In a recent discussion between Kim Iverson, a renowned journalist, and Dave DeCamp, Assistant News Editor at Antiwar.com, the escalating political tensions between NATO, Ukraine, and Russia were examined.
One of the main topics of the conversation was the puzzling trust and persistent push for NATO’s involvement by Ukraine, despite past unsuccessful attempts at securing its protection. Iverson and DeCamp found it perplexing that Ukraine would rely on an organization that failed to come to its aid during the initial invasion by Russia.
The discussion also critiqued NATO’s practice of tantalizing Ukraine with the possibility of membership, particularly during the Russian invasion. The relevance of such conversations was questioned, considering the immediate security crisis at hand and NATO’s history of making empty promises.
In exploring potential strategies for Ukraine, Iverson and DeCamp proposed a more logical approach of negotiating a peace deal with Russia, its immediate neighbor, rather than relying on distant allies like the United States.
The conversation also touched upon the potential implications of Western strategies aimed at regime change in Russia. Iverson and DeCamp argued that such tactics could lead to a catastrophic conflict on a global scale, given Russia’s perception of them as existential threats.
The possibility of intentional provocation towards Russia was also discussed. Iverson and DeCamp wondered why Ukraine, if it was never genuinely intended for NATO membership, did not provide Russia with a written guarantee that could potentially prevent further escalation of the conflict.
The discussion concluded with an examination of the potential for corruption and war profiteering during times of conflict. Iverson and DeCamp highlighted the interests of Western officials who may prioritize strategic posturing against Russia and the profits generated by war over the well-being of Ukraine’s citizens.