NATO loses Ukraine completely as Putin plays the game Russia's way

When a supposedly independent country surrenders its autonomy allowing hostile foreign armies (NATO) to gather within its borders, equips and trains Neo-Nazi groups to provoke its next door neighbour who in recent history suffered an estimated 20 million dead from these insidious characters, isn't it time to put an end to this? As the UN and western politicians wring their hands at the rise of right wing extremism in the west, NATO is more than willing to train those groups that benefit their expansionist policies elsewhere.

From Afghanistan to Syria, NATO has enjoyed a quarter century of overwhelming success in bombing, invading and organizing coups against those oil producers who abandoned the dollar thereby incurring the wrath of a US led NATO. Oh the irony, as NATO now accuses Russia of aggression in the Ukraine!

Had Russia not intervened in Syria, Iran would no longer exist; Similarly, if not for President Putin, Yeltsin (1991-1999) would have ensured that Russia would now be a near third-world economic basket case dependent on hand-outs from the European Central Banks. A fate that befell former USSR countries that allied themselves with the European Union (EU).

Having failed to bring democracy to Muslim societies, locate non-existent weapons of mass destruction and topple the various "monsters' who refused to conform to US hegemony, an aggressive NATO once again finds itself back in Europe and consequently, with the arrogance born out of a long list of successes, looks again for easy targets. Although let's face it, countries such as Libya or Iraq were not military victories, they were foregone conclusions.

The Ukraine remains an obvious choice. Situated on Russia's SW border it also annexed the disputed Crimea peninsula containing the Sevastopol Black Sea Naval Base. A UN resolution in March 2014 proclaimed Crimea as part of Ukraine. Belarus would have been next, leaving Russia's western border completely surrounded by NATO.

The rapidity of the 2014 coup that ousted democratically elected Yanukovych shook the world, probably as much for its blatant audacity. No umbrella parades or Arab Springs here and the first time a US Secretary of State (Victoria Nuland) publicly orchestrated a coup in a democratic country. The incumbent President Yanukovych ousted and a puppet government installed, NATO "advisers' immediately swarmed into the Ukraine.

The last time western forces gathered in such numbers on Russia's borders, bad things followed. Given NATO's recent record of aggression elsewhere, is Russia to blame for feeling apprehensive?

Only just in time did President Putin see the danger of what was coming and sent in forces to occupy Crimea, resulting in the self-proclaimed states of Donetsk and Luhansk (Donbas).

Those who followed President Putin's efforts at diplomacy and appeasement over the years knew it would end like this. Whatever NATO once stood for has long gone and it now exists as the military arm of liberal western politicians and Wall Street capitalists.

NATO itself will not get involved against a strong military and will abandon the Ukraine because it already knows its diverse liberalized forces are best equipped to attacking weaker nations. Conversely, Russia fights to preserve its right to exist as a traditional society within the borders of an independent country. Having served its purpose, Ukraine now finds itself in the unenviable position of others abandoned by NATO.

The Ukraine also serves as both a reminder and warning to both the EU and a US led NATO that they have reached the limit of their eastward expansion and the danger now is that NATO refuses to heed that subtle warning in a nuclear age.