Who wins in Ukraine?(beachwood23.com) |
Who wins in Ukraine?(beachwood23.com) |
I wish this argument would just die - it's all on Russia. No one has forced them to have imaginary "safety guarantees" or influence spheres. What people in the west doesn't seem to understand is that nothing has changed in terms of Russian politics since the WW2 - it's the continuation of the same politics of threats of aggression and playing the imaginary victim card and imperialistic politics.
In which case, only the US gets to have them, as per the Monroe Doctrine, and pursue them anyway they like (including interventions, occupation, and war) all around the world? Or do exactly the same condemnations hold for that case too (after all, much more costlier in deaths and far more wide-reaching in countries and populations affected).
What people (non-elites) dont understand in the west is that geography dictates policy.
Even in spite of that the war probably wouldnt have happened had Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya not placed NATO firmly in the offensive alliance category while it pursued Russian encirclement. Putin started out friendly.
In case you missed this one, another great prediction from Nevzorov in 2021: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OutvYSl_TLc
This article plays the favorite game of Russian apologists — engage in bad faith with any pro-Ukrainian argument, and in good faith with any Russian one.
It fails to account for Russian troops in Crimea (when discussing 2014 referendum), it fails to account for Russian influence in Ukrainian politics (billions of funding) and of course there is no agency of Ukrainian people, only NATO and Russia.
And of course “US invited an invasion [of Ukraine]”, sure, lets find a more apologetic way of saying “Putin invaded Ukraine”.
I'm not trying to spread propaganda. I'm doing my best to make sense of the different narratives being told by different parties. It's all we can do in these crazy times.
You have many good points. This article was not comprehensive and could have dug deeper into many reasons. I'll respond to one bit:
>To say that pro-western and anti-Russia attitude in Ukraine was fabricated by the West is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.
I never used the word 'fabricated', and I don't think I said anything that robust. I said "funded", which is different. Ukraine is a large country, and there are plenty of different political opinions and movements to pick from when supplying funding.
You are right, in that this will most likely be the short-term action. NATO / EU will be more tightly bound to the US out of necessity. But necessity does not engender gratitude and goodwill - usually it precipitates resentment and struggle. That is why in the long term, I predict poor relations between NATO / EU.
Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts.
My conclusions may or may not end up being true, but hopefully we share the same premises of the conflict.
It also continues to follow the Russian line in the section where it discusses the build-up to the conflict. I think this idea of 'NATO expansion pushing into the Russian sphere' is also wrongheaded: countries get a sphere of influence when they are powerful enough to exert control over their neighbors by simple size disparity, primarily economic, but also military, to such an extent that their neighbors are simply always by default in a weaker position when they negotiate. The USSR had the economic, cultural, and military power to maintain this. The Russians don't. That Putin does not realize this is his failing, not NATO's.
The economic section is also profoundly mistaken. You talk about recessions and inflation as if the Russian economy and the US economy are comparable. They are not: the Russian economy is marginally larger than that of Spain. It is smaller than California or Texas. Any economic confrontation between the West and Russia is modulated by the fact the Russian economy is simply so much smaller: the West is basically a collection of the world's largest economic blocs, minus China and India. An economic fight between the EU and Russia would be a ridiculous mismatch. An economic fight between Russia and the entire West is so unbalanced that it may as well be a trade war between Kentucky and the rest of the US: there is simply no way that Russia can inflict a proportionate amount of economic damage to the west, and the only limit to how much damage the west can inflict on Russia is how willing they are to suffer even a tiny bit in return.
But something else happened. Poroshenko ended up being less of a stooge as time went on and Zelenskiy is anything but. When Zelenskiy was elected some thought he was too pro-Russia, as a Jew he certainly didn't identify with groups like Azov or Right Sector, his first language is Russian, etc... A lot of commentators and even Putin seem to focus on 2014 and not more recent happenings in Ukraine.
Who wins? No one. Ukrainians are suffering yet another genocide because Russia is being spiteful that they can't conquer Ukraine (due to massive corruption killing their military capabilities). Of course it's not the first time in history (basically all Ukrainian history is powers invading back and forth) so hopefully a stronger Ukraine comes out of this.
China, since they will be buying Russian resources for cheap
good question btw, but terrible and misguided article
That said, far too much of the present discourse leaves out that in many different situations, the US has added fuel to the fire in Ukraine, instead of taking opportunities to lessen the chance of violent conflict.
Tell me what can the US do to lessen the chance of these violent occurrences?
Russia military reputation was severely damaged. Not saying they're not dangerous, but certainly not as much as many imagined.
One of the main causes is the massive corruption in their military. China suffers from the same internal issue. No one can say whether the levels of corruption are similar, but it casts a dark shadow over China's military trustworthiness.
NATO, on the other hand, has proved capable of successfully supporting a weak country against a much greater military power without even stepping foot in battle.
Maybe the most important contributions from NATO (by NATO, read 80% the US) was in strategy and tactics. If they just had sent weapons without good strategy and tactics, the outcome would have been different.
Eastern Europe was fractured and weak following World War One. A huge invasion still came twenty years later. This is a game played out in centuries, not 20 years. The future is unpredictable. Russians leaders plan in that world.
My guess is why Putin hates the "NATO sphere of influence" is that he doesn't like democracy, because democracy means his head will end up on a noose, or in the best case scenario, in prison with his wealth taken from him. But on the flip side, it's not like American or EU democracy is free of thieves and nepotism either. Special greetings to Jean-Claude Juncker and Ursula von der Leyen!
If Russia does get trounced in this war and Ukraine joins NATO I would expect suspiciously well funded independence movements to start popping up in Russia. This conflict wont stop at their borders.
It'll stop and we'll finally lose interest when Russia breaks into 16 different poverty stricken polities.