Flashback: How Yeltsin Gleefully Drove Bill Clinton to Tears. Who's Crying Now?

You see, it was Clinton that put in motion Nato's eastward expansion. That ultimately advanced to talk of placing Nato forces right up against Russia's sensitive border with Ukraine. Russia considered that to be a security threat of existential proportion.

Clinton had revealed his hidden agenda on this when he spoke to The Atlantic in 2022. He claimed: "When I first became president, I said that I would support Russian President Boris Yeltsin in his efforts to build a good economy and a functioning democracy after the dissolution of the Soviet Union -- but I would also support an expansion of Nato to include former Warsaw Pact members and post-Soviet states."

Certainly it's always good to be prepared for the worst. But Clinton's plan was in abrogation of a contract made between presidents G.H.W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev. It assured Gorbachev that "within the framework of Nato, not an inch of Nato's present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction."

This matter is often dismissed because it was never a condition of any treaty. But I've examined carefully the official sources on the matter and find present all the elements of a verbal contract. The Soviets performed their obligations in the contract, but Clinton abrogated ours. Under US law verbal contracts are perfectly legal, but difficult to enforce. Clinton apparently hid behind that in his actions regarding Nato expansion.

In 1985 presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev issued a joint statement:

"A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought."

That admonition seems to be freely ignored now. On September 25, 2024 Reuters reported, "President Vladimir Putin warned the West on Wednesday that Russia could use nuclear weapons if it was struck with conventional missiles, and that Moscow would consider any assault on it supported by a nuclear power to be a joint attack.

It is well known that it is Russia's military doctrine that an existential threat will be met with a nuclear response.

But Russell Berman, a Stanford University professor, writing in The National Interest, April 6, 2023, proclaims that "Ukraine must win its war with Russia." He says, "It is foolish and short-sighted to withhold from Ukraine the tools it needs to win."

Is Berman nuts? What's worse is that there are prominent American politicians who seem to hold the same position, i.e. that Ukraine must win not settle the war. Unless stopped these people will risk saber-rattling our way into a nuclear war, it seems to me.

Europe is already preparing for the worst. On March 20, Politico ran the story, "Von der Leyen asks Finland to prepare the EU for war." (iti.co/4fiugQO)

On October 31, 2024 Newsweek reported, "Europeans Told to Stockpile Food in Case of War with Russia." (.ly/48wJUpF)

We Americans are mostly being kept in the dark over the present danger. Our former Civil Defense structure is long gone. Could it be that too many influential people are profiting or benefiting from the military activity? President Eisenhower warned us of such a possibility in his farewell address.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in an interview by Chris Cuomo, likened Russia's present situation to that confronted by his uncle President Kennedy in 1962. That's when he brought the US and the USSR to the brink of nuclear war over the Soviet military advances in Cuba. Thankfully, President Kennedy held strong against those within our country that urged him to fight instead of negotiate. The matter was settled peacefully.

Will our next president succumb to internal pressures to keep the war gravy train going? I'm writing this before the election. But I hope that voters will have checked out who the politicians are that want military victory over a peaceful settlement. The 2024 election is not just for president. House and Senate seats are up, too.

Clearly nuclear war is not an issue on voters' minds. It doesn't register like more popular concerns over higher prices, jobs, immigration, abortion, and taxes. But nuclear war is far more consequential. Unlike the other important issues, it is an existential threat.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).