Tag: russia

America Triggered the Ukraine War?

June 23, 2022

I thought I could get a balanced view of news by listening to TV anchors and reading columnists from both the left and the right. I wrote a blog on this a few months ago. That was my thinking until I received an article from my cousin Tamas, who is in Vienna. He sent me an article presenting a scholarly view of the origin of the Ukraine war. The argument floored me.

You thought Russia started the war, right? Russia was massing its military for months on the Ukraine border before attacking. And remember, Russia occupied Crimea in 2014, so this war was a continuation of their aim to gain more territory. But no. Hungarian economist Karoly Lorant explains in an article in the conservative Hungarian daily Magyar Hirlap, that the war started way back in 1998 when the Americans passed a resolution to expand NATO, which President Clinton called a major foreign policy victory.

Going further back, Secretary of State James Baker told Gorbachev that if Germany as a whole could be a member of NATO, “NATO forces would not be extended as much as an inch to the east.” This was at a meeting at the Kremlin on February 9, 1990.

The world situation changed entirely when the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, and fifteen independent states emerged. According to Lorant, one result was the Americans had begun to support the expansion of NATO and talked about a unipolar world, with the US being the global force.

Lorant cites events supporting the expansion of NATO via the “Partnership for Peace Program” to cooperate with and encourage the democratization of Eastern European countries (many belonged to the former Soviet Union).

National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote a book “The Gand Chessboard” (1997) in which he explained that Belorussia and Ukraine were an important part of Russia, without which Russia was a weak country. Lorant’s thesis is that, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia has lost its power, particularly considering the loss of Belorussia and Ukraine. While the Russians were losing ground, the Americans were intent on expanding NATO.

According to Lorant, the Russians have been pushed back since the 1990s and, from their point of view, the situation had become untenable. No surprise that in January 2022, in Geneva, the Russians wanted the Americans to guarantee that Ukraine does not become a member of NATO. The Americans refused the request. So Lorant concludes that the continuous squeezing of Russia since the 1990s has created the condition for the war and the primary culprit is the US.

Although the facts may be true, I do not buy for a minute the conclusions Lorant draws from them. Russia is the transgressor in the Ukraine war; it is an unprovoked war (even Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, the right-wing leader of Hungary called Russia the aggressor in his speech on May 16, 2022). Ukraine did not invite the Russians to come in to help, unlike in the Cuban missile crisis (which, some people think, is comparable to the Ukraine situation), when Fidel Castro invited the Russians. Zelenski, the President of Ukraine, was elected democratically, and he did not invite the Russians to come into the country.

Second, the concept of territorial influence, that Russia has influence by right over Ukraine, or that historically Ukraine belongs to Russia, is not convincing today. That doctrine may have held water in the past, but now independent countries have the right to self-determination. In contrast to the Russian aim to recover lost territories, European countries have not gone back to their colonies trying to recover their lost territories.

Third, I think influence shows through technology and industrialization today and less via military action. The last time we visited Hungary, I expressed my surprise to Tamas at the high level of foreign ownership of grocery stores and banks. He explained foreign countries took over Hungary without a single life being lost by taking ownership of industry after Hungary declared independence in 1989 and the Soviets left the country in 1991.

For example, the spread of the iconic iPhone and Facebook has probably created more sustainable influence in countries where they are used than military action could ever provide. That is why brute military might with tanks appears old-fashioned to me and a losing idea in the long run. I thought that by using their natural resources and closer cooperation with the old Soviet satellite states, Russia could have established a successful industrial block. But, no; instead, they invaded a country with brute force.

And now I gather from Mr. Lorant’s scholarship that it was the US that triggered the war after continuous attempts to promote NATO and squeeze Russia until Russia saw no option but to invade Ukraine to regain its former territory.

So I learned that besides reading the full spectrum of left-to-right opinions in the west, which I thought would give me a balanced view, I should also read pro-Russian views, such as Lorant’s article, (based on excellent scholarship), that may substantially differ from our western view. That does not mean that Mr. Lorant changed my mind; he outlined a historical context that is interesting but irrelevant today. Just my opinion.

Free Bus Passes for Refugees in Ottawa

May 4, 2022

Ukrainian refugees arriving in Ottawa provided moving stories in the local newspaper, and discussions with friends centered on the ongoing war in Ukraine.

These discussions moved on from the war and focussed on how to help the refugees arriving in Ottawa. It was encouraging to learn the City councillor from Kanata suggested that free transit passes be provided to the refugees for six months upon arrival. Another Councillor expanded the motion to include all refugees, to be fair. The City Council passed the motion.

A friend of mine suggested that with the free passes, the refugees may get to know the city. I asked, “are you saying that they should sight-see?” And I immediately followed up by: “come on! Refugees try to establish themselves and their lives in a new country and new city, and sightseeing is the last thing they are interested in.”

I was a refugee and my first task, beyond feeding myself and finding a place to sleep, was to learn the English language. Being a refugee is a traumatic experience and just getting used to the local scene compared to the old country: the architecture, the people, the way people dress, the food, and the smell of the ocean gave me more than enough to absorb. Sightseeing was a concept perhaps in my dreams in the long run, but certainly not in my first few months upon arrival.

Here is my story: my hostess, a nurse, who had an old, big house in the Kitsilano area of Vancouver, found out that volunteers gave English lessons to Hungarians at the YMCA in downtown Vancouver. My brother and I hustled down there to learn the language a few days after our arrival. Our host gave us some bus tickets to get to the YMCA. We learned English during the day and practiced grammar at night. We did not take or have time to sightsee. It took us a few months to converse in English sufficiently well to give us the confidence to look for a job, which was our next priority.

A few blocks from where we lived was Dueck on Broadway, a large car dealership, and cars intrigued my brother, coming from Hungary where there were few. He approached Dueck and offered to wash cars. They said that would be fine, but he also had to jockey the cars for the wash. So my brother walked to the licensing bureau and in forty-eight hours got his driver’s license. He was happy with his first job in Canada and felt like he was on top of the world.

I followed the job ads in the local paper, the Vancouver Sun, every day. In a week, I found a job with a furrier dragging animal skins to show buyers for their appraisal, hundreds of skins each day. My first huge cultural learning curve was when the appraiser gave me a huge cash tip at the end of his work, which I refused to accept, saying I was just doing my job.

In Hungary, there was no tipping, all people worked for the government (under the communist system), and there was no incentive to work hard for the possibility of additional income. The appraiser looked at me with a questioning eye, but perhaps figured me out by listening to my strange accent and probably improper English. I thought I just did what they hired me for. And this experience was an initial step in my acculturation in Canada.

I worked there until it was time to think about going back to further my education. My brother did the same and eight months after arriving in Canada, we both enrolled at the University of British Columbia.

I remembered my refugee experience when talking with my friend, and it shocked me people have so little understanding of, or empathy for, what refugees go through when they arrive in a country new to them. But why should they? It is totally outside their frame of reference.

Even if sightseeing is an option with free bus tickets, where would you go in Ottawa on a bus? Would you go to the east or west of the city, get off, and walk around? The endpoints of bus routes are not tourist spots. And the bus stops in Ottawa are not within reasonable walking distance of many homes. It could be a tough slog in the middle of a cold winter to walk to a bus stop for people arriving from tropical climates.

And the local people who host refugees have cars and take the refugees to get their health and social insurance cards and take them to medical facilities if needed. Would the refugees ever use the free bus passes?

The provision of free bus passes to recent refugee arrivals made a nice headline in the newspaper and surely, some refugees would use them. But the priority for recent refugee arrivals is to find a place to live; learn the language; get a job and gain a career via schooling or retraining.

Perhaps free bus passes for all the poor would be a better option?

Head-Scratchers, or How to Get a Balanced View of World News

April 20

What paper or journal do you read and watch to make sure you get a balanced view of what is going on in this world? A friend posed this question to me: he said he was trying to advise his son on what to read/watch. By balanced, he meant views not only on the right but also on the left – he looked for views and opinions describing facts and behavior from the far right to the left liberal woke community, and all others in between.

I told him I get my information on current events from many sources: newspapers, online and paid subscriptions, as well as the internet and television, and radio. I read many newspapers across the political spectrum and could not single out one that is the best or that would provide a balanced viewpoint. But subscription cost is a factor, and I gave up on many first-rate Canadian newspapers charging up to forty dollars a month.

But most newspapers give you ten free articles to read a month, such as the Guardian or the Toronto Star. By accident I noticed an ad for the Washington Post, a liberal newspaper, for an annual subscription for nineteen dollars US and subscribed, not believing that it was a genuine offer. But it was, and I have been receiving the digital copy of the paper ever since at the originally advertised price. In contrast, reading the New York-based “Epoch Times” provides a conservative angle.

The internet and television are other excellent sources of news. Fox News has the reputation of being a right-wing propaganda channel, while CNN has more of a left-wing bias. So between the two, you may get a “balanced” view.

An overarching theme over the past several years has been “climate change”. Whether you believe IPCC reports or follow Steve Koonan’s contrary arguments, it is your choice. Koonin’s name to fame is that he was a scientific advisor to Obama (his book published in 2021, entitled “Unsettled” explains his views). But many people follow their prejudices and if they believe that climate change is a hoax, then Koonin provides support for their beliefs. There are volumes written on this subject and you can read up on both sides of the story, although the bulk of evidence in my readings supports that ‘climate change” is real.

The other major story over the last two years, of course, has been the pandemic. One source of disagreement focused on whether the virus came from China: several studies concluded it did, while others did not. Another controversial subject was whether the World Health Organization announced the pandemic in time or was late, with dire consequences. President Trump’s approach to downplay the virus, in the beginning, was also a source of controversy. And then his continuing approach to downplay the virus-caused catastrophe was further debated. You could listen to Fox News or CNN, to hear conflicting arguments.

And now the major news item is the war in Ukraine. Depending on which newspapers you read or TV channels you listen to, you get various arguments on whether the US is doing the right things. Although most news stories characterize the war as “unprovoked”, the New York Times’s Thomas Friedman quoted George Kennan (expert on Russia in the US) who commented that the expansion of NATO was a mistake when Russia was not a threat and that it triggered Putin’s war in Ukraine. So, who or what do you believe?

I told my friend that besides listening to all the different news sources, my interest is in “head-scratchers”: stories that make you scratch your head and ponder if the news makes sense based on the information provided and my built-up knowledge.

For example, to defend the Odessa region in Ukraine, a consortium of Canadian industry executives wrote to the Canadian Defense Minister that Canada send twenty-four anti-ship Harpoon missile systems to Ukraine: The Royal Canadian Navy has two hundred of them in storage. This recommendation follows Canada’s promise to Ukraine to send lethal weapons. But the Defense Department has yet to respond. What is the holdup? Are Harpoons not functional? Would Canada ever need these weapons to defend its coasts? If there are legitimate reasons for not sending these weapons, then some explanations would be in order. So, I scratch my head.

Another example. While the US, major European countries, and the EU expelled Russian diplomats as a symbol of outrage against the unprovoked war in Ukraine, Canada refused to do so. The Prime Minister said such diplomatic expulsions would lead to retaliation by the Russians that would lead to Canada losing its “eyes and ears” in Moscow. Is that true? Do the other countries not lose their “eyes and ears” as well, but do not consider it important? But is intelligence gathered only by people on the ground? Do we not have cyber intelligence? And why do we think that while all the other major countries of the Western alliance can do without people on the ground in Moscow, Canada cannot? The scenario makes little sense to me. So, I scratch my head.

What is also incomprehensible to me is that the Deputy Prime Minister and who is also the Finance Minister of Canada has Ukrainian ancestry and has been vocal about assisting the Ukrainians. Words have been flowing freely about supporting fully the Ukrainians, and the recent budget had money allocated to helping Ukraine. But instead of words, action is required now and not in a few months that budgetary processes take. In a few months, the war may be over. Another headscratcher.

As our Prime Minister Trudeau said in the 2015 election victory, “Canada is back”. According to John Ivison in a recent column in the National Post, Canada is more “at the back” of the countries providing meaningful and timely help to Ukraine. Canada is the ninth of twelve countries, providing financial and military aid to Ukraine, after Estonia. Are we experiencing bureaucratic malaise? We do not want to antagonize Russia by sending powerful weaponry to Ukraine? And if so, why not? Does that make sense?

My advice to the friend’s son would be to listen and read widely and try to understand events from all points of view. And the understanding will deepen with events that do not seem to make sense.