3 ms·
You have your heart in the right place regarding Ukraine's "rights", however it's a shallow analysis of the historical complexities of this situation. In a free
by danielrpa 5y ago
You have your heart in the right place regarding Ukraine's "rights", however it's a shallow analysis of the historical complexities of this situation. In a free country (pick your favorite), there is a system in place, hopefully mutually agreed by its citizens, and its rules are enforced by a government.
In the world sphere, there is no de facto government. The UN is an attempt to create some sort of world governance, but as we know it's quite imperfect and it doesn't have the stick (i.e., the equivalent of a police force) to enforce its resolutions. Thus, the world works in a fragile equilibrium of military and economic power, with multiple countries forging alliances and pacts to try to put in place some form of civility.
So, while Ukraine "can decide" what alliances to join, there is nobody to ensure that it "can decide". Ukraine was relying on the West/US/Nato to get some say in its future, but we are seeing how that's unfolding. Ukraine unfortunately has to "earn" this right by forging alliances or building a stick big enough to ensure that others respect it.
Ukraine doesn't have a stick (it gave it up after the fall of the Soviet Union) but Russia does. Thus, Russia gets away with enforcing its own view of the world.
Unless other countries use their own sticks to enforce their point of view about what should happen with Ukraine, Russia will simply get away with it. "Rights" have very little to do with will happen.
I cannot think of a time in human history when things didn't work like this.
- the_mitsuhiko 5y agoYou don't need to analyzer a situation to see that Russia is just wrong about this. More importantly Russia is a dysfunctional country where you cannot even make the point that anything is remotely "mutually agreed by its citizens". Historic context is not relevant to the discussion about an invasion. Quite frankly your comment adds nothing of value.
- danielrpa 5y agoI'm sorry it didn't add anything to you, and your statement "Historic context is not relevant to the discussion about an invasion" suggests that we might not have much to gain from each other as our points of view are too far apart. Nonetheless, I'll try again to not leave you empty handed... What I'm saying is that "right" and "wrong" have little to do with the situation. I suggest you read Wikipedia on Realpolitik: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
- Paradigma11 5y agoRussia quaranteed the souvereignty of ukraine and its borders with the budapest memorandum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... Russia guaranteed ukraine free choice of alliances with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Charter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Charter There is no chance of NATO acceptance while there are still ongoing territorial disputes like crimea and donbas. Solving those could take decades if not longer. Putin himself has said that the ukrainian state is a historical mistake and has no claim to statehood. He just wants some juicy bits of strategical importance like a land connection to crimea and a broken country as a buffer zone that he can show to other aspirants what happens if you misbehave.