The territorial aspect of the conflict is only the result of “military logic” making this a fait accompli as the conflict dragged on after the Anglo-American Axis sabotaged spring 2022’s peace talks.
The past 1,200+ days since the start of Russia’s special operation in Ukraine have seen the West fearmonger about Putin’s alleged intentions to take over all of that country. They must have therefore been very displeased by him clarifying Russian policy towards Ukraine during his remarks at the plenary session of this year’s St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. In his words, “we are not seeking capitulation from Ukraine. We insist on recognition of the realities that have developed on the ground.”
This is a reaffirmation of his demand that Ukraine must recognize Russian control over the entirety of the disputed regions and withdraw from those parts that it’s still occupying in order to end the conflict. He also added that Ukraine needs to restore its non-aligned, non-nuclear, and neutral status that it agreed to after independence. About that, Putin reminded everyone that “we have never questioned their right - the right of the Ukrainian people to independence and sovereignty.”
This aligns with his summer 2021 magnum opus “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”, which he also referenced with regard to his remark that “I have said many times that I consider the Russian and Ukrainian people to be one people in reality. In this sense, all of Ukraine is ours.” Those words, his quip the “old rule” that “where the foot of a Russian soldier steps, that is ours”, and him not ruling out “taking Sumy”, however, will likely dominate Western media coverage of his comments.
The context within which he shared those statements, which Western media will predictably omit, reveals that he has no expansionist intentions: “At every stage, we suggested to those with whom we were in contact in Ukraine to stop and said: let’s negotiate now, because this logic of developing purely military actions can lead to your situation getting worse, and then we will have to conduct our negotiations from other positions, from positions that are worse for you. This happened several times.”
Likewise, he told the heads of international news agencies a few days prior that “the logic of the combat operations” led to Russian forces sweeping into the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, but he initially considered restoring some form of Ukrainian sovereignty there in early 2022. That never happened though because Ukraine continued fighting at former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s instigation, which he claimed during the plenary session was actually at the Biden Administration’s behest.
None of the aforesaid context is expected to be included in the Western media’s coverage of his comments since it discredits their fearmongering. Far from wanting to take over all of Ukraine, Putin just wants to remove Western-originating threats to Russia’s security from there, to which end he repeated his demand that Ukraine restore its non-aligned, non-nuclear, and neutral status. The territorial aspect of the conflict is only the result of “military logic” making this a fait accompli as the conflict dragged on.
Russia’s goals, which were dishonestly misportrayed by the West from the get-go, therefore remain the same: Putin essentially aims to return Ukraine to where it was over a third of a century ago when it became independent and hadn’t yet been transformed by the West into what he calls the “anti-Russia”. Going back further than that to when Ukraine was still a Soviet Republic isn’t part of his plans, but “military logic” might lead to more parts of it returning to Russia if a peace deal isn’t soon agreed to.
a remarkable threat by @datarepublican (X) explains the significance of a paper George Soros wrote a paper 30 years ago: "Towards a New World Order: The Future of NATO." Here I was operating under the misapprehension that NATO's purpose was a defense alliance. It has not been functioning that way for the last 30 years.
Instead, based upon George Soros' ideas, NGOs, funding, etc. NATO has become an organization that has been trying to establish a New World Order by requiring countries to become Open Societies or face military action.
https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/1935114155620741262
The essay by Soros lays out a new mission for NATO after the cold war. NATO would no longer be a defensive alliance against Russia - that is obsolete. Instead, it would proactively go out and shape other countries into "open societies." "[𝑵𝑨𝑻𝑶'𝒔 𝒏𝒆𝒘] 𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒊𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝒅𝒆𝒇𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒎𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒏 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒄𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒔."
“𝑷𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒆𝒄𝒖𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚... 𝒅𝒆𝒑𝒆𝒏𝒅 𝒇𝒊𝒓𝒔𝒕 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒔𝒕 𝒐𝒏 𝒂 𝒔𝒖𝒄𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒇𝒖𝒍 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒐 𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒏 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒕𝒚.”
In other words, NATO's new mission: if a country doesn't adopt Western-style capitalism and liberalism, NATO should step in... politically, economically, and eventually, militarily.
Here are the elements of an "Open Society" in theory:
🔹Democracy
🔹Free markets
🔹Civil rights
🔹Minority protections
🔹Transparency
🔹A "global" rules-based order
In practice, Open Society means something very different.
"𝑶𝒑𝒆𝒏 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒕𝒚 𝒊𝒔 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒈𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏... 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒕𝒔 𝒂𝒄𝒕 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒂𝒔𝒊𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒇𝒆𝒄𝒕 𝒖𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈. 𝑪𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒕𝒚 𝒐𝒏 𝒊𝒕𝒔 𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒊𝒂𝒍."
Translation:
You're an open society if you accept our interpretation of pluralism and Western values. Otherwise, we'll label you "closed," even if your people elect their leaders or protect cultural traditions. And this gives us pretext to justify military actions on you.
In practice an Open Society is borderless.
“[Combatting closed societies] 𝒊𝒏𝒗𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒃𝒖𝒊𝒍𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒇 𝒅𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒄𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒄 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒐𝒑𝒆𝒏 𝒔𝒐𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒆𝒎𝒃𝒆𝒅𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒎 𝒊𝒏 𝒂 𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒘𝒉𝒊𝒄𝒉 𝒑𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒅𝒆𝒔 𝒄𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒂𝒊𝒏 𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒅𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒃𝒆𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒊𝒐𝒓.”
This point is perhaps the most ironic one. A "Democracy" according to George Soros is not decided by its own citizens. Instead, NATO's new mission is to impose their own ideology on others and build countries which agree with Soros.
When you realize that NATO has been in the business of determining what countries can and cannot do, with the threat of military action if they do not institute or become "Open Societies."
Ask President Putin how that threat has been working out.
As currently organized, it appears that NATO is a threat to any democracy or Constitutional Republic.
While I first began to think we all would be better off without NATO, I read that the CCP has 3 warfare goals involved in achieving world dominance, and one of those goals is for NATO to dissolve.
Thus I advocate ending all the funding for the NGO's that support the Soros New World Order initiative in NATO, and return NATO back to its function of defensive alliance ONLY. NATO should also thus never start a war against any country. NATO shall not decide what a country's people decide they want for themselves.
It would mean a radical and complete end to outsourcing the post World War II order of the free world to megalomaniacs like George Soros.
It’s why Trump has walked away. Putin no doubt explained this to Trump and he concurred. Which leads to what Biden himself said ina press conference that “a minor incursion by Russia would be acceptable” which sent Europe into a tizzy and Johnson getting into Zelenskys ear during the first talks. Biden afterwards just guaranteed US money to fight Russia which Europe thought would equal a forever guarantee of funds that would allow them to be what they always have been a bystander as the US pays for the Ukrainians to fight. It explains how and why European money was flooding into the last election attempting to help Kamala beat Trump. Yes, there were Brits on the ground here complaining for her! She spent more than a billion in less than 6 months before the election. All that money wasn’t from American sources. Trump winning was the monkey wrench in their plans. Trump understands Putin’s viewpoint which is why he has tried to get Zelensky to quit and get to the peace table. Zelensky then gets visits from Starmer and Macron and he renegs thinking he’s getting Europe to pull the US deeper into the conflict which has backfired.