The truth hurts. Ukraine was thrown under the bus by MI6, like many countries before them. 2022-24 has been the new Hungarian uprising. As members of NATO, Hungary bravely kept their heads and called out the madness as they've being doing for years as EU members.
History will look very kindly on Hungary and it will be fondly remembered as the nation that broke up two evil institutions, the EU and NATO.
And there is no hope for peace until the US Criminal Empire finally collapses, which Ray Dalio puts it so well in his 45 video about empires: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8
What puzzles me is why Hungary (or any Warsaw Pact nation for that matter) decided to join NATO in the first place. The USSR was gone, the Warsaw Pact disbanded, Russia was economically weak, rife with internal problems and clearly in no position to threaten western Europe even if they'd wanted to. So where was the threat? Why didn't they do the obvious and form a neutral alliance with the other Warsaw pact nations? They could have formed their own trade alliance as well, instead of joining the EU. That's the part I really don't get. You just shook off decades of bureaucratic dictatorship only to cede your newfound sovereignty to yet another bureaucratic dictatorship? It boggles the mind.
If I had to guess, I'd say they were sold out by former apparachiks who cut their own deal with the western bankers, similar to what happened in Russia. So is Victor Orban Hungary's Putin, or is that expecting too much of both him and the people?
Orban doesn't want to withdraw Hungary from NATO, and in fact, he's in favor of continued membership. Some of the Central & Eastern European (CEE) countries joined due to pathological fears of Russia, while others saw it as a "natural" development that complemented joining the EU.
The International Relations theory of "Constructivism", which deals with changing perceptions, accounts pretty well in my opinion for why this happened. Leaders and their societies at the time simply perceived this as the "right" thing to do for various reasons despite the absence of any credible threat from Russia.
I don't believe that was the case with Poland and the Baltic States though. Their governments rabidly hate Russia and do everything to spite it, including at the cost of their own objective national (especially economic) interests.
And therein lies your answer: "...rabidly hate...". Everyone KNOWS hate is WRONG. It's just not healthy, does not lead to healthy growth, nor anything else constructive (which is why UN Article 51 is about defence).
I should like to add: hate can be healthy when it's part of defence. I'm sure you could find some who would go blue in the face explaining how NATO is all about defence, but they wouldn't need to go all blue in the face if such justification didn't demand such inordinate blue-in-the-face effort.
Another thought occurred to me. Why would Poland want to join an alliance with the UK, given the UK's empty promise to defend Polish sovereignty post the war? Obviously the UK lacked the means to do so, but that must surely have hurt, given how much the Poles contributed to Britain's defence?
Here's an interesting story from those days about a bear who held the rank of corporal in the Polish Army.
Sounds reasonable. I wasn't paying much attention at the time, and it's all water under the bridge at this point, but I'd be curious to know what form the debate took, both internally and between the former WP members.
For example, did Poland try to resurrect the idea of the Intermarium, and were the other members wary of Polish ambitions? What was their reaction to the first Gulf War (1991) and did Hungary have any doubts subsequent to joining NATO, given that their signing coincided exactly with the March 1999 NATO attack on Serbia? Along the same lines, did any of the former WP members have reservations after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 or the 2011 NATO attack on Libya? Surely there must have been a 'we didn't sign up for this" moment in leadership thinking? Then there's the impact of these various wars on the refugee situation in the EU, which led to tensions between the EU and Poland and Hungary specifically. Finally, didn't anyone notice the rise of neo-Nazism in Ukraine and the tacit support given to those elements by the USA and Britain?
Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but if it had been up to me, I'd have gone with a neutral alliance with specific security guarantees with Russia. The combined WP military forces at the time would have established parity, and liaison with both sides might have eased tensions to the point where economic cooperation could proceed without relying too heavily on either side for economic or military support.
Last point. Given that agreements were made not to advance NATO post the German reunification, would that not have given pause to the idea of Poland, Hungary and Czechia joining some 8 years later? It's obvious who won that debate, but again I'd be interested to know if such a debate occurred, and whether or not it continues to this day.
Yes, it does boggle the mind, but I think Protect&Survive, above, offers some pretty good means to answer your question, 'Why?': "The US/UK war machine needs conflict to fund their warfare/welfare states and UK is behind the whole strategy:" see above.
The precondition to join EU was to join NATO. I remember very well the headlines in Romania from the 1990s. The Romanians desire was to join EU, didn't care about "security" - there wasn't anything of a threat on the horizon.
Maybe the crazy Balts and Poles jumped on that bandwagon with abandon, but really, they ARE CRAZY.
Actually, 'greedy' might be a better description than 'crazy'. There are, of course, the intellectually-challenged who are easily led to believe Russia does actually harbour some desire or intention to invade and control their countries. Such people, however, don't constitute a significant proportion of those who make decisions about how the country's GDP is spent. The people who do are more concerned about maintaining their revenue streams than anything else, hence 'greedy', rather than 'crazy'.
There's a strong argument to say their attitudes and approaches are as short-sighted as they are self-interested, but that's another point; perhaps, 'stupid' as much as, if not more than, 'crazy'? But they'll find all sorts of reasons and go blue in the face justifying themselves, so not much point going there.
"It was futile to keep fighting given the gross mismatch of forces..."
No, that's NOT why it was futile to [keep] fight[ing]. It was futile because it was WRONG. The Americans did not set the Ukraine up to undermine and overwhelm Russia as a means of (self-)defence. They did it for offensive reasons: to reduce the Russian Federation to a group of smaller, easily manipulable states ('Balkanise', like the former Yugoslavia) for 'containing China' and securing their perceived 'superiority' (exceptionalism) on a long-term (forever-and-ever) basis. This was WRONG. It was nothing to do with a 'mismatch of forces'.
Russia was forced to defend itself from the increasingly offensive machinations of the Americans in the Ukraine in accordance with with UN Article 51. "The day Russia launched its operations, its Permanent Representative to the United Nations notified the UN Secretary-General that the military action was “taken in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter in the exercise of the right of self-defence.”" (https://lieber.westpoint.edu/russia-special-military-operation-claimed-right-self-defense/) Rather than getting into a hissy-fit food fight to refute all of the fallacious points (childish nonsense) the Americans so often use, as in the West Point article online, which I cite here; suffice it to say Russia's incursion — the Special (or, more accurately, 'Specific') Military Operation — was conceived and implemented to protect the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics after days of intensified NATO-supported (read simply, 'US' or 'American') shelling of Donetsk in preparation for an American (faux Ukrainian) invasion. This is nothing to do with a 'mismatch of forces'.
"...which is why this decision was so irresponsible."
No, Johnson & Duda et al. were NOT wrong because they were irresponsible, nor were they irresponsible because they were wrong. Their actions were nothing to do with responsibility, nor lack of it. They (the Americans) were and continue to be wrong because their actions are predicated on the belief that the order (the 'rules-based order') they mindlessly fight for was devised, implemented and is perpetuated by the use of overwhelming military force — fear. They are not, nor were their efforts to undermine and overwhelm Russia 'irresponsible'; they were and are lazy and wrong.
"...the West was so enraged by it that they encouraged his enemies to lie..."
This is the REAL problem: the 'West' lies. The Orbans' society is (would like to be) predicated on avoiding that. The Americans' (EU, UN, UK, NATO, etc.) is predicated on maintaining status quo (their exceptionalism), and nothing to little more.
"...Hungary was right, however, which is reshaping popular perceptions."
How sad (that such common perception should need such reshaping)!
Hungary has learned from its history and past mistake. Being in 1800s and early 1900s a supremacist state (equal footing with Austria in the co-empire), proceeded to alienate all the minorities by trying to magyarize and persecute them, in the same manner Ukraine started doing after 2014.
And then was the Trianon and Hungary was reduced to 1/3 of what originally controlled.
That is the right comparison for Hungary, and Hungary, as well as Georgia now, show that they have wisened up and learned their lessons.
Ukrianians are much more stubborn and only a good, very good brotherly beating to take them several pegs down might, might convince them in the end of the stupidity of their ideas and goals.
What is never mentioned these days is that in the period leading up to Russia's SMO on February 24, 2022 President Biden expended tremendous effort in rounding up the "50 countries" not to supply Ukraine with military materièl, but to implement sanctions on Russia after its anticipated rapid defeat of Ukraine, in order to have the best possible negotiating position for the peace treaty that would end the war. It was expected that Zelensky would accept the "ride" out of the country, because it was expected that Russia would insist on have a Government in Kiev that was sympathetic to Russia. (Indeed, I have seen it somewhere that such a shadow government was indeed waiting in the wings.)!The bravery and pigheadedness of the Ukrainian people under the leadership of Zelensky led to the tragic events that followed leading up to the present. Biden felt that he had no choice but to support Zelinsky given the rhetoric he had expended in the run-up to the war [SMO]. Now we are face with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers, and of thousands of civilians.
There is no way that Ukraine can win. The Pentagon has made it clear that there are not enough ATACMs to make a dufference in the war's outcome, even if it were not the case that if their use to strike Mother Russia in large numbers could vey well lead to nuclear weapons being used on Ukraine, or conventional weapons on the US or UK as an initial response. World War III could ensue. Ukraine's having a Europe-leaning government is not nor has it ever been worth this. And the claim by the likes of Biden, Harris, Blinkin, et al that Putin, having won this war, would go after NATO countries is absurd. Indeed, the reason for the SMO in the first place was to stop Ukraine from joining NATO, which nobody but Biden and George W Bush ever wanted in the first place.
This is just crazy. You are stating that Ukraine resisted russia's invasion just because the West told them to do so. Not because the Russians bombed hundreds of cities, not because they killed tens of thousand of ukrainians, not because they sistematically-raped ukrainian women and men. But because of the west. How can you be that much brainwashed? There is a limit.
Yea sure😂😂 you are completely brainwashed, go back watching RT😂😂
For you it's just so crazy that people want to defend themselves? It must be something from the outside!! Each of the 1 milions ukrainian soldier is paid by NATO, USA and aliens because they want to destroy Russia! Each one of them, they are all puppets😂😂😂🤡🤡🤡
Ever heard of the Minsk Accord, which Ukraine promptly broke at American urging? Or Minsk-2, which Poroshenko, Hollande and Merkel all confirmed was a sham that Ukraine never intended to comply with?
You are clearly unable to provide a substantive response.
Or, if you prefer, Hermann Goering's words on the subject
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
You still didn't answer me on why would 1 milions ukrainians and more fight against russia.
I ask you again, and this time don't bring topics which have nothing to do with what I asked, why would they do it? They are all paid or influenced by Usa?
Have the thoughts that they don't want their contry to be DEMOLISHED, their sisters RAPED and the ukrinian history GONE?
Are you refering here at the thousands upon thousands killed in Donbas between 2014 and 2022 by the Ukrainian army and various fascist batalions of volunteers?
The truth hurts. Ukraine was thrown under the bus by MI6, like many countries before them. 2022-24 has been the new Hungarian uprising. As members of NATO, Hungary bravely kept their heads and called out the madness as they've being doing for years as EU members.
History will look very kindly on Hungary and it will be fondly remembered as the nation that broke up two evil institutions, the EU and NATO.
Bang on target Andrew, thank you, another good analysis. The US/UK war machine needs conflict to fund their warfare/welfare states and UK is behind the whole strategy: https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/broken-britain-wartime-edition-abject?r=hkcp6&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
With over 285 wars initiated by the Neocons worldwide since WW2, https://www.infoplease.com/history/us/major-military-operations-since-world-war-ii
And there is no hope for peace until the US Criminal Empire finally collapses, which Ray Dalio puts it so well in his 45 video about empires: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xguam0TKMw8
🎯
What puzzles me is why Hungary (or any Warsaw Pact nation for that matter) decided to join NATO in the first place. The USSR was gone, the Warsaw Pact disbanded, Russia was economically weak, rife with internal problems and clearly in no position to threaten western Europe even if they'd wanted to. So where was the threat? Why didn't they do the obvious and form a neutral alliance with the other Warsaw pact nations? They could have formed their own trade alliance as well, instead of joining the EU. That's the part I really don't get. You just shook off decades of bureaucratic dictatorship only to cede your newfound sovereignty to yet another bureaucratic dictatorship? It boggles the mind.
If I had to guess, I'd say they were sold out by former apparachiks who cut their own deal with the western bankers, similar to what happened in Russia. So is Victor Orban Hungary's Putin, or is that expecting too much of both him and the people?
Orban doesn't want to withdraw Hungary from NATO, and in fact, he's in favor of continued membership. Some of the Central & Eastern European (CEE) countries joined due to pathological fears of Russia, while others saw it as a "natural" development that complemented joining the EU.
The International Relations theory of "Constructivism", which deals with changing perceptions, accounts pretty well in my opinion for why this happened. Leaders and their societies at the time simply perceived this as the "right" thing to do for various reasons despite the absence of any credible threat from Russia.
" Leaders and their societies at the time simply perceived this as the "right" thing to do..."
I disagree. They knew it was WRONG.
I don't believe that was the case with Poland and the Baltic States though. Their governments rabidly hate Russia and do everything to spite it, including at the cost of their own objective national (especially economic) interests.
And therein lies your answer: "...rabidly hate...". Everyone KNOWS hate is WRONG. It's just not healthy, does not lead to healthy growth, nor anything else constructive (which is why UN Article 51 is about defence).
I should like to add: hate can be healthy when it's part of defence. I'm sure you could find some who would go blue in the face explaining how NATO is all about defence, but they wouldn't need to go all blue in the face if such justification didn't demand such inordinate blue-in-the-face effort.
The leaders know what stances will attract fawning praise from the foreign press, plum think tank jobs and pats on the head from the Americans.
Nobody cares how it affects Poles or Poland, except to the extent they are useful to the Americans.
Another thought occurred to me. Why would Poland want to join an alliance with the UK, given the UK's empty promise to defend Polish sovereignty post the war? Obviously the UK lacked the means to do so, but that must surely have hurt, given how much the Poles contributed to Britain's defence?
Here's an interesting story from those days about a bear who held the rank of corporal in the Polish Army.
https://historycollection.com/20-images-corporal-wojtek-polish-bear-hero-wwii/
https://time.com/4731787/wojtek-the-bear-history/
Sounds reasonable. I wasn't paying much attention at the time, and it's all water under the bridge at this point, but I'd be curious to know what form the debate took, both internally and between the former WP members.
For example, did Poland try to resurrect the idea of the Intermarium, and were the other members wary of Polish ambitions? What was their reaction to the first Gulf War (1991) and did Hungary have any doubts subsequent to joining NATO, given that their signing coincided exactly with the March 1999 NATO attack on Serbia? Along the same lines, did any of the former WP members have reservations after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 or the 2011 NATO attack on Libya? Surely there must have been a 'we didn't sign up for this" moment in leadership thinking? Then there's the impact of these various wars on the refugee situation in the EU, which led to tensions between the EU and Poland and Hungary specifically. Finally, didn't anyone notice the rise of neo-Nazism in Ukraine and the tacit support given to those elements by the USA and Britain?
Hindsight is 20/20 of course, but if it had been up to me, I'd have gone with a neutral alliance with specific security guarantees with Russia. The combined WP military forces at the time would have established parity, and liaison with both sides might have eased tensions to the point where economic cooperation could proceed without relying too heavily on either side for economic or military support.
Last point. Given that agreements were made not to advance NATO post the German reunification, would that not have given pause to the idea of Poland, Hungary and Czechia joining some 8 years later? It's obvious who won that debate, but again I'd be interested to know if such a debate occurred, and whether or not it continues to this day.
Yes, it does boggle the mind, but I think Protect&Survive, above, offers some pretty good means to answer your question, 'Why?': "The US/UK war machine needs conflict to fund their warfare/welfare states and UK is behind the whole strategy:" see above.
The precondition to join EU was to join NATO. I remember very well the headlines in Romania from the 1990s. The Romanians desire was to join EU, didn't care about "security" - there wasn't anything of a threat on the horizon.
Maybe the crazy Balts and Poles jumped on that bandwagon with abandon, but really, they ARE CRAZY.
Actually, 'greedy' might be a better description than 'crazy'. There are, of course, the intellectually-challenged who are easily led to believe Russia does actually harbour some desire or intention to invade and control their countries. Such people, however, don't constitute a significant proportion of those who make decisions about how the country's GDP is spent. The people who do are more concerned about maintaining their revenue streams than anything else, hence 'greedy', rather than 'crazy'.
There's a strong argument to say their attitudes and approaches are as short-sighted as they are self-interested, but that's another point; perhaps, 'stupid' as much as, if not more than, 'crazy'? But they'll find all sorts of reasons and go blue in the face justifying themselves, so not much point going there.
"It was futile to keep fighting given the gross mismatch of forces..."
No, that's NOT why it was futile to [keep] fight[ing]. It was futile because it was WRONG. The Americans did not set the Ukraine up to undermine and overwhelm Russia as a means of (self-)defence. They did it for offensive reasons: to reduce the Russian Federation to a group of smaller, easily manipulable states ('Balkanise', like the former Yugoslavia) for 'containing China' and securing their perceived 'superiority' (exceptionalism) on a long-term (forever-and-ever) basis. This was WRONG. It was nothing to do with a 'mismatch of forces'.
Russia was forced to defend itself from the increasingly offensive machinations of the Americans in the Ukraine in accordance with with UN Article 51. "The day Russia launched its operations, its Permanent Representative to the United Nations notified the UN Secretary-General that the military action was “taken in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter in the exercise of the right of self-defence.”" (https://lieber.westpoint.edu/russia-special-military-operation-claimed-right-self-defense/) Rather than getting into a hissy-fit food fight to refute all of the fallacious points (childish nonsense) the Americans so often use, as in the West Point article online, which I cite here; suffice it to say Russia's incursion — the Special (or, more accurately, 'Specific') Military Operation — was conceived and implemented to protect the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics after days of intensified NATO-supported (read simply, 'US' or 'American') shelling of Donetsk in preparation for an American (faux Ukrainian) invasion. This is nothing to do with a 'mismatch of forces'.
"...which is why this decision was so irresponsible."
No, Johnson & Duda et al. were NOT wrong because they were irresponsible, nor were they irresponsible because they were wrong. Their actions were nothing to do with responsibility, nor lack of it. They (the Americans) were and continue to be wrong because their actions are predicated on the belief that the order (the 'rules-based order') they mindlessly fight for was devised, implemented and is perpetuated by the use of overwhelming military force — fear. They are not, nor were their efforts to undermine and overwhelm Russia 'irresponsible'; they were and are lazy and wrong.
"...the West was so enraged by it that they encouraged his enemies to lie..."
This is the REAL problem: the 'West' lies. The Orbans' society is (would like to be) predicated on avoiding that. The Americans' (EU, UN, UK, NATO, etc.) is predicated on maintaining status quo (their exceptionalism), and nothing to little more.
"...Hungary was right, however, which is reshaping popular perceptions."
How sad (that such common perception should need such reshaping)!
Hungary has learned from its history and past mistake. Being in 1800s and early 1900s a supremacist state (equal footing with Austria in the co-empire), proceeded to alienate all the minorities by trying to magyarize and persecute them, in the same manner Ukraine started doing after 2014.
And then was the Trianon and Hungary was reduced to 1/3 of what originally controlled.
That is the right comparison for Hungary, and Hungary, as well as Georgia now, show that they have wisened up and learned their lessons.
Ukrianians are much more stubborn and only a good, very good brotherly beating to take them several pegs down might, might convince them in the end of the stupidity of their ideas and goals.
And then EU and US will be fucked.
What is never mentioned these days is that in the period leading up to Russia's SMO on February 24, 2022 President Biden expended tremendous effort in rounding up the "50 countries" not to supply Ukraine with military materièl, but to implement sanctions on Russia after its anticipated rapid defeat of Ukraine, in order to have the best possible negotiating position for the peace treaty that would end the war. It was expected that Zelensky would accept the "ride" out of the country, because it was expected that Russia would insist on have a Government in Kiev that was sympathetic to Russia. (Indeed, I have seen it somewhere that such a shadow government was indeed waiting in the wings.)!The bravery and pigheadedness of the Ukrainian people under the leadership of Zelensky led to the tragic events that followed leading up to the present. Biden felt that he had no choice but to support Zelinsky given the rhetoric he had expended in the run-up to the war [SMO]. Now we are face with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers, and of thousands of civilians.
There is no way that Ukraine can win. The Pentagon has made it clear that there are not enough ATACMs to make a dufference in the war's outcome, even if it were not the case that if their use to strike Mother Russia in large numbers could vey well lead to nuclear weapons being used on Ukraine, or conventional weapons on the US or UK as an initial response. World War III could ensue. Ukraine's having a Europe-leaning government is not nor has it ever been worth this. And the claim by the likes of Biden, Harris, Blinkin, et al that Putin, having won this war, would go after NATO countries is absurd. Indeed, the reason for the SMO in the first place was to stop Ukraine from joining NATO, which nobody but Biden and George W Bush ever wanted in the first place.
Of course, the minister is correct, but this never was about Ukraine or Ukrainians, any more than WWI was about Franz Josef or Serbia.
This is just crazy. You are stating that Ukraine resisted russia's invasion just because the West told them to do so. Not because the Russians bombed hundreds of cities, not because they killed tens of thousand of ukrainians, not because they sistematically-raped ukrainian women and men. But because of the west. How can you be that much brainwashed? There is a limit.
Without the West pulling Ukrainian strings, there would be no invasion or war.
Yea sure😂😂 you are completely brainwashed, go back watching RT😂😂
For you it's just so crazy that people want to defend themselves? It must be something from the outside!! Each of the 1 milions ukrainian soldier is paid by NATO, USA and aliens because they want to destroy Russia! Each one of them, they are all puppets😂😂😂🤡🤡🤡
Don't you hear yourself?
Ever heard of the Minsk Accord, which Ukraine promptly broke at American urging? Or Minsk-2, which Poroshenko, Hollande and Merkel all confirmed was a sham that Ukraine never intended to comply with?
I lived many years in Ukraine.
You are clearly a troll, bye.
You are clearly unable to provide a substantive response.
Or, if you prefer, Hermann Goering's words on the subject
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Oh me?! I am unable?! Bruh come on.
You still didn't answer me on why would 1 milions ukrainians and more fight against russia.
I ask you again, and this time don't bring topics which have nothing to do with what I asked, why would they do it? They are all paid or influenced by Usa?
Have the thoughts that they don't want their contry to be DEMOLISHED, their sisters RAPED and the ukrinian history GONE?
No, it is the USA for you
Are you refering here at the thousands upon thousands killed in Donbas between 2014 and 2022 by the Ukrainian army and various fascist batalions of volunteers?