3 ms·

> That is where we Indians got lucky. Our founding leaders were smart enough to realise that India joining NATO would lead to China and / or Russia becoming our

by mopsi 9mo ago

> That is where we Indians got lucky. Our founding leaders were smart enough to realise that India joining NATO would lead to China and / or Russia becoming our enemy or India forming a military alliance with Russia would make the west our enemy. And thus, we told them both bluntly that we wouldn't join any alliance against both, because we understood that you all are superpowers. So leave us alone. This is exactly the pursuit of neutrality that Ukraine chose, except that Russia degenerated into a totalitarian dictatorship that became expansionist as it radcalized and began violating Ukraine's sovereign territory. The first notable incident occurred in 2003 over Tuzla island. The "leave us alone" part didn't work out. The unprovoked nature of Russia's invasion of Ukraine discredited neutrality to such an extent that even Sweden, which had been neutral for over 200 years, abandoned it and made a sharp pivot toward regional cooperation. With an increasingly hostile Russia, neutrality serves only to divide European countries and undermine their cooperation in collective security. > My advise to the Ukrainians would be stop fighting a war they cannot win, surrender and get the best deal you can from Russia to have peace. And then rebuild your country. Russia is not offering any deals other than the wholesale destruction of the Ukrainian state and ethnicity. The choice is between taking a chance on the battlefield or voluntarily exposing oneself to genocide. Thus, support for continuing the war remains high.

thisislife2 9mo ago
> This is exactly the pursuit of neutrality that Ukraine chose ... in the beginning. Ukraine's earlier leaders were indeed pragmatic. They even kept the country united. It is only when Ukrainian leaders started inviting foreign interference in their political affairs, and even taking sides with them, that Ukraine's polity became divided. And all the superpowers took advantage of that, to protect their own interest. Including Russia. This is what Ukraine still fails to understand even now - when you have a dispute with another superpower, you settle the matter with them directly, even if the terms are unfavourable to you (this is also what the then Ukranian government did with Tuzla Island incident). You absolutely don't invite their enemies and threaten them (unless your country is facing an existential threat from them, like India was, when the US threatened to launch a nuclear attack on us during the Bangladesh Liberation wars). Anyone who says Ukraine should not be a neutral country does not have their welfare in mind. Ukraine, in the near future, has no other choice but to be neutral. Its existence depends on it.
- mopsi 9mo ago
  We have seen time and time again how this approach does not work and only invites further aggression. Zelenskyy himself campaigned on, got elected and began pursuing the same things that you suggest: economic development, anti-corruption, and conciliatory approach to the war in Eastern Ukraine. All he got in response was a renewed invasion. Neutrality is not a serious option anymore. Not for Ukraine, not for anyone else. Sweden and Finland's pivot away from their long-standing neutrality highlights this reality and marks the end of neutrality as a credible security posture in Europe. They were the last holdouts among Russia's European neighbors.
  - thisislife2 9mo ago
    > Zelenskyy himself campaigned on, got elected and began pursuing the same things that you suggest ... All he got in response was a renewed invasion. He got invaded because of his own political naivety. Zelensky's first official trip abroad as president was to Brussels in June 2019, where he met with EU and NATO officials. After that, despite his campaign promises to fix relationship with Russia, he never personally met Putin officially. (The only time he met Putin, in an official capacity, was in 2019, with French President Macron and German Chancellor Merkel). As Ukraine's President Poroshenko confirmed publicly, on the advise of the western leaders, he had decided to not implement the Minsk treaties they signed with Russia. Instead, they began to train their military with NATO forces ( https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/77161 https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/77161 ). It is clear that Zelensky too was convinced by NATO and EU officials to do the same as he began to look for a military solution to repressing and dominating the East Ukrainians. In the end, EU and NATO got what they wanted - a proxy war with Russia, using Ukraine.*
    - mopsi 9mo ago
      > After that, despite his campaign promises to fix relationship with Russia, he never personally met Putin officially. (The only time he met Putin, in an official capacity, was in 2019, with French President Macron and German Chancellor Merkel). Misleading. The so-called Normandy format (involving Ukraine, Russia, Germany, France) was the agreed-upon diplomatic framework for addressing the war and improving relations. > As Ukraine's President Poroshenko confirmed publicly, on the advise of the western leaders, he had decided to not implement the Minsk treaties they signed with Russia. Not true. He never said this. It is a well-known distortion circulated by Russian propagandists. > It is clear that Zelensky too was convinced by NATO and EU officials to do the same as he began to look for a military solution to repressing and dominating the East Ukrainians. Not true. Zelenskyy prioritized diplomacy, like the aforementioned Normandy format. After Russia renewed the invasion, he was widely criticized for not adequately preparing Ukraine for war and for postponing important purchases of weaponry. > In the end, EU and NATO got what they wanted - a proxy war with Russia, using Ukraine. I don't think anyone can argue in good faith that the EU and NATO wanted a war with Russia. You really have to be on the other side of the planet, completely detached from the ground truth, to genuinely believe something like that. The war is a major strain on European economies, both due to the massive support that Ukraine requires and the massive costs of European rearmament to deter further Russian attacks on Europe. European politicians would very much prefer to sprinkle that money around in the form of social programs instead of spending that on bunkers and machine gun nests.

by mopsi 9mo ago

thisislife2 9mo ago

> This is exactly the pursuit of neutrality that Ukraine chose ... in the beginning. Ukraine's earlier leaders were indeed pragmatic. They even kept the country united. It is only when Ukrainian leaders started inviting foreign interference in their political affairs, and even taking sides with them, that Ukraine's polity became divided. And all the superpowers took advantage of that, to protect their own interest. Including Russia. This is what Ukraine still fails to understand even now - when you have a dispute with another superpower, you settle the matter with them directly, even if the terms are unfavourable to you (this is also what the then Ukranian government did with Tuzla Island incident). You absolutely don't invite their enemies and threaten them (unless your country is facing an existential threat from them, like India was, when the US threatened to launch a nuclear attack on us during the Bangladesh Liberation wars). Anyone who says Ukraine should not be a neutral country does not have their welfare in mind. Ukraine, in the near future, has no other choice but to be neutral. Its existence depends on it.

mopsi 9mo ago
We have seen time and time again how this approach does not work and only invites further aggression. Zelenskyy himself campaigned on, got elected and began pursuing the same things that you suggest: economic development, anti-corruption, and conciliatory approach to the war in Eastern Ukraine. All he got in response was a renewed invasion. Neutrality is not a serious option anymore. Not for Ukraine, not for anyone else. Sweden and Finland's pivot away from their long-standing neutrality highlights this reality and marks the end of neutrality as a credible security posture in Europe. They were the last holdouts among Russia's European neighbors.
- thisislife2 9mo ago
  > Zelenskyy himself campaigned on, got elected and began pursuing the same things that you suggest ... All he got in response was a renewed invasion. He got invaded because of his own political naivety. Zelensky's first official trip abroad as president was to Brussels in June 2019, where he met with EU and NATO officials. After that, despite his campaign promises to fix relationship with Russia, he never personally met Putin officially. (The only time he met Putin, in an official capacity, was in 2019, with French President Macron and German Chancellor Merkel). As Ukraine's President Poroshenko confirmed publicly, on the advise of the western leaders, he had decided to not implement the Minsk treaties they signed with Russia. Instead, they began to train their military with NATO forces ( https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/77161 https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/77161 ). It is clear that Zelensky too was convinced by NATO and EU officials to do the same as he began to look for a military solution to repressing and dominating the East Ukrainians. In the end, EU and NATO got what they wanted - a proxy war with Russia, using Ukraine.*
  - mopsi 9mo ago
    > After that, despite his campaign promises to fix relationship with Russia, he never personally met Putin officially. (The only time he met Putin, in an official capacity, was in 2019, with French President Macron and German Chancellor Merkel). Misleading. The so-called Normandy format (involving Ukraine, Russia, Germany, France) was the agreed-upon diplomatic framework for addressing the war and improving relations. > As Ukraine's President Poroshenko confirmed publicly, on the advise of the western leaders, he had decided to not implement the Minsk treaties they signed with Russia. Not true. He never said this. It is a well-known distortion circulated by Russian propagandists. > It is clear that Zelensky too was convinced by NATO and EU officials to do the same as he began to look for a military solution to repressing and dominating the East Ukrainians. Not true. Zelenskyy prioritized diplomacy, like the aforementioned Normandy format. After Russia renewed the invasion, he was widely criticized for not adequately preparing Ukraine for war and for postponing important purchases of weaponry. > In the end, EU and NATO got what they wanted - a proxy war with Russia, using Ukraine. I don't think anyone can argue in good faith that the EU and NATO wanted a war with Russia. You really have to be on the other side of the planet, completely detached from the ground truth, to genuinely believe something like that. The war is a major strain on European economies, both due to the massive support that Ukraine requires and the massive costs of European rearmament to deter further Russian attacks on Europe. European politicians would very much prefer to sprinkle that money around in the form of social programs instead of spending that on bunkers and machine gun nests.