News from around the world!
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
What kind of mediation would work? Doesn't the Russian government just want to take control of Ukraine? If it's "just" demilitarized (not puppet leader put in place) then the pro Russian separatists governments could seize power on the whole country.
I would get that the Russian speakers region could need independence if the central government discriminates them. But Russia doesn't need to invade the whole country for this.
maybe Putin should stop "intensifying" the situation by pulling out...
Quite obviously not going to happen at this point. The only question at this point is how long the people of Ukraine are going to be made to suffer, and the west appears to determined to ensure that there is a maximum amount of suffering by blocking any meaningful negotiations and egging Ukraine on to keep fighting.
Ah yes, because it's the west's fault for invading Ukraine and the west is in control of the Russian military so they could pull out anytime. Of course Ukraine clearly doesn't speak for itself as well and It's not like Zelensky hasn't appealed to Russia to stop?
It's all so clear.
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:
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.
Thanks for the resources.
I fail to understand the actual treat to Russia from NATO. Because even if all bordering countries would join NATO. There is no way Russia will ever get attacked. It's has the 1st or 2nd largest nuclear arsenal in the world. There is no way a neighbor would attack Russia. A neighbor is even more easy to bomb than the USA. Even with much less nuclear power, the level of deterrence would be well enough to fear nothing from a military standpoint.
So a preventive war for this makes no sense. The Russian government can still claim otherwise to have an excuse to start this war.
Even if Ukraine would have been more successfully manipulated by the western governments than the Russian one. A preventive war still makes no sense. It's not like the Russian government care for the Ukrainian people having a right of self-determination and would want to help them do so.
The only things that matters in the end is that Russia sees NATO as a threat, and NATO has done absolutely nothing to change that perception. Simply repeating that NATO isn't a threat while continuously expanding it towards the Russian border and attacking countries for past 30 years isn't exactly helping make the case that it's a benign entity.
The irony with Russia's actions here is they may well backfire. Countries that were previously debating membership may finally decide that any downside of NATO membership is nothing compared to the threat of being the next country that Russia invades. Russia already has invaded two of its neighbors and holds the loyalties of Belarus under a dictator. Russia has openly threatened Finland and Sweden. The invasion of Ukraine has caused support for membership to surge in both of those countries.
Countries are joining NATO because they fear Russia. If Russia didn't want countries joining NATO, maybe they shouldn't threaten their neighbors? It's not exactly making the case that it's a benign entity.
I don't think you understand what's going to happen to western economies in the coming months. As energy prices shoot through the roof that means that costs for everything will as well. All the necessities, food, transport, are going to become unaffordable for the vast majority of the people. I wonder what will happen then...
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Options-Traders-Are-Betting-On-300-Oil.html
I'm aware that there will be a severe cost, especially to Europe. I see it as that much more significant, that countries are willing to significantly impact their own economy to protect Ukraine. This is of course in the midst of existing supply chain issues. I'm sad that the people who are going to be hurt the most will ultimately be your everyday Russia person and not the richest Russians who have more power to strongarm Putin out of power. Any damage the West will feel with by felt many times over in Russia, given how much smaller their economy is.
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.
Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
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.