I completely disagree with Daniel’s take on this. Ever since the US-sponsored Maidan coup in 2014, Putin made absolutely clear that NATO’s arming of Ukraine and possible inclusion in NATO was putting a knife to Russia’s throat. Putin was willing to negotiate and offered various off-ramps for Biden and Blinken but they were all ignored and instead they hyped the threat of war and sent more weapons into a non-NATO country on Russia’s very border—that was madness, unless provoking Russia was the entire point—which I believe it was.
Ukraine failed to implement its obligations under the Minsk II agreement and allowed the continued harassment of the two regions by neo-Nazi Ukrainians to continue. Zelensky then started talking about developing nuclear weapons—more madness but certainly an effective provocation.
As for condemning this as aggression, sorry, but the US has absolutely zero moral standing to condemn Russia. The US is an expansionist, aggressive, warmongering empire. We have sponsored more wars, coups, drone assassinations, torture, and starvation sanctions, while selling arms and providing diplomatic support to some of the most repressive countries on Earth. The US is entirely responsible for this war.
This is exactly the right take, Daniel. I have been a strong critic of NATO expansion and I believe that above all, it led to the crisis we now see unfolding. But that does not justify this appalling and criminal action by the Russian government. This crisis could have been avoided, but we are now faced with the situation we face now.
I never in my life thought I would live to see this kind of horrible crisis unfolding. This is a crime and a tragedy.
What, in practical terms, was the alternative? What should Russia have done instead? That is to say, what would have been a realistic alternative, given everything that has happened, not only with regard to Ukraine since 2014, but from the time of the reunification of Germany? I am referring, in part, to the assurances from the west, the expansion of NATO, the failure to push Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreement. (Plus, we don't really know whether there were any provocations in the Donbas that might have been too much for Russia to ignore.)
I'd really like to know what other reasonable alternative Russia had? Mr Larison's post doesn't really provide an answer. Maybe there is something that Russia could and should have done. I'm not saying there wasn't. I don't read this blog because I already know all the answers. I read it because sometimes it answers some of my questions. That's why I'm asking now.
I hate when "we" get what we want. Sadly, after all the rhetoric from the Russian side about not invading laid along side their very legitimate security concerns, Putin becomes just another lying warmonger. Blessed are the peacemakers, but I'll be damned if I can name one in the global mix of leaders we have at this moment.
I think it is important to read Putin's recent speech to see how.and why this was planned. (See Gilbert Doctorow's blog for a brief recap.) It's not quite the naked aggression one might think. Whether the troops move past the borders of the two breakaway republics remains to be seen. If they don't, then maybe they are being sent as peacekeepers/tripwires.
I agree with Mr. Larison. I don’t think its improper to condemn Russian aggression in Ukraine by applying the same universal principles upon which we condemn past and present US aggression. Though I admit it’s hard to stomach the lack of self-awareness and sanctimony in some hawkish circles of US media (e.g., The Dispatch) who are interrupting their drumbeat for simultaneous regime-change in 15 counties to weep for Ukraine and to confess their new-found (but soon to be forgotten) love for the rule of law and national sovereignty, but wrong is wrong. The US does not have a corner on the market of war-mongering leadership, unfortunately.
I also agree that this likely could have been avoided by not poking the bear on Ukraine in 2008 even if the Anne Applebaums and Gary Kasparovs of the world insist that Putin would have gone in even if Russian demands on NATO were met. Yet I would rather have given Russia those assurances and had Applebaum proven right by events rather than assuming her to be right as a counter-factual. If there was a possibility that we could have avoided a destabilizing destructive war, it is not naivety to have pursued it. But now we’ll never know. Even she agrees that Ukraine admission into NATO will never happen now. If that was Putin’s goal, let hope he feels like he achieved it and wants to avoid escalation.
For perspective, the sensationalism of the Ukraine war story line in the media is getting carried away (already hearing comparisons to Berlin Wall falling and 9/11 as far as historical significance). It’s still nothing compared to the Syrian civil war, which left a half-million dead and is still smoldering, and is not ever likely to be. I guess a Russian war has the Tom Clancy story line and Cold War intrigues so that gives it more marketable appeal then dead Syrians.
I completely disagree with Daniel’s take on this. Ever since the US-sponsored Maidan coup in 2014, Putin made absolutely clear that NATO’s arming of Ukraine and possible inclusion in NATO was putting a knife to Russia’s throat. Putin was willing to negotiate and offered various off-ramps for Biden and Blinken but they were all ignored and instead they hyped the threat of war and sent more weapons into a non-NATO country on Russia’s very border—that was madness, unless provoking Russia was the entire point—which I believe it was.
Ukraine failed to implement its obligations under the Minsk II agreement and allowed the continued harassment of the two regions by neo-Nazi Ukrainians to continue. Zelensky then started talking about developing nuclear weapons—more madness but certainly an effective provocation.
As for condemning this as aggression, sorry, but the US has absolutely zero moral standing to condemn Russia. The US is an expansionist, aggressive, warmongering empire. We have sponsored more wars, coups, drone assassinations, torture, and starvation sanctions, while selling arms and providing diplomatic support to some of the most repressive countries on Earth. The US is entirely responsible for this war.
This is exactly the right take, Daniel. I have been a strong critic of NATO expansion and I believe that above all, it led to the crisis we now see unfolding. But that does not justify this appalling and criminal action by the Russian government. This crisis could have been avoided, but we are now faced with the situation we face now.
I never in my life thought I would live to see this kind of horrible crisis unfolding. This is a crime and a tragedy.
What, in practical terms, was the alternative? What should Russia have done instead? That is to say, what would have been a realistic alternative, given everything that has happened, not only with regard to Ukraine since 2014, but from the time of the reunification of Germany? I am referring, in part, to the assurances from the west, the expansion of NATO, the failure to push Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreement. (Plus, we don't really know whether there were any provocations in the Donbas that might have been too much for Russia to ignore.)
I'd really like to know what other reasonable alternative Russia had? Mr Larison's post doesn't really provide an answer. Maybe there is something that Russia could and should have done. I'm not saying there wasn't. I don't read this blog because I already know all the answers. I read it because sometimes it answers some of my questions. That's why I'm asking now.
I hate when "we" get what we want. Sadly, after all the rhetoric from the Russian side about not invading laid along side their very legitimate security concerns, Putin becomes just another lying warmonger. Blessed are the peacemakers, but I'll be damned if I can name one in the global mix of leaders we have at this moment.
I think it is important to read Putin's recent speech to see how.and why this was planned. (See Gilbert Doctorow's blog for a brief recap.) It's not quite the naked aggression one might think. Whether the troops move past the borders of the two breakaway republics remains to be seen. If they don't, then maybe they are being sent as peacekeepers/tripwires.
I agree with Mr. Larison. I don’t think its improper to condemn Russian aggression in Ukraine by applying the same universal principles upon which we condemn past and present US aggression. Though I admit it’s hard to stomach the lack of self-awareness and sanctimony in some hawkish circles of US media (e.g., The Dispatch) who are interrupting their drumbeat for simultaneous regime-change in 15 counties to weep for Ukraine and to confess their new-found (but soon to be forgotten) love for the rule of law and national sovereignty, but wrong is wrong. The US does not have a corner on the market of war-mongering leadership, unfortunately.
I also agree that this likely could have been avoided by not poking the bear on Ukraine in 2008 even if the Anne Applebaums and Gary Kasparovs of the world insist that Putin would have gone in even if Russian demands on NATO were met. Yet I would rather have given Russia those assurances and had Applebaum proven right by events rather than assuming her to be right as a counter-factual. If there was a possibility that we could have avoided a destabilizing destructive war, it is not naivety to have pursued it. But now we’ll never know. Even she agrees that Ukraine admission into NATO will never happen now. If that was Putin’s goal, let hope he feels like he achieved it and wants to avoid escalation.
For perspective, the sensationalism of the Ukraine war story line in the media is getting carried away (already hearing comparisons to Berlin Wall falling and 9/11 as far as historical significance). It’s still nothing compared to the Syrian civil war, which left a half-million dead and is still smoldering, and is not ever likely to be. I guess a Russian war has the Tom Clancy story line and Cold War intrigues so that gives it more marketable appeal then dead Syrians.