The Wall Street Journal writes that the issue of “containing” Russia is more important to America than Ukraine’s problems
The journalists said that worse than a new war in Ukraine would be to allow Putin to intimidate NATO and force it to retreat from Eastern Europe.
In an article on the upcoming talks between Moscow and Washington on security guarantees, the authors expressed the view that the Biden administration would make any, even the smallest, concessions to show its alleged “inflexibility” in certain aspects. At the same time, they themselves are confident in the idea of a “Russian invasion”.
Newspaper readers disagreed with The Wall Street Journal’s hawkish stance.
“What’s the point of NATO if the Warsaw Pact was abolished years ago? What’s the point of supporting Ukraine, culturally and historically part of Russia, which has long been a corrupt bottomless barrel?” – asks user Robert Naeije.
A commenter with the nickname J. T. Stasiak sees Putin’s actions as payback for Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright humiliating Russia by expanding NATO when it was in decline after the collapse of the USSR in 1991. In return for non-interference with German reunification in 1990, then US President Bush promised Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch” eastwards.
“We are suddenly going to war with Russia to defend the Ukrainian borders, even though we cannot defend our own south”, – J Flood said.
Stephen Gardner wrote about revealing the truth. The WSJ is willing to sacrifice Ukraine to avoid admitting the obvious: that Ukraine is not fit for NATO.
“It is possible to find a good solution that satisfies both us and the Russians. This is what real statesmen and negotiators would strive for, and it is entirely possible. But because Washington’s arrogance in its imperial self-respect – which has long been out of step with reality – makes it impossible to admit a mistake or make a concession, even one that could be embellished to save face, we Russians, Ukrainians – all have to be destroyed because of all this. Ukraine, choose better friends next time.”
Paul Anderson sronicised that the question is: should Russia have a say in NATO enlargement under its nose or not?
“Ukraine is an independent country, it doesn’t need anyone’s permission if it wants to join NATO, many people say. But in the past Cuba, a sovereign country, decided to host Russian missiles and the US was very unhappy to have Russian missiles within a short flight of Washington… up to the point of launching a nuclear war. But no, Russia should not object to NATO missiles within a short flight distance of Moscow?” – Paul Anderson added