5 ms·
It 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.
by emptysongglass 5y ago
It 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.
- fortnum 5y agoNobody will claim any military action is a good thing. But you equally cannot say this conflict just started a few weeks ago. If NATO hadn't pushed further and further (and went against what was agreed), we would have never had that issue in the first place, as Ukraine wouldn't have been turned into a pawn against Russia. This issue has been known for decades. Biden mentioned it 20 years ago already - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNgCwoaT9u4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNgCwoaT9u4 I can only highly recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 as well.
- emptysongglass 5y agoYou are discussing the former satellite states of the USSR and Ukraine as if they didn't have their own right to choose. Ukraine would say it is not a pawn of anyone but is in service to its people and their desire to live free of a brutal overlord whose number one tactic in war is shelling cities (see Chechnya), which overwhelmingly kills civilians. The entire Russian war doctrine is anchored around its artillery. When more than 180,000 Russian troops massed at Ukraine's border a few weeks ago whose choice was it to invade? Putin made that choice. Trotting out the much-worn Mearsheimer video (I didn't even need to click the link to know) is of little service as the fault of this invasion is not on NATO. I have already established that in my earlier comments. Mearsheimer has perhaps served as Russia's greatest propagandist to the armchair intelligentsia of those who subscribe to a decidedly red realpolitik.
- sidibe 5y agoIt should be pretty obvious but here are 2 reasons you maybe missed: 1. It accepts NATO as the primary cause of this war. 2. It proposes that Ukraine give Russia all of its original demands (according to the article). This despite Russia being unable to win the war and Ukraine clearly being in a better negotiating position than before the war.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoI think 2 is really subjective, and I would argue that Russia is in a better position than before the war. Before the war Russia's leverage was the threat of potential invasion. Before the war, Ukraine's leverage was potential military support and sanctions. Now both of these potential outcomes have become much more clear: Sanctions have already happened, so Ukraine lost that leverage (sunk cost). IT is now clear NATO will not directly enter, so that leverage is gone too. Meanwhile Russian leverage is increasing. The Invasion is slower than anticipated, but is gaining territory every day (more land to give back). The humanitarian condition and damage to Ukraine is is getting worse each day as well.