joe00uk wrote: ↑Mon Feb 28, 2022 6:24 pm
As mentioned, I've had a long absence from this forum myself. I've been busy. Life's going well. But of course, history keeps moving - sometimes with very sudden and very violent lunges.
Nice to hear from you and that things in your life are going well.
The Russo-Ukrainian War isn't exactly new. Like Phoenix said, this has its roots in the crisis of 2013-14 with Euromaidan, the annexation of Crimea, and the War in Donbass. An escalation like this, in the long term, was perhaps inevitable (but of course hindsight is 20/20). Russia was not going to tolerate such a large hostile country on its borders forever. Ukraine was never going to settle down and become the next Estonia or Latvia. The question wasn't whether Russia would intervene to replace the Euromaidan regime at all, but when and how that was going to happen. I, for one, was somewhat sceptical over the last few months as to whether or not now would really be the time but I reckoned there was a 50/50 chance, and here we are. It happened. If we're going to be honest, this war isn't really so unfathomable. If Mexico or Canada were cosying up to Russia and China with aspirations of joining a military alliance with them in the near future, I don't think many of us would have doubts about what the Pentagon would do (or at least attempt).
I do tend to agree that NATO was pushing it a bit to recruit a country so close to Russia's borders into its organization, or at least its alliance structure. Still, NATO is at hear an organization devoted to mutual defense. Individual countries in NATO may have on occasion engaged in military offenses, but that tended to be through something other than the NATO organization itself. I would think that recent events demonstrate why many would believe that Ukraine was in need of defense from its neighbor to its east.
America's imperial project may be ending, but it wasn't all that long ago that Western countries were the ones invading and subjugating sovereign nations for their own purposes. The shrieking hysterics from Washington, London and the rest of Europe are hypocritical at best, regardless of whether Russia is right or wrong to invade Ukraine.
It is one of my great frustrations that there are too many examples of U.S. misbehavior on that score to effectively argue the point. I would qualify that by pointing out that the last invasion was of Iraq, which was not a democracy. So, that is arguably different than the present situation, unless you have doubts concerning the fairness of recent elections in Ukraine.
Sadly, there have been way too many other instances of the U.S. taking other measures to undermine democracies in other countries. Europe, although not entirely innocent, I think has not been so guilty in that regard.
There have also been other military actions related to the war on terror. Again, a topic for another thread.
Personally, I also don't think an invasion like this is a good idea.
Agreed, although not for all of the reasons you have given.
Moscow would have been better advised to stick with the long game, just like China does with regard to just about all of its concerns. NATO was wrong to break its promises not to expand eastwards in the 1990s, but I think Russia feels more threatened by NATO than they ought to be.
Agreed, although not for all of the reasons given.
This isn't the 1980s anymore. The West is weak, and NATO is a paper tiger. All Russia had to do was wait for NATO to wither away, which was already in the process of happening de facto, if not de jure. The US, which provides the bulk of finances and resources for the alliance, was increasingly coming to question a project they had to subsidise so heavily at a time of mounting domestic troubles which are only continuing to worsen today.
I think the main threat to NATO came from Trump's tendency to undermine the organization. That probably had more to do with receiving assistance from Russia in the 2016 election than any other "mounting domestic troubles." Otherwise, I really don't think NATO was withering away. For example, it actually increased its membership since 1989.
Russia will probably win the war in Ukraine, but now NATO spending is coming to the forefront of Western priorities and security problems associated with it will only worsen.
Agreed, although some sort of settlement in which Ukraine stays largely intact is not totally out of the question. We will see the result of recently initiated negotiations.
At any rate, Putin's actions seem to have convinced many NATO countries of the need to strengthen their commitment to that organization.
Of course, when it comes to this war, lot of public opinion and commentary in the West reduces this down very crudely to some one-dimensional battle between Putin, the cruel Russian despot who wants to destroy the world for no reason other than because he's so evil, and the heroic Ukrainians fighting for freedom and democracy.
If they are not fighting for "freedom and democracy" then for what goals are they fighting?
A lot of people really think this is like some Marvel movie. There's uncritical repetition of Ukrainian military propaganda, which is obviously designed to raise morale, but it's actually very blatant and low-effort. It doesn't take a genius to distinguish video game footage (for example), and real life. Because of all these theatrics, a lot of people are basically at the point of thinking half the Russian army's been wiped out and that they'll soon have no choice but to retreat back home. What we really see is that the Russians keep advancing day after day and capturing more and more land. They're not at the point of capturing major cities yet (remember it's only Day 5), but encircling them and what we'll start to see over the coming weeks is that they'll simply place these cities under siege and wait for them to surrender.
Well, I think there is a certain sympathy for Ukraine, so that translates into a lot of hopeful thinking that some-how they will pull off a David and Goliath type victory. This may be overly optimistic.
Russia doesn't actually want to destroy Ukraine (they're not like the Americans in Iraq, or the Germans in Poland).
I am sorry, but I don't think the goal of the U.S. in Iraq was to destroy that country. Of course, a full discussion of that belongs in another thread. Also, that is not to say that I approved of the invasion of Iraq.
They want to capture the country intact and instigate regime change.
Which is what the U.S. wanted to do in Iraq.
They don't want apocalyptic damage or hundreds of thousands dead, because they know they can't occupy the whole of Ukraine for long. They want a stable puppet regime to which the majority of Ukrainians will be indifferent and to which resistance is more trouble than it's worth.
As contrasted with what Ukrainians want who are apparently fighting to the death to avoid this outcome.
If Russia wanted to truly destroy Ukraine, they would already be doing so, but a puppet regime installed by them wouldn't last long before Euromaidan 2.0 came. In the end, the goal for most of Ukraine is simply a reversion its arrangement between 2010-14 under the pro-Russian President Yanukovych. With some modifications, of course.
Agreed, assuming you mean Russia's goal.
Crimea will remain part of Russia (which makes sense upon a reading of its history and demography) and either independence for the Donbass republics or maybe absorption into Russia.
You know, initially I agreed with this line of reasoning, but given Putin's proclivity to accomplish such goals through force of arms, I am beginning to wonder. Still, Crimea's absorption is such a done deal that there is very little hope of a change on that front, especially while Putin is still in power.
I'd prefer referenda over military force to decide these matters, but sadly that's probably not to be.
Agreed.
Don't mourn, organize.
-Joe Hill
