3 ms·
The Path Out of Ukraine Is Reversing the Path In
- verisimi 5y agoDecent discussion of the geo-political situation around the history leading to the current Russia-Ukraine conflict, with suggestions for resolution.
- datalist 5y agoTrue. > But the US has said it will not pressure Ukraine to negotiate and has even discouraged it from negotiating. State Department spokesperson Ned Price seemed to suggest that Ukraine continue to fight and Ukrainians continue to die rather than ending the war by negotiating
- emptysongglass 5y agoIt makes many assumptions on the reasons for war which have nothing to do with Putin's actual praxis. Putin has declared that Ukraine's creation was a mistake. A celebratory letter was accidentally published hailing the creation of a new united Russia. NATO complaints are the fig leaf by which claims to intellectual honesty hide. It's unfortunate to see these claims repeated here. Russia invaded once in 2014 and took Crimea, now it wants Belarus-style buffer states, at a minimum. The best thing the West can do is continue to maximize its claims: that geopolitical borders are no longer determined by invasion and that a reversion to the "Old Ways" is punishable in the extreme. Anything else enables venturism (venturism that results in tens of thousands of lives lost) among other actors who have long coveted the borders of their neighbors. NATO isn't invading anyone. States clamor to its safety because of bully states like Russia. Any credible threat to Russia's safety by a united NATO is self-created.
- celticninja 5y agoAlthough what is considered a credible threat to Russia's safety has significantly expanded since they invaded Ukraine. I believe currently this is the next-gen threat faced by Russia https://uayf.org/en/ https://uayf.org/en/
- verisimi 5y agoSo you think that the article is biased in a pro-Russian way? I really don't see that.
- emptysongglass 5y agoYes, of course it is. It makes a number of fallacious claims under the guise of peace, which is anything but given Russia's bloody track record. Russia has no interest in settling for just Crimea and now Donetsk and Luhansk. The very casus belli they invaded on was to de-nazify the Ukrainian state and to replace Zelensky with a more amenable puppet. The author then encourages rewarding nation-state venturism by just giving Russia what they want, the consequences of being a return to the brutal time of empire and violence on an untold scale. The entire basis of NATO expansionism being a cause for war is entirely fictitious based both on Putin's own writings and the proximity of other actual NATO members to its borders. This is an invasion about geography (hello land bridge), resources (hello 80 percent of Ukraine's natural resources in Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts) and the death cries of a country spiraling down the drain of its own demographics crunch (hello 44 million new citizens).
- verisimi 5y agoIs it possible that you have an anti-Russia bias?
- emptysongglass 5y agoLet me begin with another question: have you considered making your own arguments for why you think I'm wrong? Anti-Russia as a state? No, that I am not. I am firmly anti-invasion. If Denmark decided to invade Sweden tomorrow, I would just as vociferously argue against its blatant aggression as I do Russia's. Russia's claims amount to little more than a rejection of self-determination for any state in its determined sphere of influence, which is a macrocosmic offer of, "marry me or I'll kill you". I wouldn't entertain such a person's fantasies in my real life and neither do I entertain them on a geopolitical scale.