Thanks I sent this to a friend of mine who keeps saying that Maidan was a CIA plot, Zelensky is a CIA stooge etc. I don't think this will change his mind, but who knows? It's weird because he is a lefty American, but he hates US foreign policy so much that now he's on the side of Russia basically. And there seems to be no shortage of American commentators and professors etc who blame NATO for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Thanks for reading Bob. I agree and I think the worst part of the argument is that it removes agency from the Ukrainians. I also have my doubts that the CIA had the resources; at that time they were putting 90% of their efforts into counter-terrorism. Just a couple years earlier, Bin Laden had been killed. There might have been some subtle influence, but it would have been nothing compared to the overt Russian influence coming from the Kremlin.
Yes, and doesn't the whole argument that Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO remove agency from Russia as well? As if Putin and Russia had no choice but to invade, and Putin had none of his own imperial or political objectives. Again, the similarity is the assumption that the USA/CIA controls everything, which to me seems like a kind of America-centric conspiracy thinking that ignores the behavior and motivations of other actors. Does that make sense?
Absolutely. The “NATO made Russia invade” argument strips Moscow of agency the same way “the CIA ran Euromaidan” strips Ukrainians of theirs. It treats Putin like a wind-up toy reacting to Western inputs instead of a leader pursuing long-standing imperial goals.
It’s fair to say NATO expansion irritated Putin. It bruised his sense of status and fed his narrative that Russia was being boxed in. But irritation is not causation.
If you step into Putin’s head, what you find isn’t a man terrified of NATO tanks in Estonia. You find a man furious that former Soviet republics keep choosing a future without him. Every time a neighbor joined NATO or the EU, it wasn’t a security loss for Moscow, it was a political humiliation: another state demonstrating that Russian influence wasn’t inevitable.
The bigger truth is this: NATO didn’t “creep east.” Eastern Europe ran west. Poland, the Baltics, Romania, Bulgaria... these countries begged to join because they remembered what Russian domination looked like. Putin wasn’t reacting to NATO expansion. He was reacting to the collapse of the sphere of control he believes Russia is entitled to. That’s the part Westerners sometimes miss.
If NATO had frozen in place in 1999, Putin’s worldview, and his goals, would look the same. His speeches, his essays, and his actions all point to a desire to reassert control over Ukraine, Belarus, and the post-Soviet space. NATO didn’t cause that. It only got in the way.
Indeed. «The bigger truth is this: NATO didn’t “creep east.” Eastern Europe ran west. Poland, the Baltics, Romania, Bulgaria... these countries begged to join because they remembered what Russian domination looked like. Putin wasn’t reacting to NATO expansion. He was reacting to the collapse of the sphere of control he believes Russia is entitled to. That’s the part Westerners sometimes miss.» As a European from a small country it is amazing how many Western Europeans don’t understand this. The fact is that before Sweden and Finland joined NATO more than 130 millions had joined after the Cold War. Of course these governments had agency. And history of Soviet dominance. They knew what they were running away from. But lots of idiots in Europe still believe that this the work of CIA or NSA or some such. They are not the majority in any way, but they are very vocal.
The question on my mind for a long time is how long before "Eastern Russia" and the 'stans decide their future is better aligned "East" (to Canada/US/longer way around to Europe) or South-East to China (why wouldn't you bet on a winner, if recent "trade war" events tell us anything?).
Russia can't even win a war on one front, let alone on 2 or 3...
Tankies are the most absurd of the russo-fellators. "Anti-imperial" this and "anti empire" that. On behalf of the country already as large as North America (less Mexico), with uncontrolled compulsion to subjugate and consume its neighbors.
You mean guys like this lot who replied to a query I posted on another Stack?
"Stephen Thair NOV 27
"There was also a completely unnecessary GBP 2.9 billion increase for war spending and GBP 2.26 billion for the corrupt Ukraine." - what would have been an appropriate response, in your opinion, and why?
LIKE
REPLY
Roger Boyd - AUTHOR - NOV 27
Accept the Russian terms that Ukraine be demilitarized and denazified, and cut all the BS about Russia wanting to "invade Europe". Ukraine was set up for a proxy war because the West thought that it could crush Russia into subservience, and it has failed. Ukraine is a fascist, corrupt country that also serves as a "car wash" for money going from Western states to Western oligarchs. With a demilitarized and denazified Ukraine there will be peace, Russia is essentially a defensive power.
And at the same time cut all the crap about China being an "enemy". This is all just oligarch propaganda because the West was unable to turn China into a huge vassal from which massive new profits could be extracted (with Chinese corporations now taking over from Western ones in their home market and challenging the West in others). Work with the Chinese to establish joint ventures to help rebuild UK industry.
The above will never happen, as it will go directly against the interests of the UK and US oligarchy. That's why Corbyn was so comprehensively attacked.
LIKE (4)
REPLY
Jon Smith NOV 27
Couldn't have put it better myself...in my opinion this 28/18 point peace plan & its western players is just smoke & mirrors to hide the true reality...the vanquished never get to negotiate terms that will be negative in nature to the victors.
LIKE
Kojo NOV 27
REPLY
"Response" to what?
The war in Ukraine was in fact instigated by CIA and M16, according to the RAND Corpo playbook for "Overextending and Unbalancing Russia. There is several NY Times articles and Kit Klarenberg's investigations documenting this in detail.
Ukraine has been a medalist in all corruption indices that I can remember as an adult. Prime candidate for abuse. And the poorest in Europe, despite having left the Soviet Union with very high development standards, a top educational system and top healthcare.
Anyone with a brain can understand that when you want to do evil things, you co and find a poor, corrupt country to do it with.
Talking about a "response" to an instigated war involving a hapless patsy, would be self deception.
LIKE (1) REPLY
Frank Revelo
NOV 27
Given that Britain is a net importer of energy and raw materials, which Russia has in abundance, and that Britain is far, far away from Russia geographically and so neither is a natural enemy of the other, and given that Britain is no longer in the EU and so has some scope for independent action, the appropriate response, IMO, would be for Britain to aim to replace Germany as the major west European industrial power, by cutting all sorts of favorable trade deals with Russia while Russia was under pressure in 2022. USA would have been furious, but if anyone can foil CIA regime change plans, it's M15 and M16. It's very unlikely USA would have threatened a naval blockade on Britain, and even then Britain could probably have called the bluff by inviting Russia submarines into British waters and talking about permanent Russian submarine base in Britain."
you have smart left friends. I cannot say the same. Have been a leftist all my life, know the strengths and weaknesses of them. Most are pro Ukraine, but some are not. It must be said that the worst are the oldest.
Wes, do you only hit home runs? This is gold. A great outline of the forces that have shaped Ukrainian resolve. So grateful for your voice for justice. I wish Washington would listen. I have no doubt you will make an exceptional lawyer. You are already skilled at pushing a pen and winning hearts. Success to Ukraine and you.
Agree whole heartedly except more than just an outline. I am sending to my Congressman as a reminder of what he already knows and sharing with friends to rally their spirits.
Thank you for taking the time to clearly explain how the,
“Victoria Nuland, 5 $Billion, and the CIA staged a coup”.
is patently ridiculous.
It astounds me how so many “experts” can be sold a narrative that utterly wilts under the most cursory examination. Though, I’m begrudgingly accepting the fact that it’s not only common, but to be expected. Sadly.
Thank you for this. I think group three: «ideological echo chambers in the West; voices convinced that every protest on the planet is secretly cooked up in a Langley basement» is among the most problematic. Russias disinformation work wouldn’t succeed without it. This group is also very often stuck in a Cold War mindset and easily agrees with a «sphere of influence» theory. Citing the Cuba crisis as an example that USA does the same as Russia. Strangely enough these (often leftist) also ignores that other countries have their own agency. And they don’t understand that they are stuck in the Cold War.
Thanks I sent this to a friend of mine who keeps saying that Maidan was a CIA plot, Zelensky is a CIA stooge etc. I don't think this will change his mind, but who knows? It's weird because he is a lefty American, but he hates US foreign policy so much that now he's on the side of Russia basically. And there seems to be no shortage of American commentators and professors etc who blame NATO for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Thanks for reading Bob. I agree and I think the worst part of the argument is that it removes agency from the Ukrainians. I also have my doubts that the CIA had the resources; at that time they were putting 90% of their efforts into counter-terrorism. Just a couple years earlier, Bin Laden had been killed. There might have been some subtle influence, but it would have been nothing compared to the overt Russian influence coming from the Kremlin.
Yes, and doesn't the whole argument that Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO remove agency from Russia as well? As if Putin and Russia had no choice but to invade, and Putin had none of his own imperial or political objectives. Again, the similarity is the assumption that the USA/CIA controls everything, which to me seems like a kind of America-centric conspiracy thinking that ignores the behavior and motivations of other actors. Does that make sense?
Absolutely. The “NATO made Russia invade” argument strips Moscow of agency the same way “the CIA ran Euromaidan” strips Ukrainians of theirs. It treats Putin like a wind-up toy reacting to Western inputs instead of a leader pursuing long-standing imperial goals.
It’s fair to say NATO expansion irritated Putin. It bruised his sense of status and fed his narrative that Russia was being boxed in. But irritation is not causation.
If you step into Putin’s head, what you find isn’t a man terrified of NATO tanks in Estonia. You find a man furious that former Soviet republics keep choosing a future without him. Every time a neighbor joined NATO or the EU, it wasn’t a security loss for Moscow, it was a political humiliation: another state demonstrating that Russian influence wasn’t inevitable.
The bigger truth is this: NATO didn’t “creep east.” Eastern Europe ran west. Poland, the Baltics, Romania, Bulgaria... these countries begged to join because they remembered what Russian domination looked like. Putin wasn’t reacting to NATO expansion. He was reacting to the collapse of the sphere of control he believes Russia is entitled to. That’s the part Westerners sometimes miss.
If NATO had frozen in place in 1999, Putin’s worldview, and his goals, would look the same. His speeches, his essays, and his actions all point to a desire to reassert control over Ukraine, Belarus, and the post-Soviet space. NATO didn’t cause that. It only got in the way.
Indeed. «The bigger truth is this: NATO didn’t “creep east.” Eastern Europe ran west. Poland, the Baltics, Romania, Bulgaria... these countries begged to join because they remembered what Russian domination looked like. Putin wasn’t reacting to NATO expansion. He was reacting to the collapse of the sphere of control he believes Russia is entitled to. That’s the part Westerners sometimes miss.» As a European from a small country it is amazing how many Western Europeans don’t understand this. The fact is that before Sweden and Finland joined NATO more than 130 millions had joined after the Cold War. Of course these governments had agency. And history of Soviet dominance. They knew what they were running away from. But lots of idiots in Europe still believe that this the work of CIA or NSA or some such. They are not the majority in any way, but they are very vocal.
The question on my mind for a long time is how long before "Eastern Russia" and the 'stans decide their future is better aligned "East" (to Canada/US/longer way around to Europe) or South-East to China (why wouldn't you bet on a winner, if recent "trade war" events tell us anything?).
Russia can't even win a war on one front, let alone on 2 or 3...
They might be better looking east wards. Of course. That is for them to decide. I think what has been made clear to them is Russias problems.
I know such types. Yes, they are leftist in a way. But first of all they are anti American.
Tankies tend to adore the Russian and Chinese empires. Some "anti-imperialists" they are.
https://gnet-research.org/2023/10/02/tankies-a-data-driven-understanding-of-left-wing-extremists-on-social-media/
Tankies are the most absurd of the russo-fellators. "Anti-imperial" this and "anti empire" that. On behalf of the country already as large as North America (less Mexico), with uncontrolled compulsion to subjugate and consume its neighbors.
Hardcore leftist putinistas are ridiculous.
You mean guys like this lot who replied to a query I posted on another Stack?
"Stephen Thair NOV 27
"There was also a completely unnecessary GBP 2.9 billion increase for war spending and GBP 2.26 billion for the corrupt Ukraine." - what would have been an appropriate response, in your opinion, and why?
LIKE
REPLY
Roger Boyd - AUTHOR - NOV 27
Accept the Russian terms that Ukraine be demilitarized and denazified, and cut all the BS about Russia wanting to "invade Europe". Ukraine was set up for a proxy war because the West thought that it could crush Russia into subservience, and it has failed. Ukraine is a fascist, corrupt country that also serves as a "car wash" for money going from Western states to Western oligarchs. With a demilitarized and denazified Ukraine there will be peace, Russia is essentially a defensive power.
And at the same time cut all the crap about China being an "enemy". This is all just oligarch propaganda because the West was unable to turn China into a huge vassal from which massive new profits could be extracted (with Chinese corporations now taking over from Western ones in their home market and challenging the West in others). Work with the Chinese to establish joint ventures to help rebuild UK industry.
The above will never happen, as it will go directly against the interests of the UK and US oligarchy. That's why Corbyn was so comprehensively attacked.
LIKE (4)
REPLY
Jon Smith NOV 27
Couldn't have put it better myself...in my opinion this 28/18 point peace plan & its western players is just smoke & mirrors to hide the true reality...the vanquished never get to negotiate terms that will be negative in nature to the victors.
LIKE
Kojo NOV 27
REPLY
"Response" to what?
The war in Ukraine was in fact instigated by CIA and M16, according to the RAND Corpo playbook for "Overextending and Unbalancing Russia. There is several NY Times articles and Kit Klarenberg's investigations documenting this in detail.
Ukraine has been a medalist in all corruption indices that I can remember as an adult. Prime candidate for abuse. And the poorest in Europe, despite having left the Soviet Union with very high development standards, a top educational system and top healthcare.
Anyone with a brain can understand that when you want to do evil things, you co and find a poor, corrupt country to do it with.
Talking about a "response" to an instigated war involving a hapless patsy, would be self deception.
LIKE (1) REPLY
Frank Revelo
NOV 27
Given that Britain is a net importer of energy and raw materials, which Russia has in abundance, and that Britain is far, far away from Russia geographically and so neither is a natural enemy of the other, and given that Britain is no longer in the EU and so has some scope for independent action, the appropriate response, IMO, would be for Britain to aim to replace Germany as the major west European industrial power, by cutting all sorts of favorable trade deals with Russia while Russia was under pressure in 2022. USA would have been furious, but if anyone can foil CIA regime change plans, it's M15 and M16. It's very unlikely USA would have threatened a naval blockade on Britain, and even then Britain could probably have called the bluff by inviting Russia submarines into British waters and talking about permanent Russian submarine base in Britain."
Every left I know is pro Ukraine let’s get be clear about that , thanks
you have smart left friends. I cannot say the same. Have been a leftist all my life, know the strengths and weaknesses of them. Most are pro Ukraine, but some are not. It must be said that the worst are the oldest.
Wes, do you only hit home runs? This is gold. A great outline of the forces that have shaped Ukrainian resolve. So grateful for your voice for justice. I wish Washington would listen. I have no doubt you will make an exceptional lawyer. You are already skilled at pushing a pen and winning hearts. Success to Ukraine and you.
Agree whole heartedly except more than just an outline. I am sending to my Congressman as a reminder of what he already knows and sharing with friends to rally their spirits.
Cheers for
The Ukrainian people. I hear they are intellect and well educated. Wish we could do that with our populace.
Thank you for taking the time to clearly explain how the,
“Victoria Nuland, 5 $Billion, and the CIA staged a coup”.
is patently ridiculous.
It astounds me how so many “experts” can be sold a narrative that utterly wilts under the most cursory examination. Though, I’m begrudgingly accepting the fact that it’s not only common, but to be expected. Sadly.
Hi Wes, thanks for this article, I get the same tired trope from people that I discuss Ukraine with and having this summary is very helpful.
Thank you for this. I think group three: «ideological echo chambers in the West; voices convinced that every protest on the planet is secretly cooked up in a Langley basement» is among the most problematic. Russias disinformation work wouldn’t succeed without it. This group is also very often stuck in a Cold War mindset and easily agrees with a «sphere of influence» theory. Citing the Cuba crisis as an example that USA does the same as Russia. Strangely enough these (often leftist) also ignores that other countries have their own agency. And they don’t understand that they are stuck in the Cold War.
Thank you Wes, very interesting SubStack.
A good overview, Wes!
The Kremlin trolls and shills will continue to pretend Euromaidan wasn't genuine because it would spoil their narrative too much.
https://eastsplaining.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-a-2014-coup-in-ukraine