Why is there no JFK for Biden who is Krushev & Zelensky who is Castro in the "Ukraine... Equivalen[ce] of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Reverse"?
Professor Augusto Zimmermann, who is the head of law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education in Perth, appears to be saying that there is no John F. Kennedy to counter Joe Biden who is the equivalent of Nikita Krushev and his crony "Volodymyr Zelensky... [the] danc[er] in heels" both of whom are apparent warmongers.
Zelensky in this Biden is Krushev analogy is equivalent to Fidel Castro in the "Ukraine... equivalen[ce] of the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse":
The prevailing narrative blames President Vladimir Putin for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. While Putin is undoubtedly responsible for the humanitarian disaster that is unfolding in Ukraine, this narrative fails to consider the role that successive American administrations and NATO may have played in this tragic situation.
Although successive U.S. administrations have been trying to turn Ukraine into an American bulwark, the United States would never tolerate Canada or Mexico asking to join a military alliance with Russia and allowing weapons of mass destruction to be installed within its borders.
As noted by John J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago:
“The United States does not tolerate distant great powers deploying military forces anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, much less on its borders. Imagine the outrage in Washington if China built an impressive military alliance and tried to include Canada and Mexico in it. Logic aside, Russian leaders have told their Western counterparts on many occasions that they consider NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine unacceptable, along with any effort to turn those countries against Russia—a message that the 2008 Russian-Georgian war also made crystal clear.”
In this sense, Ukraine is the political, geographical, and diplomatic equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse.
In 1962, the world faced a similarly dangerous situation, when, during the Cold War, the Soviets installed nuclear missiles in Cuba—a neighboring country to the United States. Faced with that looming threat, President John F. Kennedy ordered the naval blockade of the island, lifted only when the Soviet Union withdrew their missiles from Cuba.
Just as the United States did not accept, in 1962, the Soviet threat along its border, in this new kind of “Cold War,” Russia’s autocratic president is unwilling to have a U.S. military presence at his country’s doorsteps and demands the reversal of NATO’s expansionist policy.
NATO is basically a tool of the United States, and its granting of membership to Eastern European states may not have been intended to bolster their security but, instead, could have been a means of encircling Russia and selling military weapons to more “pro-Western” governments. [https://www.theepochtimes.com/ukraine-conflict-is-it-the-cuban-missile-crisis-in-reverse_4350245.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-03-21&utm_medium=email&est=lFLPU%2BcY9vfaEZG%2FmE3XJNTmcwd%2Bk36igPTdmACe4LemXTGuNvjkpS6OmK5H]
With this in mind, the Mundabor website reported on "NATO Mercenaries" and Zelensky seemingly helping to bring about unnecessary civilian deaths:
But I have other questions about it:
1) Are the populations of the NATO Countries aware that we are sending mercenaries to a war theatre? A mercenary is a mercenary whatever the name you give him. We should be informed and able to say what we think.
2) How is sending mercenaries in the Ukraine not a hostile NATO act? Why should sending highly specialised soldiers not be a hostile act, but sending greener, drafted soldier be? Granted, the mercenaries would fight with Ukraine uniforms, but a hostile intention is a hostile intention whatever the uniform that is employed.
I am not saying that it is always wrong to employing mercenaries. What I am saying is that the country employing mercenaries is choosing a less politically laden, if more expensive, way to achieve a “boots on the ground” situation, which, however you colour it, it’s still boots on the ground.
This is a dangerous development, which could escalate in a very, very dangerous way, and which should be subject to public debate and scrutiny; so that, if we are nuked tomorrow, we at least know why and because of whose fault.
In my eyes, the energies of the NATO Countries would be much better employed making clear to Zelensky & Co. that the inevitable is coming and that he should get to grips with the idea of doing what is reasonable rather than letting his civilians die in the hope of lucrative media contracts for him, and of an easy escape for his Nazi hounds of the Azov battalions.
The cognitive dissonance of your average, brainwashed European voter must also be staggering: the Ukraine seems to permanently be about to win and on the bring of annihilation at the same time, according to the emotions that the Western Media want to excite at any given time.
Fact: innocent people are dying unnecessarily every day to feed the Evil Globalist Empire.Their blood is mainly on Zelensky’s and his supporters’ hands. [https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2022/03/21/boots-on-the-ground-or-nato-mercenaries-and-us/]
Also, the Mundabor website gives a possible explanation of what some of his motives could possibly be for "refus[ing] to be NATO neutral; [and] for that reason... plunging us all into a world war":
Still, after a week at the latest it was abundantly clear that the West would not intervene, and the EU would not even do without gas and oil. What followed was a kabuki theatre in which the Western Nations do everything to make people forget that they are financing Putin’s war, every day, with their own money. In fact, it is very realistic to say that Putin is now making more money out of rising energy prices than he is leaving on the table because of sanctions. Energy prices and sanctions which, both, will severely punish the West, now auto-sanctioning itself with high energy prices, loss of income, and big production disruptions.
Zelensky, from his vantage point, now sees his Country slowly but surely being shellacked to pieces, and the Russian restraint we have seen in the first weeks of operations is, if you ask me, not going to continue.
At some point, it’s going to be Grozny all over again, and without any reasonable hope of victory for the Ukrainians.
Meanwhile, Zelensky also rejects the extremely reasonable conditions extended to him by Russia a couple of days ago. Why would he do that? Does he really care about Ukraine? Does he really care about the safety of his civilians? How does he think he is going to win? With tweets and TV rants?
If you ask me, he is playing a cynical game. He does not want to be a reasonable loser. He wants to be a hero standing on the debris of his destroyed Country.
The Country will be half destroyed, but he will be (literally) quite the shit. He will be offered exile to the US, where book publishers will give him 20 millions for his book, and Netflix double as much for documentaries.
He will be the apostle of the peace he did not want to make.
He will be the new Yassir Arafat, fattening on the suffering of his people.
The alternative is, to him, a losing one. Accepting the very reasonable Russian conditions would make of him an intelligent loser, but a loser still. You don’t get 40 millions from Netflix for signing a treaty giving them what they want, and in this perspective, how many military and civilian lives are spared is immaterial. Zelensky is interested in building his own monument, not in saving destruction for his Country. [https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2022/03/09/building-your-own-monument-president-zelensky-netflix-and-the-twitter-wars/]