stan van houcke: How NATO provoked Russia in Ukraine and prevented peace

zaterdag 22 maart 2025

How NATO provoked Russia in Ukraine and prevented peace

Playback speed

1×

Subtitles

Share post at current time

Share from 1:13

0:00

10:55

Transcript

Thank you to the organizers, Hekmat,Abu Hadar, Civil, Young Voices, forputting this together. And thank you toeveryone who's here in person andwatching this at home. In addressing thequestion before us, it's important tomake a distinction between provokedand justified. To argue that Russia'sinvasion is justified,

one has to meet a very high burden that Ibelieve Russia has not met. But when itcomes to the issue at hand, whetherRussia was provoked, I think there's anoverwhelming case that the answer isyes. And this is the question I thinkshould most concern those of us inNATO states, because our governments,

I will argue, are behind the provocationand, accordingly, a major geopoliticaldisaster that needs to come to an end.The provocation of Russia, in my view,has four main elements. Expanding theNATO military alliance to Russia'sborders, tearing up vital arms controltreaties, installing military assets thatthreaten Russia's security, and finallyand most faithfully,

meddling in countries on Russia'sdoorstep, primarily Ukraine. Let's startwith the most uncontroversial issue,which is NATO expansion. It's now widelyaccepted that in the talks to end the ColdWar, the Soviet Union was promised thatNATO, in the words of Secretary of StateJames Baker, would expand not one incheastward.

Now, one could argue, well, too bad, thispledge was never made in writing, andit's true. There was no formal treaty. Thenthe question becomes, why violate thisverbal pledge to not expand NATO, andwas it worth it? Well, on the question ofwhy, we know the answer from the U.S.architects of NATO expansion.

How NATO provoked Russia in Ukraine and prevented peace

Debating the roots of Ukraine proxy war, and whether Trump should bring it to an end.

AARON MATÉ

MAR 21, 2025

This week I took part in two debates on the origins of Ukraine proxy war, and whether Donald Trump should use US leverage to bring it to an end.

The first was hosted by Young Voices before a live audience in New York City, featuring myself and Eli Lake of the Free Press.

In my opening statement, I argued that the US and NATO provoked Russia in Ukraine by expanding NATO, dismantling arms control, installing military assets threatening Russia, meddling in Ukraine, and blocking multiple opportunities for peace.

Watch my opening statement above, and the full debate here:

I took part in another Ukraine debate on the UK outlet GB News, with host Bev Turner and commentator Matthew Stadlen. Watch here:

106 Likes∙

22 Restacks

Discussion about this video

Liana Chenoweth Kornfield

3hEdited

What a clear and excellent summary! Thank you Aaron - I'll be sharing this as much as possible and hope it is broadly viewed and can help break through the self serving Governmental/MSM induced American ignorance about the roots of this terrible and tragic proxy war full of death, destruction, deceit and betrayal.

LIKE (6)

August West

Way to kick it Aaron!

LIKE (6)

REPLY (1)

Fran

2hEdited

I agree a very good summation, however during this period where we supported neo-Nazis to overthrow Yanukovich, who was president? Nuland, or Obama? Who was president when we toppled Libya? Oh, Clinton, Rice and Summers. Oh, and did Obama funnel weapons to Syria and hand them to rebels we supported to take down Assad? Why does Obama remain undercover, so divorced from criticism, while others take the heat? It's not even clear to many Obama was no liberal in Chicago, or in the White House. The one thing they do acknowledge he loved to drone.

LIKE (4)

REPLY (1)

Liana Chenoweth Kornfield

32m

Yes, I fully agree. Why??? It's past time for all the Empire's masks to come off.

LIKE (1)

Chill The Monk Out

Chill’s Substack

(only watched the GB news one so far)

Hey man. I'm from the UK and I almost want to apologise 😜. I have no idea who that person is, but he was embarrassing. Bev was good though.

It was fascinating to see understanding and evidence meet the asinine belief system of the opining class, who will jump on any chance to inflame their ego by chucking moral outrage at you which makes them think they are right because theyre fighting "Putin Lovers" so ergo, they're right, you're wrong. Utterly fascinating to see how propaganda manifests.

A good line I saw someone say once was “thanks for your ad hominem attacks, they really give me confidence you know what you’re talking about” - it really seems to stop people in their tracks early on.

I find the 2008 memo from wikileaks the perfect answer to a lot of what he chucked at you. It explains exactly what would happen, including Russia feeling they would have to defend their people. It also refers to the threat issue. Something like “we don’t think you will attack, but you have to accept it’s a threat” or something like that.

Sure you know about it, but if not, the niet means niet cable from Burns to Rice. Cable: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html

LIKE (1)

Rob Roy

Rob’s Substack

Aaron, you left out the 2014 coup by the US and the 8 years following when the Nazis murdered 14,000 Russian speakers. The threat to take Crimea which has been Russian since 1783. Then there's what you mentioned, NATO. That's the 3 reasons for the JUSTIFIED SMO.

LIKE (1)