There are two broad camps in the debate over why Russia invaded Ukraine. Call them the ‘Mearsheimer camp’ and the ‘non-Mearsheimer camp’.
Those in the ‘Mearsheimer camp’, notably John Mearsheimer himself, believe the primary motivation for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was opposition to the actions of Ukraine’s post-Maidan Government as regards NATO membership and the treatment of ethnically Russian Ukrainians.
By contrast, those in the ‘non-Mearsheimer camp’ believe the primary motivation for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was revanchism/imperialism on the part of Vladimir Putin. If I understand them correctly, they believe Putin would have invaded Ukraine sooner or later, even if we’d listened to the ‘Mearsheimer camp’.
Now, the ‘Mearsheimer camp’ has a straightforward plan for what Ukraine and the West should have done to avoid the present crisis. It goes something like this: Ukraine becomes a neutral state, recognises Crimea and the two breakaway republics in the East, and promises to respect the rights of ethnically Russian Ukrainians.
Of course, we can’t be sure that this plan would have worked. It’s entirely possible that even if Ukraine had done everything mentioned above, Russia still would have launched an invasion. (Note: I’m using “Ukraine” as a shorthand for “Ukraine and the West”.)
However, there’s one thing we can be sure of: Ukraine didn’t do those things, and Russia did launch an invasion. What we know, in other words, is that the Ukraine’s actual policy did not forestall Russian aggression.
Which raises the question: What do people in the ‘non-Mearsheimer camp’ believe Ukraine should have done instead? Even if we blame Russia entirely, an invasion cannot be considered a good outcome for Ukraine, so it’s surely worth asking how it could have been avoided.
From what I’ve seen, those in the ‘non-Mearsheimer camp’ spend a lot of time talking about how awful Putin is, but don’t seem to spend much time talking about what Ukraine should have done, given how awful he is. (Note: I’m not saying they’re wrong about Putin. Exactly how awful Putin is isn’t my main concern.)
Perhaps they would say that Ukraine should have asked for even more military aid in the years since 2014, knowing that an invasion was coming soon. Of course, if they’re right about Putin’s intentions, this might have spurred him to invade even sooner.
Or perhaps they would say there’s nothing Ukraine could have done to avoid a Russian invasion (short of allowing Russia to annex the entire country). To be clear: this would mean that every other possible outcome would have been as bad or worse than the current one, which seems difficult to believe.
But maybe they’re right. However, to justify not at least trying the plan favoured by the ‘Mearsheimer camp’ then requires an extremely strong argument. They have to explain why implementing that plan would have had worse consequences than Russian artillery fire raining down on Ukrainian cities and refugees fleeing the country en masse.
Until someone in the ‘non-Mearsheimer camp’ explains what Ukraine and the West should have done after 2014, or why the plan favoured by the ‘Mearsheimer camp’ wasn’t even worth trying, I’ll remain sceptical of their position.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Now you are talking.
Coincidentally these same people also spent a lot of time talking about how awful COVID was before responding in a way far far more harmful.
I think there are two colossal points – one is that our former Western democracies are being actively prevented from considering this issue in an adult way, the other is it is be used as a distraction from other issues which threaten our well-being or even survival.
The only thing the West could have done to prevent the Russian invasion was to have made Ukraine a full NATO member. It was only thanks to restraint and respect for Russian “feelings” on the part of NATO that this didn’t happen.
Mearsheimer et al are deluding themselves that this is anything other than naked aggression on the part of Vladimir Putin.
Putin was a trained KGB hood. And remains one to this day. His worldview is that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was the greatest disaster in modern history. And he has spent his entire political career attempting (with various degrees of success) to undo it. See his meddling/aggression in Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, etc. etc.
I’m fast losing patience with this “it’s all the West’s fault that poor Vlad has no choice but to bomb helpless civilians” bullshit.
If you think Russia is so great, go and live there. And see how long you last.
Most if the current Russian leadership are trained KGB hoods to the extent that you could say the KGB played a long game Coup d’etat in taking over the former CCP.
And of course they were trained in Hoodery and spycraft alongside their counterparts from all over the former CCCP who they did not regard as ‘foreigners’ or potential enemies; rather provincial buddies and drinking chums with whom to engage in gentle rivalries and comradeship.
so how many former soviet republics have been annexed and made a part of soviet union 2.0 exactly during Putin’s long career as a president? most of the former republics are non nato members and much weaker militarily. some of the republics are quite reach in resourses. sure there is a lot of economic and other cooperation but it doesn’t look remotely like a soviet union 2.0. there is also finland, which is a neutral european country, rich and right on the russia’s border with very long common history which has never been attempted to be meddled in in any way by Putin. Take Georgia as an example which was prevented from joining Nato in a similar fashion nearly 15 years ago. there’s been more than enough time to enslave it and rule directly from Moscow. But it hasn’t happened. Google “Georgia and US and EU cooperation” and see for yourself that no one restricts them from selling and buying and travelling etc even if it means some of the strategic issues are discussed with Putin. More than that, millions of russians visit this country every year and georgian people are not bitter, they’re not killing russians. georgian people also live and work in russia.
so, apart from your obvious primeval fear, do you have any more facts to present to confirm your point?
Of course, there was Chechenya. That said the failure of politicians and MSM to respond in a rational and dignified way to the complex issues of the Ukrainian failed state is lamentable and suspicious.
Chechenya was actually a part of Russian Federation, not a separate Soviet Republic. More like a region, county, etc.
I went on a long-overdue trip to a peaceful cathedral town in SW England yesterday. It’s just a few miles down the A30 from where I live. And along with seeing (former PM) Ted Heath’s house and the memorial to Bishop Roger (an under-appreciated figure in medieval English history), I saw all sorts of reminders of the only time in history the UK was attacked with chemical weapons.
The town, of course, was Salisbury, in Wiltshire. Where a couple of Vlad Putin’s goons attempted to assassinate a former military intelligence officer using an incredibly lethal chemical agent. They failed to kill their target, but ended up killing an innocent British woman who had come into contact with the perfume bottle these thugs had carelessly tossed in a bin.
Public health investigators determined that the amount of Novichok (the Russian-made chemical agent) used in the attack had the capacity to have killed several thousand people if it had become widely dispersed. It it had gotten into the water supply.
I’m sure the Russian intelligence service was mad at Sergei Skripal (the former Russian intelligence officer.) But I’m also sure the British and U.S. intelligence services were mad at Kim Philby, Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames. But we didn’t end up tossing chemical weapons around Moscow or St. Petersburg in response.
This is the sort of criminal Vladimir Putin is. This is the sort of reckless, murderous thug Vladimir Putin is.
So, forgive me if I find it utterly disgusting that so many alleged human beings seem to be giving him a pass.
Read Robert Kennedy’s book about Fauci
the first question any sane person has to ask himself is how to stop this conflict and prevent further suffering. If nothing that has been done up to this point made any difference and Ukrainians keep dying and they keep fleeing. Then maybe, maybe, this primitive black and white picture of bad russians and good ukrainians is not helping. Putin has been demonized to a point that any civilized dialog with him became impossible. Slowly even mainstream media has started publishing things which were outright banned before, like: far right movement in Ukraine weaponized by NATO, Civilians being murdered by Ukrainian army in Donbass region, etc, etc. These arguments were swept away just because Putin is a psychopath who talks nonsense.
Speaking of giving disgusting passes to,tyrants. You left out the recent mass attack by the British Government on its citizens with the Pfizer et al bio-agents – death toll around 2 000 so far… that we know.
I fear the death toll is far greater than your figure. Shall we ever be allowed to know the real number, as it still rising and is very well concealed ?
If you believe the official (and ludicrous explanation) for Salisbury, I have a nice bridge over the Thames I’d like to sell you.
If you believe that 2 Russian FSB agents came to salisbury to visit the cathedral, I have 100 nice bridges over the Thames I’d like to sell you.
Recognising that the UK government narrative is a pile of crap doesn’t require us to believe that those two were tourists.
Do you believe that those 2 placed a nerve agent on the Skripals doorknob which the Skripals both touched when they left the house that morning?
You will believe anything, as your superficial, simplistic view of events demonstrates.
Hey, it’s entirely normal to be attacked with chemical weapons on a park bench and then by chance receive first aid from the best-trained individual in the world as regards battlefield use of chemical weapons, who just happens to be walking by.
Oh and be four miles down the road from the Uk home of chemical warfare.
Coincidences like this happen all the time.
Keep going – you might – eventually – hit on a scenario that explains why the Skripals lived in Salisbury…
However, the news coverage by the usual suspects was quite credible at the time. Perhaps they were polishing the woodwork a bit, a cynic might observe.
Incidentally, it was not the ‘first’ assassination in the UK. In recent years Alexander Litvinenko was dealt with in that fashion (Nov 2006). Look him up.
“The town, of course, was Salisbury, in Wiltshire. Where a couple of Vlad Putin’s goons attempted to assassinate a former military intelligence officer using an incredibly lethal chemical agent.“
LOL! Sure they did.
After all, it makes obvious sense for an evil Russian dictator wanting to murder someone in the UK to do so in the most costly, involved and risky manner possible.
After all, anything less wouldn’t sit properly with his evil cat-stroking genius image in the US sphere, and that’s obviously his top priority.
There really is one born every minute. Small wonder the same liars got away with the Russiagate lies for so long.
It is the City of Salisbury, not a town.
There is no way on earth that the only chemical attack ever on british soil takes place four miles from the only place on british soil that STORES the nerve agent involved, and there is no connection…
Salisbury was nothing to do with Putin.
Putin is not the same man today that he was when he came to power. And he saw an opportunity today (the apparent loss of confidence of the west) that wasn’t there 20 years ago.
Finland was never in the Soviet Union. But Stalin ended up with the southern third as an outcome of the disastrous Winter War. Because this war took place just before WW2, the territory was never restored as it surely would have been otherwise.
Also, Putin is a racist and isn’t interested in the Muslim republics.
Instead of engaging with the argument you’ve concocted in your own mind – the poor Vlad argument which no one is really making – why don’t you engage with the more nuanced argument, namely, what makes Russia any different to the United States in claiming an area where geopolitical rivals cannot have military presence?
That is a reasonable argument without making apologies for Putin. In much the same way as historians have argued that the rise of Nazism in 1930s Germany was instigated by the economic hardship brought on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles, and in doing so are not excusing Hitler, but simply explaining the circumstances that contributed to it.
(Not saying Putin is Hitler, btw. It’s just an analogy.)
why don’t you engage with the more nuanced argument, namely, what makes Russia any different to the United States in claiming an area where geopolitical rivals cannot have military presence?
The more interesting question is Why would this matter? As a matter of fact, the USA did tolerate a communist presence in the Caribbean because the US government at that time didn’t have the cojones to force its removal. Similar to that, Putin will either succeed or fail in subdueing Ukraine. There’s no moral right involved in either case, just states inflicting on other states in close proximity whatever they can.
And then, of course, no geopolitical rival (whatever that’s supposed to mean) has a military presence in Ukraine. But said geopolitical rival does have a military presence in the Baltic statelets and one Putin could brush away without any effort. Reportedly, he gathered about 190,000 soldiers around Ukraine before the invasion. These could flush the NATO troops (about 3600 in total) out of the Baltic statelets if they were armed with hay forks (as prudent ally, the US of A obviously has no troops of its own in this region, just some in eastern Poland).
Or have made Russia a NATO member.
Russia isn’t a democracy which makes it inadmissible.
But given that Putin himself wanted to join, it makes a nonsense of his criticism.
No it doesn’t. If Russia were members of NATO, there would be no threat of attack from NATO.
There is no threat of attack from NATO anyway. But either way, if NATO is so bad, how come he wanted to join it?
Putin could never have stayed in NATO anyway, because he would still have wanted to take Crimea once his proxy government in Ukraine was overthrown. Crimea has Sevastopol, an essential naval base. That’s why he took Crimea, not the people.
The people only live their because of the Naval base. Crimea used to be an independent muslim state until Russia annexed it in violation of a treaty with it (end of the 18th century). Stalin then deported the people and settled Crimea with Russians instead.
Russia is at least as much of a democracy as Turkey.
One could also argue to which degree states which are de facto controlled by a bureaucratic oligarchy, eg, Germany, Italy or Austria, can be called democratic.
“The only thing the West could have done to prevent the Russian invasion was to have made Ukraine a full NATO member. “
Making Ukraine a full member was, and would have been again, vetoed by the relative grownups in Germany and France, precisely because its immediate consequence would most likely have been a Russian invasion.
The US sphere won’t fight for the Ukraine because the issues at stake there aren’t worth risking nuclear war for. That doesn’t change overnight merely because you have a piece of paper saying they are technically a member of your alliance. The result would have been either WW3, or catastrophic damage to the credibility of the NATO guarantee.
“If you think Russia is so great, go and live there. And see how long you last.”
I believe the Ukraine military has openings for foreign mercenaries after some of the previous ones encountered rather more war than they were bargaining for. I’m sure there’s a place for you there if you really believe it’s such a morally necessary crusade.
For the rest of us who just want our country to mind its own business for a change, we have no reason to travel anywhere.
Putin has been in power since 1999, attacked two countries since then. In the same period USUK attacked eight.
I refute your arguments thus.
Very difficult questions for the brainwashed down ticking Moscow sycophants: who invaded a sovereign country? Who has fired rockets and cruise missiles into a sovereign country from foreign soil? Who has used lethal measures on Russian citizens living outside Russia? Who has used a lethal bioweapon and a lethal radioactive substance to commit murder on foreign soil? How many instances can you cite where NATO members have used aggressive armed intervention on sovereign Russian soil?
Finally to these fools: “Precisely how happy are you that civilians are being targeted indiscriminately”
“You” and your ilk are naive in the extreme if you think a “neutral” Ukraine will remain a sovereign country if Putin is allowed to surround Ukraine – which he regards as “Russian”, how convenient – by ramping up his naked annexations – Donbass to Crimea to Odessa, with the Russian Black Sea fleet “patrolling” the entrance to the Mediterranean to prevent ‘ “reactionary elements” threatening “Russians living under the yoke of NAZI Ukraine”.
Just in case “you ” don’t get it, imagine you live in Russia and you support a Ukrainian invasion of sovereign Russian territory with cruise missiles, rockets and indiscriminate bombing because there is not a “no fly zone” in force; just how long do you think your support for the “enemy” (the corollary of what “you” believe is the fault of the “west” and/or NATO?EU for the Ukrainian conflict) would be tolerated and what sanctions do you think will be imposed on “you” by the Russian “authorities” – arrest under habeous corpus? representation at trial by independent legal professionals? fines and suspended sentences or community service orders?
Still its great you are able to give succour to Russia without fear of …retribution.
The answer to your question,’What should the non-Mearsheimer camp have done?’ is that it was not up to the Ukrainians to do anything: they were perfectly entitled to live in their own country at peace.
The Mearsheimer position is essentially this: Russia wants large parts of the Ukraine, and it is better to cede these territories than face the consequences of requiring Russia to come in and take them.
Of course the declaration of a ‘special military operation’ has unpleasant consequences. Standing up for your own interests and principles often does.
Who says Ukraine belonged to the ‘Ukrainians’ in the first place?
Aren’t we supposed to be living in a world of no borders and Love and Peace and all that other hippy-dippy stuff?
Let’s face it, who had Ukraine on their list of holiday destinations 5 years ago? I’d wager “no-one”.
The election in Ukraine in 2010 was a 49% to 45% victory for the pro Russian Victor Yanukovych and the election was declared to be above board and totally legal. He had huge support in the east of the country.
The US led coup against him resulted in neo-Nazi paramilitaries forcing the Russia supporting majority out of Ukraine back into Russia and The Donbass.
That is hardly “live in their own country at peace.”
The Ukraine was created as a Soviet Republic by the USSR in 1922. Prior to that (and the 1917 revolution) it had been a region of Imperial Russia and before that until taken in conquest in (I think) the 18th Century, part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Why were the ukrainians not free to stick with their elected government in 2014? Who killed the protesters and police at the Maidan?
You can’t just ignore the corruption of Biden and his involvement in Ukraine. Biden and the commercial interests he represent, made the situation in Ukraine.
Particularly by his corrupt son.
I get that DailySceptic is thrashing around for new topics now that the wheels are coming off the plandemic
But if the content becomes generic “Here’s why you should think what I think on HEADLINE_OF_THE_WEEK” beard stroking, then it will be indistinguishable from (e.g.) TCW.
Do with this information as you will.
It is obvious that in fact Toby has been reluctantly drawn into this problem but what is happening coincidentally as the Covid narrative collapses and is conveniently not reported in the MSM and disappears from the political agenda but with various obnoxious other plans like the WHO pandemic treaty or that they are still trying to foist these discredited products on children – that we are facing a complex geo-political issue which keeps being presented in an infantile and one-sided manner by the same political and journalistic class, 24/7. Also that the new agenda is continuous with the old one in being detrimental to the public interest ie the defence of globalist interests are being conducted that the expense of ordinary people. A disastrous war is being ramped up in a propagandistic way. When the diplomatic class should have been trying to dampen it they were fanning the flames.
We are having wall to wall what you should think from the MSM – any critical analysis is welcome.
It’s pretty clear from this website that there is a very, very strong correlation between covid scepticism and anti NATO, anti West views. Why do you think that is?
“anti West”
What do you mean by that?
I am pro West in that I am British, living in Britain, love my country, and want it to continue to resemble the country I grew up in so my children have the same opportunities I had.
I am anti the way our governments have collectively lied to us, interfered in numerous countries and instigated foreign wars to further their dubious objectives, colluded with global corporations and global entities like the WHO and GAVI, and in particular over the last two years, massively exaggerated the dangers from a not very special novel virus as well as trying to mandate various interventions which are deleterious to our health: masks, lockdowns, novel vaccines, social distancing.
If that makes me “anti West” then I am guilty as charged. But I suspect by “anti West” what you really mean is “unwilling to unconditionally support the policies of Western governments just because they are ‘our’ governments”.
I get why members of this site are going to be sceptical about western governments. That fits with the covid stance – you’d expect an overlap (although lock down was far from west specific so I’m not sure that makes sense either).
What I don’t get is why so many posters here are giving Putin such an easy ride. People question MSM, while taking Russian media at face value – even when Russian journalists are resigning and telling us it’s all a pack of lies. It’s as if people are only sceptical half the time.
Then there are all these members who argue we shouldn’t fight back if the enemy’s stronger than us. If (God forbid) we ever have another conscription war, these are not the people I want at my back.
“It’s as if people are only sceptical half the time”. QED.
By accepting at face value what we are being told on this Russian/Ukrainian situation by the MSM, you are the one being a part time sceptic, not those of us who are questioning the narrative. Just as with SARS-CoV-2 and CoViD 19, we are not allowed to question anything, which is highly suspicious. Questioning a narrative doesn’t mean that you support one view or the other.
only in your small mind
“now that the wheels are coming off the plandemic”
The new huge PCR testing laboratory in Leamington Spa – has that closed?
The EU are extending the EU Vaxx Pass until June 2023 (for starters).
5-11 year old kiddies in the UK are soon to be jabbed with ‘Covid vaccines’.
The 12-18 year olds will be getting their 2nd doses soon (has that started already?).
The 4th jab for the elderly & adults is being rolled out already.
The wheels are coming off as fast as the Nuremberg 2 lawyers are approaching.
There’s a war in the East. It’s been going on for eight years. Dunno whether John Mearsheimer in his ivory tower has thought about it much, or whether he has weaved it into his academic scribbling, the way academics do. More people have been killed in it than have died in the 2022 conflict.
The East isn’t as simple as that.
First, neither of those two republics controls the whole of what appears on maps as its territory. About half of each area is controlled by Kiev-backed anti-separatists including the neo-Nazi Azov Regiment. A lot more will be required for peace than “recognition” by the Zelensky government or whatever replaces it in Kiev. They could keep fighting without Zelensky’s support. Zelensky may possibly not give a damn whether they do or don’t, so long as they don’t make their way to Kiev, because let’s just say they don’t have much respect for him. Putin does give a damn. Among other considerations, those republics border Russia.
Second, the issue (and I’m just talking about the East here) isn’t only Ukrainians versus ethnic Russians. For example, many members of the Azov are ethnic Russians and although some are ethnic Ukrainian the main language used in the regiment is Russian.
How do you stop a battle-hardened neo-Nazi army from fighting? That’s the question in the East.
Who provides Ihor Kolomoisky with his banking services? In which jurisdictions are his fixed and movable assets? File under “Questions Which Aren’t About To Be Asked In The Mainstream Western Media”.
“How do you stop a battle-hardened neo-Nazi army from fighting?”
You de-Nazify it as Putin has said he will do.
Actually, there’s more support for the far right in Russia than Ukraine.
The big difference being that in Russia, the far right groups are not supported by the government, while in Ukraine they are!
Putin is himself a version of the far right.
Any Russian political party only exists if Putin permits it.
You really know absolutely nothing about Russia.
There are neo-Nazis in Russia but plenty in Ukraine.
Here’s a story from last year:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/hundreds-in-ukraine-attend-marches-celebrating-nazi-ss-soldiers/
I’d place a small speculative bet on the possibility that Zelensky, if still leader in 5 years, will be allied with Russia (assuming it hasn’t been made into a NATO ally by then). This is on the basis that the hardened (and now armed) neo-Nazi battalions are likely to spark far wider & more bloody Ukrainian civil war once the inevitable concessions to Russia have been made – and the west won’t offer much help to him then.
Giving anti aircraft weaponry to Azov: what could possibly go wrong?
You’d get better odds he’d be sat on a private beach in Peurto Rico sipping pinacoladas bought with at least $1.2 Billion he’s got stashed in German Bank there.
It’s the world is nuanced folks vs Putin’s the new Hitler folks.
Can I ask a more important question:
Who decides and coordinates the “western” response?
Within days every western government, all the media, banks, corporations, UEFA, the Premier League, etc etc. etc. have moved in lock step to condemn and marginalise Russia. Everyone was on message.
This doesn’t happen by itself.
So now that it is clear that our elected governments don’t make these decisions, it would be good to know who is ruling us.
I think you know the answer.
The Global Elite.
I would really like to see someone like Toby Young who resists the idea that the Davos crowd runs the show explaining how the western response was coordinated and by whom.
Davos and Bilderberg is by invitation only and the latter is not minuted.
We have no idea what they discuss.
Still, I own nothing and I’m happy.
Daniel Estulin’s “True Story of The Bilderberg Group” is worth reading, you can almost tick off the “conspiracy theories” that have come to pass since it’s update in 2009
https://www.countercurrents.org/lendman010609.htm
seems he’s up to date on Ukraine from his twitter feed
https://twitter.com/estulindaniel?lang=en
I actually went to the demonstration against The Bilderberg Group a few years ago when it was at The Grove Hotel, Watford.
Saw Alex Jones and David Icke there, among others.
was that the one where we first saw those light blue “peace police” trying to be all friendly talking to the crowds? Slightly better than the one before, Oslo? where they used black clad agent provocateurs to get the storm troopers brought in!
It was all good natured.
Had a chat with Brian Gerrish from UK Column who had come all the way up from Plymouth.
It did look very carnival like, live streams from the narrowboat loudhairer were quite funny.
my favorite clips from Bilderbergs are Luke from WAC doorstepping them at the airports, bergers smirking while their security flapped about wondering what to do, hilarious.
Mimicry, convergent opportunism, convergent virtue signalling.
Russia, the new South Africa (1980s style).?
Where the Church of England leads will others follow ?
https://thegoodcitizen.substack.com/p/send-in-the-clown?s=r
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2022/march/16/is-russia-really-the-aggressor-in-ukraine/
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/03/doug-casey/what-happens-next-in-the-conflict-with-russia/
Thanks JayBee.
Points succinctly made on the subject of aggressor states:
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2022/march/16/is-russia-really-the-aggressor-in-ukraine/
I’m using “Ukraine” as a shorthand for “Ukraine and the West”
That may be a misjudgement. I suggest that there are at least four players. (i) The present Uke government. (ii) Wee Vlad. (iii) The “Deep State” of the USA. (iv) Germany/EU commission/etc.
You still don’t get it.
The MI and OGM complexes and the russophobic and corrupt neocons in the US and UK together with their corrupt puppets in Ukraine created and inflamed the situations there DELIBERATELY and are now getting exactly what they wanted.
It was their main goal to provoke Putin into an aggression, as they knew full well that Russia could never accept Ukraine NATO membership.
None of them cares about Ukraine or the Ukrainian people, least of all The Clown.
The demand for further weapons deliveries and the negotiation dithering by them are perfect further proofs of that conclusion.
They just used and use the country and its people as pawns and cannon fodder to enrich themselves, reverse the ‘lower defense spending’ and less fossile fuels’ tides and to drive a wedge between EUrope/Germany and Russia as per Brzeszinski’s, hopelessly outdated, strategic masterplan.
Ignoring the resulting main and terrible consequence, namely a China&co/Russia hookup, further worsened, for people in the West, by their stupid, criminal sanctions own-goals.
Your interpretation of events in Mearsheimer and non Mearsheimer camps presume that the current situation in Ukraine reflects soley upon actions, notably Putins, over the past decade or so.
This is fundamentally wrong as the current situation on the ground is simply todays culmination to events spanning at least a thousand years.
(Sorry, poor English, very tired).
the point is, I think, that Ukraine is side issue in this war, as far as the West is concerned. A stepping stone. The goal is to get at Russia and dissolve it into a general EU blob.
What the West (=Wall st, blackrock, Soros..) should have done is more, faster, better, Entropic propaganda to turn the Slavic youth away from blood, soil and soul. But perhaps there’s a limiting speed to the process, and a diminishing speed at that.
Since money is only a claim on energy, and Russia has the energy, and it can potentially own its own youth with its own propaganda, if the West sanctions it from Western varieties, it could have done well out of a short war. I fear it’s a fight to the death from here on though.
Its Europe so its ‘different’. Except it isn’t. Countries have been formed all over the world, by other countries drawing lines on a map. Its not just been the old colonial European ones, the US has done its fair share, as have Far Eastern countries in the past. Africa/MENA are riddled with problems as a consequence with overwhelmingly more people killed than in Ukraine. Even when its not been disputed boundaries, recent times have seen disputed politics leading to mass slaughter ( haven’t we, US).
No, the ONLY difference between Ukraine and the rest is that the prosecuting nation is outside the western civilisation and that civilisation has decided to adopt the prosecuted nation as one of its own.
In the recent past Russia has attempted to start the process of discussions leading to NATO membership, it has even talked about EU membership. It was rebuffed. We have no idea whether those discussions would have led to anything, but they were not encouraged from the start. The western civilisation decided not to entertain the idea of Russia as one its own.
Perhaps Serbia’s continuing negotiations over entry to the EU, 13 years and counting, are indicative of likely outcome.
But Ukraine has been encouraged to think about NATO/EU memberships.
There appears to be no significant logic for this differentiation. Except the strategic position of Ukraine with respect to Russia.
Its Tolkein , Putin is portrayed as Sauron directing doom and despair from his lair in Mordor. if it wasn’t so tragic it would be pathetic!
I have my popcorn at the ready as they tie themselves in knots.
Yep
What should the West have done?
Reminds me of the story about a motorist lost in rural Ireland. He pulls over and asks an old boy for directions. The advice? ‘If I was you sir, I wouldn’t have started from here …’.
Why do we assume that the West ‘should have’ done something to forestall a Russian invasion? As though the invasion was unwanted?
Nato leaders are presumably rational actors. They’re not teenagers. They’re intelligent people.
They were warned of certain results if they did x; they did x nonetheless. Over decades. In the teeth of repeated warnings. So, if we assume they acted rationally and intelligently, we must assume the occurrence of x was the objective all along.
A Russian invasion of Ukraine could easily be analysed as offering real strategic advantages to Nato. It offers the chance to bog Russia down in conflict for years. To damage its economy & international credibility. Possibly to drive a wedge between it and China. Certainly to destroy the chance of any rapprochement with Germany. To lead Western leaders to increase arms spending after decades of being free riders. Possibly even to achieve regime change in Russia.
What’s not to like from NATO’s point of view?
So, why not just assume war was the long term objective (or fall back) all along? It may or may not work out for NATO, of course – it’s a high risk strategy- but that’s not the same as saying it wasn’t a rational objective for them to pursue.
It is naive to build into our analyses of strategic moves by international military organisations an assumption that those organisations are motivated by morality like ours. They’re probably only motivated by strategy, and strategically, war in Ukraine offers lots of positives to NATO. So does prolonging it.
Amen.
It’s totally deluded to think that Stoltenberg, Blinken&co are stupid and did not fully understand what Putin, Mearsheimer, Kissinger&co expressively told them: that Russia would not accept Ukraine in NATO or nuclear weapons on its territory.
It follows that they continued to pursue their strategy with the clear goal to eventually see that war happening.
Therefore, they are not stupid but evil.
This, your take and mine above also provide all the answers to the only question that ever matters: Cui bono?!
Ukraine isn’t in NATO, was never likely to be in NATO, and has no nuclear weapons since they gave them up based on Russia’s promise to leave them alone.
Not many are benefiting from the war so far. The overwhelming majority of businesses, people and governments are worse off. Putin benefits from short term popularity, but if this attack fails (as it now looks like) he’s toast.
Are you kidding me?… The outright refusal to admit Ukraine EVER is tactic admission that they might one day let Ukraine in. At that point Russia is back at square one. Ukraine gave the nukes back because they did not have any means of controlling them – however Zelensky has been mouthing off about wanting nuclear weapons, and as a NATO member, in their geographical position, the US would be only too happy to accomodate. The entire military-industrial complex is salivating at the incoming bonanza, not to mention the massive increase in the availability of corruption coming to the usual players right now. Go look at the map, Putin isn’t losing just because he isn’t using the American playbook of how to conduct a war.
Maybe I could summarise the two groups in my own way.
The former one thinks that Russia has security concerns on a number of levels, asked to negotiate but was told effectively that the West would not concede any of the points.
The other side have been goading Russia, showing complete intransigence, egging on the Ukraine and giving a platform for a monologue on the conflict from Zelensky.
The biggest problem with the fear of NATO theory is that NATO members clearly have no desire whatsoever to attack Russia. It’s inconceivable that such an idea would ever be approved by all the NATO governments. Not even one of them is close.
Fear is never rational, and I don’t think Russia would take your word over that claim
are you mad or just dumb? Washington has been hostile to Russia for a century! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-American_sentiment_in_Russia
Like many Russians, you don’t understand that NATO is not the US.
For NATO to attack Russia, against its own constitution, all the member governments would have to vote for it. There’s not the slightest chance of that ever happening – not even in ‘anti Russian’ US.
Putin is fighting a war that doesn’t exist. But that’s ok, because it’s for him, not Russia anyway.
Stunningly insightful use of Wikipedia.
I can think of one that is close TODAY. Listen to the baying on US TV. There is a reason everyone will tell you NATO is US led.
When the USSR ended NATO signed an agreement with Russia that they would not expand further East. Then they promptly ignored the agreement. Hand in hand with the EU they approached country after country and signed them up.All of which went against the agreement they signed. They broke International Law to further EU and NATO aims. There is no surprise it led to where we are now.
Only a few weeks ago Russia essentially said “Stick by the agreement and exclude Ukraine”. The West refused time and time again. Now Ukraine say “We can never join NATO”.
So, what, exactly, did the West gain from all of this?:
With anything in politics always follow the money.
Nope, they didn’t sign any such thing.
But Russia did sign documents promising to uphold Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
I am not convinced that you have to be either Mearsheimer or non-Mearsheimer. Putin may well have both motivations. However, I guess the key difference is what each camp believes would have happened if Ukraine had offered to give up the Russian speaking areas some time over the last 8 years. One camp believes that would have satisfied Putin. The other camp thinks that would have only encouraged Putin to try the same covert military techniques elsewhere – more of Ukraine, Georgia, maybe even Russian speaking parts of the Baltic states.
For many governments, prior to the invasion, the important thing was not so much Putin’s objectives as his methods. It was vital not to normalise the way Putin acquired the Russian speaking areas – essentially covert military action. So they went along with a strategy of not accepting that that Putin had succeeded and hoping that eventually there would be some negotiated settlement over Russian speaking areas which did not imply accepting Putin’s methods. Like almost everyone, they never thought he would mount a full scale invasion until it was too late. It is now clear that Putin needed a much bigger disincentive. Maybe the best strategy would have been to have armed Ukraine even more formidably well in advance. But that is rather academic given where we are.
Firstly, your map of Ukraine, which crudely divides Ukraine into Russian and non Russian speakers, doesn’t fit reality. Ever since the seizure of Crimea and the Donbass, the Ukrainian population has been tilting away from Russia. With the outbreak of war Putin has lost the hearts and minds battle forever.
Secondly, nobody expected to Putin to invade. Many people told us we should believe Sergei Lavrov when he assured us, the night before, that there were no pans for attack. Just because a strategy ultimately fails doesn’t mean it was a bad strategy.
Thirdly, the most obvious way invasion could have been prevented would have been to give Ukraine NATO membership. Putin has never attacked a NATO member.
He’s dangerous, but not yet suicidal.
Even years ago, he would have attacked Ukraine way before it could have signed the membership documents, which would also have had to be signed by all other members.
He had and has to. Just look at a map.
The entire premise is simplistic. There’s no such thing as an ethnic Russian. They are all Slavs and indistinguishable from each other. Some speak Russian, some Ukrainian and some an odd mixture of both. These borders are just lines on a map. They are all basically the same ethnicity as the Russians and they used to see them as brothers-in-arms. All Ukrainians want is a better life; free of corrupt politics and peaceful. Some will leave Ukraine to get that, some thought Russia would provide it but most think the EU is the best route.
Ukrainians have not massacred their fellow Ukrainians that happen to speak Russian. This is abject nonsense. There are few, if any, pro-Russian paramilitaries – rather they are Russian soldiers without insignia whose weapons are all from Russia. There are no more fascists in Ukraine than there are in Russia or any other country; ie very few.
So they had elections. Maidan started as a peaceful protest about the Kremlins man Yanukovich ruling out joining the EU and remaining firmly in the Russian arc. Many, if not most of the country did not like that and protested. Protesters were shot. Yanukovich fled the country. Elections were held and a new president was fairly elected. Putin invaded and stole back Crimea via the ‘little green men’: Soldiers pretending to be partisans. Ditto in the Donbas. Both regions had largely faked referenda much like the fake elections in Russia itself that nobody in the World accepted.
Finally Zelensky was elected with a mandate for peace with Russia. Despite valiant efforts nothing he did would have prevented an invasion. He has now found out Nato is a paper tiger. He already knew that Putin lies as easily as breathing even when it’s pointless. Nobody knows what Putin wants because the fool doesn’t even know himself. All this time Russia could have been a part of the international community, trading freely and prosperous. That’s all the UN, US, EU and the UK ever wanted! Nobody ever wanted to invade Russia. It doesn’t even make the remotest sense; just a war-mongering excuse.
There are very few easy answers but the best is for Russia to have another revolution and finally get rid of Putin and his KGB cronies. Appeasement died with 6 million Jews.
Ukraine as a region has been occupied by many unwelcome invaders and they were enjoying an all too brief period of independence. Yes some fought on the Nazi side in WW2 because they (correctly) saw Stalin as even worse than Hitler. Italy did the same but we don’t constantly bring that up. Most fought against the Nazis and died in droves. for the entire nation to be smeared as Nazis by some low-brow commenters here is abjectly appalling and warrants a ban.
Some of you have been right all along about vaccines and lockdowns and freedoms but for most of you, reading these inane comments, that seems to have been just about sheer contrarianism rather than intellect. I’m currently feeling I am on a very small part of the population Venn diagram – along with Toby – that says ‘the sane’. Don’t bother replying. I’m not reading your drivel any more.
LOL and butter wouldn’t melt in Zelenskys mouth
and another new account today… leek must have called for more intelligent back-up, same BS tho
The short version of the Mearsheimer plan is still divide Ukraine into a set of ethnically purer and less powerful toy states, the USA solution to any issue in Europe since 1916. Please apply to resolve ethnical tensions in the USA first. Specifically, reintroduce segregation/ apartheid: Put the black people in their own states and ensure they stay there. If this is a great way to solve such a problem, the outcome can only be everyone will be very happy about it. After this has created paradise on earth, the next step would be to decolonize the USA, which is – after all – nothing but territory forcibly acquired through a series of illegal (insofar current so-called standards go) and even genocidal wars. A last request: Please don’t try to come back to Europe. Just vanish.
What Mearsheimer, Kissinger&co always said was that Ukraine could only prosper, be sovereign and live in peace if it stayed neutral.
There would have been no reason for Putin to get involved then.
Certainly not if on top of that it also stopped to discriminate against the Russian population there and held its Nazis in check.
Remember also that Russia proposed a 3-way trade deal in 2013 and that the EU rejected that.
Ukraine, egged on by the neocons and by corrupt politicians and oligarchs domestically and abroad who didn’t and don’t give a fig about Ukrainians lives, decided to go all-in and do the very opposite instead.
With the to be expected consequences.
Ukraine is neutral. Further, the Ukrainian government cannnot discriminate against most of the Russian population for the simply reason that it never controlled the terroritories these people are living in. Lastly, there are no Nazis in Ukraine. This is all just made-up hogwash supposed to spur people into action (or rather, discussion) because all the right words have been arranged in the right order.
Apart from that, as you aren’t referring to anything I wrote, why are you attacking your text to mine? Because you believe I’m insufficiently pro Putin must always get what he wants? That’s technically true, but not really relevant. My position here was US airheads ought to stop trying to solve European problems by creating ethnically cleansed toy states. They have problems closer to home they ought to try to solve with this patent method first. If they’re somehow not willing to do that, that’s simply bigotry and suggests that they don’t really believe in their own ideas.
From bits I read, it seems an approximation of the ‘Mearsheimer plan’ is the basis for Russo-Ukrainian negotiations for a settlement.
i also think the significance of the Russian action goes beyond any aims in the Ukraine. It’s a big ‘up yours’ to USA & pals and NATO. Putin has calculated correctly the absence of any leadership (Joe Biden?), the economic and military decay and impotence of the West.
He may also have calculated that as fuel and energy prices increase and consequently push up all prices in the economy, plus supply shortages Western populations will turn on their Governments.
The emerging effects of the two year economic shutdown, the lunatic Net Zero policies plus sanctions which will rebound… it seems he will be right.
Is nobody allowed to mention the Nazi battalions on here then?
Not the “neo-Nazis” that Trudeau claimed made up the Canadian truckers, the bonafide old school Nazis linked back to Bandera. You know the ones backed by the CIA and MI6 since WWII. The ones tearing up volunteers passports and taking pot shots at escaping civilians.
It seems not – even though the evidence of their existence is all over the internet in mutiple videos. Somehow the reference, with full details, seems to ‘disappear’……..
and even mentioned in past issues of The Guardian and BBC website if one does a search. But conveniently forgotten when trying to make the populace forget the terrible Covid lockdowns for the plebs, state cronyism on PPE supplies, etc.
Now Noah puts on his Captain Hindsight costume and retreats into pointless hypotheticals. Anything rather than concede that invading another country and committing war crimes is simply wrong, and helping the victim is right.
Pipelines and the control of them are the cause of this War IMO. Just as they were in Syria and beyond.
Well said! Concerning ‘Russian artillery fire raining down on cities’ – so far we have seen a high level of restraint, as the Russian army is targeting the Ukrainian military. It does happen that the nationalist militias in particular, are taking over hospitals (etc) in cities. Just as in previous NATO conflicts, it serves no purpose to target civilians, although the Ukrainian side has done this since 2014 and is still doing it. The Russians are mightily aggrieved about this…..
The US government criticising any country is utter hypocracy. The illegal invasion of Iraq based on lies, the ruin of Libya, the backing of anti Assad rebel groups and going into Afghanistan. All this has costs untold thousands and thousands of lives. The stupid UK helping them. The US governments are the biggest regime change warmongers. Funny how they never get sanctioned for invading other peoples countries along with the UK. Absolute hypocracy and double standards. The anti Rusaian rhetoric has been around since the 1917 revolution. It’s never changed especially in the USA.