

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Anti-war protesters gather in front of the White House to demonstrate against escalating tensions between the United States and Russia over Ukraine on January 27, 2022, in Washington, D.C.
NATO expansion provoked the very conflict that is now being touted as justification for said expansion.
I devised these four views during discussions with my member of Congress, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash., no relation), who is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee and former chair. He, of course, believes view #1 and thinks that NATO expansion was needed to deter Russian aggression. But he told me that view No. 2 is plausible though wrong.
If you believe the official narrative coming out of D.C. and out of most of mainstream media, you too will think that view No. 1 is correct and that the U.S. is as innocent in the crisis as a newborn baby.
Given the history of U.S. lies and aggression with respect to foreign policy and with respect to overseas interventions, one would have to be naive indeed to believe view No. 1.
I believe the evidence points to view No. 4 being correct: The U.S. intentionally provoked a war. But it is possible that view No. 3 is closer to the truth, and that ideological fervor led the architects of U.S. policy in Ukraine to be blinded to the obvious likely results of their policies; however, that seem unlikely, because both diplomats and the RAND Corporation had told policymakers that trying to expand NATO into Ukraine would lead to war.
My reasons for holding view No. 4 are documented in "Senior U.S. diplomats, Journalists, Academics, and Secretaries of Defense say: The U.S. Provoked Russia in Ukraine." In short:
In the view of Rep. Smith, NATO expansion was necessary to prevent Russia from taking over not only Ukraine but also the Baltic states. (Likewise, he thinks that U.S. military actions near China are needed to deter Chinese aggression in Taiwan.) My view is that NATO expansion provoked the very war that is now being touted as justification for said expansion.
Despite the CIA's valiant efforts, many of the facts about what happened in Ukraine are available to the public. It's quite amazing that—so soon after the ignoble end to the disastrous 20-year war in Afghanistan—mainstream media, Congress, and most of the public have been so easily bamboozled by government propaganda into supporting yet another disastrous, avoidable war. The war has killed hundreds of thousands of people; displaced millions of people from their homes; devastated Ukrainian infrastructure; greatly increased military budgets in Europe, the U.S., and Russia (money sorely needed for climate mitigation and other urgent exigencies); increased inflation and shortages worldwide; and increased the risk of World War III and nuclear annihilation. Moreover, it's a war that Russia is now winning—a fact that increases the risk of escalation.
A negotiated end to the war in Ukraine is urgently needed.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
I devised these four views during discussions with my member of Congress, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash., no relation), who is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee and former chair. He, of course, believes view #1 and thinks that NATO expansion was needed to deter Russian aggression. But he told me that view No. 2 is plausible though wrong.
If you believe the official narrative coming out of D.C. and out of most of mainstream media, you too will think that view No. 1 is correct and that the U.S. is as innocent in the crisis as a newborn baby.
Given the history of U.S. lies and aggression with respect to foreign policy and with respect to overseas interventions, one would have to be naive indeed to believe view No. 1.
I believe the evidence points to view No. 4 being correct: The U.S. intentionally provoked a war. But it is possible that view No. 3 is closer to the truth, and that ideological fervor led the architects of U.S. policy in Ukraine to be blinded to the obvious likely results of their policies; however, that seem unlikely, because both diplomats and the RAND Corporation had told policymakers that trying to expand NATO into Ukraine would lead to war.
My reasons for holding view No. 4 are documented in "Senior U.S. diplomats, Journalists, Academics, and Secretaries of Defense say: The U.S. Provoked Russia in Ukraine." In short:
In the view of Rep. Smith, NATO expansion was necessary to prevent Russia from taking over not only Ukraine but also the Baltic states. (Likewise, he thinks that U.S. military actions near China are needed to deter Chinese aggression in Taiwan.) My view is that NATO expansion provoked the very war that is now being touted as justification for said expansion.
Despite the CIA's valiant efforts, many of the facts about what happened in Ukraine are available to the public. It's quite amazing that—so soon after the ignoble end to the disastrous 20-year war in Afghanistan—mainstream media, Congress, and most of the public have been so easily bamboozled by government propaganda into supporting yet another disastrous, avoidable war. The war has killed hundreds of thousands of people; displaced millions of people from their homes; devastated Ukrainian infrastructure; greatly increased military budgets in Europe, the U.S., and Russia (money sorely needed for climate mitigation and other urgent exigencies); increased inflation and shortages worldwide; and increased the risk of World War III and nuclear annihilation. Moreover, it's a war that Russia is now winning—a fact that increases the risk of escalation.
A negotiated end to the war in Ukraine is urgently needed.
I devised these four views during discussions with my member of Congress, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash., no relation), who is the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee and former chair. He, of course, believes view #1 and thinks that NATO expansion was needed to deter Russian aggression. But he told me that view No. 2 is plausible though wrong.
If you believe the official narrative coming out of D.C. and out of most of mainstream media, you too will think that view No. 1 is correct and that the U.S. is as innocent in the crisis as a newborn baby.
Given the history of U.S. lies and aggression with respect to foreign policy and with respect to overseas interventions, one would have to be naive indeed to believe view No. 1.
I believe the evidence points to view No. 4 being correct: The U.S. intentionally provoked a war. But it is possible that view No. 3 is closer to the truth, and that ideological fervor led the architects of U.S. policy in Ukraine to be blinded to the obvious likely results of their policies; however, that seem unlikely, because both diplomats and the RAND Corporation had told policymakers that trying to expand NATO into Ukraine would lead to war.
My reasons for holding view No. 4 are documented in "Senior U.S. diplomats, Journalists, Academics, and Secretaries of Defense say: The U.S. Provoked Russia in Ukraine." In short:
In the view of Rep. Smith, NATO expansion was necessary to prevent Russia from taking over not only Ukraine but also the Baltic states. (Likewise, he thinks that U.S. military actions near China are needed to deter Chinese aggression in Taiwan.) My view is that NATO expansion provoked the very war that is now being touted as justification for said expansion.
Despite the CIA's valiant efforts, many of the facts about what happened in Ukraine are available to the public. It's quite amazing that—so soon after the ignoble end to the disastrous 20-year war in Afghanistan—mainstream media, Congress, and most of the public have been so easily bamboozled by government propaganda into supporting yet another disastrous, avoidable war. The war has killed hundreds of thousands of people; displaced millions of people from their homes; devastated Ukrainian infrastructure; greatly increased military budgets in Europe, the U.S., and Russia (money sorely needed for climate mitigation and other urgent exigencies); increased inflation and shortages worldwide; and increased the risk of World War III and nuclear annihilation. Moreover, it's a war that Russia is now winning—a fact that increases the risk of escalation.
A negotiated end to the war in Ukraine is urgently needed.