Russia - General Discussion.

[Rock the kasbah]

The US, NATO & the Article IV Trap in Ukraine

Scott Ritter says the ongoing flow of refugees out of Ukraine into neighboring territories poses the greatest potential for a NATO-Russia clash. By Scott Ritter Special to Consortium News The ongoing Russian invasion has torn asunder whatever passed for geopolitical stability in Eastern Eur

consortiumnews.com

This article mentions alot of what I have read in this thread but I believe that he might be on the money with article 4.
What he outlines is a very real possibility and a very tricky one too

To date, more than 2 million Ukrainians have fled to sanctuary in Poland, Moldova, Hungary and Romania. The capacity of these nations to absorb these refugees is rapidly reaching the saturation point. If Russia begins its long-anticipated assault on Kiev, or otherwise engages in action which dramatically alters the situation in the rest of Ukraine, it is anticipated that millions more Ukrainians will be seeking refugee status, creating the real potential for one of the greatest humanitarian emergencies since the end of the Second World War.

Faced with such conditions, Ukraine’s neighbors may feel compelled to create a humanitarian buffer zone along Ukraine’s border with Europe which would require the deployment of some sort of peacekeeping force, operating under either the U.N., EU or NATO Article IV authority. The question of how Russia would respond to such an intervention is unknown.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

It seems I misinterpreted what you wrote, apologies for that. No need to be so defensive, by the way. I did in any case not accuse you of anything.


Who is "you"? I am not at war, Ukraine is at war. Ukraine needs to decide whether they want to fight for their freedom and pay the price, or surrender, and pay a different price. In any case they will pay a high price.

Wrong -- most Russians (including Putin) realize that much of what Putin says are lies. Also, where did I say "NATO is like saint"? I never made such a claim.

As I have said repeatedly: NATO does not want a war.

Do you think the West should compromise and not Russia? Why do you write "continue to escalate" when it is Russia that has been escalating, NATO has merely been responding.

Also, keep in mind that Russia has started an unprovoked war, they have invaded a sovereign country, they have broken with International Law and the UN charter. Giving in to their demands after such horrendous acts are in my opinion not very wise. Espesially people in SE Asia should consider the wisdom of letting big, nuclear-capable countries use an invasion to force neighbour countries into submission. Singapore has understood the importance of defending International Law and the UN charter, they have not only condemned the Russian invasion, they have also impose sanctions. China is watching how the world is reacting to Russian aggression, and no doubt world's reaction to the war in Ukraine will influence how China thinks about invading neighbour countries in the future, if those countries refuse to give China what they want.

Imagine if, 20 years from now, China stars an invasion of Indonesia. How would you like Europe to react?

Do you want Europe to make a general statement that you should stop defending yourself and "make a compromise" with the occupant of your country? Or would you like Europe to strongly condemn the invasion of your country, referring to the UN charter and International Law, ship medical supplies and weapons, and impose sanctions on the country that broke International Law and is killing your fellow countrymen?

Ukraine and the rest of Europe will not forget those who helps in these trying times. Those who remain "neutral" will more easily be forgotten.

Some may say "During the Iraq war many countries did not protest much, and did not impose sanctions against the US why should we do it now"?

In my opinion the last Iraq war was a huge mistake, not protesting it was a huge mistake. People like Tony Blair and George Bush should have been investigated, to ascertain whether war crimes were committed or not (I am not saying they were, I am saying it should have been investigated). ICC concluded it was outside their jurisdiction ICC will not put Tony Blair on trial for war crimes: Report | Middle East Eye, which tells me that something is wrong somewhere.

HOWEVER, using one mistake as an excuse to make another (even bigger) mistake is not a great idea in my opinion. It will just move the world backwards, whereas we have an opportunity to move the world forward.

Only the "big" countries like the US and China can possibly "gain" from not playing by the international rules. All other countries will gain from not weakening but strengthening International Law. Therefore it should be in the interest also of countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand to help increase the cost of breaking International Law. The war in Ukraine is an opportunity to send a signal to both the US and China that International Law must be respected, and a long list of countries are ready to impose sanctions on countries that break International Law by invading another country.

And yes, if the US ever breaks International Law in the future, then I strongly hope, and will fully support, that the US should be condemned, and sanctions should be imposed against the US. Just as in a civilized society, the Law should apply equally to everybody. We should not accept anything less.

I am sure that the "you" in Ananda's sentence is not the DT-member Vivendi, but "the one who".
Like "if you want peace, you have to prepare for war".

You are right that invading other countries is wrong, but rhe problem is that Russia is not the only superpower who does not respect borders / invades other countries. Because of US' economical power, many countries will not dare to protest loudly and start with embargoes and boycots. For such countries it will feel quite unfair to point a finger to Russia but stay quiet when the US invading other countries/start war. Also many countries do not want to choose party/side but stay neutral.

So in short, superpowers just have the tendency to act arrogant and violate international laws, rules and treaties.

 

[KiwiRob]

Wow. You are very 'brave.'
Why would Russia stop it's expansion because there no NATO? Russia has been repeatedly invading it's neighbours for centuries before NATO existed. The 'NATO made me do it; argument by Putin is tosh, just the usual Russian blame everyone else, never take any responsibility for their own actions. Russia didn't invade the Ukraine because of NATO, it invaded because that's usual Russia behaviour.

The biggest motivation for Russia's neighbours to join NATO has been Russian behaviour. Increasingly belligerent, aggressive and uncivil, culminating in a brutal and illegal invasion of the Ukraine.

Why would it start, if Nato had been disbanded after the cold war ended and the world disarmed we would be living in a different world. The events which have happened may never have happened, Putin may never have happened. Nato has to take some of the blame for this war, it's continued Eastern expansion was unnecessary.

When you run through the list of the wars Russia fought in Tsardom and Empire eras a lot were defensive, there's a historical reason why Russia has wanted buffers.

Absolutely spot on wrt Russian behaviour being the real problem.

Whats the cause of this behaviour? Go on have a guess.

 

[cdxbow]

Why would it start, if Nato had been disbanded after the cold war ended and the world disarmed we would be living in a different world. The events which have happened may never have happened, Putin may never have happened. Nato has to take some of the blame for this war, it's continued Eastern expansion was unnecessary.

When you run through the list of the wars Russia fought in Tsardom and Empire eras a lot were defensive, there's a historical reason why Russia has wanted buffers.



Whats the cause of this behaviour? Go on have a guess.

I find 'what ifs', a waste of time, but in response to yours, an equally likely outcome if NATO had disbanded is Russian tanks taking a tour west and dominating the continent. That's what Russia has done for centuries. Why would it change?

I'm sure Poland (and others) will disagree strongly about the defensive nature of repeated Russian occupations. You ask the cause of this behavior, that's easy, Russian suspicion and paranoia now embodied in Mr Putin. Mr Putin invaded Ukraine. no one else and he is responsible for those tens of thousands of deaths. The west posed no military threat to Russia. Mr Putin used it as a beat up, creating an external enemy who then becomes the cause of all Russia's problems. Almost the first step in the any despots playbook.

 

[phreeky]

Nato has to take some of the blame for this war, it's continued Eastern expansion was unnecessary.

Did it cause Putin to invade Ukraine? Or did it prevent Putin from earlier invading one of those NATO countries?

You're using similar arguments as people whom suggest that countries should not have a military whatsoever. It's a lovely thought.

 

[KiwiRob]

I find 'what ifs', a waste of time, but in response to yours, an equally likely outcome if NATO had disbanded is Russian tanks taking a tour west and dominating the continent. That's what Russia has done for centuries. Why would it change?

I'm sure Poland (and others) will disagree strongly about the defensive nature of repeated Russian occupations. You ask the cause of this behavior, that's easy, Russian suspicion and paranoia now embodied in Mr Putin. Mr Putin invaded Ukraine. no one else and he is responsible for those tens of thousands of deaths. The west posed no military threat to Russia. Mr Putin used it as a beat up, creating an external enemy who then becomes the cause of all Russia's problems. Almost the first step in the any despots playbook.

Without Natos expansion Russia wouldn't have needed to rearm. You forget the position post Soviet Union Russia was in, they were in a poor state in every respect, with Nato gone and a peaceful Europe where Russia could have become a member of the EU things could be completely different. If Russia had been integrated into a Nato free Europe it could be argued Putin wouldn't have happened.

 

[KiwiRob]

Did it cause Putin to invade Ukraine? Or did it prevent Putin from earlier invading one of those NATO countries?

You're using similar arguments as people whom suggest that countries should not have a military whatsoever. It's a lovely thought.

I think it did. If the Nato had guaranteed Ukraine would never become a member chances are Russia wouldn't have invaded.

Interesting idea if no country had a military and all weapons were destroyed then how would anyone fight with anyone else.

I'll take Chomsky over your opinion of this crisis.

The tensions over Ukraine are extremely severe, with Russia’s concentration of military forces at Ukraine’s borders. The Russian position has been quite explicit for some time. It was stated clearly by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at his press conference at the United Nations: “The main issue is our clear position on the inadmissibility of further expansion of NATO to the East and the deployment of strike weapons that could threaten the territory of the Russian Federation.” Much the same was reiterated shortly after by Putin, as he had often said before.

There is a simple way to deal with deployment of weapons: Don’t deploy them. There is no justification for doing so. The U.S. may claim that they are defensive, but Russia surely doesn’t see it that way, and with reason.

The question of further expansion is more complex. The issue goes back over 30 years, to when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was collapsing. There were extensive negotiations among Russia, the U.S. and Germany. (The core issue was German unification.) Two visions were presented. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev proposed a Eurasian security system from Lisbon to Vladivostok with no military blocs. The U.S. rejected it: NATO stays, Russia’s Warsaw Pact disappears.

For obvious reasons, German reunification within a hostile military alliance is no small matter for Russia. Nevertheless, Gorbachev agreed to it, with a quid pro quo: No expansion to the East. President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker agreed. In their words to Gorbachev: “Not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well, it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”

“East” meant East Germany. No one had a thought about anything beyond, at least in public. That’s agreed on all sides. German leaders were even more explicit about it. They were overjoyed just to have Russian agreement to unification, and the last thing they wanted was new problems.

There is extensive scholarship on the matter — Mary Sarotte, Joshua Shifrinson, and others, debating exactly who said what, what they meant, what’s its status, and so on. It is interesting and illuminating work, but what it comes down to, when the dust settles, is what I quoted from the declassified record.

President H.W. Bush pretty much lived up to these commitments. So did President Bill Clinton at first, until 1999, the 50th anniversary of NATO; with an eye on the Polish vote in the upcoming election, some have speculated. He admitted Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to NATO. President George W. Bush — the lovable goofy grandpa who was celebrated in the press on the 20th anniversary of his invasion of Afghanistan — let down all the bars. He brought in the Baltic states and others. In 2008, he invited Ukraine to join NATO, poking the bear in the eye. Ukraine is Russia’s geostrategic heartland, apart from intimate historic relations and a large Russia-oriented population. Germany and France vetoed Bush’s reckless invitation, but it’s still on the table. No Russian leader would accept that, surely not Gorbachev, as he made clear.

Chomsky: US Approach To Ukraine And Russia Has “Left The Domain Of Rational Discourse” : Rozenberg Quarterly

 

[Vivendi]

You are right that invading other countries is wrong, but rhe problem is that Russia is not the only superpower who does not respect borders / invades other countries. Because of US' economical power, many countries will not dare to protest loudly and start with embargoes and boycots. For such countries it will feel quite unfair to point a finger to Russia but stay quiet when the US invading other countries/start war. Also many countries do not want to choose party/side but stay neutral.

So in short, superpowers just have the tendency to act arrogant and violate international laws, rules and treaties.

I am saddened to see that you don't believe that the world actually can evolve. At the same time I think you are wrong.

International Humanitarian law is recognized by all UN nations. You are right that implementation is not perfect. However the world has for some time been moving towards a multipolar situation. That can be an opportunity for authoritarians to weaken the "rules based system" further. However it can also be used as an opportunity to do the opposite -- to strengthen rules-based systems and in particular International Law. Russia has violated international law (How Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Violates International Law | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)).

By condemning this and also impose sanctions countries has the opportunity to set a precedent for how the world should react when a country is violating international law. Singapore fully understands this:

“It is important that all countries, especially the small states, send a clear signal that we are united for peace, and we are united to defend the principles of the (UN) Charter, and that we are united to uphold international law.”

“Singapore has always taken a consistent position on the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries,” he said.

“Singapore is a staunch supporter of the rules-based multilateral system and of the United Nations.

“The unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation is a clear and gross violation of the fundamental norms … of international law and of the UN Charter.”

Small states must 'send a clear signal' against Russian invasion of Ukraine, says Singapore's UN representative - CNA (channelnewsasia.com)

A lot can be said about the war in Ukraine, but when it comes to international relations and the impact on international relations, I believe the above is by far one of the most important items, and something that all countries should take notice of and support. I think many do, however, some countries are unfortunately very short-sighted and don't consider that not supporting international law today can come back to bit them in the future, when they are being exposed to aggression and the neighbors choose not to react.

 

[phreeky]

I'll take Chomsky over your opinion of this crisis.

Searching for an article that backs your opinion is just confirmation bias.

Besides, they're just there for a military exercise, right? Oh wait, no that's right it's "de-nazification". No, now it's because of NATO expansion.

Stop lapping up Putin's lies.

 

[seaspear]

There are number of articles quoting Putin's interest then of joining N.A.T.O,but membership of joining N.A.T.O is based on being meeting certain criteria that Ukraine was ever likely to meet and that Ukraine joining N.A.T.O was a ruse I don't believe that Russia with its values would of qualified either

NATO Won’t Let Ukraine Join Soon. Here’s Why. (Published 2022)

Ukraine has pressed for membership to defend against Russia. But President Biden and European leaders are not ready for that step.

www.nytimes.com

Putin’s antagonism toward Ukraine was never just about NATO – it’s about creating a new Russian empire

The crisis between Russia and Ukraine began with Russian objections to potential Ukrainian membership in NATO. Now it’s clear that Vladimir Putin really wants something else.

theconversation.com

Why isn't Ukraine already in NATO? Here's what it takes to join the 30-country alliance

NATO employs an "open door policy" for aspiring European members, but nations have to meet certain political, economic, and military standards.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

According to Lavrov: zie kans voor compromis • Man met handen omhoog doodgeschoten a 4th Russian general has been killed in Ukraïne. Number four in just three weeks. How is this possible? Are Russian generals more on the battlefield than non-Russian generals, or do they take more risks?

 

[Deni]

Why Russia is so large? How did russians manage to inhabit such huge territory? Did they spread out more than any other ethnic group? Why Russia is extremely diverse in peoples, cultures, spoken languages, etc? How such diverse peoples happend to live in a common state? Why the USSR, which Putin calls "historical Russia" and dissolution of which he sees as the greatest tragedy of the 20th century, dissolved so quickly? etc
In case one sees something hardly understandable, probably it's time to drastically change one's assumptions.

If one discarded any explanations but observed just the facts of the russian history without any interpretation, he/she would find that Russia has EVER behaived exactly how it behaves today. Russia is used to invading neigbors and oppressing own minorities.
Starting with tatars in 1552, the bashqorts in 1557, the conquest of Siberia from 1581 till the end of 17 century, conquest of Kalmyks in 1759, conquest of Caucasus till 1861, Conquest of Finland in 1809, conquest of Poland in 1815, conquest of Far East in 1858-1860, conquest of Middle Asian khanates in 1895, conquest of Vyborg region in 1939 from Finland, etc. After a conquest russians unlike nazis didn't expel or kill the conquered survivors. Instead they did everything to assimilate them by oppressing those who resisted, and favoring those, who obeyed.
Putin sees himself as a historical russian figure - the 'tsar' who restores 'the glory of russian weapon', who collects historical 'russian lands' and brother to russians peoples. You may have heard his nonsense based on typical russain myths about Ukraine. But similar words he has also said about Kazakhstan. His close allies like Zhirinovsky openly greet Putin with traditional russian emperior greeting back from XIX century, which can be translated as "Oh God, save the tsar!"
Did you know that last fall russian school cirriculum got a new subject called "the place of Russia in the world" dedicated solely to teaching russian/soviet achievements plus another school subject has been restored from soviet times called "initial military training"?
The common national idea fostered in the heads of russians translates into - we rather live in shit, but be proud of how great we are. This brain washing is the core of russian perception of the world.
Putin may indeed suffer dementia. But as psychiatrists say - if ill nonsens in its nutshell is based on brain biochemistry, then the wording content of the nonsense is based on what the patient sees, hears, and experiences around himself/herself.
In a sense Putin is not the main problem. Earlier or later it could have been anybody other than Putin, and it still can appear a new "Putin" in the future.
The fundamental problem is the system of power which has formed on the territory, which is called 'Russia'. I shall say a sedition thing ... if your inner self feels this is an intolerant and inappropriate word, please look for a semantic synonim. The problem is with the structure of russian culture and mentality in respect of fundamental setup of this 'country'.
There is the only thing, which unites russians living in the far east, on the south, on Ural mountains, or in the central regions with chechens, tatars, yakuts, kalmyks, mari, adyg, ingush, udmurt, mordva, komi, karels, etc.
This thing is called 'the vertical of power' - a typical imperialistic set up - central power puts own regional viceroys, whose work is: to agree with local elites, brain wash local people, let basic needs of local people are met, look good in the eyes of central power, and steal as much funds as possible while being on this job - check up Navalny videos. Anything which threatens this set up should be eliminated. This scheme needs funding of course - as long as oil and gas are there it's workable. The same setup was in the USSR and as soon as oil/gas prices plunged the USSR quickly collapsed because there was absolutely nothing in common among even bigger number of peoples who belonged to the USSR.

This 'country' is too huge to be a normal wisely managable state. Unless the gangster system of power, which is called "Russia" disintegrates into 20-30 independent nations, this gang will continue the same behavior untill they nuke the world.
Disintegration of 'Russia' into 20-30 independent nations would be better for everybody because one of key russian superiority prepositions - 'great large country' would become irrelevant and stop feeding dangerous and crazy ideas. Peoples would at last have a chance to look around to develop own neighborhood and vote for domestic governors who are more transparent, better aware of local needs, and more motivated to build better life for people here and now. The threat of Putin 2.0 based on typical russian myths and system of vertical power would become irrelevant, and the threat of another russian agression towards other nations would be eliminated.

 

[Rob c]

Without Natos expansion Russia wouldn't have needed to rearm. You forget the position post Soviet Union Russia was in, they were in a poor state in every respect, with Nato gone and a peaceful Europe where Russia could have become a member of the EU things could be completely different. If Russia had been integrated into a Nato free Europe it could be argued Putin wouldn't have happened.

I think that you forget that a significant number of these states had been repeatedly invaded by Russia over the centuries and were only trying to secure their future sovereignty and freedom. the other point is that these states asked to join NATO. and that this has been an ongoing process for a number of years. AS I pointed out before NATO never threatened Russia or demanded territorial concessions when it was in it's weakened state in the early 1990's. The other point is that Russia guaranteed Ukraine's territorial sovereignty as part of the agreement for Ukraine to give up it's Soviet era nuclear weapons to Russia.

 

[Feanor]

I find 'what ifs', a waste of time, but in response to yours, an equally likely outcome if NATO had disbanded is Russian tanks taking a tour west and dominating the continent. That's what Russia has done for centuries. Why would it change?

I'm sure Poland (and others) will disagree strongly about the defensive nature of repeated Russian occupations. You ask the cause of this behavior, that's easy, Russian suspicion and paranoia now embodied in Mr Putin. Mr Putin invaded Ukraine. no one else and he is responsible for those tens of thousands of deaths. The west posed no military threat to Russia. Mr Putin used it as a beat up, creating an external enemy who then becomes the cause of all Russia's problems. Almost the first step in the any despots playbook.

Except it was hardly a first step for Putin. When Putin came to power he was trying to build bridges with the west on some sort of terms of acceptance and equality. He had G.W. look into his eyes, and he even talked about Russia potentially joining NATO. He wanted a single economic space from Lissabon to Vladivostok, a joint BMD which included Russia, against rogue state threats, and wanted to have the west respect a Russian sphere of influence in eastern Europe the same way that France got one in Africa. You can trace the slow disillusionment with the West over the years through public statements and policy decisions. As late as 2011 Russia let through the Security Council resolution to dismember Libya ("no fly zone") and joined in sanctions againts Iran. Yet the considerations Russia got in exchage were modest, and meanwhile the US continued to push political influence and military cooperation programs closer and closer to Russia while simultaneously excluding Russia from the BMD program.

There is a pattern here of Russia wanting to be integrated into a joint security architecture with the west, and of this falling through. I agree that some of Russia's desires were the problem, but they weren't the only problem. I see a tendency in this conversation to project backwards and equivocate Russia and Putin today with Russia and Putin in say 2004. This is fundamentally false. Russia and Putin have both changed a lot in the past two decades. And this change was at least partialy in response to their relations with the west.

 

[ngatimozart]

Why Russia is so large? How did russians manage to inhabit such huge territory? Did they spread out more than any other ethnic group? Why Russia is extremely diverse in peoples, cultures, spoken languages, etc? How such diverse peoples happend to live in a common state? Why the USSR, which Putin calls "historical Russia" and dissolution of which he sees as the greatest tragedy of the 20th century, dissolved so quickly? etc
In case one sees something hardly understandable, probably it's time to drastically change one's assumptions.

If one discarded any explanations but observed just the facts of the russian history without any interpretation, he/she would find that Russia has EVER behaived exactly how it behaves today. Russia is used to invading neigbors and oppressing own minorities.
Starting with tatars in 1552, the bashqorts in 1557, the conquest of Siberia from 1581 till the end of 17 century, conquest of Kalmyks in 1759, conquest of Caucasus till 1861, Conquest of Finland in 1809, conquest of Poland in 1815, conquest of Far East in 1858-1860, conquest of Middle Asian khanates in 1895, conquest of Vyborg region in 1939 from Finland, etc. After a conquest russians unlike nazis didn't expel or kill the conquered survivors. Instead they did everything to assimilate them by oppressing those who resisted, and favoring those, who obeyed.
Putin sees himself as a historical russian figure - the 'tsar' who restores 'the glory of russian weapon', who collects historical 'russian lands' and brother to russians peoples. You may have heard his nonsense based on typical russain myths about Ukraine. But similar words he has also said about Kazakhstan. His close allies like Zhirinovsky openly greet Putin with traditional russian emperior greeting back from XIX century, which can be translated as "Oh God, save the tsar!"
Did you know that last fall russian school cirriculum got a new subject called "the place of Russia in the world" dedicated solely to teaching russian/soviet achievements plus another school subject has been restored from soviet times called "initial military training"?
The common national idea fostered in the heads of russians translates into - we rather live in shit, but be proud of how great we are. This brain washing is the core of russian perception of the world.
Putin may indeed suffer dementia. But as psychiatrists say - if ill nonsens in its nutshell is based on brain biochemistry, then the wording content of the nonsense is based on what the patient sees, hears, and experiences around himself/herself.
In a sense Putin is not the main problem. Earlier or later it could have been anybody other than Putin, and it still can appear a new "Putin" in the future.
The fundamental problem is the system of power which has formed on the territory, which is called 'Russia'. I shall say a sedition thing ... if your inner self feels this is an intolerant and inappropriate word, please look for a semantic synonim. The problem is with the structure of russian culture and mentality in respect of fundamental setup of this 'country'.
There is the only thing, which unites russians living in the far east, on the south, on Ural mountains, or in the central regions with chechens, tatars, yakuts, kalmyks, mari, adyg, ingush, udmurt, mordva, komi, karels, etc.
This thing is called 'the vertical of power' - a typical imperialistic set up - central power puts own regional viceroys, whose work is: to agree with local elites, brain wash local people, let basic needs of local people are met, look good in the eyes of central power, and steal as much funds as possible while being on this job - check up Navalny videos. Anything which threatens this set up should be eliminated. This scheme needs funding of course - as long as oil and gas are there it's workable. The same setup was in the USSR and as soon as oil/gas prices plunged the USSR quickly collapsed because there was absolutely nothing in common among even bigger number of peoples who belonged to the USSR.

This 'country' is too huge to be a normal wisely managable state. Unless the gangster system of power, which is called "Russia" disintegrates into 20-30 independent nations, this gang will continue the same behavior untill they nuke the world.
Disintegration of 'Russia' into 20-30 independent nations would be better for everybody because one of key russian superiority prepositions - 'great large country' would become irrelevant and stop feeding dangerous and crazy ideas. Peoples would at last have a chance to look around to develop own neighborhood and vote for domestic governors who are more transparent, better aware of local needs, and more motivated to build better life for people here and now. The threat of Putin 2.0 based on typical russian myths and system of vertical power would become irrelevant, and the threat of another russian agression towards other nations would be eliminated.

Hi Deni, welcome to the Forum.

Interesting post with a historical narrative. We have a set of rules that you should read. One of which is that we require good reliable sources to be included in posts. Please do so in the future.

 

[Boatteacher]

and wanted to have the west respect a Russian sphere of influence in eastern Europe

Isn't the fundmental problem here that, having suffered decades of Russian brutality and dragging down their economies, Eastern Eurpoe didn't want Russia to have any influence on them.
They wanted out and to be able to ensure they stayed out.
You don't seem to allow them any agency in this.

 

[Feanor]

Isn't the fundmental problem here that, having suffered decades of Russian brutality and dragging down their economies, Eastern Eurpoe didn't want Russia to have any influence on them.
They wanted out and to be able to ensure they stayed out.
You don't seem to allow them any agency in this.

Like I said, some of Russia's desires are an issue too. But it isn't the only issue. And it raises questions. Is the agency of smaller states a general principle? If so, there are a lot of other issues with the current international arrangement, and the behavior of many western countries. If it's not a principle, if the agency of some can be disregarded, what makes Ukraine special?

 

[KiwiRob]

Searching for an article that backs your opinion is just confirmation bias.

Besides, they're just there for a military exercise, right? Oh wait, no that's right it's "de-nazification". No, now it's because of NATO expansion.

Stop lapping up Putin's lies.

Whatever floats your boat.

Anyway Zelensky has capitulated to one of Russias demands. Ukraine will not join Nato. If he'd just come out with this statement a few months ago this mess probably wouldn't have happened.

Volodymyr Zelensky Says Ukraine Won't Join NATO

The Ukrainian president said last week that he had "cooled down" on the idea of membership of the alliance, which he wants to set up a no-fly zone.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Feanor]

Whatever floats your boat.

Anyway Zelensky has capitulated to one of Russias demands. Ukraine will not join Nato. If he'd just come out with this statement a few months ago this mess probably wouldn't have happened.

Volodymyr Zelensky Says Ukraine Won't Join NATO

The Ukrainian president said last week that he had "cooled down" on the idea of membership of the alliance, which he wants to set up a no-fly zone.

www.newsweek.com

You would be surprised what you can compromise on when faced with military defeats. Putin recently stated that assaulting Ukrainian major cities was never the goal. Note that this doesn't mean he won't do it... but it seems like he's laying the ground-work for Russia not taking Chernigov, Sumy, or Kharkov. Obviously Mariupol' is another story, and I strongly suspect that the line there will be "it was all the DNR reclaiming their own territory".

 

[Vivendi]

Like I said, some of Russia's desires are an issue too. But it isn't the only issue. And it raises questions. Is the agency of smaller states a general principle? If so, there are a lot of other issues with the current international arrangement, and the behavior of many western countries. If it's not a principle, if the agency of some can be disregarded, what makes Ukraine special?

It is an important principle, supported by most small and also many medium sized countries.

In Europe one has worked hard to honor this principle. Norway decided to not join EU -- this choice was respected by EU, and peaceful negotiations led to agreements that both parties benefit from. Sweden decided to not join NATO -- this choice was respected by NATO. The UK decided to leave EU. This choice was respected by EU, and peaceful negotiations led to a "divorce" that both parties agreed upon.

I fully agree that we should work harder to limit unwanted meddling in other affairs also from the US and others. The same rules should apply to all. The excuse that "somebody is doing bad things therefore I can also do bad things" is however a horrible excuse.

Also not sure why you refer to Ukraine as "special" -- the reason why the Baltics, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, etc. all wanted to join NATO was to reduce the potential for Russia to drag those countries back into Russia's "sphere of influence".