Thank you for passing along this excellent article.

The author makes the good point that the populations in eastern Europe have actively invited NATO influence and sought NATO protection against the power of Russia. Thus, to say the will of their governments is not legitimate (which is my argument in the case of Ukraine) is not backed up by polling within the countries themselves. This is a very important point.

But, as the author acknowledges:

"After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine several times attempted to assert and defend its westward course, including in 2004 and in 2014, both times to great resistance on the part of the Kremlin. There is no point in denying that the West actively intervened in this. But so did Russia."

The west very much and very actively intervened in the government of Ukraine. The Nuland tapes from 2014 make it quite clear that the formation of the new "Ukrainian" state was managed by the Obama administration. While the people of Ukraine may have general fuzzy feelings about NATO as a concept, they may not have such fuzzy feelings about the United States choosing their leadership for them.

Fast forward to today. Zelensky was not that popular before the invasion. I believe his polling was within the 30-40% range. But the classic scenario played out, and Russia invaded - again, for the umpteenth time historically. Since then, Zelensky (and NATO) provide a symbol to rally around for people's unhappiness with the Russian invasion (a no-brainer). But just because they are popular as a counter to Russian aggression doesn't erase the reality that they still represent a puppet state of Davos and the US. Who is it Zelensky asks to defend his government? Ukraine is in the unenviable position that they are unable to survive a Russian military attack without outside aid. To think that aid comes with the desire to see a "neutral" Ukraine is naive in the extreme. Davos wants Ukraine for its own ends, not those of the Ukrainian people, who (as always throughout history) are secondary.

The author is correct that the people of Ukraine appear to prefer being puppets to NATO and Davos rather than puppets to Russia. But make no mistake. Fighting for the Zelensky regime is not fighting for "an independent Ukraine". That option is not on the table, because Ukraine does not have the resources to maintain their own independence. The people of Ukraine will end up under either Russian influence or Davos influence, ruled in either case by people who don't honestly care about their individual needs.

Russia is making it clear they are willing to risk everything to maintain a security buffer on their border. Is the benefit to Davos equally compelling that they want to push the Russians into an actual homeland defense mode? If Ukrainian sovereign independence is not on the table for Ukraine's practical incapacity to maintain it, which of the two vying parties to control the de-facto fate of the country holds a position to provide better stability in providing the next best option, protection and peace?