Eric Zuesse
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Putin’s biggest-ever blunder has been his failure to have offered to Finland a guarantee of peaceful relations, and of favored-nation status on trade (including on energy-prices of oil and gas, which, prior to the 2022 U.S.-imposed sanctions against Russia, European countries had, for decades, been buying at lower prices from Russia than from any other country, even without any favored-nation status), if Finland will not join NATO.
If Finland’s Government would have turned down such an offer, then what excuses could they provide to their voters, for having said no to it? (And, if the offer had been made privately and then privately rejected, Putin would then have made the offer publicly, and might have been able to get the Finnish public to support it, and then the Finnish Government to support it.) If Finland would have accepted such an offer, then how much benefit would that provide to the Russian people?
Regarding the latter matter: the main reason why Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 was that on 7 January 2022, both the U.S. Government and its NATO anti-Russian military alliance not only rejected Russia’s 17 December 2021 proposal for there to be peaceful relations between Russia and The West, but neither the U.S. Government nor NATO were even willing to negotiate with Russia regarding any one of the specific clauses in Russia’s thoughtful and lengthy — very serious — proposal.
Central to Russia’s concerns in having offered the proposal was the 1962-Cuban-Missile-Crisis-in-Reverse issue that America is threatening Russia that America might place its nuclear missiles in Ukraine only 300 miles (or five minutes of missile-flying-time) away from blitz-nuclear bombing The Kremlin. Five minutes would be far too short a time for Russia to be able to identify the U.S. launch, and then to launch its retaliatory nuclear arsenal against the U.S. and its allied countries. Russia’s central command would be beheaded before Russia could have any chance to respond.
Whereas in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, Khrushchev and JFK negotiated, and thus averted World War Three, America and its NATO anti-Russian military alliance, on 7 January 2022, refused to negotiate at all. Russia then had no alternative remaining, other than to take military action to achieve by military force, assurance that U.S. missiles won’t be able to be placed a mere five minutes away from Moscow.
Finland is the second-closest anti-Russian country, and is 507 miles away from Moscow, which would be 7 minutes of missile-flying time away. Consequently, America’s gaining Finland as a NATO member will be almost as life-threatening to Russia as if America had gained Ukraine into NATO.
Is Russia, then, now left without hope? Not quite. Here is a possible way in which Russia might — just possibly — be able to attain some protection (other than MERELY by military means) against what is now unquestionably a U.S. Government that is determined ultimately to conquer Russia:
Russia would now make, to any U.S.-allied country, the type of deal that it inexplicably had failed to offer to Finland. A possibility exists — though perhaps only a slim one — that one or more existing NATO-member countries might say yes to such a deal. (The offer should be made only privately to each U.S.-allied country; and, then, if any such country privately says no, Russia should then offer the deal publicly to that country. Public opinion in that country might then force that Government — whose prior rejection of the deal would not be publicly known — publicly to say yes to it. Thus, there would then be two chances to obtain an agreement, instead of only one, and this would greatly increase the chances of success.)
Right now, the high fuel prices in Europe are a huge factor in favor of such an agreement being able to be reached. Those high fuel-prices are due to the cut-off (on account of the U.S.-and-allied sanctions against Russia, and the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines) of Europe’s by-far-cheapest fuels-supplier, Russia. Thus, there is a strong incentive for each and every existing NATO-member country to negotiate with Russia about this matter. It would be a clear win-win deal for both sides. Obviously, the U.S. Government, and its NATO, would be strongly opposed to allowing any NATO-member country to say yes, but would they be able to prevent it from happening? Who knows?
What is irrefutable is that Putin shouldn’t have waited this long to start thinking about this. Better late than never, but will he ever? He has publicly stated that he favors win-win arrangements. So, here’s his chance to propose it. Why not try (first, privately; then — if necessary — publicly)? Why hasn’t he tried? There might still be a chance to get this done.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
This just in from Reuters:
HELSINKI, April 2 (Reuters) – Finland’s left-wing Prime Minister Sanna Marin conceded defeat on Sunday in the Nordic country’s parliamentary election as the opposition right-wing National Coalition Party (NCP) claimed victory in a tightly fought contest.
The pro-business NCP was expected to win 48 of the 200 seats in parliament, narrowly ahead of the nationalist Finns Party with 46 seats and Marin’s Social Democrats on 43 seats, justice ministry election data showed with all ballots counted.
Can they revert joining NATO?
Howdy CM, love the work on the vids. That is all, carry on.
You mean the “pro-business” (with anyone other than Russia) party?
The Ukies were going to launch an offensive against the rest of the Donbas. The Russians knew full well what was about to happen and, yes, they could have made Finland such an offer. That’s water under the proverbial bridge at this point. The only negotiating now is the kind where sheer brute force demands and gets what it wants.
Finland, like the rest of the West, is intrinically, organically and thoroughly Nazi. The sooner Russia grasps this the sooner they will stop making silly mistakes.
Russia knows that Finland will never allow nukes on their territory. If they should consider doing it then Ukraine number 2 will certainly come to Finland.
Sanna would have happily allowed it for little more than a bondage session and a line of coke. So will the new ‘leaders’ of Finland.
Mr. Zeusse said – “Central to Russia’s concerns in having offered the proposal was the 1962-Cuban-Missile-Crisis-in-Reverse issue that America is threatening Russia that America might place its nuclear missiles in Ukraine only 300 miles (or five minutes of missile-flying-time) away from blitz-nuclear bombing The Kremlin.” This is an attractive analytic posture, but is fundamentally flawed. The Cuban crisis was spawned by precisely the same circumstances being faced by Russia way back then as they are now forced to deal with once again today. Russia’s placement of nuclear missiles in Cuba was her RESPONSE to the American provocation of placing strategic… Read more »
As I’ve said before (when I first introduced this argument), the fact that there were U.S. missiles in Turkey is irrelevant to my article’s narrative and analysis. Yes, the initial aggression in that 1962 instance was from America. But so what? So: the U.S. Government back then was the aggressor back then. Your mind has a problem recognizing what is relevant and what isn’t. My argument is unaffected by the fact that you are obsessed with (the U.S. Government’s evilness since 25 July 1945).
Sorry Eric, I don’t buy your rebuttal.
Cause and Effect is a universal principle that affects everything. It is foolish to dismiss the placement of American missiles in Turkey.
If an entity causes another to feel threatened existentially it must realize that it will also face an existential threat.
This is the way.
My point is that the fact that in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the fact that America was responding to what the USSR had done in response to what America had done (placing missiles in Turkey and in Italy) is irrelevant to whether or not in today’s crisis Putin ought to have offered a peace treaty to Finland (and to each of the then-existing 28 NATO-member nations). It has no logical relevance to that. Your concept of “Cause and Effect” is fictitious there, because irrespective of whether in the Cuban Missile Crisis the aggressor-nation was America or was instead the USSR,… Read more »
Sorry Eric, you do not get to make the rules of discourse like that once you begin engaging in it. The remark by “Ultrafart,” pace his SN, is valid.
This is a indeed a valid issue, that you raise. However, we have no way of knowing that President Putin has not already made this offer. Perhaps it is too soon to rate such a decision as a blunder of any sort. Time will tell. With this current government change in Finland, we will soon its new approaches towards Russia. A lot more information is available to it that would justify reconsidering many decisions. We ought to bear in mind that there are many unknown elements about this war, that are censored and concealed from the public. This is both… Read more »
“However, we have no way of knowing that President Putin has not already made this offer.” That’s irrelevant to this article, because this article says that if Finland were to have said no privately, he should have immediately made the offer publicly. Did you not understand that? If not, why?
Putin blundered. And he still does.
And I blundered by not having made clearer in my article that my proposal was for Putin to make the proposal FIRST privately and THEN (if rejected) publicly. So, I now have rectified that in the article. Thanks, Serge!
Your ability to learn and admit mistakes is commendable.
To be frank, knowing how the west is corrupt, I seriously doubt any offers by Russia would make any difference. Seeing how unpopular the current government is, it is highly likely they will be out by next year, and depending how corrupt the replacements will be, it is possible they may choose to undo what the government is now about to do.
Anyone who, once allegiance was sworn, swerves from the globalist plan had better learn the language of fishes.
Here’s a better idea: Putin must immediately launch hypersonic attacks on Finlands energy infrastructure with the intention of obliterating it. The attacks will stop when Finland leaves NATO. Norway should also be put on notice about the survivability of its oil and gas fields and only a complete confession on Nord Stream can save them. Sweden should be advised to make popcorn and watch TV News. NATO will then be forced to exercise Article 5… but they won’t because they are cowardly and they have no ammo or ability to fight conventionally. This leaves NATO with the WW3 Nuclear option.… Read more »
I have a sneaking suspicion that Russia’s concern for Finland joining nato was just a red herring for negotiations so the opposing side focusses on the secondary issue at the negotiating table, rather than the primary objective (to save Donbas.) It would not be in Russia’s best interest to let their enemy know exactly what they are after especially come negotiation time. As strategized, this will also allow the “west” to have a pyrrhic win (Finland joining nato) while Rus gets an actual win and no need for escalation. Cheers.
I hope you are right but the word PollyAnna comes to mind.
Yes, correct the situation in Berlin – its existence – and nuke Dogpatch, Romania the way the Glorious Harbinger of Peace and Democracy, the USA, nuked Hiroshima and Nagasake. Once the mushroom clouds have abated will the US risk itself for the smelly Swedes, Romanians and Finns? Do not make me guffaw!
“Five minutes would be far too short a time for Russia to be able to identify the U.S. launch, and then to launch its retaliatory nuclear arsenal against the U.S. and its allied countries. Russia’s central command would be beheaded before Russia could have any chance to respond.” Why do you insist on repeating this nonsenses, that you clearly made up in your head? Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces, can launch a retaliatory nuclear strike without political input. The Russian General Staff already has access to the nuclear authorisation codes, which they can send to individual weapons commanders within the Russia’s… Read more »
Russia is much ahead in nuclear weapons. This is non issue for Putin.
If Eric’s articles spurn informative comment’s like these then I’d say we’re all doing our jobs properly. Thanks Crass for the info and Eric for the article.
The SMO is not about nukes or biolabs or whatever in Ukraine. It is not about Ukraine in NATO or not. It is about overthrowing world imperialism as a system by uncovering its hollowness. I think Xi said the best, triggering changes not seen in 100 years. Finland joining NATO is irrelevant.
Sanna Marin the lesbian cocaine addict, slut and God only knows what else (other than graduate of the WEF Finishing School For Young Ladies of Klaus Schwab). What kind of world do you inhabit to think that the accession of Finland to NATO was not a fait accomplis by the Judaeo, and other, Nazis of the globalist movement? I note that Sanna was voted out a mere few days before the NATO accession took place. That was Job One and she fulfilled it. Nothing but free cocaine, front-holes and Monte Carlo with Ukrainians for her now. Your premise is laughable,… Read more »
Do you really think that Putin et al. hadn’t considered your contention long ago?
Errrm, there is the small matter of Russia’s nuclear submarines which can be anywhere in the vast oceans and with the ability to hit any target in NATO including the US. And given Russia’s vast hinterland where anywhere where the Szarmat inter-contental missiles are concealed and which are activiated automatically should the Russians can be attacked. It would be suicidal for NATO to attack Russia, assuming of course if NATO was insane enough to attack.