The Real Reason Russia is Invading the Ukraine

Table of Contents

• Question #1: Why Would Putin Risk Nuclear War if His Odds of Winning Are Essentially Zero?
• Question #2: Has He Warned About This Issue for Years, and if So, Why Is No One Aware?
  • Summary of Putin’s 2016, Completely-Ignored Press Conference
  • Dec 2021 – Putin Again Reiterates the Core Issues: Offensive Missiles in His Backyard, and the Media Not Listening.
• So Why Doesn’t Russia Just Join NATO?
• Question #3: Is There Merit to his Claims Over NATO Progression & Risks?
• Did NATO Promise to Not Expand in 1990?
• Why Invade Ukraine Instead of Diplomacy?
• How Much Risk is Putin Willing to Take?
• What is The Solution to the Current Crisis
• Will World War 3 Still Happen?
  • American Self-Reflection & Propaganda Risks
• Below is the Full Press Conference of Putin Warning About the Liklihood of WW3 Because of NATO Advancement
  • US nuclear war fears: Vladimir Putin warns Americans are in ‘impending and grave danger’

The goal of this article is to use logic to conclude the real causes of Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine, and how to end it. I prefer to start with questions because it will help you to form your own conclusions. I am also going to call out the media bias that has been going on for some time over the situation.

I predicted NATO’s advancement as well. In 2016, I emailed my closest group of friends things regarding two points to watch above all else: Russia and NATO’s advancements toward the Russian borders; and 2. China about their pushing into the South Seas (worth trillions of dollars of trade and oil) as China rejected an international Tribunal’s decision which stated South Seas were to remain international waters. By the way, that will continue, and I will explain why at the end of this article.

On the surface, many believe that he is either trying to recreate the Soviet Union, or that he’s the next Hitler, but lets look at the facts, and to some degree that may not be arguable, but let’s look much deeper at the facts and risks. Just to be sure, from what I can tell (altough I cannot speak Russian so I am never sure) he would be so much more believable if he just stuck to the truth, like not accusing a Jew of being a Nazi; not saying they were protecting the people of Donbas; and not claiming “genocide”; not claiming that Ukraine was really part of Russia (very briefly, yes); etc….but then again, he’d probably lose much of his public support if he hadn’t said these things, but it just turns off semi-thinking people.

If you only have a few minutes to understand the root issue, just watch the attached videos.

So, with the most important question first:

Question #1: Why Would Putin Risk Nuclear War if His Odds of Winning Are Essentially Zero?

There are only two possible reasons to answer the question: Utter over-confidence or utter fear.

Over-confidence may have from his invasion of Crimea, with minimal interference. Second is his belief in asymmetrical warfare, which is to say, they may have a much smaller military, but if leveraged correctly, the effects would be much greater, much like how the American’s defeated the largest navy in the world during the Revolutionary War. A more modern example would be for example, launching a nuke off the east coast, wiping out numerous cities through a tidal wave.

If Putin is acting from utter fear, or last resort, they what does Putin fear and why? Let’s assume this is more logical. If so, then what is he afriad of?

Question #2: Has He Warned About This Issue for Years, and if So, Why Is No One Aware?

For years, Putin complained that the West was not listening, including the news media, as this discusses later. His fears were spelled out clearly multiple times, yet mainstream news here said nothing.

I surmise that his main goal is mainly to get the attention of the West about his demands to stop the ever-growing NATO, and if he is lucky, the West will not interfere, but than seems like a low probability due to their sheer size and global importance, unlike Crimea.

Most importantly, the West should at least be willing to have open dialogue with him, which I have not seen solid evidence of. Mostly, I have only seen him complain with no real news coverage on essential points. Just red herrings mainly. Open dialogue has always been the foundation of understanding and progress. Never automatically assume that the other guy is more evil than you are.

Below you will see the realities and also Western media manipulation and indifference.

Summary of Putin’s 2016, Completely-Ignored Press Conference

In a news conference in 2016, Putin clearly laid out his fears of an impending WW3, a slow and steady global descent. Yet he himself has clearly stated that another world war would end bad for everyone, so why is he taking such high risks? He claims that NATO has been pushing towards Russia for decades now. That is undeniable. What risk does that present for Russia?

In typical media / tabloid fashion, they title the video “Chilling moment Putin exposes World War III plans” instead of what it is really about: Putin begging the world to stop pushing towards his border with missiles and probably nuclear weapons.

• Formerly the world held a dual hegemonic power, which used MAD (mutual assured destruction) to keep the peace.
• In the 90’s the USSR disintegrated, and the US become the sole hegemonic power.
• The ABM (anti-ballistic missile) treaty, created in 1972, is abandoned by the US (Bush).
• It is the first time the US pulls out of a major international treaty in modern history (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty | international treaty | Britannica)
• The US builds missile defense systems and places them in former Soviet bloc countries like Romania, to protect the US from countries like Iran.
• However, due to the Obama deal, Iran’s risk decreases.
• Moscow sits closer to the missle systems than Iran
• The missile systems are always built to be not only defensive, but offensive, and easily posess nuclear capabilities, leading to nuclear proliferation again.
• In 2014 the Ukraine attempts to join NATO
• Russia tries to prevent this
• Warns the world is being pulled in “an irreversible direction” – I actually agree with this, but it’s much larger than just Russia and NATO

Dec 2021 – Putin Again Reiterates the Core Issues: Offensive Missiles in His Backyard, and the Media Not Listening.

“President George W. Bush, who had announced the U.S. pullout six months earlier, issued a short written statement the day the treaty expired. In it, he noted that the treaty is “now behind us,” and he reiterated his commitment to deploy missile defenses “as soon as possible” to protect against “growing missile threats.” – Source: Arms Control Association

I have a theory of hegemony which says: An empire can only grow or decline, including its direct and indirect influence, and/or borders, but it is impossible for an empire to remain stable and stagnant, as is true for most living things like organisms and businesses. Therefore, the only logical result is that at some point, the West will push Russia until they lose autonomy. This is of course Putin’s same feeling. If you review the wars we have been in in the last 30 years, you will see they are almost all countries that involve oil lands, and/or deny using our currency. Whether we crush Russia or not does not matter because the probability will always remain high that will be the final outcome, as long as we are a growing empire.

Truth may far more unclear or unbroadcast as it may not be in our interests to say otherwise. Reality is, during war times, propaganda is not just a tool for the bad guy. Most countries use it, and often times based on partial truths. It’s a tool to make the opponent seem worse than they really are. “Most of the American propaganda posters, which portrayed the enemy as animals were aimed toward the Japanese, rendering their figures so they would be more sinister, animalistic, and savage.” Source.

We cannot assume that speech is open and free like it once was, not just in the Ukraine, but domestically as well.

• When those in power are worried about opposing views getting published on a small website of free thinkers (e.g. ZeroHedge), I worry about the govt’s over concern. Sure, label it, but at least allow it, as long as people are able to filter and find truth/falsehoods.
• What are information patterns here?
• If media platforms are increasingly silencing dissenting opinions, it adds to the possibility that top-down propaganda is growing here.
• When the NYT titles their article “The Problem of Free Speech in an Age of Disinformation” instead of “The Problem of Disinformation in an Age of Free Speech.” Is free speech a problem? News also almost universally exempts themselves as a main part of the problem.
• When every single networked communication in America is monitored by the govt because “terrorist danger is everywhere.”
• College campuses of course are increasingly blocking free speech and debate.

I would also like to point out that the other mainstream news articles only focused, or emphasized (esp. via their headlines) that this was about Ukrainian history, when the main emphasis was clearly about NATO. Again, this is clear manipulation because it is repeated, focuses on minor details, and does address the opponents chief concerns. Sure, the news could have been far more egregious than this by omitting the relevant details completely, however, few stories have picked up this issue at all at the time this article was written.

He again spells out what he said years ago: that the media is not listening. I dont know a single person that understands what has been going on with NATO for last last few years, or even decades, with regards to Russia.

However, it is not only a preemptive attach that is going on here, because when you read deeper, it becomes more obvious that he sees the Ukraine as a country that is weak (think: power vacuum), and aligning with the West:

Do they realise that their country has turned not even into a political or economic protectorate but has been reduced to a colony with a puppet regime? The state was privatised. As a result, the government, which designates itself as the “power of patriots” no longer acts in a national capacity and consistently pushes Ukraine towards losing its sovereignty.

Quite a bit was focused on NATO and Ukraine which I think is the real issue, and have said so since 2016.

In other words, the choice of pathways towards ensuring security should not pose a threat to other states, whereas Ukraine joining NATO is a direct threat to Russia’s security. (full speech)

All the while, they are trying to convince us over and over again that NATO is a peace-loving and purely defensive alliance that poses no threat to Russia. Again, they want us to take their word for it. But we are well aware of the real value of these words. In 1990, when German unification was discussed, the United States promised the Soviet leadership that NATO jurisdiction or military presence will not expand one inch to the east and that the unification of Germany will not lead to the spread of NATO’s military organisation to the east. This is a quote.

They issued lots of verbal assurances, all of which turned out to be empty phrases. Later, they began to assure us that the accession to NATO by Central and Eastern European countries would only improve relations with Moscow, relieve these countries of the fears steeped in their bitter historical legacy, and even create a belt of countries that are friendly towards Russia.

So Why Doesn’t Russia Just Join NATO?

Moreover, I will say something I have never said publicly, I will say it now for the first time. When then outgoing US President Bill Clinton visited Moscow in 2000, I asked him how America would feel about admitting Russia to NATO.

I will not reveal all the details of that conversation, but the reaction to my question was, let us say, quite restrained, and the Americans’ true attitude to that possibility can actually be seen from their subsequent steps with regard to our country. I am referring to the overt support for terrorists in the North Caucasus, the disregard for our security demands and concerns, NATO’s continued expansion, withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, and so on. It raises the question: why? What is all this about, what is the purpose? All right, you do not want to see us as friends or allies, but why make us an enemy?

There can be only one answer – this is not about our political regime or anything like that. They just do not need a big and independent country like Russia around. This is the answer to all questions. This is the source of America’s traditional policy towards Russia. Hence the attitude to all our security proposals

Today, one glance at the map is enough to see to what extent Western countries have kept their promise to refrain from NATO’s eastward expansion. They just cheated. We have seen five waves of NATO expansion, one after another – Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were admitted in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia in 2004; Albania and Croatia in 2009; Montenegro in 2017; and North Macedonia in 2020.

‘Modern Ukraine entirely created by Russia’

Question #3: Is There Merit to his Claims Over NATO Progression & Risks?

In addition, the United States is developing its all-purpose Standard Missile-6, which can provide air and missile defence, as well as strike ground and surface targets. In other words, the allegedly defensive US missile defence system is developing and expanding its new offensive capabilities.

The information we have gives us good reason to believe that Ukraine’s accession to NATO and the subsequent deployment of NATO facilities has already been decided and is only a matter of time. We clearly understand that given this scenario, the level of military threats to Russia will increase dramatically, several times over. And I would like to emphasise at this point that the risk of a sudden strike at our country will multiply.

I will explain that American strategic planning documents confirm the possibility of a so-called preemptive strike at enemy missile systems. We also know the main adversary of the United States and NATO. It is Russia. NATO documents officially declare our country to be the main threat to Euro-Atlantic security. Ukraine will serve as an advanced bridgehead for such a strike. 

Finally, after the US destroyed the INF Treaty, the Pentagon has been openly developing many land-based attack weapons, including ballistic missiles that are capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 5,500 km. If deployed in Ukraine, such systems will be able to hit targets in Russia’s entire European part.

Absolutely, yes, and like he clearly points out, would Americans accept nuclear weapons in our backyard? Let’s be honest: what would happen if Russia built potentially offensive missile defense systems in Central America? The recent announced Iranian shipment of non-nuclear missiles to Venezuela was enough to startle most people and keep the govt on full alert.

You can tell from the image below that NATO expansion towards Russia is real.

If you want to see an animation that makes it a lot clearer that we are continually expanding East, and to see how close our missiles are to the Russian capital (Moscow), the following makes the case undeniably:

Now, Maloney says no major Western media outlet picked it up. Correction: One did. The Express, a British tabloid, but not exactly high credibility there. Yet, with the most important news conference in the last 10 years, I ask why no other news sites picked it up.

Reading the full interview is very worthwhile, so I republished it at the end of this article.

Did NATO Promise to Not Expand in 1990?

German magazine, Der Spiegel, reported that the West’s intentions were indeed clear. It would be foolish to think Russia would have been so lenient in the first place without some reassurances.

After speaking with many of those involved and examining previously classified British and German documents in detail, SPIEGEL has concluded that there was no doubt that the West did everything it could to give the Soviets the impression that NATO membership was out of the question for countries like Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia.

On Feb. 10, 1990, between 4 and 6:30 p.m., Genscher spoke with Shevardnadze. According to the German record of the conversation, which was only recently declassified, Genscher said: “We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east.” And because the conversion revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: “As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general.”

Shevardnadze replied that he believed “everything the minister (Genscher) said.”

NATO’s Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow? – DER SPIEGEL

Clearly this is come confusion then. If the West did not make it a Treaty, should they still respect their word? I am probably in a minority that thinks a growing global NATO organization does not eliminate or reduce risk: it only delays it. And that alliances in general often do nothing more than temporarily delay, and heighten conflict. When you realize that one of the few things that made WW1 and 2 so large, possibly delaying smaller wars up to them, it was probably the formation of alliances, where small bumps are ironed out, leading to large dam breaks in the end.

This is part of my theory of delayed societal behavior mechanisms, which says: There are several practices, political, economic, and social, which can be used to delay pain, but in the end, the total pain is equal to all the lesser pain that was avoided all along, because while you can change numerous behavioral changes in the short term, the long term does not change because people will always be people, driven by the same underlying psychology they have always had. The end result is most visible in that wars and crises that are larger (e.g. % of pop that dies from war), but fewer events inbetween.

Yet, Putin claims they even explored the possibility of joining NATO, but we acted as if they were enemies:

Why Invade Ukraine Instead of Diplomacy?

So the second question i initially posed: Why did he not use less forceful methods to lead, entice, or push the Ukraine into becoming a Russian ally? That he answers with:

Of course, they are going to behave in the same way in the future, following a well-known proverb: “The dogs bark but the caravan goes on.” Let me say right away – we do not accept this behaviour and will never accept it. That said, Russia has always advocated the resolution of the most complicated problems by political and diplomatic means, at the negotiating table.

We are well aware of our enormous responsibility when it comes to regional and global stability. Back in 2008, Russia put forth an initiative to conclude a European Security Treaty under which not a single Euro-Atlantic state or international organisation could strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others. However, our proposal was rejected right off the bat on the pretext that Russia should not be allowed to put limits on NATO activities.

Perhaps a final warning call would have helped. Not sure, but time may tell.

These principled proposals of ours have been ignored. To reiterate, our Western partners have once again vocalised the all-too-familiar formulas that each state is entitled to freely choose ways to ensure its security or to join any military union or alliance. That is, nothing has changed in their stance, and we keep hearing the same old references to NATO’s notorious “open door” policy. Moreover, they are again trying to blackmail us and are threatening us with sanctions, which, by the way, they will introduce no matter what as Russia continues to strengthen its sovereignty and its Armed Forces. To be sure, they will never think twice before coming up with or just fabricating a pretext for yet another sanction attack regardless of the developments in Ukraine. Their one and only goal is to hold back the development of Russia. And they will keep doing so, just as they did before, even without any formal pretext just because we exist and will never compromise our sovereignty, national interests or values.

I would like to be clear and straightforward: in the current circumstances, when our proposals for an equal dialogue on fundamental issues have actually remained unanswered by the United States and NATO, when the level of threats to our country has increased significantly, Russia has every right to respond in order to ensure its security. That is exactly what we will do.

I would suggest that resolution conversation between nations always happen publicly, in a way that is not subject to media bias. Perhaps the blockchain would help here.

How Much Risk is Putin Willing to Take?

Because he just threatened nuclear, we learn one thing. He is either bluffing, or really does think he is in a corner.

“As for military affairs, even after the dissolution of the USSR and losing a considerable part of its capabilities, today’s Russia remains one of the most powerful nuclear states,” Putin said, in his pre-invasion address early Thursday.

“Moreover, it has a certain advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country.”

Putin waves nuclear sword in confrontation with the West | AP News

Over-confidence or not, it seems unlikely that he will start a nuclear war first. In the meantime, the West will probably just implement modern soft siege methods–also known as “economic sanctions.” Ultimately, this is his way of getting real attention, whether or not he wins, but the world knows that the risks are high for nuclear, so no one will dare get overly aggressive. He knows he must take over Ukraine if NATO is not going to keep creeping eastward.

In case you think he is totally bluffing, note that Russia has also resumed practicing nuclear shelter drills with 40M citizens every other year since 2011, so they clearly seemed more concerned and prepared than we do about nuclear risks. Nuclear is not out of the question.

What is The Solution to the Current Crisis

In short, I believe both parties are part of the problem, not just Russia.

The simple answer is that Ukraine should remain independent, and not affiliated with NATO, which seems unlikely considering the need for constant US expansion. This is known as having a non-aligned status. In fact, this non-aligned status originated in the 1950’s to minimize polarization between NATO and communist countries.

If NATO had not invited Ukraine, Russia would not be attacking today. Is their attack justified? No, but I would surely like the media to have open, non-edited, non-spun discussions live on international news for all to see.

I do still wonder about the Crimea situation, but remember that most every port now was NATO controlled (see the Maloney video).

Ending NATO was a suggestion by Trump, which on the surface sounded somewhat absurd, but in reality, and may explain another reason the two got along so well.

I tend to think alliances are like central banks: They dont solve problems, rather they delay inevitable, usually with a bigger potential (explains how ww1 and ww2 occurred). I will reiterate here that alliances do not prevent war, it only delays them through group polarization, and they occur at a larger scale when they do finally happen. When Trump said he wanted to end NATO, surprisingly there may have been value in that, which is not to say the good will protect against evil, but it is less rigid and alliances should be based on the moment, not long term clubs.

Will World War 3 Still Happen?

The unstoppable debt-to-GDP avalanche, (county level income=to-expense ratio), shows the location of the worsening financial situation. Interestingly, it is mainly the NATO countries are in dire straights, while the East, not so much. Russia is a endless treasure trove of natural resources like oil, wood, and minerals.

So yes, unless people start changing immediately. Clearly the West is still broke, and I highly doubt they will continue to push eastward. China has been broke too for probably 10 years (not only the latest real estate bust), due to slowing population, corp and govt. overspending, which is why I wrote years ago the world is in trouble for WW3 because the fastest and easiest way to offset trillions of dollars of debt is to even out the balance sheet with assets…assets like land and foreign countries. It is exactly why China has been desperate to control the South Seas for so long, and why Taiwan and Hong Kong are looking increasingly like a Chinese territory.

As I have stated here for several years, the Western world has essentially been broke, at least since interest rates dropped to zero while debt continues to explode, so unless the entire world is willing and able to change, WW3 will happen at some point. I am starting to see increasingly the value of intrinsic change over externally controlled, economically regulated, govt mandated, and socially manipulated change, because while you can create a million systems to get a citizen to the water trough, you will never make him drink it. Small government, personal accountability, the return of community values, the focus on productivity, and moderate population growth are just a few more values necessary to avert disaster.

When WW3 eventually does break out, it will be the first war that America is at direct risk of attack, making their isolated location in the West no longer a safe haven that it once was.

American Self-Reflection & Propaganda Risks

I hope I do not sound anti-American/Western, but we must always be on high alert that we are not becoming the villains in order to maintain our growing appetite. With American and Western morality, financial responsibility, manpower, and work ethics on the decline, I do not have the confidence I once had in this nation’s leaders and citizens decision making ability. Even Congressmen now hold one of the lowest trust jobs in America according to Pew, right above used car salesmen–this was not always the case.

There is good and evil in everyone, and the last thing I want to automatically assume is that my country (or myself personally) is more moral than the other. I have reasons to believe, after reading various actions, that Russia may have seen some moral improvements over the last few decades. How can we not accept the risk that always accompanies with great success, success which leads to corruption, greed, complacency, hedonism, selfishness, envy, and the other litany of problems that inevitably always are best friends with great success? Do you not see these growing in the US today?

---

Below is the Full Press Conference of Putin Warning About the Liklihood of WW3 Because of NATO Advancement

---

US nuclear war fears: Vladimir Putin warns Americans are in ‘impending and grave danger’

Additional information can be found fro Oliver Stone’s 4 part “The Putin Interviews” documentary here.