Covid-19 Update

Ok. Putting a little star after a sentence is pretty bad idea. The fine print to the right, refers to “25 US jurisdictions, in December 2021” and there’s a internet link right below the man’s arm.

Article by MMWR Definitely not light reading.

I will attempt a bit of scientific translation. Let’s say 100 people have Covid-19. This 5x higher risk comes from a ratio of unvaccinated to vaccinated patients infected with Covid-19. Let’s say we have a group of 100 with Covid. For a ratio of 5, we have 83 unvaccinated people and 17 vaccinated ones (83/17 = ~ 5). Actually, it is a bit more complicated, because the ratios are “age standardized.”

It is very good news, in that the vaccines work against the Omicron variant. Even better, it works if you have taken Pfizer, Moderna or Johnson. Taking the vaccine and boosters didn’t really make people “bullet proof” against Covid-19, but I’ll take the 5:1 odds any day of the week, as proof that vaccines plus boosters work, even with the new variant. Also note that these data were from December 2021, before 2 boosters were recommended for older people.

Now, the really grim stuff, on people who go to the hospital and don’t come out. At my age, the chance of the one-way trip is a real biggie. If you have had both your vaccines and booster, then the chances of making the one-way trip to the hospital are really small by CDC statistics, with odds of 400:1. This isn’t the odds of dying from Covid, but an indication how much higher the chance of death is without the vaccination and boosters. And it mirrors the antidotal stuff, that ICU’s very rarely admit a fully vaccinated patient.

Ok, the CDC attempt at a simple statement is a mess. I guess they knew going for the grim stuff would be a big turn off. But the data makes a excellent case for being fully vaccinated with boosters. If I happen to end up in the hospital, I want everything on my side, pushing for recovery. I’ve taken my second booster, and I’ll go for another if CDC recommends it.

Stay tuned,


Expansion of NATO

Finland and Sweden formally applied for membership into NATO. Russia has threaten to retaliate. Russia is not about to start World War III, but it definitely can take retaliatory actions. CNBC suggested these potential measures: (1) More NATO provocations, in the air and sea, (2) Cyberattacks and Movement of troops along northern border and (3) Cut off of Russian gas to Europe.

See CNBC link: How Russia could react to Finland, Sweden joining NATO

Of course, Russia did not wait to see if Finland would apply. They announced they would cut off electricity to Finland generated in Russia, which accounts for about 10% of Finland’s electricity.

The Washington Post had similar comments on these retaliatory actions and stated, “Finnish officials said they had already been scaling back imports of Russian electricity to guard against possible attacks on the country’s infrastructure, and Russian electricity accounted for only 10 percent of its consumption.”

See Washington Post link: Russia is furious that Finland is joining NATO but can’t do much about it

Prior to the invasion of Ukraine, there was a strong argument to be made, that to maintain good or at least peaceful relations with Moscow, it was best for Finland to stay out of NATO. But Ukrainian invasion changed all that. As reported in the Washington Post, polls show 76% of those polled support joining NATO. Polls taken prior to the invasion showed about 20% in favor of joining.

I call it invasion backlash, and something Putin did not see coming. Turkey has stated they do not support admission of these countries, but I am certain, this will be negotiated, and perhaps something can be worked out.

I don’t believe in buffer security zones. Intercontinental missile in the last two decades has made this idea obsolete. Also, arms races especially among the superpowers have the potential to turn small conflicts into larger ones.

What maintains the peace is adherence to international law, particularly on agreed upon international borders and practices. And the use of international forums, like the United Nations, to find common solutions, and avoid military action at all costs. But we don’t seem to be moving in this direction. Countries in Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe, seem to be increasing their arms purchases, as threats pile up.

I am sure that among the 24% of Finland who don’t support joining NATO (assuming the polls are accurate) there are those who prefer neutrality, as not to disturb a sleeping dog (Russia) next to their border. Also, a small accidental incident could rapidly escalate with horrific consequences. As noted by CNBC,

“Russian provocations of NATO are nothing new. In 2020, NATO air forces across Europe were scrambled more than 400 times to intercept unknown aircraft approaching the alliance’s airspace with almost 90% of these missions in response to flights by Russian military aircraft, NATO said in a statement.

NATO has said Russian military aircraft often do not transmit a transponder code indicating their position and altitude, do not file a flight plan, or do not communicate with air traffic controllers, posing a potential risk to civilian airliners.”

There is nothing really about the collective security principle of NATO (Article 5) which can guarantee peace or stability. By binding 30 countries together into a pact which says an attack on anyone of us, is an attack on all of us, does give a higher sense of security to the smaller Eastern European countries. But it comes at a cost, in that a small attack in say North Macedonia, now is a conflict between the US and Russia.

Perhaps a good example from nature comes in handy. The vines in a rainforest help support the trees during a storm with high winds, because the trees are bound to each other. But if the wind is strong enough, these bound trees will fall. Collective strength can fail catastrophically.

However, I applaud Finland and Sweden because they are standing up against Putin. They clearly saw the conflict as an invasion and the respect for international law and conflict resolution was gone from Putin’s Russia.

Long term peace will depend on the reduction of offensive military weapons.

Stay tuned,


Johnny Depp v. Amanda Heard

I will make this simple- both Depp and Heard will lose. The only winners in this mess are the lawyers and television networks. I guess the lawyers, unless they work on a contingency basis. Amanda Heard wrote an Op-Ed in the Washington Post, claiming she had been abused in the past. She never specifically accused Depp. However, Depp claims this article caused him to lose film contracts. He claims he never once hit her or was abusive to her. Her counter suit claims Depp intended to harass her by organizing an online petition and create fake Twitter accounts hoping to get her fired from movie roles and L’Oreal spokesperson. With these lawsuits, it is necessary to prove intent, the actual events, and monetary loss.

Depp’s drug and alcohol use makes his re-collection of events doubtful. It sure appears that Depp was abusive to Amanda, likely both physically and mentally. With drugs, he gets out of control.

I suspect that Heard’s counter suit will also fall apart, because a weak link between cause and effect. An online petition did not get her fired from the filming of Aquaman 2.

While there are exceptions to free speech, it’s tough to prevail in court. The problem is the internet is filled with hateful and untrue messages. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. This is the First Amendment rights. If you are going to lie, do it on social media, and be careful of the evidence you bring to support your claim. There are websites perfect for lying.

Now you know. Case dismissed. The TV drama will play out for about 10 days.

Stay tuned,


Ukraine Invasions – other questions

I answered 7 questions as best I could. Along the way, I selected links to provide more information. There are other questions, which I can not answer or only partially answer.

How will the Ukrainian war end?

Military experts are surprised how well Ukraine has done, in spite of being vastly outnumbered by Russia. I don’t know how this will end. The position of the US is the outcome is up to negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.

Why did Putin invade on February 24, 2022?

The invasion was unprovoked. On 21 February 2022, Russia recognised the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic, two self-proclaimed statelets in Donbas controlled by pro-Russian separatists. (Wikipedia)

Prior to the invasion, Russia began a joint military exercise with Belarus, beginning on February 10, 2022. The large-scale military exercise will last until Feb. 20. Russia’s Defense Ministry said the joint operation in Belarus, which includes warplanes, missile launchers and live-fire exercises, will focus on “suppressing and repelling external aggression during a defensive operation.” Approximately 30,000 Russian troops participated in this exercise. The US and NATO considered this exercise was an excuse for preparations for an invasion. President Joe Biden observed that the Russians had set up a large military hospital on the border of Ukraine, as proof that Russia was getting set up for an invasion. Russian warships were sent out to the Black Sea.

This does not answer the question of why on February 24, Putin made the fateful decision to invade. Many observers felt Putin had badly misjudged the response of the Ukrainians and their allies. Putin has justified the invasion, as necessary to protect Russian lives in the Donbas region, but both the US and NATO conclude that Russia was supporting the separatists in the regions with military equipment.

What events radicalize Putin thinking, to the point where he felt military action was necessary?

Many experts have given opinions on the events which embolden Putin to invade Ukraine. Some have pointed out the successes Putin had achieved through the use of Russia’s military in both Syria and Chechnya. Other experts have stated that Putin became more radicalized after the US invasion of Iraq in March 20, 2003.

I believe NATO’s involvement in supporting the no-fly zone in Libya during their civil war in 2011, increased Putin’s anger towards NATO and the US. In support of the no-fly zone, NATO forces bombed numerous military installations including Qadaffi’s compound in Tripoli. This was part of “Arab Spring” rebellion which lead to protests in many countries including Russia. I believe this is one reason why Russia attempted in interfere with the presidential elections in 2016.

Putin considers NATO has far gone beyond the initial objective of collective defense of Western Europe and is a threat to countries outside of NATO including Russia. He also considers NATO is simply a tool of the US.

Ukraine was first attacked in 2014, by the takeover and annexation of the Crimean peninsula. It was done quickly and without bloodshed. His popularity in Russia increased. So, attacking Ukraine is presented to the Russian people today, as simply taking back what always belonged to Russia (or the Soviet Union).

Is Putin married? Does he have children? Does he ever smile? Is he wealthy?

Putin married in 1983 and was divorced in 2014. The marriage produced two daughters. Wikipedia states “An investigation by Proekt published in November 2020 alleged that Putin has another daughter, Elizaveta, also known as Luiza Rozova,[648] (born March 2003),[649] with Svetlana Krivonogikh.[4][650]” It has been widely reported that Putin has a serious relationship with Alina Kabaeva, Alina Maratovna Kabaeva or Kabayeva is a Russian politician, media manager, retired individual rhythmic gymnast, and Honoured Master of Sports. Kabaeva is one of the most decorated gymnasts in rhythmic gymnastic history, with 2 Olympic medals, 14 World Championship medals, and 21 European Championship medals. (Wikipedia)

A smiling Putin is very rare.

Putin is likely a multi-billionaire with many residences and other possessions in Russia. He denies this.

See link: Wikipedia Vladimir Putin

Stay tuned,


Q+A (Part 3) Did NATO expand too quickly to the east?

There are two major expansions, one occurring in 1999 with 3 countries being admitted under President Clinton and the second in 2004 with seven countries being admitted under President Bush. I do not believe that NATO expanded too quickly. I know for a fact they did not break any assurances with Russia in accepting these countries. Denying admission to the Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland would have been a serious strategic mistake. Russia would have been angered by the admissions whether it was done in 1990, 2000, or 2010.

The argument against admission is that the US now is committed by the NATO Article 5, to defend any member country which comes under attacked, and thus this would override the Senate’s right to declare war. See link NATO Article 5. This is referred to as the collective defense principle. The US and other allies look for a general interest in the country as a whole as wanting to be part of NATO.

From Putin’s perspective, the admission of any Eastern European country into NATO was denounced as an act of aggression. He believes the Soviet Union should never had granted independence to the 15 former republics. The Kremlin is quoted as follows:

“Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.” He has also stated, that NATO is really controlled by the US.

NATO is a collective defense organization, and the reasons for joining NATO was because the smaller countries felt they were vulnerable to Russia expansionary policies, particularly once Putin took office.

Putin and other autocratic nations use fear of the West, to gain popular support in their countries. As Putin has shut down news stations that are not supportive of the invasion of Ukraine, the population of Russia hears Putin’s propaganda, and not much honesty seeps in.

Admission to NATO is not judged by its proximity to Russia or how much of their culture and history is tied to Russia. To do so, would cause NATO to cater to the whims of Russia and undermine their mission.

The first criteria for acceptance is:

“Willingness to settle international, ethnic or external territorial disputes by peaceful means, commitment to the rule of law and human rights, and democratic control of armed forces”

I am very glad that a commitment to human rights is included. Yet, it does make the criteria more subjective.

I would agree to prior statements by Robert Gates, former Department of Defense Secretary under President George W. Bush that decision to allow admissions was more political (and also economic) rather than military. At least, we can say that in 1999, the immediate military need was not apparent.

However, I would argue that to deny admissions would have made the newly independent republics very weak just as the Russian government under Putin began massive military spending. Countries outside of NATO on Russia’s border have done poorly. Two good examples are Chechnya and Belarus, which are authoritarian regimes and very dependent of Russia.

Another example of a country which is suffering because it does not have the collective security of NATO would be Ukraine. It is the best example of Putin’s expansionary policies which makes NATO membership necessary for surrounding countries, to remain independent and free. Russia’s initial attempt to take Kyiv was a total failure. Now, they are targeting civilians with missile attacks at schools, hospitals and apartments. They are going after farm equipment and grain silos in the farms. They have blockaded the Azov and Black Sea ports.

A country must alone decide if it is in their interest to join NATO. The decision to join NATO must be done when the country can assure NATO that it can live up to the rules governing NATO, a stable, democratically elected government.

Opinions to the contrary

George Kennan, the father of Russian containment policy, believe this was a mistake in his 1997 Op Ed, published by the New York Times. George Kennan: A Fateful Error

Boris Yeltsin was president in 1997. Kennan recognizes that Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland would be admitted, and this would be perceived by Russia as a hostile move into their area of security. History shows that this is right, particularly once Putin came to power.

Also, Tom Friedman, New York Times, And now, a word from X (May 2, 1998) echoes the same points as before. Friedman recounts a discussion with George Kennan, who calls expansion a tragic mistake, and goes on to say, “There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.”

Also, in 1997, Susan Eisenhower, the grand daughter of President Eisenhower, sent a letter to President Clinton which was signed by 47 prominent retired military leaders, diplomats, senators and scholars, opposing expansion of NATO. See letter.

Among those signing the letter are Robert McNamara, Stansfield Turner, Sam Nunn and Paul Nitze, very prominent Americans with long service to our country. They went on after government service to lecture at universities, write books, or work for non-profit organizations.

Robert Gates in his book, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War published in 2014, writes “moving so quickly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, to incorporate so many of the formerly subjugated states into NATO was a mistake.” Further he states, “Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching.” He harshly criticizes NATO expansion as a political act.

Note that Ukraine and Georgia are at present not members of NATO. So, the US did in fact, move quite cautiously in admitting the newly independent countries in NATO.

It is also noted that Robert Gates became Secretary of Defense in 2006, for President George W. Bush, and he was not involved in the decision to admit seven additional countries into NATO in 2004. He had the task of dealing with an angry Putin at the Munich Conference in 2007. Each president from Clinton to Trump supported the application of newly independent republics to NATO.

Gates’ book is a great memoir of his time as secretary of defense under both George W, Bush and Barrack Obama. His comments must be taken in the context of the times. Under George Bush, the US pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) in 2002. Interceptor missiles are by nature defensive weapons. But, it can be argued that if a country has enough ABM’s, then it would be able to conduct a first missile attack without concerns about retaliation. A proposal by the US to base ABM’s in Poland with radar stations in Czech Republic was approved in December 2006, which Gates writes angered Putin as it would further encircle his country with missiles.

From Wikipedia “In interviews with Oliver Stone in 2017, Russian president Vladimir Putin said that in trying to persuade Russia to accept US withdrawal from the treaty, both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had tried, without evidence, to convince him of an emerging nuclear threat from Iran.” This is consistent with Gates’ book. It is well described how we tried to work with the Russian on defensive missile systems.

Recently, others have joined the argument, that the US should have more respect for the Russian point of view that NATO expansion or establishing bases in countries within Russia’s “Security belt” would be de-stabilizing, and hurt the very necessary disarmament efforts.

Gravitas: Did NATO push Russia into attacking Ukraine?

This video is certainly controversial. I do not accept that Russia has reason to be fearful of NATO. Moreover, this is in the mindset of Putin, having been in isolation during Covid-19 pandemic. The statement that George H.W. Bush promised Gorbachev it would not expand NATO eastward was never part of any agreement. Gorbachev said it just didn’t come up in the 4+2 Treaty negotiations, except in regard to NATO deployments in the former Eastern Germany. NATO had no plans to expand eastward, in 1990, because the countries belong to the Warsaw Pact. No new members for 9 years following the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved because its member nations no longer considered it necessary.

The comment by William Burns in 2008, that accepting of Ukraine into NATO would be viewed as a hostile act, is also accurate, and it is noted that Ukraine is not a part of NATO. The strong protest of NATO expansion from Russia at the 2007 Munich Conference is correct.


Just as I was concluding this rather long piece, there was an exchange between Secretary Blinken and Senator Rand Paul on the Ukrainian crisis. Rand Paul stated Russia had reasons for the attack. Blinken pushed back saying the invasion was unjustified and unprovoked. Youtube likely has this exchange.

In summary, the Eastern European countries, gained independence from Russia in a legal manner in December 1991. As independent countries, they are free to chose whether to make application for NATO membership which is a collective defense organization. I believe the acceptance by NATO, US and the allies should not have been slow tracked or denied.

Stay tuned,

David Lord

NATO/Russia/Ukraine – Chronological Recap

Putin goes back decades in justifying the invasion. The last question I answered was whether there were verbal promises made to the Soviets around the time of re-unification or the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 to limit NATO expansion. My response was no. And the Soviet leader at the time, Gorbachev, agrees with this. The best Putin can come up with, is that in 1990, the head of NATO said they had no plans to expand NATO eastward. Of course, this was said when the Warsaw Pact was still in place, so these countries could not join NATO.

World politics in 1990 is very different from today. Still, Putin’s justification for the invasion go back decades. So, before going ahead, I thought to summarize as quickly as possible key historical events 1985 forward. Leonid Brezhnev, the hard line leader of the Soviet Union, died in 1982 while in office as the General Secretary of the Communist Party and the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet.

Vladimir Putin at the time of Brezhnev’s death, was 30 years old and an agent in the KGB. From 1985 to 1990, he was a KGB agent working in Dresden, Germany. There is an excellent videos produced by Frontline, of Putin’s rise to power, and how the dissolution of the USSR likely influence his perspective.

Frontline: Putin’s Way (produced in 2015, after the takeover of Crimea)

TIMELINE (1985-1991)

Date Event
March 11, 1985Gorbachev becomes the General Secretary of the Communist Party and is eager to make changes to make the bureaucracy more efficient and responsive, through Glastnost (openness, freedom of press and information) and Perestroika (democratic restructuring, including multi-candidate elections). See link Mikhail Gorbachev.
June 12, 1987President Reagan’s “Tear down this wall” speech in Germany. It is broadcast over the radio, and was heard in East Germany and the Soviet Union.
June 1, 1988Disarmament agreement between US and Soviets on intermediate nuclear missiles went into effect.
Mar 29, 1990Gorbachev had introduced competitive elections for the Boris Yeltsin is elected president of the Soviet parl
May 1989In May 1989 Gorbachev is elected chairman of this Supreme Soviet and thereby retained the national presidency.
Nov 9, 1989The Berlin wall is torn down. Re-unification required the acceptance of the four major powers that created a divided Germany, USSR, France, UK and the US which is not complete until 1994 with the withdrawal of Russian troops.
July 1, 1990 East Germany adopts the West German currency, all de jure border controls ceased, although the inter-German border had become meaningless for some time before that. The demolition of the Wall was completed in 1994.
July 1, 1991Warsaw Pact dissolved. NATO Declassified: Warsaw Pact Also,
Aug 18, 1991The military launches a coup against Gorbachev. Boris Yeltsin stands on top of a tank and delivers a speech to the crowd to defy the military leaders. Coup attempt ends quickly, but Gorbachev’s authority greatly diminishes in September. Yeltsin begins to gain control.
Dec 8-12, 1991Belavezhskaya Accords: On 8 December, Yeltsin met Ukrainian president Leonid Kravchuk and the leader of Belarus, Stanislav Shushkevich, in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. In the Belavezha Accords, the three presidents declared that the Soviet Union no longer existed “as a subject of international law and geopolitical reality,” and announced the formation of a voluntary Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in its place.

According to Gorbachev, Yeltsin kept the plans of the Belovezhskaya meeting in strict secrecy and the main goal of the dissolution of the Soviet Union was to get rid of Gorbachev, who by that time had started to recover his position after the events of August. Gorbachev has also accused Yeltsin of violating the people’s will expressed in the referendum in which the majority voted to keep the Soviet Union united. On 12 December, the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR ratified the Belavezha Accords and denounced the 1922 Union Treaty. It also recalled the Russian deputies from the Council of the Union, leaving that body without a quorum. While this is regarded as the moment that the largest republic of the Soviet Union had seceded, this is not technically the case. Russia appeared to take the line that it was not possible to secede from a country that no longer existed.
Dec 26, 1991The dissolution of the USSR, occurred in 3 years and 1 month and by the end of 1991, there were 15 newly independent republics.


Other YouTube links are provided at the end of this blog.

Boris Yeltsin

He was the first freely elected president of Russia. He was a very popular president at the beginning, but as the economic crisis worsened, his popularity soon dropped. He had attempted to make drastic changes in the economy, by lifting price controls and other governmental controls, and at the same time, liberalize the government at a more rapid pace than under Gorbachev.

There are so many good documentaries and summaries on Yeltsin and Putin, that I will not attempt provide more information.

Inside story: Boris Yeltsin Part 1 on YouTude

Inside story: Boris Yeltsin- Part 2 on YouTube

Wikipedia: Boris Yeltsin

Vladimir Putin

Frontline: Putin’s Way (produced in 2015, after the takeover of Crimea)

Frontline: Putin’s Road to War

Wikipedia: Valdimir Putin

Military spending as a percentage of GDP is similar, with a low of 2.7% in 1998 and a high of 5.5% in 2016.


Acceptance into NATO

Acceptance of applications to NATO required the approval of the Allied powers, including the US and Canada. For the US, the Senate must vote to approval acceptance. By the accords to re-unify Germany, the former state of East Germany dissolved, so the united Germany was a member of NATO.

Since Bush, every president has supported entry of Eastern European countries into NATO.

Bush, HWEast Germany, due to accords of German re-unification, 9-Oct-90
Clinton, W.Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, 12-March-1999
Bush, WBulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, 29-Mar-2004
ObamaAlbania, Croatia 1-April-2009
TrumpMontenegro, 5-June-2017
BidenNorth Macedonia, 27-March-2020

Required steps for Entry

There are a series of necessary steps prior to admission. It begins with a country expressing a desire to join. A country’s participation in the Membership Action Plan (MAP) entails the annual presentation of reports concerning its progress on five different measures:

(1) Willingness to settle international, ethnic or external territorial disputes by peaceful means, commitment to the rule of law and human rights, and democratic control of armed forces
(2) Ability to contribute to the organization’s defense and missions
(3) Devotion of sufficient resources to armed forces to be able to meet the commitments of membership
(4) Security of sensitive information, and safeguards ensuring it
(5) Compatibility of domestic legislation with NATO cooperation

The foreign ministers from the Allied countries meet, and review the application for admission. If approved, then the US Senate must vote for admission. The last country to be admitted was North Macedonia.

NATO Military Operations

See: Wikipedia, List of NATO operations

What is striking about the list of NATO operations, is since NATO was founded in 1949, for the first 43 years, there were no NATO operations. Many of the operations were done in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions. Russia can always use its veto power to strike down a Security Council resolution.

NATO Expansion Promises

Putin claims NATO promised not to expand in 1990. The best repudiation of this claim is given in the link below:

Brookings Institute: Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev says “No.”

You Tube Links:

Gravitas: Did NATO push Russia into attacking Ukraine?

This video is certainly controversial. I do not accept that Russia has reason to be fearful of NATO. Moreover, this is in the mindset of Putin, having been in isolation during Covid-19 pandemic. The statement that George H.W. Bush promised Gorbachev it would not expand NATO eastward was never part of any agreement. Gorbachev said it just didn’t come up in the 4+2 Treaty negotiations, except in regard to NATO deployments in the former Eastern Germany. NATO had no plans to expand eastward, in 1990, because the countries belong to the Warsaw Pact. No new members for 9 years following the tearing down of the Berlin Wall. The Warsaw Pact was dissolved because its member nations no longer considered it necessary.

The comment by William Burns in 2008, that accepting of Ukraine into NATO would be viewed as a hostile act, is also accurate, and it is noted that Ukraine is not a part of NATO. The strong protest of NATO expansion from Russia at the 2007 Munich Conference is correct. I may comment on this video in my next blog.

Tech ARP Did Russia Promise NATO not to expand one inch to the West?

Well done video.

Frontline: Putin’s Revenge

FRONTLINE tells the story of how Russian President Vladimir Putin came to see the United States as an enemy — and how U.S. intelligence came to believe he targeted the 2016 presidential election.


Unlike other posts, this posting is meant to be informative rather than address a particular issue. The buildup of hate against NATO and the US by Putin, can not be attributed to a single event. Visitors are free to add their own comments and/or links.

It does not in anyway provide justification for the Ukrainian invasion.

Stay tuned,