Quite obviously not going to happen at this point. The only question at this point is how long the people of Ukraine are going to be made to suffer, and the west appears to determined to ensure that there is a maximum amount of suffering by blocking any meaningful negotiations and egging Ukraine on to keep fighting.
While nothing justified Russian invasion of Ukraine, it’s reductionist to ignore the reasons behind why the invasion happened. The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO, and plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this for many years now. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
I fail to understand the actual treat to Russia from NATO. Because even if all bordering countries would join NATO. There is no way Russia will ever get attacked. It’s has the 1st or 2nd largest nuclear arsenal in the world. There is no way a neighbor would attack Russia. A neighbor is even more easy to bomb than the USA. Even with much less nuclear power, the level of deterrence would be well enough to fear nothing from a military standpoint.
So a preventive war for this makes no sense. The Russian government can still claim otherwise to have an excuse to start this war.
Even if Ukraine would have been more successfully manipulated by the western governments than the Russian one. A preventive war still makes no sense. It’s not like the Russian government care for the Ukrainian people having a right of self-determination and would want to help them do so.
The only things that matters in the end is that Russia sees NATO as a threat, and NATO has done absolutely nothing to change that perception. Simply repeating that NATO isn’t a threat while continuously expanding it towards the Russian border and attacking countries for past 30 years isn’t exactly helping make the case that it’s a benign entity.
The irony with Russia’s actions here is they may well backfire. Countries that were previously debating membership may finally decide that any downside of NATO membership is nothing compared to the threat of being the next country that Russia invades. Russia already has invaded two of its neighbors and holds the loyalties of Belarus under a dictator. Russia has openly threatened Finland and Sweden. The invasion of Ukraine has caused support for membership to surge in both of those countries.
Countries are joining NATO because they fear Russia. If Russia didn’t want countries joining NATO, maybe they shouldn’t threaten their neighbors? It’s not exactly making the case that it’s a benign entity.
I don’t think you understand what’s going to happen to western economies in the coming months. As energy prices shoot through the roof that means that costs for everything will as well. All the necessities, food, transport, are going to become unaffordable for the vast majority of the people. I wonder what will happen then…
I’m aware that there will be a severe cost, especially to Europe. I see it as that much more significant, that countries are willing to significantly impact their own economy to protect Ukraine. This is of course in the midst of existing supply chain issues. I’m sad that the people who are going to be hurt the most will ultimately be your everyday Russia person and not the richest Russians who have more power to strongarm Putin out of power. Any damage the West will feel with by felt many times over in Russia, given how much smaller their economy is.
Which… sure, you can infer that the west is strictly doing this for exploitative reasons (the same argument applies with Russia). However have you considered that Ukraine may want to be part of the west?
Have you considered that Ukraine is not a homogeneous blob that you’re making out to be and has had a civil war over this issue for the past 8 years?
Furthermore, have you considered that the west has been interfering and manipulating Ukrainian politics which culminated in a coup against the democratically elected government in 2014?
What you have also failed to grasp here is how the word fault fits in the lecture.
What you appear to grasp that the sort of posturing you’re engaged in doesn’t actually achieve any positive results. The reality is that either the west tries to find way to work with Russia constructively or we get closer to a nuclear holocaust. If you don’t understand why that should be avoided at all costs, I really don’t know what else to tell you.
No, you are trying to make it seem like that is the case. The tensions were there however the level of escalation that Russia took was unacceptable as with most of their actions prior to this.
You’ve literally engaged in doing this in your comment. What is or isn’t acceptable in international politics comes down to what countries can get away with doing. That’s the reality we live in. Russia feels that it’s strong enough to challenge the west and they’re doing it. Wars happens when both sides feel that they have a good chance of winning. Once again, if you don’t understand the danger to humanity from a conflict between Russia and the west then there’s no point having any further discussion.
Furthermore, have you considered that the west has been interfering and manipulating Ukrainian politics which culminated in a coup against the democratically elected government in 2014?
How much has that weighted and how much the pre-2014 government was legitimate. I’m open to the possibility that yes, the country governance could have been stolen from the people by the west. But also it’s totally makes sense to have a wide willingness to join the EU for economic reasons. And to have a willingness to join NATO after the 2008 Russo-Georgian War. Both would be completely legitimate.
The Russian government has been trying to manipulate Ukraine very strongly also so it’s difficult to tell if the governments wanting join the west was illegitimate.
Russia wasn’t the one that ran a coup in Ukraine, and they were perfectly fine with Ukraine having a neutral government that worked with both the west and Russia.
Yes I can very clearly see why this situation is a quagmire. However, financing and militarising an ethnic minority of a country on your border makes it incredibly evident you are happy to create an insurgency in that country.
The only ethnic minority is the western Ukraine, which used to be known as Galicia. These are the nationalists the west put in charge.
To also utilise your troops in that said country, to seize that their land is an act of war (ie Crimea).
Fun fact, the troops were already in Crimea because the legitimate government had a deal with Russia to have them stationed there. When the government was overthrown, Crimea voted to join Russia in a referendum because Crimea is populated by Russians and was part of Russia until the 70s when Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine.
however you have to enlighten me outside of Katchanovski’s articles that EuroMaidan was all completely orchestrated by the US/EU, Berkut didn’t fire on protestors, Yanukovych isn’t corrupt and there is no evidence of election meddling
The fact that the west played a big role in orchestrating EuroMaidan is well documented and it’s frankly dishonest to continue trying to dismiss that.
Sure, we will tell everyone participating in this conversation to turn of their sense of morality.
If westerners had any sense of morality than they’d equally care about a literal genocide NATO is participating in Yemen right now, what NATO is doing in Syria and Somolia, and what Israel i doing in Palestine. Given that you lot have been silent on all these horrors that are far worse than what’s happening in Ukraine, you expose yourselves as being utterly immoral. The fact that it’s only Ukraine that westerners care about clearly shows that it’s never been about human rights or morals.
I think people can comprehend that countries do bastard things, doesn’t mean they have to approve of it or feel indifferent because “That’s just geopol lol!”.
Nice straw man there bud. What I actually said was that the west should be trying to figure out how to work with Russia constructively by recognizing their concerns and try to avoid wars. Instead, you chose to sacrifice Ukrainian lives to fight a proxy war with Russia while bloviating about morals. It’s frankly sickening to watch.
What is this point really? People understand the danger here and the country presenting the threat upon the world here. De-escalation has been an objective here but it’s also a case where a country shouldn’t let their sovereignty be violated because of threats. It’s just appeasing Russia then and letting them take what they want.
De-escalation absolutely has not been an objective here from the west. Literally everything the west has done since 2014 escalated the conflict until it turned into an open war, and the west continues to escalate today.
I get a sense that you are blaming the west for Russia acting aggressive.
Moralizing is what you’re doing. I’m engaging with reality and saying that unless the two sides start finding ways to understand each others concerns then things will continue to escalate and we will end up with a nuclear holocaust in the end. I highly recommend reading up on all the times we almost had a nuclear war completely unintentionally during the Cold War.
Spamming ofRepeat of your previous comment : https://lemmy.ml/post/184804/comment/126044 Edit : Now i can cut and paste when i answer questions …i will try to avoid it to improve user’s experience
If I have to address the same argument repeatedly then why wouldn’t I use the comment I’ve already written? Not sure why you think that’s some kind of a gotcha.
deleted by creator
Quite obviously not going to happen at this point. The only question at this point is how long the people of Ukraine are going to be made to suffer, and the west appears to determined to ensure that there is a maximum amount of suffering by blocking any meaningful negotiations and egging Ukraine on to keep fighting.
deleted by creator
While nothing justified Russian invasion of Ukraine, it’s reductionist to ignore the reasons behind why the invasion happened. The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO, and plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this for many years now. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Academics, such as John Mearsheimer, gave talks explaining why NATO actions would ultimately lead to conflict this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
Thanks for the resources.
I fail to understand the actual treat to Russia from NATO. Because even if all bordering countries would join NATO. There is no way Russia will ever get attacked. It’s has the 1st or 2nd largest nuclear arsenal in the world. There is no way a neighbor would attack Russia. A neighbor is even more easy to bomb than the USA. Even with much less nuclear power, the level of deterrence would be well enough to fear nothing from a military standpoint.
So a preventive war for this makes no sense. The Russian government can still claim otherwise to have an excuse to start this war.
Even if Ukraine would have been more successfully manipulated by the western governments than the Russian one. A preventive war still makes no sense. It’s not like the Russian government care for the Ukrainian people having a right of self-determination and would want to help them do so.
The only things that matters in the end is that Russia sees NATO as a threat, and NATO has done absolutely nothing to change that perception. Simply repeating that NATO isn’t a threat while continuously expanding it towards the Russian border and attacking countries for past 30 years isn’t exactly helping make the case that it’s a benign entity.
The irony with Russia’s actions here is they may well backfire. Countries that were previously debating membership may finally decide that any downside of NATO membership is nothing compared to the threat of being the next country that Russia invades. Russia already has invaded two of its neighbors and holds the loyalties of Belarus under a dictator. Russia has openly threatened Finland and Sweden. The invasion of Ukraine has caused support for membership to surge in both of those countries.
Countries are joining NATO because they fear Russia. If Russia didn’t want countries joining NATO, maybe they shouldn’t threaten their neighbors? It’s not exactly making the case that it’s a benign entity.
I don’t think you understand what’s going to happen to western economies in the coming months. As energy prices shoot through the roof that means that costs for everything will as well. All the necessities, food, transport, are going to become unaffordable for the vast majority of the people. I wonder what will happen then…
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/european-gas-prices-trading-at-equivalent-of-over-500-per-barrel-11646660413
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Options-Traders-Are-Betting-On-300-Oil.html
I’m aware that there will be a severe cost, especially to Europe. I see it as that much more significant, that countries are willing to significantly impact their own economy to protect Ukraine. This is of course in the midst of existing supply chain issues. I’m sad that the people who are going to be hurt the most will ultimately be your everyday Russia person and not the richest Russians who have more power to strongarm Putin out of power. Any damage the West will feel with by felt many times over in Russia, given how much smaller their economy is.
deleted by creator
Have you considered that Ukraine is not a homogeneous blob that you’re making out to be and has had a civil war over this issue for the past 8 years?
Furthermore, have you considered that the west has been interfering and manipulating Ukrainian politics which culminated in a coup against the democratically elected government in 2014?
What you appear to grasp that the sort of posturing you’re engaged in doesn’t actually achieve any positive results. The reality is that either the west tries to find way to work with Russia constructively or we get closer to a nuclear holocaust. If you don’t understand why that should be avoided at all costs, I really don’t know what else to tell you.
You’ve literally engaged in doing this in your comment. What is or isn’t acceptable in international politics comes down to what countries can get away with doing. That’s the reality we live in. Russia feels that it’s strong enough to challenge the west and they’re doing it. Wars happens when both sides feel that they have a good chance of winning. Once again, if you don’t understand the danger to humanity from a conflict between Russia and the west then there’s no point having any further discussion.
How much has that weighted and how much the pre-2014 government was legitimate. I’m open to the possibility that yes, the country governance could have been stolen from the people by the west. But also it’s totally makes sense to have a wide willingness to join the EU for economic reasons. And to have a willingness to join NATO after the 2008 Russo-Georgian War. Both would be completely legitimate.
The Russian government has been trying to manipulate Ukraine very strongly also so it’s difficult to tell if the governments wanting join the west was illegitimate.
Russia wasn’t the one that ran a coup in Ukraine, and they were perfectly fine with Ukraine having a neutral government that worked with both the west and Russia.
deleted by creator
The only ethnic minority is the western Ukraine, which used to be known as Galicia. These are the nationalists the west put in charge.
Fun fact, the troops were already in Crimea because the legitimate government had a deal with Russia to have them stationed there. When the government was overthrown, Crimea voted to join Russia in a referendum because Crimea is populated by Russians and was part of Russia until the 70s when Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine.
Here are some sources for you
The fact that the west played a big role in orchestrating EuroMaidan is well documented and it’s frankly dishonest to continue trying to dismiss that.
If westerners had any sense of morality than they’d equally care about a literal genocide NATO is participating in Yemen right now, what NATO is doing in Syria and Somolia, and what Israel i doing in Palestine. Given that you lot have been silent on all these horrors that are far worse than what’s happening in Ukraine, you expose yourselves as being utterly immoral. The fact that it’s only Ukraine that westerners care about clearly shows that it’s never been about human rights or morals.
Nice straw man there bud. What I actually said was that the west should be trying to figure out how to work with Russia constructively by recognizing their concerns and try to avoid wars. Instead, you chose to sacrifice Ukrainian lives to fight a proxy war with Russia while bloviating about morals. It’s frankly sickening to watch.
De-escalation absolutely has not been an objective here from the west. Literally everything the west has done since 2014 escalated the conflict until it turned into an open war, and the west continues to escalate today.
Moralizing is what you’re doing. I’m engaging with reality and saying that unless the two sides start finding ways to understand each others concerns then things will continue to escalate and we will end up with a nuclear holocaust in the end. I highly recommend reading up on all the times we almost had a nuclear war completely unintentionally during the Cold War.
deleted by creator
Spamming ofRepeat ofyour previous comment :https://lemmy.ml/post/184804/comment/126044
Edit : Now i can cut and paste when i answer questions …i will try to avoid it to improve user’s experience
If I have to address the same argument repeatedly then why wouldn’t I use the comment I’ve already written? Not sure why you think that’s some kind of a gotcha.
Because of this context, i believe you are right, it’s not complete spam.
But then, would you care putting huge comments in collapsing spoilers ?
I suppose