this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2022
-2 points (45.8% liked)
World News
32895 readers
756 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
While nothing justified Russian invasion of Ukraine, it's reductionist to ignore the reasons behind why the invasion happened. The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO, and plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this for many years now. Here's what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Academics, such as John Mearsheimer, gave talks explaining why NATO actions would ultimately lead to conflict this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Pretty much the breakdown to your argument is this (as mostly cited from your sources).
And the west is doing that by trying to get Ukraine into NATO and into the EU.
Which... sure, you can infer that the west is strictly doing this for exploitative reasons (the same argument applies with Russia). However have you considered that Ukraine may want to be part of the west?
It's also kinda bullshit to deny someone's participation in an organisation like the EU just because they are neighbour of Russia. Some of the above points in your comment can be reduce to: "Don't include Ukraine or any neighbours of Russia into EU because that will make Russia mad". However I get why the authors are making these recommendations because it is coming from the angle of US security first and foremost.
What you have also failed to grasp here is how the word fault fits in the lecture. Their point here is to explain that "the west could have done better here" rather than "The west triggered this" because he leverages a lot of blame of particular incidents (violent and undemocratic actions) with Russia but asks us to reflect and consider how we could have handled it differently.
Funnily enough the video appears to have once again, shown the timeline of events which opposes your view. I don't know how you keep doing this where you constantly quote sources which seem to defeat your own viewpoint and arguments made in the past and now.
With the first quote above and the following quote: "Russia has gone through great lengths to make sure that those pro-russian forces in eastern Ukraine are capable of maintaining a certain amount of independence" when talking the separatists.
This captures the volatility of the situation with Russia and how much they want control over neighboring countries, regardless if that country wants their influence or not. Pretty much I think you have failed to see that... the authors you have quoted here are treating Russia as volatile and expansionist nation. Once again, this is mixed in with their their goal to maintain US security.
The problem with the George Kennan's argument is that people were being threatened in Europe back in 91-98 where Russia was actively involved in conflicts, it's revisionist to say "No one was threatening anyone else" and its also a little absurd coming from someone whose job was to 'contain' the soviet union and to reduce their influence. There is more at play with Russia than what Kennan infers at the time of his note. Some contributing factors here: You have the hyper-capitalist turn with Yeltsin at the helm, division of territories, loss of power and rise of oligarchs in the new capitalist system.
The authors general consensus is best reduced to: "Russia doesn't want the west involved in any matters relating to its neighbours". However, that's not a decision that Russia gets to make (and the USA shouldn't get to make that decision either). The authors make it clear that "Russia will get violent if you do get involved", once again... not okay for Russia to do and it hypocritical to question involvement when they also get involved.
Personally the Ivan Katchanovski article was the biggest red flag that you seem to actively seek out pro-Russian sources to support your world view. It's fine to do that but balance it out.
No, you are trying to make it seem like that is the case. The tensions were there however the level of escalation that Russia took was unacceptable as with most of their actions prior to this.
Have you considered that Ukraine is not a homogeneous blob that you're making out to be and has had a civil war over this issue for the past 8 years?
Furthermore, have you considered that the west has been interfering and manipulating Ukrainian politics which culminated in a coup against the democratically elected government in 2014?
What you appear to grasp that the sort of posturing you're engaged in doesn't actually achieve any positive results. The reality is that either the west tries to find way to work with Russia constructively or we get closer to a nuclear holocaust. If you don't understand why that should be avoided at all costs, I really don't know what else to tell you.
You've literally engaged in doing this in your comment. What is or isn't acceptable in international politics comes down to what countries can get away with doing. That's the reality we live in. Russia feels that it's strong enough to challenge the west and they're doing it. Wars happens when both sides feel that they have a good chance of winning. Once again, if you don't understand the danger to humanity from a conflict between Russia and the west then there's no point having any further discussion.
How much has that weighted and how much the pre-2014 government was legitimate. I'm open to the possibility that yes, the country governance could have been stolen from the people by the west. But also it's totally makes sense to have a wide willingness to join the EU for economic reasons. And to have a willingness to join NATO after the 2008 Russo-Georgian War. Both would be completely legitimate.
The Russian government has been trying to manipulate Ukraine very strongly also so it's difficult to tell if the governments wanting join the west was illegitimate.
Russia wasn't the one that ran a coup in Ukraine, and they were perfectly fine with Ukraine having a neutral government that worked with both the west and Russia.