||| FROM THE OFFICE OF REP. RICK LARSEN |||
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Rep. Rick Larsen (WA-02) released the below op-ed on why NATO countries, including the United States, must continue to stand with Ukraine. The op-ed was originally published in the Seattle Times.
NATO Must Continue to Stand with Ukraine
In October, representatives from NATO member countries, including the United States, gathered in Copenhagen, Denmark, for the 69th annual session of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. The primary focus of this year’s session was NATO allies’ and partners’ unwavering support for Ukraine.
As a member of the Assembly’s Defence and Security Committee, I presented my second report on Ukraine’s ongoing fight for freedom and the international response to Putin’s illegal war. The report outlines the evolution of the war, NATO’s support for Ukraine and the impact the war is having on Ukraine, the region and the world.
The report also outlines six recommendations to reaffirm and strengthen NATO’s commitment to Ukraine as Putin’s war of aggression grinds through its second year. Those recommendations are:
- NATO countries must sustain and boost military and financial support for Ukraine to enable Ukraine to defend itself from aggression and recapture territory seized by Russian forces;
- NATO countries must support the continuity of deterrence and defense missions; for example, by investing in critical weapons stockpiles;
- NATO countries must tighten sanctions on Putin and his enablers to greatly limit the Kremlin’s ability to prosecute its illegal war;
- NATO countries must throw their political and diplomatic weight behind Ukraine and rally the world to support the young democracy;
- NATO countries must look ahead and plan for Ukraine’s reconstruction to enable Ukraine to consolidate its significant democratic gains;
- NATO countries must consider the global context of Putin’s war.
Putin’s war has changed accelerated competition between the United States and China. Putin’s war has also revealed a global division between democracies and revisionist states looking to upend the rules-based international order. These dynamics will have a profound impact on the future of the world’s political organization and on American security.
The NATO alliance was founded on democratic values after World War II. Nearly 75 years after its founding, NATO countries must again defend the rules-based order, an order that has greatly benefited the United States.
NATO allies and partners have learned that Ukraine’s victory will be neither quick nor easy. Defending democracy, self-determination and sovereignty is no small task. But NATO countries, including the United States, cannot allow authoritarian actors like Putin to violate these principles with impunity.
That is why Congress must soon pass legislation that fully funds the president’s request for security and humanitarian aid in support of Ukraine. And that is why Congress and our NATO allies must stand by our values and reaffirm that we will support Ukraine as long as it takes for the young democracy to control its own borders, select its own leaders and determine its own future.
U.S. Representative Rick Larsen (D-Everett) represents Washington’s Second Congressional District, which includes Everett and parts of Snohomish County, as well as all of Skagit, Whatcom, Island and San Juan counties. Larsen serves as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, an organization made up of delegates from all 31 NATO member countries with a mission to engage parliamentarians in transatlantic security issues.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
“NATO countries must sustain and boost military and financial support for….”
“NATO countries must support the continuity of deterrence and defense missions; for example, by investing in critical weapons stockpiles.”
“NATO countries must tighten sanctions on….”
“NATO countries must throw their political and diplomatic weight behind….”
“NATO countries must look ahead and plan for Ukraine’s reconstruction….”
Ching, ching, ching…. I get confused, is it “Putin’s war of aggression,”or is it NATO’s war of aggression?
Michael Johnson, it is Russia that invaded Ukraine, nothing confusing about that rock solid fact.
Keep in mind that appeasement by ‘peace at any price’ only emboldens autocrats/dictators.
Neville Chamberlain found that out trying to avoid WW2.
How did that work out for the world?
The best way to avoid war is to deter aggression by being strong.
Remenber, Freedom is not Free.
Thank you Rick Larsen for being a strong supporter of Ukraine. If only your conservative “friends” in Congress cared about real wars as much as they care about about the so-called culture wars. Sadly those isolationaist culture warriors are doing their best to cut Ukraine’s lifeline and give Putin exactly what he wants.
Respectfully, I understand why you feel this way… I used to believe this way too. But, as a young man, and following our failed intervention in Viet Nam I began to avert my eyes away from Main Stream News (MSN), and began seeing through the official narrative. “Follow the money” is the term that comes to mind.
MSNBC correspondent Mika Brzezinski once wrote, “Our job is to control what people think.” In line with this, history is replete with examples of a misaligned U.S. foreign policy, and we tend to forget the lessons of the past and choose instead to continue believing in the official byline. I believe there are many reasons why we should not believe the MSN framing (the official narrative) in regards to much of our foreign policy, and indeed, I believe that it is our moral obligation, and our duty as Americans and as a free people to seek out the truth. When one begins to go down this path they will see that there is a deeper story, and another reality to the Ukrainian conflict as well.
Books such as John Perkins’– The adventures of an Economic Hitman, Michael Rupperts’– Crossing the Rubicon, Peter Dale Scott’s– Cocaine Politics (Drugs, Armies and the C.I.A. in Central America), William Blums’– Killing Hope (U.S. Military and C.I.A. Intervention Since WWII), Peter Dale Scott’s– The Road to 9/11, Bob Woodward’s– Plan of Attack, Roy Gutman’s– Banana Diplomacy (The Making of American Policy in Nicaragua 1981-1987), William Blum’s– Rogue State (A Guide to the World’s only Superpower), Peter Phillips– Giants (The Global Power Elites), James Carroll’s– House of War (The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power), James W.Douglass’– JFK and the Unspeakable, Howard Zinn’s– A People’s History of the United States, Paul L. Williams’– Operation Gladio (The Unholy Alliance Between the Vatican, the CIA and the Mafia), Craig Whitlock’s- The Afghanistan Papers, and my current read, Naomi Klein’s- The Shock Doctrine, all echo the same common refrain revealing a much different reality than that we see coming from the MSN official narrative.
Beyond the many whistleblowers that have come out in modern times we’ve been warned by presidents, statesmen, and many of the great intellectuals of our times (Noam Chomsky, Paul Krugman, Naomi Klein, JFK, Howard Zinn, Jeffrey Sachs, Stephen Hawking, Bertrand Russell, Gandhi, MLK, Jr., John Berger, Daniel Ellsberg, Pope Francis, Dwight Eisenhower, Chris Hedges, the Berrigan brothers, and Carl Sagan to name but a few), of the dangers related to the growing stranglehold of the arms industry lobby, and foreign influence (AIPAC and Saudi money for examples) on American politics, and to our democracy. And there are many, many, many examples of this to view, (from Viet Nam, to Iraq, to the current Israeli / Palestinian conflict).
“Every major crisis we face today can be traced to corporate goals of maximizing profits regardless of the social and environmental costs.” John Perkins
“An ignorant people can never remain a free people. Democracy cannot survive too much ignorance… What I worry about is that when problems are not addressed, people will not know who is responsible. And when the problems get bad enough, some one person will come forward and say, “give me total power and I will solve this problem…”— David Souter, Former Supreme Court Justice
Here’s but a few examples of recent articles on the Ukrainian conflict that differ from MSN, articles that I believe offer a more correct historical view of past events leading up to, and of the present events that are taking place in Ukraine today-
Common Dreams (Jefferey Sachs) 10/03/23– Beyond the Neocon Debacle and Towards Peace in Ukraine
“We are entering the end stage of the 30-year U.S. neoconservative debacle in Ukraine. The neocon plan to surround Russia in the Black Sea region by NATO has failed. Decisions now by the U.S. and Russia will matter enormously for peace, security, and wellbeing for the entire world.”
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/path-to-peace-in-ukraine
Consortium News (Patrick Lawrence) 10/02/23– Tampering with History
“Nine years ago, eight years ago: We all recall what had transpired at the time of these disgusting perversions of the past. In February 2014 the U.S. orchestrated an antidemocratic coup in Ukraine and installed a viciously Russophobic puppet regime in Kiev. Moscow responded, as a first-year poli sci student could have predicted, by reannexing Crimea and supporting the Russian-speaking majority in Ukraine’s eastern provinces.”
https://consortiumnews.com/2023/10/02/patrick-lawrence-tampering-with-history/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=bf15371e-5daf-4ddb-a488-0f10dbf02edf
Consortium News 8/10/23– Caitlin Johnstone: Illusory Truth & ‘Unprovoked’ Invasion
“The mainstream media repeated assertion that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was “unprovoked” defies facts and journalistic standards, yet has managed to permeate the collective consciousness of the West.”
https://consortiumnews.com/2023/08/10/caitlin-johnstone-illusory-truth-unprovoked-invasion/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=c291d912-4f7c-4dc2-88ae-34b2eda121b0
The Chris Hedges Report 7/02/23– They Lied About Afghanistan. They Lied About Iraq. And They Are Lying About Ukraine
“But this proxy war in Ukraine is designed to serve U.S. interests. It enriches the weapons manufacturers, weakens the Russian military and isolates Russia from Europe. What happens to Ukraine is irrelevant.”
https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/they-lied-about-afghanistan-they
Harpers Magazine (Benjamin Schwarz, Christopher Layne)– Why are we in Ukraine?
“This conventional story is, in our view, both simplistic and self-serving. It fails to account for the well-documented—and perfectly comprehensible—objections that Russians have expressed toward NATO expansion over the past three decades, and obscures the central responsibility that the architects of U.S. foreign policy bear for the impasse.”
“In 1999, the Alliance added three former Warsaw Pact nations; in 2004, three more, in addition to three former Soviet republics and Slovenia. Since then, five more countries—the latest being Finland, which joined as this article was being prepared for publication—have been pulled beneath NATO’s military, political, and nuclear umbrella.”
“Thus did the United States recklessly embark on a policy that would “restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations,” as the venerable American foreign policy expert, diplomat, and historian George F. Kennan had warned. Writing in 1997, Kennan predicted that this move would be “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”
“Russia repeatedly and unambiguously characterized NATO expansion as a perilous and provocative encirclement. Opposition to NATO expansion was “the one constant in what we have heard from all Russian interlocutors,” the U.S. ambassador to Moscow Thomas R. Pickering reported to Washington thirty years ago.”
“After Putin insisted at the 2007 Munich Security Conference that NATO’s expansion plans were unrelated to “ensuring security in Europe,” but rather represented “a serious provocation,” Gorbachev reminded the West that “for us Russians, by the way, Putin wasn’t saying anything new.”
“As former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and former secretary of defense Robert Gates acknowledge approvingly, the United States is fighting a proxy war with Russia.”
Thank you Michael Johnson, I will never vote for Rick Larsen again.
Some unfortunate people create, and unfortunately others believe, really weird conspiracy theories such as “the unholy alliance between The Vatican, the CIA and the mafia”, among the many others mentioned. In democracies, particularly in the United States, citizens are allowed to express dissent like that and are not punished for it. In Putin’s Russia, and other autocracies, they would be imprisoned or quite possibly “disappeared” for doing the same.
There are very good reasons that the former Soviet/Russian satellite states and other free countries have joined NATO for decades so that they can get help protecting themselves from Putin’s ambitions to control them. Russia under Putin is not innocent and in the shadows has worked hard for decades to destabilize those and other nearby countries, which is the reason they all want to feel safe under the NATO umbrella. Many have lived through and never want to go back to being under the control of Russia/Putin.
Those who are apologists for Putin’s autocratic/dictatorial regime and blame the United States and NATO for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine would do well to visit some of the former Soviet satellites, and talk to the people there about why they much prefer to align themselves with us, rather than return to the dark times of alignment with Russia. They are much better off and want to remain that way.
Putin’s stated desire is to rebuild Mother Russia and regain the glory of their previous empire. If he is allowed to take over Ukraine, he will not stop there. History has shown that the best way to stop despots is with deterrence and strength. Appeasement never works.
The United States is not perfect, but if you believe our policies are worse than Putin’s/Russia’s policies, from here you are free to live there….from there you are not free to live here. Take the blinders off.
To my friend Michael Johnson: You criticize the expansion of NATO over the past 30 years, but do not address this key question: WHY did each of those countries feel they needed to apply for NATO membership?? Even traditionally-neutral Sweden now feels it necessary to apply. You characterize as a “provocation” those countries’ desire for “mutual self defense” against Russia. BUT: What have they done to cause Russia to fear military action against Russia?
Your point that Russia does not like NATO expansion is probably true, but that does not mean the U.S .should side with Russia against its neighbors, who very obviously are concerned about being invaded or dominated by Russia . Many of them had been occupied by Russia during WWII. Czechoslovakia (invaded by Russian troops in 1956) and Hungary (invaded in 1968) applied to NATO soon after the fall of the Soviet Union and were accepted in 1999. Others have joined since. Russia clearly has not convinced its neighbors that it poses no threat. Indeed, Putin’s two invasions of Ukraine were seen by many as a Russian “provocation”.
Let’s also recall that in the 1940s, Russia asked the US for a supply of arms and equipment after they were invaded by Germany. Very similarly, Ukraine asked us for a supply of armaments after they were invaded by Russia. We support Ukraine now, for the same reasons we supported Russia then. Putin refuses to see those similarities.
Were Russia’s two recent invasions of Ukraine REALLY in response to NATO provocation? Putin’s writings suggest it had more to do with his view of Russian history (Ukraine was once part of Russia). We must consider whether “provocation” is just a threat Russia issues when other countries resist their desire to dominate or invade their neighbors. Either way, I agree we must think carefully about when upsetting Russia may be worth that risk, in order to draw a line.
The fundamental policy question is whether one country should be deterred from invading or dominating, its weaker neighbors. Those who say that such aggression is not our business would walk away from the policies of Pres. Truman (who helped form of NATO), Pres. Eisenhower (the first head of NATO), Pres. Kennedy, Pres. Nixon, Pres. Johnson, Pres. Ford, Pres. Reagan, and Pres. GHW Bush — all of whose support for NATO almost certainly stemmed from their service during WWII, when the US fought against aggression by Japan (against us and others), by Italy (against Ethiopia) and by Germany (against most of Europe INCLUDING RUSSIA), The pro=NATO policies of those Presidents was continued by Presidents Carter, Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama. Note: 6 D’s and 6 R’s.
These are complicated issues, Michael, and I can agree with some of what you have written. But it’s not enough for those you cite to just criticize NATO as “provocative” without also addressing the larger realities. Their writings may have some merit, but I’d argue that the recent decisions by Finland and Sweden to apply for NATO membership indicate that, by and large, NATO continues to fulfill the “mutual self-defense” mission for which it was created in 1949.
Doug, Terry– I’m not a Russian apologist, and I believe that all war is terrible. But a quick study of history will show that Russia’s actions in invading Ukraine was not “unprovoked, as pundits for the state department would like for us to believe.
My point is, and putting it another way, “War is a racket,” said double medal of honor recipient Maj. Gen, Smedley Butler (an outspoken critic of American wars and their consequences, who, after his retirement and in later years, became widely known for his outspoken lectures against war profiteering, U.S. military adventurism, and what he viewed as nascent fascism in the United States), when describing the failed overthrow attempt of the U.S. government by U.S. bankers and industrialists.
I can back up anything I’ve stated with historically accurate source material, (including the unholy alliance between The Vatican, the CIA and the mafia). Possibly one of the differences between myself and you is that I’m open-minded enough to read everything I can get my hands on (including MSN) in regards to foreign policy, and thereafter make my determinations… do you? Or is everything that’s contrary to your thoughts simply “conspiracy?” I mean, it doesn’t sound as if you’ve bothered to read any of the material that I included within my post.
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer; a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.” Gen. Smedley Butler
Where’s the beef? Walk your talk. If you’re going to refute that which I claim then send me something that will change my outlook on U.S. foreign affairs.
Thank you Michael Johnson;
“WHY did each of those countries feel they needed to apply for NATO membership?? ” How about pressure form NATO members.
You apparently have no memory of how the Miadan massacre occurred as the NATO and CIA forces overwhelmed and shot up Ukraine and Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was caught on tape saying “F*** The E.U.” (European Union) as she picked who the US wanted to lead the broken republic. (2014)
You guys are still living in the Cold War and will never see the change coming. Tough.
thank you for all your well thought and factual comments, Michael Johnson – and thank you to Molly Roberts for directing me to this link so I could read them and be impressed not only by your extensive reading list, but that you have paid close attention to what is really going on and are not falling for the propaganda narrative. Never voted for Rick Larsen after the first time when I didn’t know any better what a warmongering war hawk he is. .