4 ms·

SAIS. "the Necessity of Military Force". brilliant stuff. CSIS for good measure. perfectly blob-ular. i haven't heard any serious analysts say putin is insane

SAIS. "the Necessity of Military Force". brilliant stuff. CSIS for good measure. perfectly blob-ular. i haven't heard any serious analysts say putin is insane -- they all seem to say just the opposite -- perfectly sane, rational, legitimate security concerns, etc. i think the primary alternative Ukraine has had for years was (and still is) to declare they were never going to become a part of hostile-to-russia military alliance -- Nato, or anyone else. people talk about Ukraine having no options - like they were doomed to die from an utter lack of indepedence if they did not join Nato? but every country in the world is constrained in some ways, even the US. ukraine could have opted out of nato, got some security guarantees back from russia in return, probably either joined the EU or joined it in all but name, built some military alliance with other EU members within reason as negotiated with russia, etc. nobody suffers, nobody dies, try to build up a reasonable democratic tradition, influence russian society by setting a good example of what effective democratic government looks like, etc. russia will get rid of putin eventually, and possibly grow slightly more democratic, etc. but the US was not interested in any of that. that's why the US is not interested in negotiating an end to the war -- instead, now we're fighting not for independence or our lives or our homeland, but 'principles': > When asked to elaborate on his point, [State Department Employee, Ned] Price said that the war is “bigger” than Russia and Ukraine. “The key point is that there are principles that are at stake here that have universal applicability everywhere,” he said. he didn't have to say the most important principle at stake in the Russia-Ukraine war: the principle that the US alone should continue to control the world. https://news.antiwar.com/2022/03/21/us-signals-its-discouraging-zelensky-from-making-concessions-to-russia-that-could-end-the-fighting/ https://news.antiwar.com/2022/03/21/us-signals-its-discourag... i'd generally agree with this Ukrainian peace activist guy -- less war, more peace -- it's not rocket science -- but it's also not what the US wants -- so it's up to us who want and end to the war to pressure the US to end it: https://www.democracynow.org/2022/3/22/yurii_sheliazhenko_russian_invasion_week_4 https://www.democracynow.org/2022/3/22/yurii_sheliazhenko_ru...

rntn 5y ago
Thanks for your response. Would you mind helping me out with a few things..? 1. Could you help me understand why you feel the SAIS (Johns Hopkins, established 1943) and the CSIS (Georgetown, established 1962) are "blob-ular"? 2. I must be missing out on a lot of "serious analysts" Can you provide me with some links to the ones portraying Putin as " perfectly sane, rational, (having) legitimate security concerns, etc."? 3. As a thought experiment, I tried using your logic for Ukraine's "primary alternative" to Poland in 1939, but I am having trouble with it turning out as anything other than the actual historical outcome.. could you show me how that logic works? 4. Apparently the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurance was not the kind of "security guarantees" you are referring to, could you explain exactly what security guarantees beyond the Budapest Memorandum you envisioned..? 5. Could you explain what methods Ukraine would have used to "set a good example for Russia" other than holding elections as they did? How many invasions, poisoned presidents do you think are acceptable while the Ukrainian people wait for Russia to "get rid of (P)utin eventually"? 6. I must have missed the part where America was pushing Ukraine to war with Russia while being distracted by all that MSM coverage of the massive buildup of Russian military hardware on the Ukrainian border, in Ukrainian Crimea and in the 'independent' Belarus (which is doing so well for its people by doing exactly what you are advising Ukraine to do, right?) - all the while calling it a "military exercise" and denying their intent to invade.. could you post your sources for the Americans pushing Ukraine to war during the Russian military buildup on their borders? 7. I am very interested to know what you think of the UN General Council vote supported by 141 of the 193 members condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where only Russia, North Korea, Syria, Eritrea and Belarus voted against it? How do you fit this into your claim that the principle being fought for is "that the US alone should control the world"? How many of the 141 UN members do you suppose would like to have Russian influence on world affairs..? 8. The conflict is (so far) limited to Ukraine. Using only documented historical information, which principles do you think are more likely to prevent its expansion :those advocated by NATO or those advocated by Putin? Please address your answer such that it is convincing to the people of the sovereign nations of Georgia, Moldova, and the Baltic states. Thanks in advance.

rntn 5y ago

Thanks for your response. Would you mind helping me out with a few things..? 1. Could you help me understand why you feel the SAIS (Johns Hopkins, established 1943) and the CSIS (Georgetown, established 1962) are "blob-ular"? 2. I must be missing out on a lot of "serious analysts" Can you provide me with some links to the ones portraying Putin as " perfectly sane, rational, (having) legitimate security concerns, etc."? 3. As a thought experiment, I tried using your logic for Ukraine's "primary alternative" to Poland in 1939, but I am having trouble with it turning out as anything other than the actual historical outcome.. could you show me how that logic works? 4. Apparently the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurance was not the kind of "security guarantees" you are referring to, could you explain exactly what security guarantees beyond the Budapest Memorandum you envisioned..? 5. Could you explain what methods Ukraine would have used to "set a good example for Russia" other than holding elections as they did? How many invasions, poisoned presidents do you think are acceptable while the Ukrainian people wait for Russia to "get rid of (P)utin eventually"? 6. I must have missed the part where America was pushing Ukraine to war with Russia while being distracted by all that MSM coverage of the massive buildup of Russian military hardware on the Ukrainian border, in Ukrainian Crimea and in the 'independent' Belarus (which is doing so well for its people by doing exactly what you are advising Ukraine to do, right?) - all the while calling it a "military exercise" and denying their intent to invade.. could you post your sources for the Americans pushing Ukraine to war during the Russian military buildup on their borders? 7. I am very interested to know what you think of the UN General Council vote supported by 141 of the 193 members condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where only Russia, North Korea, Syria, Eritrea and Belarus voted against it? How do you fit this into your claim that the principle being fought for is "that the US alone should control the world"? How many of the 141 UN members do you suppose would like to have Russian influence on world affairs..? 8. The conflict is (so far) limited to Ukraine. Using only documented historical information, which principles do you think are more likely to prevent its expansion :those advocated by NATO or those advocated by Putin? Please address your answer such that it is convincing to the people of the sovereign nations of Georgia, Moldova, and the Baltic states. Thanks in advance.