Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Seeking the Truth about Ukraine
February 20, 2015, marks the one-year anniversary of the heinous slaughter of protesters and police by neo-Nazi snipers who transformed a relatively peaceful protest against Ukraine’s democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, into a violent anti-Russia coup. To this day, the illegitimate regime ruling in Kiev has done virtually nothing to bring their sniper allies to justice.
Writing in the September/October 2014 issue of Foreign Affairs, Mary Elise Sarrote noted that, at their meeting on February 10, 1990, Kohl assured Gorbachev that, in return for Moscow’s permission to begin the reunification of Germany, “naturally NATO could not expand its territory to the current territory of [East Germany].” “In parallel talks, [West German foreign minister, Hans-Dietrich] Genscher delivered the same message to his Soviet counterpart, Eduard Shevardnadze, saying, ‘for us, it stands firm: NATO will not expand itself to the East.’”
According to Professor Sarrote, “After hearing these repeated assurances, Gorbachev gave West Germany what Kohl later called ‘the green light.’” Kohl “held a press conference immediately to lock in his gain.” However, he did not mention the quid pro quo — no eastward expansion of NATO.
(The Soviet Union lost some 27,000,000 men, women and children before defeating Nazi Germany in World War II. By comparison, the U.S. lost some 400,000 during that war. Consequently, permitting the reunification of Germany in return for West Germany’s assurance of no NATO expansion eastward was an enormous concession by Gorbachev.)
According to Professor Sarrote, “After hearing these repeated assurances, Gorbachev gave West Germany what Kohl later called ‘the green light.’” Kohl “held a press conference immediately to lock in his gain.” However, he did not mention the quid pro quo — no eastward expansion of NATO.
(The Soviet Union lost some 27,000,000 men, women and children before defeating Nazi Germany in World War II. By comparison, the U.S. lost some 400,000 during that war. Consequently, permitting the reunification of Germany in return for West Germany’s assurance of no NATO expansion eastward was an enormous concession by Gorbachev.)
In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski — who later became a foreign policy advisor to the Obama administration – published a book titled, The Grand Chessboard , which was “translated into Russian and is part of everyday political discussion” (Sakwa, p.215). According to Mr. Brzezinski, “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”
Walter C Uhler
About
Walter C. Uhler served in the U.S. Army Security Agency (a branch of the National Security Agency) from late 1966 to early 1971. He received BA’s in Political Science and Russian Language, as well as a certificate in Russian Area Studies, from the Pennsylvania State University in 1973. As a graduate student and teaching assistant, he studied Russian History at Penn State under Sergei Vasilievich Utechin during 1973-76. He received an MPA from Penn State in 1992. His Master’s Essay compared the weapons acquisition process in the United States and the Soviet Union.
From 1976 until his retirement in March 2008 he was employed as a weapons acquisition executive in the Department of Defense. His negotiations with defense contractors saved DOD hundreds of millions of dollars. He also was quite successful in his efforts to foster diversity and equal employment opportunity in the workplace .
For more than thirty years, he has been an independent scholar specializing in Russian and military history, the Cold War, and international security. His numerous articles, op-eds, and reviews have been published in The Nation, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Journal of Military History, Russian History, the San Francisco Chronicle, Moscow Times, St. Petersburg Times (Russia), Philadelphia Inquirer, Defense News, the Naval War College Review, Journal of Slavic Military Studies (London) and Russkaya Evropa (St. Petersburg) among other journals magazines and newspapers. His article, “National Missile Defense and Russian-American Relations,” remains posted on the website of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology and his article, “Democracy or dominion?” was republished in a college textbook (Annual Editions: World Politics 05/06) in 2005. The Summer 2005 issue of Slavic Review published an obituary of his mentor, Sergei Vasilievich Utechin, which he was honored to write.
http://www.walter-c-uhler.com/?p=820
10 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
That first paragraph is all sorts of laughably wrong.
February 20, 2015, marks the one-year anniversary of the heinous slaughter of protesters and police by neo-Nazi snipers who transformed a relatively peaceful protest against Ukraine’s democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, into a violent anti-Russia coup. To this day, the illegitimate regime ruling in Kiev has done virtually nothing to bring their sniper allies to justice.
You actually have to parse through the ridiculous propaganda piece by piece to see how off the wall it is.
February 20, 2015, marks the one-year anniversary of the heinous slaughter of protesters and police by neo-Nazi snipers
The author seems pretty convinced that so-called "neo-Nazis" were behind the sniper shootings when there's been no conclusive proof as to what party was to blame. Even the recent BBC piece that I'm sure you're itching to post really didn't offer any concrete answers.
Anyways, next.
who transformed a relatively peaceful protest against Ukraine’s democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych
The author conveniently ignores the fact that dozens of protesters had been killed on the Maidan in the weeks leading up to the February 20th. (Not to mention the fact that Victor Yanukovych had already been packing for a day at that point) In his alternate re-telling of the facts, Maidan was incident free until February 20th, when it turned into, well, what did he call it?.....
into a violent anti-Russia coup
Oh that's right. Into a "violent anti-Russia coup." Four words that fail on so many levels. First of all, of course, is the characterization of what happened as a coup. Which if one believes the traditionally accepted definition of that term, it means "a sudden attempt by a small group of people to take over the government usually through violence", or if you believe the Polly7 definition of the word, it means.....well, I don't know because she hasn't really ever given her own alternate definition of the word. But besides that, "anti-Russia coup." So here, the author characterizes the regime change in Ukraine (which he characterizes as a "coup"
as "anti-Russia." Wait, he is aware of the fact that Russia and Ukraine are two separate countries, so calling a regime change in Ukraine "anti-Russia" comes off as rather nonsensical. Anyways, where were we?
To this day, the illegitimate regime ruling in Kiev
.
Okay. An "illegitimate regime" that is comprised of a President elected by the people of Ukraine in elections determined by international observers to be free and fair and a Parliament elected by the people of Ukraine in elections determined by international observers to be free and fair.
has done virtually nothing to bring their sniper allies to justice
Begging the question, aisle four. Also, interesting how a government that didn't even exist until months after Maidan and is not comprised of the ultra-nationalist political parties that the author accuses of perpetrating the Feb. 20th sniper shootings can somehow make an alliance into the past?
Anyways, the Sakwa book that the author critiques appears at least to be somewhat more grounded in reality and the facts than the author's piece itself, although it attributes to the current military conflict quite a lot to pre-existing tensions in Ukraine (linguistically, culturally, etc.) without really considering how much of a game changer Russia's invasion of Crimea (just days after Yanukovych flew out of Kiev) really was. It is true that there were underlying internal tensions within Ukraine prior to Maidan, none were so significant that they threatened to tear the country apart. After Yanukovych's flight and removal from office, what really prompted Russia to invade and annex Crimea (an admission made only after the fact)? Was it really a bill--subsequently vetoed by the interim Ukrainian president himself--that would have made Ukrainian the one official language of Ukraine (which would not have outlawed the speaking of Russian, mind you)? Or was it a carpe diem moment for Putin, the ability to claim back land he viewed as historically Russian knowing Ukraine was in no shape at the time to respond? And then with the template set in Crimea, similar posturing established in Donetsk and Luhansk?
