The Russians Are Coming, Again!

 

By now, most of the world knows that US president, Donald Trump, wants to annex Greenland for the United States. Furthermore, he has said that he's ready to use military force if needed. Naturally, Europe, especially Denmark, the country who actually governs Greenland, is worried that this might happen. After all, Denmark is a NATO ally and this would be considered a direct attack on Europe. 

Trump's reason for wanting to annex Greenland is to keep America safe from the Russians and Chinese. To me, that doesn't make sense because either attacked Greenland, then they would have the full force of NATO to deal with. The affair has me thinking back to the 1980s and Ronald Reagan's contra war on Nicaragua. Reagan's assertion was that if the Nicaraguan government wasn't overthrown, then the Russians were going to use it as a jump off point for the invasion of the US. So, is this a case of history repeating itself with the same old argument? 

Since the 1980s, the Sandinistas are no longer the government in Nicaragua and the Russians haven't tried to invade the US. Of course, if they wanted to do, they only need to cross 53 miles of water and they're in the continental United States and before you ask, "What would they want with Alaska?" they would get one-fifth of the US domestic oil supply and have a springboard for invading the mainland. That makes more sense than transporting troops across the ocean near to the US to stage a land invasion from the southern border. 

The same holds true for Greenland. They would have to sail past our NATO ally, Norway, who would alert the rest of NATO of what was coming and NATO could react accordingly. Any such move by Russia would result in heavy losses, even if they managed to take Greenland. It would be even more senseless for China to attempt such a move. This leads me to believe the more popular thought behind Trump's motives. While Reagan simply did not want a left wing state at America's back door, Trump wants Greenland for its resources. He is threatening to use military might for economic gain and I can't go along with that and neither does Europe. 

Today, World War II and a Bit of the 1980s

 

1938 Munich Agreement 

I know, I haven't posted here in The Real 80s in nine years but in line with what's happening in the world today, I feel I must venture my thoughts. A lot has happened over the years I've been away, like Covid, which forced a shutdown of most of the world but the one I want to talk about is the war between Russia and Ukraine. 

This war has been going on for three years now and has caused much death and suffering in the area. In spite of overwhelming odds, the Ukraine has been holding off the Russian onslaught, with the help of the US and European Union. However, since the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States, things have taken a worrying turn. 

President Trump has stated that he wants to end the war and be the big peacemaker. First, I don't fault him for wanting to put an end to this war. However, I object to how he is going about it and the main way is to ignore history. See, Trump wants Russia to keep the territory it originally captured in a 2013 invasion and is hinting that Russia keep the territory it has captured in its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. 

Trump and Russian president, Vladimir Putin, have been having unilateral talks without Ukraine being president. Here's where history is being ignored. Back in 1938, Great Britain and France, without inviting Czechoslovakia, agreed to give Adolph Hitler a piece of Czech territory known as the Sudetenland. British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, came back waving a peace of paper saying we have peace in our time. As we all know, this only encouraged Hitler further and a year later, the world was plunged into its second world war.This is why it is imperative that Ukraine be included in any peace talks between the US and Russia.  

My question here is: Does Trump think that allowing Putin to keep captured territory, especially when international law does not recognize the acquisition of territory through military conquest, will establish peace in the region? What is worse is that the president is trying to make Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, out to be the bad guy. He calls Zelensky a dictator who started the war. He and his followers seem to forget that Russia invaded Ukraine, not the other way around. Zelensky was democratically elected and only suspended elections on account of the war. The very same thing Winston Churchill did in World War 2. On the flip side, the US had a presidential election in 1944, which is great for democracy but it resulted in no major operations in the month before the election and could have been the cause as to why Germany was allowed to regroup and plan and carry out a counter attack in the December known now as The Battle of the Bulge. On the other hand, Russia's elections are a sham. Anyone who opposes or even speaks out against Putin is arrested. So, I ask, who's the real dictator?  

Let's face it, Donald Trump's attack on Zelensky and the Ukraine was not in the best interests of anyone. By doing so, he has alienated himself and America. As an American who lives in the UK, even the most conservative of British newspapers, many of whom are normally pro-Republican have condemned Trump for his words. If Donald Trump really wants to bring peace to Eastern Europe, he would have both Putin and Zelensky come to the table to bring about a peace deal, while respecting the rule of international law. Now, here's where the 1980s comes into it. Some Americans are balking at the government using taxpayer's money to fund a war in Europe. Actually, they are helping a nation defend itself against an agressor but I digress. Back in the 1980s, the Reagan administration used taxpayer's money to fund a bunch of so-called freedom fighters called the Contras to overthrow the government of Nicaragua. The reason was the belief that if Nicaragua became communist, the Soviets, (Russians), would use it as a jump off point the invade the US. I called it nonsense then and it still is. Reagan was Republican but Republicans today seem to forget that.