The US and NATO have never been sanctioned for starting wars. Why? — Analysis

The reaction to Russia’s attack on Ukraine, no matter what you think about it, has exposed the West’s double standards

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has prompted the West to take a harsh stance. The West’s reaction to Russia’s invasion in Ukraine is hypocritical, considering the US-led wars overseas never got the correct response.

If the current events in Ukraine have proven anything, it’s that the United States and its transatlantic partners are able to run roughshod across a shell-shocked planet – in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, to name a few of the hotspots – with almost total impunity. Today, Russia and Vladimir Putin have been portrayed as the next Nazi Germany by almost every major media outlet.

First, let’s be clear about something. The opening of hostilities between any two countries is not justified by hypocrisy or double standards. This means that just because NATO-bloc nations have been creating a trail of destruction across the globe from 2001 with no serious consequences does not mean Russia or any other country has moral authority to act in similar fashion. There must be a convincing reason for a country to authorize the use of force, thereby committing itself to what could be considered ‘a just war’. Thus, the question: Can Russia’s actions today be considered ‘just’ or, at the very least, understandable? I will leave that answer up to the reader’s better judgment, but it would be idle not to consider some important details.

For over a decade, Moscow’s warnings about NATO expansion have been shocking to mainstream media consumers. Vladimir Putin asked the global powerbrokers to point blank in his famous speech at the Munich Security Conference 2007. “why is it necessary to put military infrastructure on our borders during this [NATO] expansion? Can someone answer this question?”He said later in his speech that he believes expanding military resources will lead to a Russian border. “is not connected in any way with the democratic choices of individual states.”

Not only were the Russian leader’s concerns met with the predictable amount of disregard amid the deafening sound of crickets, NATO has gone on to bestow membership on four more countries since that day (Albania, Croatia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia). As a thought experiment that even a dolt could conduct, imagine Washington’s reaction if Moscow were building a continuously expanding military bloc in South America, for example. 

The real cause for Moscow’s alarm, however, came when the US and NATO began flooding neighboring Ukraine with a dazzling array of sophisticated weaponry amid calls for membership in the military bloc. How could this happen? In Moscow’s mind, Ukraine was beginning to pose an existential threat to Russia. 

Moscow was quickly approaching the end of its patience and delivered draft treaties in December to NATO and the US, demanding that they stop any military expansion eastwards. This included any accession by Ukraine or other countries. This included an explicit declaration that NATO “shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine or other states of Eastern Europe, South Caucasus and Central Asia.” Once again, Russia’s proposals were met with arrogance and indifference by Western leaders.

US & NATO won't accept Russia's security demands, so what next?

Although opinions will differ on the next shocking act taken by Moscow, no one can deny that they were warned. After all, it’s not like Russia woke up on February 24 and suddenly decided it was a wonderful day to start a military operation on the territory of Ukraine. So yes, an argument could be made that Russia had concern for its own security as a justification for its actions. The same cannot be said for NATO allies and the United States in regards to the belligerent conduct they have displayed over the last 20 years.

Take the famous 2003 invasion of Iraq as an example. This disastrous war, which the Western media hacks have chalked up as an unfortunate ‘intelligence failure’, represents one of the most egregious acts of unprovoked aggression in recent memory. The United States accused Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s, of harbouring weapons of mass destruction, after having suffered the 9/11 attacks. Yet, instead of working in close cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors, who were on the ground in Iraq attempting to verify the claims, the US, together with the UK, Australia, and Poland, launched a ‘shock-and-awe’ bombing campaign against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Over a million Iraqis were killed, injured, or displaced by this flagrant violation international law in a matter of seconds.

The Center for Public Integrity reported that the Bush administration, in its effort to bolster public support for the impending carnage, made over 900 false statements between 2001 and 2003 about Iraq’s alleged threat to the US and its allies. Yet somehow the Western media, which has become the most rabid proliferator for military aggression bar none, failed to find any flaw in the argument for war – that is, until after the boots and blood were on the ground, of course.

It might be expected, in a more perfect world, that the US and its allies were subjected to some stiff sanctions in the wake of this protracted eight-year ‘mistake’ against innocents. There were actually sanctions against the United States, but not against them. Ironically, only France and Germany were subject to sanctions following this bizarre military venture. This rejection is unacceptable to the global hyperpower, even from their purported allies.

American politicians, self-assured in their Godlike exceptionalism, demanded a boycott of French wine and bottled water due to the French government’s “ungrateful” opposition to war in Iraq. Other agitators for war betrayed their lack of seriousness by insisting that the popular menu item known as ‘French Fries’ be substituted with the name ‘Freedom Fries’ instead. For their indiscriminate destruction of millions of human lives, the US and NATO had to endure the inconvenience of not having French Bordeaux.

Compare this childish approach to America and its allies with the situation in Ukraine. The scales are clearly tilted against Russia despite Russia’s not unreasonable warnings about being threatened by NATO advancements. Whatever one may think of the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine it cannot be denied the hypocrisy, double standards and blatant disregard for Russia that its constant detractors have heaped on it. Today, the difference is that there are bombs going off.

The harsh sanctions against Russian people and their economy are not the only things that have been done. Perhaps the best summary of the situation is the French economic minister who stated his country’s commitment to fighting terrorism. “a total economic and financial war on Russia,”There has been an alarming attempt to suppress news from Russian sources. This could give Westerners the chance of understanding Moscow’s motives. YouTube blocked RT channels and Sputnik channels to all European users Tuesday, March 1. This allowed the Western world to gain another slice of the global narrative. 

France threatens to ‘cause the collapse of the Russian economy’

Considering the way that Russia has been vilified in the ‘empire of lies’, as Vladimir Putin dubbed the land of his politically motivated persecutors, some may believe that Russia deserves the non-stop threats it is now receiving. Nothing could be farther from the truth. This global grandstanding that resembles a mindless virtue-signaling campaign in liberal capitals is based on the assumption that Russia is completely wrong.

Such a reckless approach, which leaves no room for debate, no room for discussion, no room for seeing Russia’s side in this extremely complex situation, only guarantees further standoffs, if not full-blown global war, further down the road. It is unlikely that the West actively seeks to start World War III. Instead, it should stop its hypocrisy against Russia and accept the double standards. It’s not as unbelievable as some people may wish to believe.

These opinions, statements and thoughts are the sole opinion of the author. They do not necessarily reflect those made by RT.



Related Articles

Back to top button