The Russian Point of View

Darrell Castle talks about the war in Ukraine from a Russian perspective. This is possible because one can see the other’s point of view in a conflict without agreeing with the other’s tactics. He does not support the Russian invasion in any way, but wants to be free to examine evidence and draw his own conclusions without being told by opinion makers what to think. Transcription / Notes THE RUSSIAN POINT OF VIEW Hello this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday March 4, 2022, and I will be talking about the war in Ukraine from a Russian perspective. This is possible, I believe, because one can see the other’s point of view in a conflict without agreeing with the other’s tactics. I Would not wish to be seen as supporting the Russian invasion in any way because I don’t, but I want to be free to examine evidence and draw my own conclusions without being told by opinion makers what to think. This is the 10th day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, so a little history is in order. Thirty-one years ago, the President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, and the Premier or leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, met to discuss a possible deal to allow the Soviet Union, which was financially broke and desperate, to end peacefully, and with dignity. The deal was that the 16 Soviet satellites or colonies would become separate independent countries. East Germany would remain divided, but the wall would come down and then the two countries would be completely integrated. Reagan agreed that NATO would not expand beyond its present boundaries at that time. In other words, the Soviet colonies, now freed, would not become part of NATO. No NATO or U.S. troops would be stationed in the Russian borderland countries, and both sides would keep those countries free of offensive missiles. That part of the agreement was later formalized in a treaty to ban intermediate range missiles from that part of Europe. American presidents have denied the authenticity or even existence of the agreement, but Secretary of State James Baker was there, and he took notes, so denial of the deal only adds to the hypocrisy. The deal was made to give the world a sigh of relief from the long, expensive, and very dangerous cold war in which mutually assured destruction was the order of the day. It came after a long series of dour, hardline Russian leaders and ended with the eloquent, Westernized Gorbachev, who was succeeded by the disastrous Boris Yeltsin. President Clinton reportedly took advantage of Yeltsin because of his greed and most of all his alcoholism. NATO began its continual march to the east and to Russia’s border.  During that time the U.S. withdrew from the Intermediate Range Missile Ban Treaty and moved missiles to Poland and Romania. Yeltsin held power for about 10 years and then power was transferred to a former colonel in the KGB European Division, Vladimir Putin. Mr. Putin set out to rebuild Russia’s reputation and status as a great nation and his first tactic was to divert a large part of the Russian GDP to modernizing the Russian military. NATO had advanced to the border of Ukraine by that time and there were constant rumors of Ukraine’s joining the NATO treaty.  The Nation of Georgia was also a target for NATO expansion and when it became an open objective Putin invaded and put a stop to it. The West seemed to learn nothing from that event, however. Fast forward to the year 2016 and the American presidential election in which Putin and Russia were accused of interfering in the election on behalf of Donald Trump. For the next four years that was the constant theme of the American media, but the Durham investigation has revealed that the Hillary Clinton campaign instigated the entire hoax. Other than that, it was a complete lie, but I’m sure that Putin was both amused and outraged to be Clinton’s scapegoat. The interesting part of all this and the complete hypocrisy of the American leadership came into view just two yea...