24 posts were split to a new topic: Pronunciations and Anti Thread Derails
OK so we agree that Russia very much wants direct or Belarusian-type control over Ukraine, right?
And then do we agree that they’d probably rather have a Belarusian-style Ukraine and not have to invade? That they’d probably only invade if they don’t think that they can make Ukraine a similar puppet state?
So, what I’m saying is that a Ukrainian military buildup and integration into Western military intelligence is threatening, not to Russia (Ukraine isn’t going to invade Russia, obviously), but to Russia’s designs on Ukraine. I understand that this is Not Fair and that Ukraine should be able to build up its military however it sees fit, but that’s why it’s called realism I guess.
Yeah, I should probably change it, but performative correctness, even when warranted, is not a big priority for me.
Well, Trump literally blocked their delivery, and apparently Biden was not fast in restarting/increasing lethal aid, so there’s only been a few months of deliveries.
Everything you said here we agree on. What makes no sense is attributing blame for the invasion to the West (despite not having taken any material steps towards inviting Ukraine to NATO) rather than Russia’s imperial designs, or the argument that Ukrainian should totally submit to Russia rather than get invaded, because it’s not obvious that a war, as bad as it is, will be worse.
It’s not really performative correctness. It’s more like how I used to pronounce Iran and Iraq incorrectly, but then I learned the proper pronunciations somewhere along the way and started using them.
We all used to get Kyiv wrong. No reason to keep being wrong for performative reasons.
We get it, it’s just not really an interesting point at all except the part where he calls it the US’s “fault,” which is moral commentary that is rightfully mocked.
Mearsheimer argued in 2014 that Ukraine should reject Western overtures, explicitly reject NATO and EU membership, and try to tread a sort of middle path. Trying to maintain some independence but being semi-aligned with Russia. Would that have been better for Ukraine? I think so but I don’t know. This war seems really bad. As far as “blame” goes, I think it’s fair to criticize Western engagement with Ukraine as pointless and counterproductive and shortsighted, accomplishing nothing and antagonizing Russia with no clear endgame. I think it was reckless. Does that mean that the Russian leadership is not to blame, in a moral sense, for their offensive war? Of course not.
As of February 15th, Mearsheimer thought Ukraine was on this path. How did that work out for them?
He absolutely did not think Ukraine was on that path on February 15. He thought they were aligning more and more with the west and the Russian deployments were a signal for Ukraine and the west to wake up and cut it out.
That’s different for numerous reasons, and I have no interest in discussing anything in this thread with you after your performance in this thread.
3 Likes
I can’t tell you anything ikes.
1 Like
OK, but still, nothing further happened, and Russia invaded. Great prognosticating, guy.
I, too, took a trip to the USSR in high school, I went in 1989. Visited Leningrad, Rostov, Pyatigorsk, and Moscow. Was supposed to go to Tblisi but there was civil unrest.
Like you said, the people were great. Did a ton of drinking with locals wherever we went. Brought jeans and cigarettes to trade for stuff. I still have a full-on extremely heavy Soviet army winter coat.
Got busted trading money in Moscow and dragged into a little interrogation room. Nothing happened to me, they were after the housekeeper with whom I had traded.
Also, saw Gary Hart in the gift shop at the Hotel Cosmos.
2 Likes
Just using some basic logic, even going back to 2014 this is all a result of Putin’s own idiocy. You know one way to guarantee a country will not go down a “neutral” East/West path? Annexing chunks of territory with citizens aligned towards the Eastern way out the country….
Again, it seems really important to actual Ukrainians:
1 Like
The Soviet Union stationed missiles with nuclear warheads in the Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republics. In 1991, those republics became independent countries. Kazakhstan quickly decided to go non-nuclear and shipped the warheads back to Russia, which inherited the Soviet Union’s nuclear status in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Belarus followed.
Ukraine used those missiles as a bargaining chip. They got, in 1994, a financial settlement and the Budapest Memorandum which offered non-aggression assurances that Russia has now broken. They shipped the 1700 or so warheads from the missiles back to Russia and destroyed the missiles.
Ukraine never had the ability to launch those missiles or to use those warheads. The security measures against unauthorized use were under Moscow’s control. The Ukrainians might have found ways around those security measures, or they might not have. Removing the warheads and physically taking them apart to repurpose them would be dangerous, and Ukraine did not have the facilities for doing that. Nor did Ukraine have the facilities to maintain those warheads. For only one example, the tritium in those warheads has a 12-year half-life and needs to be replaced regularly.
As the negotiations to remove the warheads were continuing, John Mearsheimer wrote “The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent.” He argued that conflict between Russia and Ukraine was inevitable, and therefore Ukraine needed a nuclear deterrent. He was critical of the United States’ role in negotiating the move of the warheads back to Russia
…Ukraine did not have the technical infrastructure to maintain a nuclear arsenal. It would have had to spend billions to build that infrastructure.
Mearsheimer argues that it was in American interests to allow Ukraine to become a nuclear power. Russia would have found it intolerable for Ukraine to retain those warheads, and more intolerable if it looked like the United States supported that move. Russia knew exactly where those missiles were, so bombing raids were possible and would likely have taken place as early as possible.
How would European countries have reacted? A nuclear Ukraine’s relations with Europe would have evolved very differently.
A counterfactual along Mearsheimer’s lines including what we know now would be a useful addition to the discussion, but, I think, difficult to write.
It would seem like the path for Russian non aggression against Ukraine has been exceedingly narrow if they guy blaming NATO for it wrote up an article suggesting that Ukraine do the thing that he says got Ukraine attacked now namely asking the US to help them arm themselves
2 Likes
BBC (news)
Abramovich to sell Chelsea and ‘donate proceeds to war victims’
Billionaire Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich says he will sell Chelsea FC, promising to donate the net proceeds to a charitable foundation for the benefit of “all victims of the war in Ukraine”.
“This includes providing critical funds towards the urgent and immediate needs of victims, as well as supporting the long-term work of recovery,” he said in a statement.
Abramovich, who has denied close financial links to Russian President Vladimir Putin or the Kremlin but has come under increasing scrutiny in recent days, says the sale will not be fast-tracked.
He says he will not be asking for the loans of £1.5bn he has made to the club to be repaid.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer called today for the 55-year-old to face sanctions, saying he is a “person of interest to the Home Office because of his links to the Russian state”.
Germany has been laying on free train travel (to Germany) from Poland and other countries for 3 or 4 days now (might be why refugees are heading to CZ)
spring 91 is right before things went bad. august 91 was the putsch. three people died at protests. two years later tanks fired on the parliament building and hundreds of people died around or at the barricades. i actually remembered it is as a little over a thousand because clashes were next to residential buildings and happening over time, but that was probably wrong. i’m not sure what newspaper i got it from 30 years ago, and i was a kid.
however, for a week or so it was quite enough that tourists were taking pictures of themselves next to barricades. i remember thinking excitedly that we were finally living in interesting times that you only read about. it was a bit like jan 6 actually, in that they tried to depose yeltsin.