Understanding Russian Enterprises and the Idiocy of Western Tactfulness

By Ezekiel Zik Kuni

Developing the future of knowledge involves understanding the‘ relationship between what we know and what will be, for the purpose of perfecting both, for everyone’.
This bid demands a questioning and contrarian mindset that challenges conventional wisdom. It requires a jubilee of ideas that cherishes the diversity of views, getting a gauntlet for new knowledge and allowed leadership.
What we’ve witnessed in the public converse erecting up to the events in Ukraine doesn’t augur well for creating intelligent and nuanced understanding of global affairs. The single, simpleminded and wholly unstable narrative we’ve been entering from Western leaders and the leading global news outlets similar CNN, BBC and Sky News isn’t conducive to resolving global challenges. To the negative, similar brazen-faced and tone- serving intellectual incompetency inflames conflicts.
We need to produce and embrace new knowledge and innovative fabrics that help wars and mortal strife encyclopedically.
The future of tactfulness must be reimagined and reinvented.
For a launch, the whole mainstream converse on Ukraine is ahistorical. It’s decontextualised. Ukraine was part of the USSR, the superpower at the centre of the Warsaw Pact – an Eastern military alliance established in opposition to NATO, a Western military alliance. This was the configuration that constituted the military computation of the Cold War.
Between 1989 and 1992, the Warsaw Pact collapsed, and the USSR disintegrated with the Soviet democracy getting independent nations similar as Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Estonia and Belarus. Russia remained a superpower, having inherited the bulk of the Soviet service and artificial strength, particularly a potent nuclear magazine.
In 1999, former Warsaw Pact members Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO, with vicious Russian opposition to the move. Another NATO expansion came with the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Russia, a global superpower, felt encircled by its former NATO adversaries. Easily, given the history of the Cold War, Russia’s security enterprises are accessible.
A particularly mischievous ambition of the Western alliance was to control the Black Sea line, therefore fully undermining Russia. Putin stopped that adventure by adding Crimea. It’s instructional to note that the ill-conceived expansion of NATO into areas of former Soviet influence was done in bad faith and in shy violation of an understanding struck between NATO and the Russian Federation at the end of the Cold War; that NATO will drink the independence of the former Soviet countries and satellite countries but not expand the military alliance into these homes.
In the environment of the recent history of the Cold War, Russian demands that Ukraine must remain independent but shouldn’t join NATO aren’t entirely unreasonable. Ukraine has a nearly 2000 km border with Russia, and its joining of NATO leads to the total sequestration of Russia by its current and literal opponents.
The posturing by NATO members that Ukraine is free to join since it’s a autonomous nation is at best naïve if not an outright incarnation of primitive ignorance.
Sovereignty isn’t absolute. In October 1962, when the USSR placed nuclear-fortified dumdums in Cuba, just 90 country miles from the United States, the Americans quailed with wrathfulness leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba was a autonomous country with the right to have whatever munitions they wanted on their home.
Why was this sovereignty not admired?
There was a trouble to US public security, and hence that part of Cuban sovereignty wasn’t admired.
This is common sense.
In the end, Nikita Khrushchev backed down, and the Russian dumdums were removed from Cuba.
Still, pull out of the EU and NATO, and join a military alliance with Russia or China, If moment France was to exercise its autonomousright. Why not?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
It doesn’t make geo-political-strategic and military sense, nor foster global peace and security to have Ukraine as a member of NATO. Such a script presents a patently egregious trouble to Russian public security.
In fact, by overrunning Ukraine now, Putin is being preemptive. When Ukraine becomes a member of NATO, Russia will be completely encircled and therefore vulnerable. More importantly, any attack on Ukraine also will bring a nippy NATO military response by operation of the NATO agreement. Hence Putin’s demand that Ukraine must no way be a member of NATO is reasonable. Both NATO and the people of Ukraine must have accepted this position.
This analysis should be clear to all peace- loving people.
So, what should be done? What could have been done?
. While asserting their sovereignty and remaining an independent nation, the people of Ukraine and their leaders must commit to NOT joining NATO. Realpolitik demands this. They won’t be the first to follow this realistic posture.
Finland is an illustration of what Ukraine should do. Finland is fiercely unapologetic about its independence and works nearly with Western countries. Still, it isn’t a member of NATO and strategically avoids any battle or disagreeable conduct with the Russians.
The distinguished and hallowed former US Secretary of State, Dr. Henry Kissinger, eloquently supports this view‘ Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its profitable and political associations, including with Europe. ( Still) Ukraine shouldn’t join NATO … Ukraine should be free to produce any government compatible with the expressed will of its people.’

Understanding Russian Enterprises and the Idiocy of Western Tactfulness
By Ezekiel Zik Kuni
Developing the future of knowledge involves understanding the‘ relationship between what we know and what will be, for the purpose of perfecting both, for everyone’.
This bid demands a questioning and contrarian mindset that challenges conventional wisdom. It requires a jubilee of ideas that cherishes the diversity of views, getting a gauntlet for new knowledge and allowed leadership.
What we’ve witnessed in the public converse erecting up to the events in Ukraine doesn’t augur well for creating intelligent and nuanced understanding of global affairs. The single, simpleminded and wholly unstable narrative we’ve been entering from Western leaders and the leading global news outlets similar CNN, BBC and Sky News isn’t conducive to resolving global challenges. To the negative, similar brazen-faced and tone- serving intellectual incompetency inflames conflicts.
We need to produce and embrace new knowledge and innovative fabrics that help wars and mortal strife encyclopedically.
The future of tactfulness must be reimagined and reinvented.
For a launch, the whole mainstream converse on Ukraine is ahistorical. It’s decontextualised. Ukraine was part of the USSR, the superpower at the centre of the Warsaw Pact – an Eastern military alliance established in opposition to NATO, a Western military alliance. This was the configuration that constituted the military computation of the Cold War.
Between 1989 and 1992, the Warsaw Pact collapsed, and the USSR disintegrated with the Soviet democracy getting independent nations similar as Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Estonia and Belarus. Russia remained a superpower, having inherited the bulk of the Soviet service and artificial strength, particularly a potent nuclear magazine.
In 1999, former Warsaw Pact members Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO, with vicious Russian opposition to the move. Another NATO expansion came with the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Russia, a global superpower, felt encircled by its former NATO adversaries. Easily, given the history of the Cold War, Russia’s security enterprises are accessible.
A particularly mischievous ambition of the Western alliance was to control the Black Sea line, therefore fully undermining Russia. Putin stopped that adventure by adding Crimea. It’s instructional to note that the ill-conceived expansion of NATO into areas of former Soviet influence was done in bad faith and in shy violation of an understanding struck between NATO and the Russian Federation at the end of the Cold War; that NATO will drink the independence of the former Soviet countries and satellite countries but not expand the military alliance into these homes.
In the environment of the recent history of the Cold War, Russian demands that Ukraine must remain independent but shouldn’t join NATO aren’t entirely unreasonable. Ukraine has a nearly 2000 km border with Russia, and its joining of NATO leads to the total sequestration of Russia by its current and literal opponents.
The posturing by NATO members that Ukraine is free to join since it’s a autonomous nation is at best naïve if not an outright incarnation of primitive ignorance.
Sovereignty isn’t absolute. In October 1962, when the USSR placed nuclear-fortified dumdums in Cuba, just 90 country miles from the United States, the Americans quailed with wrathfulness leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cuba was a autonomous country with the right to have whatever munitions they wanted on their home.
Why was this sovereignty not admired?
There was a trouble to US public security, and hence that part of Cuban sovereignty wasn’t admired.
This is common sense.
In the end, Nikita Khrushchev backed down, and the Russian dumdums were removed from Cuba.
Still, pull out of the EU and NATO, and join a military alliance with Russia or China, If moment France was to exercise its autonomousright.Why not?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
It doesn’t make geo-political-strategic and military sense, nor foster global peace and security to have Ukraine as a member of NATO. Such a script presents a patently egregious trouble to Russian public security.
In fact, by overrunning Ukraine now, Putin is being preemptive. When Ukraine becomes a member of NATO, Russia will be completely encircled and therefore vulnerable. More importantly, any attack on Ukraine also will bring a nippy NATO military response by operation of the NATO agreement. Hence Putin’s demand that Ukraine must noway be a member of NATO is reasonable. Both NATO and the people of Ukraine must have accepted this position.
This analysis should be clear to all peace- loving people.
So, what should be done? What could have been done?
. While asserting their sovereignty and remaining an independent nation, the people of Ukraine and their leaders must commit to NOT joining NATO. Realpolitik demands this. They won’t be the first to follow this realistic posture.
Finland is an illustration of what Ukraine should do. Finland is fiercely unapologetic about its independence and works nearly with Western countries. Still, it isn’t a member of NATO and strategically avoids any battle or disagreeable conduct with the Russians.
The distinguished and hallowed former US Secretary of State,Dr. Henry Kissinger, eloquently supports this view‘Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its profitable and political associations, including with Europe. ( Still) Ukraine shouldn’t join NATO … Ukraine should be free to produce any government compatible with the expressed will of its people.’

About Post Author

Nationalglint

See author's posts

Views: 196