17 ms·

Russia says Ukraine talks hit 'dead end', Poland warns of risk of war

labrador 5y ago
I fully support the sovereignty of Ukraine, but I understand the Russian position from watching Prof. John Mearsheimer lectures, particularly this one: Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 John Mearsheimer John Mearsheimer is an American political scientist and international relations scholar, who belongs to the realist school of thought. He is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. He has been described as the most influential realist of his generation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer
- metabagel 5y ago
  You can't support the sovereignty of Ukraine while also supporting Russia's hegemony over Ukraine. Ukraine has the right to defend itself against Russian aggression and to seek alliances which can help to that end. The Russian autocracy views democracy as a threat. This is really no different than Germany, prior to WW2, seeking to dominate the countries around it. Some of those countries had ethnic Germans living there, and that was part of the justification used at that time, as it is by Putin today. Russian security assurances aren't about trying to defend the country against an encroaching NATO, but rather trying to restore as much as possible the domination of Russia over former USSR states.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - bsedlm 5y ago
    the first part of the video by that professor, explains that ukraine is a very divided country, it's made up by two different groups of people, ukrainian-speakers and russian-speakers. So you gotta take this into account when considering what "Ukraine" wants. > Russian security assurances aren't about trying to defend the country against an encroaching NATO, but rather trying to restore as much as possible the domination of Russia over former USSR states. well, the video explains better than I could in one comment why this is nonsense. It 100% is all about Russian preventing a rival military base in a border country.
    - alkonaut 5y ago
      > So you gotta take this into account when considering what "Ukraine" wants. Ukraine is a sovereign state with internationally recognized borders. Whether Russia thinks that Russia is “anywhere Russian is spoken” or “Anywhere Russians live” isn’t really relevant. “Ethnic Russians” living in Ukraine are Ukrainians, and no amount of unrest or even mistreatment of those citizens would be legal a cause for military action. Either Russia recognizes the borders and sovereignty of Ukraine or it doesn’t. And to be honest, if Russia doesn’t which appears to be the case, then it should probably expect any smaller neighbors to join defense alliances.
      - bsedlm 5y ago
        Which works democratically, there's people in Ukraine who will support Russia and people who will support "the west" The point is also that it's borders are badly drawn, there's an air of civil war to this conflict within Ukraine. ...then again, this is just rando interent opinion and I have no stakes in any of this.
        alkonaut 5y ago
        > Which works democratically, there's people in Ukraine who will support Russia and people who will support "the west" The point is also that it's borders are badly drawn, there's an air of civil war to this conflict within Ukraine Absolutely. And a civil war (which you can argue has been a thing for many years now) is a tragedy. But of course - and this is the whole point - no one crosses a sovereign nations borders to aid a side in a civil war, without a UN resolution to do so. And Russia not only actively supports separatists in eastern ukraine, it also more or less started this conflict AND annexed Crimea.
    - esarbe 5y ago
      > It 100% is all about Russian preventing a rival military base in a border country. Not so sure about that. To me this looks more like a diversion from internal political problems, "Wag the dog" style.
  - finiteseries 5y ago
    Mearsheimer doesn’t even recognize the sovereignty of Ukraine, it’s realist vs liberal schools of thought (with realism having been sidelined for decades in the west). There’s a Foreign Affairs article version instead of the hour long random YouTube lecture version: https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-t... In a nutshell of what it’s like: One also hears the claim that Ukraine has the right to determine whom it wants to ally with and the Russians have no right to prevent Kiev from joining the West. This is a dangerous way for Ukraine to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might often makes right when great-power politics are at play. Abstract rights such as self-determination are largely meaningless when powerful states get into brawls with weaker states. … Even if one rejects this analysis, however, and believes that Ukraine has the right to petition to join the EU and NATO, the fact remains that the United States and its European allies have the right to reject these requests. Guy did argue for Ukraine to keep nukes in the 90s though, it’s just a much more mechanistic type of thinking.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    That is true but there is a history. While it is a prominent Kremlin talking point, there is a civil conflict in Ukraine. The initial reason was that some wanted free trade agreements with the EU while others did not, because it would mean their industry breaking down due to more competitive European alternatives and investors buying their infrastructure. But this is not an ethnic or cultural conflict. You have Russians and Ukrainians on both fronts of this conflict. While most Ukrainians are nationalists, it is very true though that the Maidan factions is vastly more interested in democracy and the Anti-Maidan one, or whatever they call themselves now. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas Ukraine is complicated. You have to read up a lot. Probably begin with the orange revolution but even the time before and the relation to the EU and US is important. To take sides here until the internal conflicts are resolved basically means supporting another proxy war. If it isn't already one because the factions are dependent on outside help to keep up the fight. The south-eastern Russia associated group certainly more so than Kiev and co. The conflict also hits innocents, the MH17 to Malaysia with a lot of Dutch people got shot down by the Russian associated group.
- float4 5y ago
  Thanks for sharing the video. I think the downvotes you got are unfair, as you're just linking to a talk from a, from the looks of it, very distinguished professor, so I upvoted you. However, I would like to inform you that there's a good article that was written in response to Mearsheimer's talk: https://archive.is/6vdRf https://archive.is/6vdRf
  - labrador 5y ago
    That's a very interesting article that I encourage interested observers to read. I always like hearing from McFaul. It includes a rebuttal by John J. Mearsheimer at the end: It is not surprising that Michael McFaul and Stephen Sestanovich disagree with my account of what caused the Ukraine crisis. Both the policies they helped frame and execute while in the U.S. government and their responses to my article exemplify the liberal foreign policy consensus that helped cause the crisis in the first place...
nickpp 5y ago
It's funny when the aggressor is "negotiating" to attack or not. The biggest bully in the region feeling "threatened" by its neighbours seeking any possible way to protect themselves from it. Like a government-level "Why are you hitting yourself?"
- labster 5y ago
  Crazy idea of the day: why not offer NATO membership to both Ukraine and Russia? Then if either side attacks the other, all the other members are obligated to defend against the aggressor. Entangling alliances are like abstraction. The only thing that solves it is more of it.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > why not offer NATO membership to both Ukraine and Russia? NATO is a mutual defence pact. Russia is the most militarily aggressive country in Europe. Agreeing to defend the bully when their chickens come home to roost is a tough sell.
    - nivenkos 5y ago
      Most of them are internal conflicts though. It's not such a crazy idea really, but I'd rather we just abolished NATO entirely. I'm no fan of Russia, but I don't want to go to war just because they shoot down a Turkish fighter plane in Syria, etc.
      - labster 5y ago
        That’s not how NATO works. It’s a defense pact not a suicide pact. In any military action outside their territory, other countries are not obligated to help. Admittedly casus belli are often a bit of a stretch, but so far NATO has never joined an aggressive war. Various countries chose to join the American Crusade in Iraq but the war in Afghanistan was certainly started in defense. NATO has ensured 70 years of peace in Western Europe. There hasn’t been a period this peaceful since the Pax Romana, which still had plenty of wars. Why mess up a good thing? Less people die in wars now. And while the value in trade and infrastructure compared to land is certainly a part of ensuring the peace, that was also true for the decades preceding the Great War. The modern international order is simply more peaceful.
dzonga 5y ago
I don't blame Russia's stance. I blame the cold war and the US's two pronged approach to most diplomacy matters. NATO was formed to halt the power of the soviet union. once the soviet union fell. NATO should've been disbanded. anyone with a pea of a brain would've seen the consequences of not abandoning nato, and now we're about to pay for those mistakes.
- dzonga 5y ago
  as a follow up, I should add that I'm not advocating for Ukraine to be invaded. War is a racket. I'm advocating for things military alliances like Nato etc to be abandoned in times of peace.
  - timeon 5y ago
    Imagine if Ukraine was in NATO. We would not have this discussion because there will be no tanks surrounding Ukraine like they are today.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    These aren't times of peace. These are times of teetering on the knife-edge of open war. And we learned a while ago about being unprepared when the shooting starts. It's not fun.
- sc68cal 5y ago
  Absolutely. and this is a view shared by prominent US national security officials, that it is the United States that has caused this crisis. https://theanalysis.news/is-nato-for-security-or-aggression-wilkerson-engler/ https://theanalysis.news/is-nato-for-security-or-aggression-... Remember, it was the United States that broke the promise to not expand NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union. > Paul Jay >Crazy! Larry, how much of this is driven essentially, really by what domestic politics, that you get this saber-rattle and look all huff and puff on both sides, not just the American and west side, but the same thing goes for Putin, satisfying the nationalist fervor in Russia. And two, and maybe this is the most important thing, continuing this rationale of enormous arms purchases, and NATO helps keep all these countries within at least the Western arms market and mostly the American arms market, but they can’t be serious about actually fighting? They know what a shitstorm that leads to. > Larry Wilkerson >I hope you’re right. The history of warfare, especially major warfare in the last 200 years or so, doesn’t support that logic. Let me go back to something Yves said. I think one of the greatest travesties of US foreign policy in the last 25-30 years, and that’s a lot of things, including the invasion of Iraq, was the violation of Jim Bakker and Eduard Shevardnadze, and ultimately Reagan and Herbert Walker Bush, and Gorbachev’s promise that NATO would not go one step further East if Germany were allowed to reunify and remain in NATO.
danjac 5y ago
The bigger question is "why now". Ukraine is not joining NATO or the EU any time soon. Russia has de facto annexed Crimea and its ongoing support for separatists in Donbas keeps the region unstable to its advantage. I suspect two reasons: Putin's flagging domestic support and Russia's (and to be honest, the world's) perception that America is currently so divided and weak it will be unable to offer much resistance than token sanctions (nor will the EU, given Germany's self-flaggelating energy policy). The danger is that this might snowball into a larger conflict - if Russia thinks the US is no longer a threat, what's stopping the Chinese from going into Taiwan, or the North Koreans causing mischief?
- mclightning 5y ago
  Maybe Putin wants that "We are sending the immigrants card" by having a big border with EU; one way (ukraine as russia) or another (ukraine as a swiftly welcomed eu member)
- chasd00 5y ago
  are the rest of the US allies in the world so powerless? Isn't this why we have the UN? Without the US, does the world just go back to war, death, and destruction everywhere? That seems crazy to me.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Without the US, does the world just go back to war, death, and destruction everywhere? We're in a uniquely, some argue unnaturally, peaceful period [1]. For most of human history, lords spilled blood bickering over borders. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
  - gilrain 5y ago
    Go back to? The war, death, and destruction never stopped… we just exported it to others.
    - zpeti 5y ago
chasd00 5y ago
why is NATO a threat? Has NATO ever started a conflict, seized territory, or imposed sanctions? Genuinely asking, I pretty ignorant here.
- tguvot 5y ago
  NATO is a threat because NATO is enemy. there is kind of circular logic over there.
- john_moscow 5y ago
  It's for internal consumption. The average life quality is dropping both in Russia and the West, so the governments need to divert attention and redirect the frustration to external targets. The "NATO being a threat to the whole world" is the Russian version of "Climate Change will kill us all, so don't even think of starting a family (and wondering why your current salary makes it rather challenging)".
- Drunk_Engineer 5y ago
  Russia has always in been conflict with Western powers, and has been invaded on several occasions.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mrguyorama 5y ago
    Can you name an example of one of these invasions?
    - Drunk_Engineer 5y ago
      Is that a serious question? World War 2 for starters...
      - mrguyorama 5y ago
        I guess I hadn't considered Nazi Germany as a "western power". I'm a code monkey, not a political scientist. The question was as genuine as could be. I figured I didn't know the history of the former soviet union very well and was missing something.
7rm0LFlU6t8NnW1 5y ago
USA annexes Hawaii, no one bats an eye. Russia annexes Crimea, everyone loses their minds.
- eitland 5y ago
  You pretend these are equal: Well, they are not. There is a good deal over a century between those two events and a whole lot has changed since then - even though I should admit not as much as I want. Russias aggression against Ukraine however is at a completely different level than anything anyone has seen in Europe since a long time ago (and then it was the Sovjet, and before that Nazi-Germany.)
- cornhole 5y ago
  How do I sign up to get paid to shill for Russian interests on the internet? I have no convictions and would like to get money doing what you do.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  Colonialism went out of style a century ago and this whole discussion is based on the fact that Russia didn’t get that memo.
  - VictorPath 5y ago
    Someone should tell that to the Iraqis, Afghans, Palestine etc.
- esarbe 5y ago
  I guess that's sarcasm? Because I honestly cannot tell. Yes, the U.S used its imperialist power to annex Hawai'i in 1897. That was before most of the modern foundations of international law - in particular article 2(4) of Chapter 1 of the United Nations Articles[0] - were put in place. No excuse, but still - different times. There are many aspects of U.S. foreign policy I positively abhor. But I'm not alone; the coups and the assassinations and the fiscal bullying and the straight out illegal wars waged against foreign nations have put quite a dent into the U.S.' lady-liberty image. Despite all that, the U.S. - at least since the end of WW2nd - hasn't seriously meddled in territorial growth or annexations. That's Russia's game and - given the assurances given to Ukraine after the collapse of the SU - especially perfidious. All in all, I'm quite happy not to live in the Russian sphere of influence. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_I_of_the_United_Nations_Charter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_I_of_the_United_Nation...
sleepysysadmin 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_and_Comprehensive_Free_Trade_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_and_Comprehensive_Free_Tr... This is what this is all about. It's not so much the money but also militaristic strategic assets. Moldova and Georgia doesnt have Russian war to deal with. Which really comes down to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol_Naval_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol_Naval_Base Russia has lots of land all over the black sea. They could build a gigantic base near rostov-on-don. So why dont they? To strike from and base at Rostov would be foolish. So many tight bottlenecks to get in and out. Maybe Novorossiysk instead? but no crimea is obviously important to them. Except novo is happening. They are building a naval base there. It will take time. In probably about 10-15 years crimea will go back to ukraine and this will be all over. What's unsaid here. Why is it so important for russia to maintain such a huge naval presence in the black sea? This fleet isn't going past istanbul. Navy isn't even useful in war anymore really. An F35 from 40,000ft is practically untouchable by the russian navy and could probably sink their entire fleet from 300km away. So what is it? Romania? Bulgaria? Turkey? Who on the black sea is Russia so afraid of?
- democracy 5y ago
  Putin doesn't want to lose power. All these propaganda, military moves are to give poor people something to take their eyes and minds off the reality - him robbing the country for 30 years. If you have absolute power for long time you know what happens.
  - sleepysysadmin 5y ago
    >Putin doesn't want to lose power. All these propaganda, military moves are to give poor people something to take their eyes and minds off the reality - him robbing the country for 30 years. If you have absolute power for long time you know what happens. I dont see this as the answer. If it's really power, march to Kyiv and take it all. They could do it. Crimea is more or less the only annexation because that's all they want. Even the syrian conflict and russia is the same story. They are really just preserving their military base. So just on the other side of Turkey they have military base as well they are preserving. You also have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo... Then also look at Turkey's financial woes and it sure does look like Russia doing it. Turkey seems to understand this and has been making diplomatic efforts to repair relations. The irony is that it seems they are coming back together more recently because they hate the USA.
andreygrehov 5y ago
Here is an interesting lecture Vladimir Pozner (Russian journalist) gave at the Yale University about Putin, the Unites States and Ukraine - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ It's 3 years old, but relevant up until today, imho.
- mike_k 5y ago
  Regardless of the content, it should be noted that Pozner had (and probably still has) a very nice broadcast time on one of the most popular Russia's channels. He is smart enough not to look like an obvious regime proponent, but he is far from being very critical, AFAIK. He is like a figure made for all those "liberal" conformists, who think they are very progressive.
metabagel 5y ago
Kremlin File is an excellent podcast primarily about Russia's use of hybrid warfare to advance its agenda. https://kremlinfile.com/ https://kremlinfile.com/
- jhrozek 5y ago
  That sounds great, thanks I subscribed to it! Do you listen to any other similar podcasts you could recommend?
  - metabagel 5y ago
    This book seems to be very good, although I've only just started it. Putin's People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took On the West by Catherine Belton https://www.amazon.com/Putins-People-Took-Back-Russia/dp/0374238715 https://www.amazon.com/Putins-People-Took-Back-Russia/dp/037...
beginning_end 5y ago
I found Adam Tooze's overview very interesting: https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-68-putins-challenge-to?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-68-putins-challen...
- joeman1000 5y ago
  Finding this tough to read, the author writes poorly. I’m not saying the meaning is bad though, just that the writer should read more classics.
loourr 5y ago
I feel that these articles rarely give any perspective on Russia's issue which is that Ukraine joining NATO would be a violation of prior agreements and would result in armaments being placed at their boarder which they view as a risk and security breach. The US is basically saying we don't care and we are going to do it despite your objections and then pretending Russia threatening military action is unilateral hostility.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Ukraine joining NATO would be a violation of prior agreements This purported promise is a myth, see my comments here [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29924836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29924836
  - remarkEon 5y ago
    Calling it a "myth" misses the forest for the trees. What possible benefit to existing NATO members does Ukraine joining serve? I can't think of any, unless you define "benefit" as "intentionally antagonizing the former Cold War adversary". From the former Ambassador to Soviet Union[1]: >When the Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 there was no plan to expand NATO to the east and Gorbachev had been assured in 1990 that the alliance would not expand. When in fact it did expand right up to Russia’s borders, Russia was confronted with a radically different strategic situation than existed when the Budapest agreement was signed. Now, while it's true that there wasn't a treaty or a document that said "Ukraine will never join NATO", there was a good-faith understanding that NATO would not expand like it has. Gentlemen can disagree that this was or was not a realistic understanding of the security and geopolitical situation at that time, but it's genuinely odd that everyone acts like Russia is the sole aggressor in this. [1] https://www.krasnoevents.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/116679777/krasno_analysis_-_matlock_ukraine_-_dec._2021.pdf https://www.krasnoevents.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/116679777/krasn...
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > while it's true that there wasn't a treaty or a document that said "Ukraine will never join NATO", there was a good-faith understanding that NATO would not expand like it has Between whom? Gorbachev has no memory of it, based on his public statements. The supposed agreement was made in the context of Germany's reunification, something the Soviets not only agreed to but memorialized in various written agreements, none of which mention this supposed understanding. Also, wasn't the motivation for the 2014 invasion Ukraine's potential membership in the EU?
thamer 5y ago
This article was behind a paywall for me ("you have reached your article limit"). Archived copy: http://archive.today/IeVtE http://archive.today/IeVtE
uejfiweun 5y ago
Posted elsewhere, but there seems to be good discussion going on here: I hate to say it, but the US is clearly the provocateur here. There is no real reason that the US needs Ukraine, a state that has historically been part of Russia, in NATO. Having Ukraine in NATO does approximately jack shit to benefit a person like me, a regular peasant in the US. Imagine if the US lost the cold war and the USSR decided to invite Canada and Mexico into the Warsaw Pact - that's pretty much what is going on here. The propaganda machine is in full swing at this point, I think the rulers of the US are actively hoping for war. Why else would they be so provocative? If someone has an answer to this I'd love to hear it, but it really seems to me like this is just classic US empire building, disguised under a thick coat of media propaganda and misinformation. Would love to hear your thoughts, I'm no foreign policy expert.
- alkonaut 5y ago
  > the US is clearly the provocateur here In what sense exactly? What is the provocation? Remember - Ukraine isn’t offered a NATO membership. Also remember, in 2014 the same story unfolded but then the boogeyman was the EU.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  Ukraine's defense is about helping people who are being actively invaded by bigger foreign powers. Of course it doesn't directly benefit you. By your logic, donating to charity "does approximately jack shit to benefit a person like me." Also the US has done literally nothing to "provocate" anything. Euromaidan happened in 2014, Crimea was annexed, and Donbass separatists supported by Russia. Status quo is changing in favor of Ukraine being able to secure it's separatist territory again, so now it's time for Russia to further invade.
  - uejfiweun 5y ago
    See, I think this is just wrong. I think that we specifically shouldn't be getting involved in costly international conflicts to "help people". I think charity is pretty different, as there isn't a risk of a huge pushback when donating to charity. Whereas getting involved with this Ukraine situation could potentially result in a war. I don't think the US should be willing to go to war over this country that has historically been a part of Russia and is so far from our borders that it practically is geopolitically insignificant.
tomjen3 5y ago
Fuck it. Just announce that the rest of Ukraine is now under NATO protection and then let Russia choose the first move.
- smcl 5y ago
  Sounds like a really good way to end up embroiled in another pointless war which ruins yet another country
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    The pride of the Russian navy is at all times accompanied by a tugboat. Their forces are a joke and we need to stop them before they do something stupid.
    - smcl 5y ago
      That line of thinking worked well in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's hope we have a nice quick, clean war like we did there
      - tomjen3 5y ago
        Yes, we are going to have that. We should just not be stupid enough to ever attempt to build democracy or any such nonsense. Go in, lay waste, get out, just like we should have done in Afghanistan.
        smcl 5y ago
        > Go in, lay waste, get out Lay waste to what? Ukraine? They're the country we're supposed to be worried about Russia invading here...
credit_guy 5y ago
Highly recommend "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" by John Mearsheimer. For Russia, annexing (all or part of) Ukraine now is too good a deal to pass. Russia knows that invading with an overwhelming force will result in a virtually bloodless annexation, just like the Taliban took over Afghanistan in a matter of weeks, and just like they themselves took over Crimea. Ukraine claims they'll fight to the last drop of blood, but theory and practice are a bit disconnected when you are a garrison in a city that's being approached by a few tens of thousands of soldiers and a few thousand tanks. Thinks looks different still if 50 other cities surrendered without a fight by the time it's your turn. Russia is a country in the middle of a population collapse. They are less than 145 MM now, projected to get to 125 MM by 2050. Their great power aspirations dwindle by the day. But adding Ukraine, Belarus, Khazakstan and Uzbekistan brings an immediate boost of more than 100 MM. Every night Putin puts his head on the pillow, these things swirl in his head, "one hundred million more Russians", "Mother Russia great again", "they disrespect us now, we'll show them who's the boss", "enough is enough", etc, etc.
- rasz 5y ago
  >Ukraine claims they'll fight to the last drop of blood, but theory and practice are a bit disconnected when you are a garrison in a city that's being approached by a few tens of thousands of soldiers and a few thousand tanks. Thinks looks different still if 50 other cities surrendered without a fight by the time it's your turn. You have to be really insane. Poles did it at the start of WW2 resisting for a month https://origins.osu.edu/milestones/september-2014-nazis-take-poland-and-start-world-war-ii https://origins.osu.edu/milestones/september-2014-nazis-take... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/books/review/poland-1939-roger-moorhouse.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/books/review/poland-1939-... and again in 1944 for over two months https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising Twice with no direct outside help. So much for international security guarantees. Btw Ukraine also had a toilet paper full of UK/US promises https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... how much good did that accomplish?
  - credit_guy 5y ago
imartin2k 5y ago
There was a time in the 90s when the West promised Russia not to expand the NATO closer towards its borders. Later the West forgot about it. As much as I’m critical about most things Russia, I believe it’s understandable and legitimate for Russia to push back. In my eyes, there should be room for an agreement which indeed maintains some kind a “buffer zone” between both blocks. And the West needs to stop pretending it’s only Russia who’s the faulty one here, in this specific issue.
- nickpp 5y ago
  There wasn't. It's a lie spread by Russian propaganda.
Cyberthal 5y ago
I for one am excited to die for the Dear and Duly Elected Massively Popular Joe Biden's prudent and rational Foreign Policy. If the USA is to maintain its competitive fiat advantage, it must occasionally flatten the industrial capacities of competing world powers. Otherwise the world would be unsafe for democracy. We voters owe a great debt to the imminent sacrifices of the Ukrainian and Taiwanese peoples!

I fully support the sovereignty of Ukraine, but I understand the Russian position from watching Prof. John Mearsheimer lectures, particularly this one: Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 John Mearsheimer John Mearsheimer is an American political scientist and international relations scholar, who belongs to the realist school of thought. He is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. He has been described as the most influential realist of his generation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mearsheimer

metabagel 5y ago
You can't support the sovereignty of Ukraine while also supporting Russia's hegemony over Ukraine. Ukraine has the right to defend itself against Russian aggression and to seek alliances which can help to that end. The Russian autocracy views democracy as a threat. This is really no different than Germany, prior to WW2, seeking to dominate the countries around it. Some of those countries had ethnic Germans living there, and that was part of the justification used at that time, as it is by Putin today. Russian security assurances aren't about trying to defend the country against an encroaching NATO, but rather trying to restore as much as possible the domination of Russia over former USSR states.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bsedlm 5y ago
  the first part of the video by that professor, explains that ukraine is a very divided country, it's made up by two different groups of people, ukrainian-speakers and russian-speakers. So you gotta take this into account when considering what "Ukraine" wants. > Russian security assurances aren't about trying to defend the country against an encroaching NATO, but rather trying to restore as much as possible the domination of Russia over former USSR states. well, the video explains better than I could in one comment why this is nonsense. It 100% is all about Russian preventing a rival military base in a border country.
  - alkonaut 5y ago
    > So you gotta take this into account when considering what "Ukraine" wants. Ukraine is a sovereign state with internationally recognized borders. Whether Russia thinks that Russia is “anywhere Russian is spoken” or “Anywhere Russians live” isn’t really relevant. “Ethnic Russians” living in Ukraine are Ukrainians, and no amount of unrest or even mistreatment of those citizens would be legal a cause for military action. Either Russia recognizes the borders and sovereignty of Ukraine or it doesn’t. And to be honest, if Russia doesn’t which appears to be the case, then it should probably expect any smaller neighbors to join defense alliances.
    - bsedlm 5y ago
      Which works democratically, there's people in Ukraine who will support Russia and people who will support "the west" The point is also that it's borders are badly drawn, there's an air of civil war to this conflict within Ukraine. ...then again, this is just rando interent opinion and I have no stakes in any of this.
      - alkonaut 5y ago
        > Which works democratically, there's people in Ukraine who will support Russia and people who will support "the west" The point is also that it's borders are badly drawn, there's an air of civil war to this conflict within Ukraine Absolutely. And a civil war (which you can argue has been a thing for many years now) is a tragedy. But of course - and this is the whole point - no one crosses a sovereign nations borders to aid a side in a civil war, without a UN resolution to do so. And Russia not only actively supports separatists in eastern ukraine, it also more or less started this conflict AND annexed Crimea.
  - esarbe 5y ago
    > It 100% is all about Russian preventing a rival military base in a border country. Not so sure about that. To me this looks more like a diversion from internal political problems, "Wag the dog" style.
- finiteseries 5y ago
  Mearsheimer doesn’t even recognize the sovereignty of Ukraine, it’s realist vs liberal schools of thought (with realism having been sidelined for decades in the west). There’s a Foreign Affairs article version instead of the hour long random YouTube lecture version: https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-t... In a nutshell of what it’s like: One also hears the claim that Ukraine has the right to determine whom it wants to ally with and the Russians have no right to prevent Kiev from joining the West. This is a dangerous way for Ukraine to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might often makes right when great-power politics are at play. Abstract rights such as self-determination are largely meaningless when powerful states get into brawls with weaker states. … Even if one rejects this analysis, however, and believes that Ukraine has the right to petition to join the EU and NATO, the fact remains that the United States and its European allies have the right to reject these requests. Guy did argue for Ukraine to keep nukes in the 90s though, it’s just a much more mechanistic type of thinking.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  That is true but there is a history. While it is a prominent Kremlin talking point, there is a civil conflict in Ukraine. The initial reason was that some wanted free trade agreements with the EU while others did not, because it would mean their industry breaking down due to more competitive European alternatives and investors buying their infrastructure. But this is not an ethnic or cultural conflict. You have Russians and Ukrainians on both fronts of this conflict. While most Ukrainians are nationalists, it is very true though that the Maidan factions is vastly more interested in democracy and the Anti-Maidan one, or whatever they call themselves now. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas Ukraine is complicated. You have to read up a lot. Probably begin with the orange revolution but even the time before and the relation to the EU and US is important. To take sides here until the internal conflicts are resolved basically means supporting another proxy war. If it isn't already one because the factions are dependent on outside help to keep up the fight. The south-eastern Russia associated group certainly more so than Kiev and co. The conflict also hits innocents, the MH17 to Malaysia with a lot of Dutch people got shot down by the Russian associated group.
float4 5y ago
Thanks for sharing the video. I think the downvotes you got are unfair, as you're just linking to a talk from a, from the looks of it, very distinguished professor, so I upvoted you. However, I would like to inform you that there's a good article that was written in response to Mearsheimer's talk: https://archive.is/6vdRf https://archive.is/6vdRf
- labrador 5y ago
  That's a very interesting article that I encourage interested observers to read. I always like hearing from McFaul. It includes a rebuttal by John J. Mearsheimer at the end: It is not surprising that Michael McFaul and Stephen Sestanovich disagree with my account of what caused the Ukraine crisis. Both the policies they helped frame and execute while in the U.S. government and their responses to my article exemplify the liberal foreign policy consensus that helped cause the crisis in the first place...

nickpp 5y ago

It's funny when the aggressor is "negotiating" to attack or not. The biggest bully in the region feeling "threatened" by its neighbours seeking any possible way to protect themselves from it. Like a government-level "Why are you hitting yourself?"

labster 5y ago
Crazy idea of the day: why not offer NATO membership to both Ukraine and Russia? Then if either side attacks the other, all the other members are obligated to defend against the aggressor. Entangling alliances are like abstraction. The only thing that solves it is more of it.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > why not offer NATO membership to both Ukraine and Russia? NATO is a mutual defence pact. Russia is the most militarily aggressive country in Europe. Agreeing to defend the bully when their chickens come home to roost is a tough sell.
  - nivenkos 5y ago
    Most of them are internal conflicts though. It's not such a crazy idea really, but I'd rather we just abolished NATO entirely. I'm no fan of Russia, but I don't want to go to war just because they shoot down a Turkish fighter plane in Syria, etc.
    - labster 5y ago
      That’s not how NATO works. It’s a defense pact not a suicide pact. In any military action outside their territory, other countries are not obligated to help. Admittedly casus belli are often a bit of a stretch, but so far NATO has never joined an aggressive war. Various countries chose to join the American Crusade in Iraq but the war in Afghanistan was certainly started in defense. NATO has ensured 70 years of peace in Western Europe. There hasn’t been a period this peaceful since the Pax Romana, which still had plenty of wars. Why mess up a good thing? Less people die in wars now. And while the value in trade and infrastructure compared to land is certainly a part of ensuring the peace, that was also true for the decades preceding the Great War. The modern international order is simply more peaceful.

dzonga 5y ago

I don't blame Russia's stance. I blame the cold war and the US's two pronged approach to most diplomacy matters. NATO was formed to halt the power of the soviet union. once the soviet union fell. NATO should've been disbanded. anyone with a pea of a brain would've seen the consequences of not abandoning nato, and now we're about to pay for those mistakes.

dzonga 5y ago
as a follow up, I should add that I'm not advocating for Ukraine to be invaded. War is a racket. I'm advocating for things military alliances like Nato etc to be abandoned in times of peace.
- timeon 5y ago
  Imagine if Ukraine was in NATO. We would not have this discussion because there will be no tanks surrounding Ukraine like they are today.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  These aren't times of peace. These are times of teetering on the knife-edge of open war. And we learned a while ago about being unprepared when the shooting starts. It's not fun.
sc68cal 5y ago
Absolutely. and this is a view shared by prominent US national security officials, that it is the United States that has caused this crisis. https://theanalysis.news/is-nato-for-security-or-aggression-wilkerson-engler/ https://theanalysis.news/is-nato-for-security-or-aggression-... Remember, it was the United States that broke the promise to not expand NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union. > Paul Jay >Crazy! Larry, how much of this is driven essentially, really by what domestic politics, that you get this saber-rattle and look all huff and puff on both sides, not just the American and west side, but the same thing goes for Putin, satisfying the nationalist fervor in Russia. And two, and maybe this is the most important thing, continuing this rationale of enormous arms purchases, and NATO helps keep all these countries within at least the Western arms market and mostly the American arms market, but they can’t be serious about actually fighting? They know what a shitstorm that leads to. > Larry Wilkerson >I hope you’re right. The history of warfare, especially major warfare in the last 200 years or so, doesn’t support that logic. Let me go back to something Yves said. I think one of the greatest travesties of US foreign policy in the last 25-30 years, and that’s a lot of things, including the invasion of Iraq, was the violation of Jim Bakker and Eduard Shevardnadze, and ultimately Reagan and Herbert Walker Bush, and Gorbachev’s promise that NATO would not go one step further East if Germany were allowed to reunify and remain in NATO.

danjac 5y ago

The bigger question is "why now". Ukraine is not joining NATO or the EU any time soon. Russia has de facto annexed Crimea and its ongoing support for separatists in Donbas keeps the region unstable to its advantage. I suspect two reasons: Putin's flagging domestic support and Russia's (and to be honest, the world's) perception that America is currently so divided and weak it will be unable to offer much resistance than token sanctions (nor will the EU, given Germany's self-flaggelating energy policy). The danger is that this might snowball into a larger conflict - if Russia thinks the US is no longer a threat, what's stopping the Chinese from going into Taiwan, or the North Koreans causing mischief?

mclightning 5y ago
Maybe Putin wants that "We are sending the immigrants card" by having a big border with EU; one way (ukraine as russia) or another (ukraine as a swiftly welcomed eu member)
chasd00 5y ago
are the rest of the US allies in the world so powerless? Isn't this why we have the UN? Without the US, does the world just go back to war, death, and destruction everywhere? That seems crazy to me.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Without the US, does the world just go back to war, death, and destruction everywhere? We're in a uniquely, some argue unnaturally, peaceful period [1]. For most of human history, lords spilled blood bickering over borders. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
- gilrain 5y ago
  Go back to? The war, death, and destruction never stopped… we just exported it to others.
  - zpeti 5y ago

chasd00 5y ago

why is NATO a threat? Has NATO ever started a conflict, seized territory, or imposed sanctions? Genuinely asking, I pretty ignorant here.

tguvot 5y ago
NATO is a threat because NATO is enemy. there is kind of circular logic over there.
john_moscow 5y ago
It's for internal consumption. The average life quality is dropping both in Russia and the West, so the governments need to divert attention and redirect the frustration to external targets. The "NATO being a threat to the whole world" is the Russian version of "Climate Change will kill us all, so don't even think of starting a family (and wondering why your current salary makes it rather challenging)".
Drunk_Engineer 5y ago
Russia has always in been conflict with Western powers, and has been invaded on several occasions.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mrguyorama 5y ago
  Can you name an example of one of these invasions?
  - Drunk_Engineer 5y ago
    Is that a serious question? World War 2 for starters...
    - mrguyorama 5y ago
      I guess I hadn't considered Nazi Germany as a "western power". I'm a code monkey, not a political scientist. The question was as genuine as could be. I figured I didn't know the history of the former soviet union very well and was missing something.

7rm0LFlU6t8NnW1 5y ago

USA annexes Hawaii, no one bats an eye. Russia annexes Crimea, everyone loses their minds.

eitland 5y ago
You pretend these are equal: Well, they are not. There is a good deal over a century between those two events and a whole lot has changed since then - even though I should admit not as much as I want. Russias aggression against Ukraine however is at a completely different level than anything anyone has seen in Europe since a long time ago (and then it was the Sovjet, and before that Nazi-Germany.)
cornhole 5y ago
How do I sign up to get paid to shill for Russian interests on the internet? I have no convictions and would like to get money doing what you do.
alkonaut 5y ago
Colonialism went out of style a century ago and this whole discussion is based on the fact that Russia didn’t get that memo.
- VictorPath 5y ago
  Someone should tell that to the Iraqis, Afghans, Palestine etc.
esarbe 5y ago
I guess that's sarcasm? Because I honestly cannot tell. Yes, the U.S used its imperialist power to annex Hawai'i in 1897. That was before most of the modern foundations of international law - in particular article 2(4) of Chapter 1 of the United Nations Articles[0] - were put in place. No excuse, but still - different times. There are many aspects of U.S. foreign policy I positively abhor. But I'm not alone; the coups and the assassinations and the fiscal bullying and the straight out illegal wars waged against foreign nations have put quite a dent into the U.S.' lady-liberty image. Despite all that, the U.S. - at least since the end of WW2nd - hasn't seriously meddled in territorial growth or annexations. That's Russia's game and - given the assurances given to Ukraine after the collapse of the SU - especially perfidious. All in all, I'm quite happy not to live in the Russian sphere of influence. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_I_of_the_United_Nations_Charter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_I_of_the_United_Nation...

sleepysysadmin 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_and_Comprehensive_Free_Trade_Area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_and_Comprehensive_Free_Tr... This is what this is all about. It's not so much the money but also militaristic strategic assets. Moldova and Georgia doesnt have Russian war to deal with. Which really comes down to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol_Naval_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevastopol_Naval_Base Russia has lots of land all over the black sea. They could build a gigantic base near rostov-on-don. So why dont they? To strike from and base at Rostov would be foolish. So many tight bottlenecks to get in and out. Maybe Novorossiysk instead? but no crimea is obviously important to them. Except novo is happening. They are building a naval base there. It will take time. In probably about 10-15 years crimea will go back to ukraine and this will be all over. What's unsaid here. Why is it so important for russia to maintain such a huge naval presence in the black sea? This fleet isn't going past istanbul. Navy isn't even useful in war anymore really. An F35 from 40,000ft is practically untouchable by the russian navy and could probably sink their entire fleet from 300km away. So what is it? Romania? Bulgaria? Turkey? Who on the black sea is Russia so afraid of?

democracy 5y ago
Putin doesn't want to lose power. All these propaganda, military moves are to give poor people something to take their eyes and minds off the reality - him robbing the country for 30 years. If you have absolute power for long time you know what happens.
- sleepysysadmin 5y ago
  >Putin doesn't want to lose power. All these propaganda, military moves are to give poor people something to take their eyes and minds off the reality - him robbing the country for 30 years. If you have absolute power for long time you know what happens. I dont see this as the answer. If it's really power, march to Kyiv and take it all. They could do it. Crimea is more or less the only annexation because that's all they want. Even the syrian conflict and russia is the same story. They are really just preserving their military base. So just on the other side of Turkey they have military base as well they are preserving. You also have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo... Then also look at Turkey's financial woes and it sure does look like Russia doing it. Turkey seems to understand this and has been making diplomatic efforts to repair relations. The irony is that it seems they are coming back together more recently because they hate the USA.

andreygrehov 5y ago

Here is an interesting lecture Vladimir Pozner (Russian journalist) gave at the Yale University about Putin, the Unites States and Ukraine - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ It's 3 years old, but relevant up until today, imho.

mike_k 5y ago
Regardless of the content, it should be noted that Pozner had (and probably still has) a very nice broadcast time on one of the most popular Russia's channels. He is smart enough not to look like an obvious regime proponent, but he is far from being very critical, AFAIK. He is like a figure made for all those "liberal" conformists, who think they are very progressive.

metabagel 5y ago

Kremlin File is an excellent podcast primarily about Russia's use of hybrid warfare to advance its agenda. https://kremlinfile.com/ https://kremlinfile.com/

jhrozek 5y ago
That sounds great, thanks I subscribed to it! Do you listen to any other similar podcasts you could recommend?
- metabagel 5y ago
  This book seems to be very good, although I've only just started it. Putin's People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took On the West by Catherine Belton https://www.amazon.com/Putins-People-Took-Back-Russia/dp/0374238715 https://www.amazon.com/Putins-People-Took-Back-Russia/dp/037...

beginning_end 5y ago

I found Adam Tooze's overview very interesting: https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-68-putins-challenge-to?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-68-putins-challen...

joeman1000 5y ago
Finding this tough to read, the author writes poorly. I’m not saying the meaning is bad though, just that the writer should read more classics.

loourr 5y ago

I feel that these articles rarely give any perspective on Russia's issue which is that Ukraine joining NATO would be a violation of prior agreements and would result in armaments being placed at their boarder which they view as a risk and security breach. The US is basically saying we don't care and we are going to do it despite your objections and then pretending Russia threatening military action is unilateral hostility.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Ukraine joining NATO would be a violation of prior agreements This purported promise is a myth, see my comments here [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29924836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29924836
- remarkEon 5y ago
  Calling it a "myth" misses the forest for the trees. What possible benefit to existing NATO members does Ukraine joining serve? I can't think of any, unless you define "benefit" as "intentionally antagonizing the former Cold War adversary". From the former Ambassador to Soviet Union[1]: >When the Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 there was no plan to expand NATO to the east and Gorbachev had been assured in 1990 that the alliance would not expand. When in fact it did expand right up to Russia’s borders, Russia was confronted with a radically different strategic situation than existed when the Budapest agreement was signed. Now, while it's true that there wasn't a treaty or a document that said "Ukraine will never join NATO", there was a good-faith understanding that NATO would not expand like it has. Gentlemen can disagree that this was or was not a realistic understanding of the security and geopolitical situation at that time, but it's genuinely odd that everyone acts like Russia is the sole aggressor in this. [1] https://www.krasnoevents.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/116679777/krasno_analysis_-_matlock_ukraine_-_dec._2021.pdf https://www.krasnoevents.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/116679777/krasn...
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > while it's true that there wasn't a treaty or a document that said "Ukraine will never join NATO", there was a good-faith understanding that NATO would not expand like it has Between whom? Gorbachev has no memory of it, based on his public statements. The supposed agreement was made in the context of Germany's reunification, something the Soviets not only agreed to but memorialized in various written agreements, none of which mention this supposed understanding. Also, wasn't the motivation for the 2014 invasion Ukraine's potential membership in the EU?

thamer 5y ago

This article was behind a paywall for me ("you have reached your article limit"). Archived copy: http://archive.today/IeVtE http://archive.today/IeVtE

uejfiweun 5y ago

Posted elsewhere, but there seems to be good discussion going on here: I hate to say it, but the US is clearly the provocateur here. There is no real reason that the US needs Ukraine, a state that has historically been part of Russia, in NATO. Having Ukraine in NATO does approximately jack shit to benefit a person like me, a regular peasant in the US. Imagine if the US lost the cold war and the USSR decided to invite Canada and Mexico into the Warsaw Pact - that's pretty much what is going on here. The propaganda machine is in full swing at this point, I think the rulers of the US are actively hoping for war. Why else would they be so provocative? If someone has an answer to this I'd love to hear it, but it really seems to me like this is just classic US empire building, disguised under a thick coat of media propaganda and misinformation. Would love to hear your thoughts, I'm no foreign policy expert.

alkonaut 5y ago
> the US is clearly the provocateur here In what sense exactly? What is the provocation? Remember - Ukraine isn’t offered a NATO membership. Also remember, in 2014 the same story unfolded but then the boogeyman was the EU.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
reducesuffering 5y ago
Ukraine's defense is about helping people who are being actively invaded by bigger foreign powers. Of course it doesn't directly benefit you. By your logic, donating to charity "does approximately jack shit to benefit a person like me." Also the US has done literally nothing to "provocate" anything. Euromaidan happened in 2014, Crimea was annexed, and Donbass separatists supported by Russia. Status quo is changing in favor of Ukraine being able to secure it's separatist territory again, so now it's time for Russia to further invade.
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  See, I think this is just wrong. I think that we specifically shouldn't be getting involved in costly international conflicts to "help people". I think charity is pretty different, as there isn't a risk of a huge pushback when donating to charity. Whereas getting involved with this Ukraine situation could potentially result in a war. I don't think the US should be willing to go to war over this country that has historically been a part of Russia and is so far from our borders that it practically is geopolitically insignificant.

tomjen3 5y ago

Fuck it. Just announce that the rest of Ukraine is now under NATO protection and then let Russia choose the first move.

smcl 5y ago
Sounds like a really good way to end up embroiled in another pointless war which ruins yet another country
- tomjen3 5y ago
  The pride of the Russian navy is at all times accompanied by a tugboat. Their forces are a joke and we need to stop them before they do something stupid.
  - smcl 5y ago
    That line of thinking worked well in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let's hope we have a nice quick, clean war like we did there
    - tomjen3 5y ago
      Yes, we are going to have that. We should just not be stupid enough to ever attempt to build democracy or any such nonsense. Go in, lay waste, get out, just like we should have done in Afghanistan.
      - smcl 5y ago
        > Go in, lay waste, get out Lay waste to what? Ukraine? They're the country we're supposed to be worried about Russia invading here...

credit_guy 5y ago

Highly recommend "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" by John Mearsheimer. For Russia, annexing (all or part of) Ukraine now is too good a deal to pass. Russia knows that invading with an overwhelming force will result in a virtually bloodless annexation, just like the Taliban took over Afghanistan in a matter of weeks, and just like they themselves took over Crimea. Ukraine claims they'll fight to the last drop of blood, but theory and practice are a bit disconnected when you are a garrison in a city that's being approached by a few tens of thousands of soldiers and a few thousand tanks. Thinks looks different still if 50 other cities surrendered without a fight by the time it's your turn. Russia is a country in the middle of a population collapse. They are less than 145 MM now, projected to get to 125 MM by 2050. Their great power aspirations dwindle by the day. But adding Ukraine, Belarus, Khazakstan and Uzbekistan brings an immediate boost of more than 100 MM. Every night Putin puts his head on the pillow, these things swirl in his head, "one hundred million more Russians", "Mother Russia great again", "they disrespect us now, we'll show them who's the boss", "enough is enough", etc, etc.

rasz 5y ago
>Ukraine claims they'll fight to the last drop of blood, but theory and practice are a bit disconnected when you are a garrison in a city that's being approached by a few tens of thousands of soldiers and a few thousand tanks. Thinks looks different still if 50 other cities surrendered without a fight by the time it's your turn. You have to be really insane. Poles did it at the start of WW2 resisting for a month https://origins.osu.edu/milestones/september-2014-nazis-take-poland-and-start-world-war-ii https://origins.osu.edu/milestones/september-2014-nazis-take... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/books/review/poland-1939-roger-moorhouse.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/books/review/poland-1939-... and again in 1944 for over two months https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising Twice with no direct outside help. So much for international security guarantees. Btw Ukraine also had a toilet paper full of UK/US promises https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... how much good did that accomplish?
- credit_guy 5y ago

imartin2k 5y ago

There was a time in the 90s when the West promised Russia not to expand the NATO closer towards its borders. Later the West forgot about it. As much as I’m critical about most things Russia, I believe it’s understandable and legitimate for Russia to push back. In my eyes, there should be room for an agreement which indeed maintains some kind a “buffer zone” between both blocks. And the West needs to stop pretending it’s only Russia who’s the faulty one here, in this specific issue.

nickpp 5y ago
There wasn't. It's a lie spread by Russian propaganda.

Cyberthal 5y ago

I for one am excited to die for the Dear and Duly Elected Massively Popular Joe Biden's prudent and rational Foreign Policy. If the USA is to maintain its competitive fiat advantage, it must occasionally flatten the industrial capacities of competing world powers. Otherwise the world would be unsafe for democracy. We voters owe a great debt to the imminent sacrifices of the Ukrainian and Taiwanese peoples!