same naval base. This was also a major threat to Russia in 2014 because of the then-high possibility of the new anti-Russian Ukrainian government not extending the bilateral Treaty allowing Russian Navy troops to be stationed there any longer and allowing the NATO Navy to control the Black Sea and the whole of the Mediterranean region. However, this threat was eliminated after the Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia and Crimea was annexed by Russia. Therefore, this is not an issue anymore and should be settled with Ukraine's and NATO's recognition of Crimea as part of Russia.
The question is why does Russia feels threatened by NATO peacekeeping forces?
NATO expansionism[ꚛ][ꚛ] is understandably worrisome to Russian commanders who are suspicious of NATO’s intentions, especially with it expanding to Russian borders, which would raise tension along the borders between NATO and Russia.
NATO expansion towards Russian borders
Despite promises not to expand eastwards, NATO brought 14 new countries into NATO, supplied them with missile systems with nuclear capacity on Russian borders, and has conducted joint military exercises with Ukraine – all for a reason. What is the purpose of NATO other than to oppose Russia? Who else threatens NATO in Europe? No one, so all NATO's military advancements to Russian borders are justifiably perceived by Russians as a threat to Russia's security and existence. NATO has already broken the Soviet Union apart and it seeks to break Russia apart, too, at least as Russians see it. If NATO is addressing Russia and its President Putin with hostility ever since US puppet Yeltsin stepped down in 1999, of course, Russians feel threatened by all these NATO military expansions to their borders. NATO's hostility is naturally met with Russian hostility, and let's highlight the fact that NATO started hostilities, not Russia. There is anti-Russian and anti-Putin propaganda in NATO states for years or decades – let's not ignore that. There is not one single positive thing said or shown about Russians (except about Western puppets like Navalny and a few others, all of who are anti-government) but only negative things plus censorship of all cultural imports from Russia (no Russian movies, programs or channels on TV, no Russian arts, music, literature, ballet, circus[»], fashion, and cuisine anywhere in state media…).
Another major concern was aforementioned NATO's sneaky and smart ploy (“divide and conquer”) to expel the Russian Navy from Crimea and to take over control of the Black Sea and part of the Mediterranean from Russia, which was, of course, unacceptable to Russia.
Without any evidence to back up their claim, NATO officials allege or rather fear that Russia wishes to reunite former Soviet Republics or Eastern Slavs2 into an alliance or Eurasian Union, which is why it needs those nations to align with Russia rather than with the EU and NATO. Unity is commendable providing it is not forced upon and no forced Russification takes place (e.g., in school curriculums like Americanization is forced upon the Ukrainian[»] and EU residents).
Russian President Vladimir Putin said in June 2022 that he and Russia had no objections to Ukraine joining the European Union because it is not a military bloc and because it’s the right of any country to join economic unions (although the EU morphed into a political union). Meddling by the US and NATO in Russia’s sphere of influence or among Slavic nations has been perceived by Russia as an intrusion and even invasion, even if unarmed.
As the official NATO narrative goes, NATO is a peacekeeping, defensive, inclusive alliance that has never attacked any country to occupy or conquer it, thus there is allegedly no viable reason for Russia to feel threatened by it. NATO officials allege NATO only defends or intervenes to protect its members, resume regional stability, and stop the humanitarian crisis, or so the story goes – a story that not just Russia but the rest of the world disputes.
The fact NATO states have actually conquered, occupied, bombed, and militarily intimidated many countries as well as helped change regimes by force is insanely presented as some kind of humanitarian interventions – a narrative that many fools actually believe. And the fact that NATO threatens Russia’s security interests by building military bases evermore closer too Russian borders is absurdly advertised as harmless and even righteous, which is also believed by many naïve or dumb members of the Western public.
NATO was founded to fight or “defend” against Russia (or the USSR) and its existence has to do with its hostility against Russia, so its military bases in countries on Russia's borders are clearly a threat to Russia. Anyone who has brains can realize that but unfortunately, most people do not use brains enough to get it. The mere support glorification of the US-puppet Navalny and now his wife should be enough of an indication to bright people how NATO is sponsoring protests in Russia to accommodate a regime change and install a NATO puppet as Russia's president, like they did all over Europe and beyond.
All NATO countries are members of the UN, whose Charter[+] prohibits them from occupying Russia or any other country but that did not stop NATO to occupy Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or bomb many countries. That fact alone is enough of a proof that NATO is not a defensive but offensive alliance and that it has intention to threaten Russian sovereignty and even territorial integrity. Since NATO has bombarded Yugoslavia in 1999[+], violating the UN Charter, Russia has every right not to trust NATO and toothless UN regulations.
The United Nations (UN) is an intergovernmental organization whose stated purposes are to maintain international peace and security, develop friendly relations among nations, achieve international cooperation, and be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter[+] provides that all members of the UN "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
However, that has never stopped the US or any other NATO states to invade other countries, therefore, Russia's concerns and distrust in NATO are valid.
Although Russia has every right to feel threatened by NATO given NATO's military expansion and its history of (neo)colonialism as well as its violent regime change operations across the world and attempts in Russia (with Navalny and others), the main cause why Russians feel that way may be the conspiracy theory (with a possibly distorted image of NATO) with which many Russian officials and members of the public became obsessed. According to a Siberian sage Anastasia, there are six secretive high priests (their identity is concealed) who first spread this this conspiracy theory among the Russians with a bad image of NATO, who are also the initial and main perpetrators of the East–West dichotomy[+] (cultural, rather than geographical). Allegedly, they aim to disempower and destroy the ancient Vedrus culture among the Russians. It may be that the current Russian government and most of the Russian public are oblivious to it and spellbound by it just as Ukrainians and other Europeans may be spellbound by it, too.
Many people became stupefied, as though under a hypnotic spell, and unthinkingly follow the commands in a kind of semi-sleep and a type of mental disorder. Religion is used to control people. The fanatics who believe in the unreal world are like bio-robots, predisposed to hear the voice commands of a priest and to carry out any order unquestioningly. Wars may have different specific causes, but in any war, the basic weaponry has consisted of discrepancies in people's beliefs.
Many people are so absorbed in their conviction that some force is out to get them that they are in a panic mode and fully in the ‘attacking to defend’ modus operandi, therefore interpreting and exaggerating all events as means to destroy their grand motherland and its people, culminating with the genocide allegations.
NATO’s expansion up to Russia’s borders and Ukraine's betrayal (embracing pro-Western rather than pro-Russian ideas, applying to join NATO, etc.) triggered Putin’s dark side and the historical paranoia of old sinister Russia’s rulers, who countered threats and foreign age-old ‘divide and conquer’ tactics with the old-fashioned policy known as ‘offense is the best defense’ that is seen as rather primitive nowadays compared to other more civilized contemporary foreign policy measures.
First Czar Ivan Grozny (a.k.a. Ivan the Terrible, ruled from 1547-1584, the title tsar was derived from the Latin title Caesar and meant “emperor”) began the process of attacking to defend itself (from the Tatars), the policy of expansion for survival. He had two main goals: to resist the Mongol Golden Horde and to gain access to the Baltic Sea.
Later, from Peter the Great (reigning from 1696–1725, in 1721 proclaimed emperor) onwards, Russian leaders (most of them of non-Slavic, mostly German bloodline[+]) have embraced the same policy of expansion for defense, creating buffer zones.
In the Russian government’s view, Ukraine was supposed to be a buffer between NATO and Russia. With the possibility of losing a buffer, Kremlin calculated that the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action and that sanctions in the short term are acceptable for long-term survival. These calculations are based on the existential threat Russians feel from the alliance that has been trying to change the regime in Russia, Belarus, and many other countries (some successfully, some not), providing weapons to known neo-Nazis in Ukraine to kill Russian ethnic minorities in Donbas3[+], and invading or bombarding many countries violating UN Charter.
Russian ‘attacking to defend’ policy has never meant to occupy foreign territory but to prevent their occupation, which is in contrast with all other former colonialists and imperialists who now blame Russia to be the same.
We provided many pieces of evidence[*] debunking Putin's and Russia's imperialistic motives when we discussed why Russians started the war in the article on the Roots of the problem and further concrete proof for Russian and Slavic non-imperialistic politics is also in the Appendix[*] on Historical Evidence That Slavs, Including Russians, Never Waged Wars To Conquer, so make sure to read it if you are falsely led to believe that Putin and Russians have imperialist motives. Although there are some historical cases (Baltic and Crimean conquests) of Russians also forcing an exit to the sea, a traditional concern of landlocked Russia was not to conquer another nation but to have free passage to the sea and to open up blocked trade routes. This is also now the case with the annexation of pro-Russian Crimea and Donbas regions, giving Russia the exit to the Black Sea and opening up (by Ukrainians) blocked trade, goods-delivery, and water routes to Crimea.
According to Russians[+][+][+][+], NATO officials are conspiring to destroy Russia as they did with the Soviet Union, which is, in fact, based on evidence[+][+][+][+][+][+], as many NATO states leaders have openly declared that their goal was to ruin or weaken Russia. German politician Oskar Lafontaine (former Minister-President of the state of Saarland and former federal leader of the Social Democratic Party) condemned[+] German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock’s nasty statements about the aim to “ruin Russia” as fascistoid. Moreover, the US has funded at least 46 biolabs[+][»][+][»][+][+»][»] across Russian borders in Ukraine, handling dangerous pathogens. Russians claim the US filled Ukraine with biolabs to genetically target Russians[+] because they oppose the globalists’ unipolar liberal agenda and pose a threat to American imperialism[+] and hegemony.
In light of this, everything NATO officials do is seen through a distrustful filter and interpreted in that shade, bordering on paranoia. The fact that NATO is
ding is interpreted as if they are spreading intentionally closer and closer to Russia just to get an opportunity to attack and destroy or conquer it. NATO is increasing in size because more and more countries want to join it due to NATO spreading a fictional conspiracy theory about a threat from a Russian attack and Putin's imperialistic aspirations. Falling for fearmongering NATO propaganda and the “divide and rule” scheme, many European countries feel threatened by Russia, so they sought protection from the NATO alliance.
Just as the US would be paranoid if Russia would do the same in Cuba and Mexico, Russia is understandably paranoid about NATO setting up its military bases and deploying more arms and troops to states bordering Russia, justifiably not falling for the pretense of it being just a usual defense procedure. What is the point of Russian rival building all those military bases across Russian borders if they had no intention to attack Russia at some point? They are not there to protect the borders because border guards serve that purpose and because their other borders are not equally protected. NATO has a history of invading other countries that never threatened NATO borders or security, so Russian paranoia is justifiable.
Russia has tried to justify its military operation in Ukraine by comparing its actions to interventions by the United States and its allies during the Kosovo War, the Iraq War[+] (2003–2011), the Libyan Crisis, and the Syrian civil war. This comparison makes sense because the US and its allies did attack those foreign territories. However, even if NATO did violate the UN Charter on many occasions, their illegal acts could not make the Russian act legal. One illegal use of force does not justify another. Nonetheless, it does highlight NATO's hypocrisy and double standards, undermining NATO's standing in the world, which is one of the reasons why most of the world sides with Russia rather than with NATO in this war.
Without providing any evidence to back up their claim, NATO officials want us to believe that Russia fears NATO or feels threatened by it because Russia has plans to invade other countries that NATO would protect. Russia has engaged in what was propagandized as hostile threats or actions against several countries since the end of the Cold War[+] in 1991, including Moldova (1992–2016); Georgia (2004–2012); Estonia (2006–2007), Ukraine (2014–present); Syria (2015–present), and Turkey (2015–2016), but the accusers omit to mention that all those were mere reactions to NATO´s either invasive or intrusive actions in those countries.
Russia–NATO relations started to deteriorate, following the Ukrainian Orange Revolution[+] in 2004–05. More on that here[+]: Russia–NATO relations – Wikipedia.
In 2008, NATO welcomed Ukraine and Georgia to apply for membership. This has alarmed Russia because it had designs on those two former Soviet nations – to maintain them as buffer zones between two rival superpowers (NATO and Russia).
Ukraine and Georgia have every right to seek an alliance with those who might help them maintain their sovereignty and defend them against invaders but their corrupt politicians and media representatives got bribed into swaying the public into believing that the Western predators and invaders are the good guys and fellow Russians are the enemies – the classic “divide and rule” scheme that half-witted masses are not capable to discern. The level of American meddling in European politics is extreme and such that it became so normal that most Europeans do not even realize how Americanized they are and how their states lost sovereignty under American invasive neocolonialist rule.
Russia's president Putin has threatened NATO to use nuclear weapons against them if NATO threatens Russian territorial integrity, which is why NATO is not engaging in this war as expected (besides other reasons). As he underscored[+], Moscow assumes that an exchange of nuclear strikes will never occur. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, which is why NATO is not obliged to send its troops to Ukraine, nevertheless, most NATO countries have provided some form of aid (financial, humanitarian, or military aid) to Ukraine but haven't sent any troops yet, at least not officially and significantly.
Many ignoramuses fume about NATO not providing enough to Ukraine to win the war because their low IQ doesn't allow them to realize all the consequences and realities such as that no matter how much NATO gives to Ukraine, Ukraine can never win because Russia not only has more but it has huge and powerful allies who would come to rescue when needed, not to mention that Russia would resort to nuclear weapons if faced with existential threat.
It is surely clear to everyone that Russia would win a nuclear war because it has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, especially if Russia's allies such as nuclear superpowers like Iran and North Korea came to rescue. The point is, there is no way that NATO could win a nuclear war or an outright war with Russia.
Slavic people are generally peace-loving, freedom-loving people, which never colonized any countries like many NATO countries did, which makes even less sense that they would start a nuclear war. It is understandable that when forced against a wall, an official might use bluffing to threaten their enemies but that's all there is to it, just a bluff, just a sign of weakness. Only weak people resort to using weapons instead of their mental powers. Those who lack creative powers must use destructive powers. Anyone can kill and destroy but only the best humans use their powers to create and build.
All things considered, as peacemakers, we would advise Ukraine to guarantee that it would not join NATO as long as Russia doesn't violate Ukraine's current borders and respects its territorial integrity. The longer Ukraine waits, the borders will shift to its disadvantage. Just consider all the losses Sweden and Finland suffered since they joined NATO – from financial to territorial losses as membership doesn't come cheap and much of their territories are lost due to being seized by or littered with American military bases, not to mention the losses ensuing from antagonizing their neighbor Russia instead of keeping good relationship with all their neighbors.
Thank you for reading this article and participating in this peace initiative by raising your awareness and, hopefully, your consciousness and spirit. To properly grasp everything, we[*]recommend reading the articles of this peace initiative for Ukraine in the proper order, which is listed in the Contents. So if you haven’t read the previous articles, we recommend that you do. When you are ready, please proceed to the next article in this “Meeting the Demands for Ending the War” segment: “Why should Ukraine demilitarize?”
the war in Syria started in 2011, first CIA involvement was in 2012, first official interventions of the US and allies was in 2014, first official attacks in 2017
Eastern Slavs consist of Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine.
There are also Western Slavs (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland) and Southern Slavs (Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia).
Donbas[+] is a coal mining region that was part of eastern Ukraine from 1922-2022 (now part of Russia) consisting of two Republics - Donetsk and Luhansk - where most residents have been Russians for centuries. In 2022, after Bolsheviks defeated the Ukrainian nationalists, Lenin gave that part of former Russian Empire with mostly ethnic Russian residents to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine under condition that it remains part of the Soviet Union and under Moscow governance (Kyiv administration) but in 1991, Ukraine violated that agreement by breaking off from the Soviet Union and from Moscow, and since 2014, Ukrainians had been demolishing all Lenin's monuments, therefore they have no rights to claim the territories he conditionally granted them. Since Ukrainians hate Lenin and Stalin so much that they demonize them, then in the Russian view[+], it is only fair to give back all the land[ꚛ] that Lenin and Stalin allocated to Soviet Ukraine, without even asking the locals’ permission (the majority were Russians in Donbas).
![[+]](https://www.virtuology.biz/images/consciousness-scale.png){kind=link}
![[ꚛ]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/History_of_NATO_enlargement_animation.gif){kind=link}
![[ꚛ]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/45/History_of_NATO_enlargement.svg/1024px-History_of_NATO_enlargement.svg.png){kind=link}
![[ꚛ]](https://bigthink.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Cropped-Ukraine.png){kind=link}