Good guys vs bad guys

It has been one month since we have been glued to the tube seeing pictures of destruction in Ukraine. The news media is very much preoccupied with the morality of the war. They are making us see this war as morally one-sided–as a black and white issue. Ukraine are the good guys, and Russia are the bad guys. Putin is pure evil incarnate, and Zelensky is the courageous hero who can do no wrong.

I’m reminded about a couple who broke up during college. All the guys sided with their guy friend, but no one sided with the girl. In reality, neither were right. Both were in the wrong, and everyone knew it. The truly sad thing was that there was also a baby involved. The girl ended up having the baby and raising it on her own. This break-up was a big emotional disaster for the friends who observed this whole thing transpire.

How could something like this happen? She didn’t have any friends around her who could defend her and take her side. It was a bad situation filled with guilt and shame for both parties. You might know of a similar break-up scenario where someone was wronged and no one is truly innocent.

The ‘guy’ here is like Zelensky, and the ‘girl’ here is like Putin. In this war, the west is siding with Zelensky, and Putin is friendless, deserted, and labeled the guilty party. In reality, both parties were wrong. No one is innocent here. But the west has everyone cheering for Zelensky. The ‘baby’ involved here are the innocent Ukrainian refugees who were bombed-out and forced to flee their homes.

This Ukrainian-Russia geopolitical tussle is nothing new. It also happened back in 2014. Not as many cared or paid attention, but 14,000 lives were lost. When Crimea was attacked and annexed by Russia, there was no media frenzy. It just reported on the story, and was just a short blip.

What’s different this time is the west has been driven into a frenzy. We are being told a different ‘truth.’ Take note. Our public emotions are being whipped into a frenzy such that even non-Ukrainian citizens are now willing to go fight and die for Ukraine. This tells me something is awry about this story.

More truth is slowly leaking out. There is financial corruption in Ukraine. Zelensky is also an authoritarian, and has condoned violence toward ethnic people in his own country of Ukraine. This is troubling. Must do your research. Don’t depend on what the legacy media is force-feeding you through the major networks. After the ‘lights have been turned on,’ you’ll never see the media the same way again.

The western news media is being told to focus on this story. There is a plan to use Ukraine as a new starting point to trigger a great reset to help usher in a new world order. Pay attention after this story has fulfilled its purpose, there will be much bigger changes in the world economic and political landscape. New political economies will emerge from this. There will be cataclysmic changes in how we do business, in how we buy and sell, and in how we deal with money, and much more.

How this story is being spun is intentional. Seems this war was also intentional. It’s almost like they planned to the have the actor-turned-politician, who played the part of president of Ukraine on his show, to later become the real president of Ukraine only several years later.

The pieces are already set in place. Keep your eyes peeled. The kabal-ball in rolling, and something is coming down the pike.

School-yard bully vs victim-kid

I’ve been blogging on Russian-Ukraine every day, too many days, this past week. This is my last post, I promise, I hope…okay no promises. Anyway, more to say here about Zelensky now.

Ukraine had been pushing for NATO membership. Shouldn’t Zelensky have known better? He knew. His mistake was that he expected the west to cover him, regardless. He thought wrong and miscalculated the west. He wanted NATO membership for Ukraine, and pushed for it, despite knowing Putin and Russia’s dislike for it. Hey, it was no secret that Russia loudly disapproved of NATO expansion. There was a verbal promise made to the USSR when it collapsed into Russia and the former soviet-block countries.

Regarding NATO expansion, Putin said, “Our mistake was that we trusted you too much; and your mistake was that you tried to take advantage of that.” He certainly knows who to blame.

Now, in the last several days, we hear about Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky putting on the table an offer to refrain from seeking NATO membership. Well, it’s kind of late don’t you think?

Russia is bombing the heck out of Ukraine and now he’s thinking about not seeking NATO membership?! What was he thinking?! Zelensky must have known what he was doing.

I compare this to the school-yard bully who demanded the kid-victim to bring his lunch and to include his favorite drink. But the next day the kid decides to not bring his usually tasty lunch (corned beef sandwich) but instead brings the bully’s least favorite lunch (carrot sticks & broccolli) along with the most sour drink in the world. So the bully gets angry at the kid-victim, then beats the living daylights out of him. That’s Putin and Zelensky.

If NATO membership had not been sought in the first place, we might not have seen the year-long Russian military build-up around Ukraine that led up to this disaster. Putin is brutal, and poking the bear was the most foolish move. Zelensky under-estimated the bear.

I know. Sounds like I’m blaming Zelensky. I’m not. Trust me. When a kid is being bullied at school, the dumbest thing to do is to tick off the bully when you don’t have any friends to back you up.

A smart kid will first put his ducks in a row. Line up his friends to defend him; then let the bully have it, right where it counts. That’s what Zelensky should’ve done. Can’t blame a comedian-turned-politician. He’s not the most astute politician, but he is a good actor.

Too late now. So where do we go from here? Don’t have an answer; but I do know that no one wants a World War III.

Putin Doctrine – It’s about national security

President Vladimir Putin addresses the nation at the Kremlin in Moscow (Feb. 24 2022)

Great nations have risen and fallen. Some nations since ancient times were called Assyria, Babylon, and later, Rome. They had risen and fallen. Nations do not stay great forever. Russia was formerly a great nation under its Soviet Communist system. Political leaders can become nostalgic but when reality sets in, they will be reminded that history will remain history.

The Putin Doctrine: This is a theory that puts forth the idea that Putin wants to restore today’s Russia back to its old glory days to have its rightful place in the world (but without the communism and Bolshevik oppression). Since the downfall of Soviet Russia and its collapse, Russia’s aura has waned. Political hacks and journalists have written lots of articles, blog posts and books (e.g., here) about this Putin Doctrine. He is patriotic and loves his country, but I’m not so convinced he’s that nostalgic and focused on restoring glory. I believe it has more to do with national security.

Putin said in 2005: “The greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century was the dissolution of the Soviet Union.” Angela Stent said this of the doctrine:

The core element of this doctrine is getting the West to treat Russia as if it were the Soviet Union, a power to be respected and feared, with special rights in its neighborhood and a voice in every serious international matter. The doctrine holds that only a few states should have this kind of authority, along with complete sovereignty, and that others must bow to their wishes. It entails defending incumbent authoritarian regimes and undermining democracies. And the doctrine is tied together by Putin’s overarching aim: reversing the consequences of the Soviet collapse, splitting the transatlantic alliance, and renegotiating the geographic settlement that ended the Cold War.

Angela Stent, Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-01-27/putin-doctrine

It’s about National Security: Despite what the west thinks of Russia, Russia sees itself as a target of the West. Putin has a case for protecting Russia from being attacked by the West and is based on real historical concerns. Stent continues stating: “Russia, after all, has been repeatedly invaded from the West. In the twentieth century, it was invaded by anti-Bolshevik allied forces, including some from the United States, during its civil war from 1917 to 1922. Germany invaded twice, leading to the loss of 26 million Soviet citizens in World War II.”

Putin is primarily concerned about Russia’s security–not about a land grab of Ukraine for his own glory. We should take Putin at his word because he did do what he said he was going to do, due to NATO’s eastward expansion. Putin is making his case clear. He will remind the west that it has reneged on its promises it made when the Soviet Union was dissolved to end the cold war.

Putin doesn’t care about what the west thinks about him. He sees through the fake news and propaganda from the west. Putin continues to move, walk and talk with a strong sense of self-confidence in his beliefs and in the actions he has taken thus far in order to protect Russia’s national security.

Why did Putin attack Ukraine anyway?

I want to reinforce that I do not support this war. The world cannot afford to be forced into another catastrophic world war. The world has been horrified by Putin’s attack on Ukraine and we all hope it comes to an end soon. I pray that God will look after the Ukrainian people who have been so very hurt by this war, and for the three million displaced refugees who have lost their homes and fled their country.

Despite all the wrong that’s been caused, I am feeling that we haven’t made a genuine effort to try to understand Putin better. It’s very convenient to label him as pure evil because he was the first offender who attacked a sovereign nation. What he did was wrong. The first offender is usually seen as the guilty one, and everyone hates the guilty offender. As a result, we want to bomb the bejesus out of Putin and the Russian army, and to let him off the hook would be a betrayal of democratic sensibilities.

However, what I have not heard much about in public conversation is a genuine inquiry into Putin’s reason for his attack on Ukraine. I mean: “What does Vladimir Putin really want?” and most importantly, “Why did he do this?”

The issues behind this war might be very complicated, perhaps more complex than it looks. I don’t think this is a simple black and white issue; nor is it a straight-forward good versus evil issue (as it has been portrayed by the media). Good is often mixed with evil with lots of gray areas.

What aren’t we investigating more in depth the reason for Putin’s attack on Ukraine? It might be a key to solving this crisis. From his perspective, did he actually have good reasons for his offensive? Security? Or was it simply a land-grab? Or might there have been other reasons? Are we missing something here?