US Civil War general William Sherman said: " War is hell." That's the hard reality. I disagree with the other commenters who seem to wish this war to continue. Because that is what will happen unless some sort of peace is made with Russia which will meet Russia's needs for security. Ukraine is their backyard, like Canada or Mexico for the USA. It is completely understandable that they want a neutral and barely armed Ukraine. It is understandable that they will not accept NATO bases on Ukrainian soil.
Bill Burns, former CIA director under Obama, said NATO membership is the reddest of red lines for Russia. Ukraine can't defeat Russia, can't win back the Russian majority provinces that have been lost ( which have always voted 90% for pro Russian leaders). Zelensky is a mad man on an ego trip. The crime was that our incompetent and corrupt foreign policy elites allowed the war to happen. They provoked it. Please watch Jeffrey Sachs on the subject.
So they voted 90% for pro-Russian leaders. Did they actually want to JOIN Russia? Because in 1991, they voted more than 80% for independence from Russia. They can certainly change their mind, but very few countries are in the habit of allowing secession. Crimea tried to declare independence back in 1994, so that certainly suggests that Crimea, at least, wanted to be its own state, or a much more independent sub-state of Ukraine. In any case, I don't really have a problem with the idea that Ukraine will likely have to give up territory. I do, however, think they MUST have *effective* security guarantees in exchange.
As for NATO: yeah, everyone knows how NATO has just been dying to attack Russia, how they really want to annex Russian territories. Totally get how Russia is scared that NATO is going to bomb them and take over Leningrad, maybe march on Moscow. I mean, we've been talking about how Russia is really historically a NATO country, and that it's an artificial state.
At best, Putin fears loss of *power*, not military conflict with NATO. And that's because he knows as soon as a nation gains NATO protection, they no longer need fear Russia's military, thus significantly reducing Russia's influence. He wants weak states surrounding him so that Russia can influence them for its own benefit. Wanting that doesn't make them monsters, but invasion as a means to get it does.
We in the US have been encouraging Canada to spend MORE on military might, more on arms. Not less. So apparently some countries are more capable of handling military might in a bordering nation than others.
I suggest you watch Jeffrey Sachs' videos for answers to your question. Sachs is professor at Columbia U, longtime advisor to the state department and he worked in Eastern Europe and in Russia after the fall of the USSR for the UN, World Bank etc. John Meirsheimer of U chicago is another expert. Both of them make a convincing case, which I cannot summarize here, that the current war in Ukraine is 100% the fault of the USA.
Okay, watch Sachs ... but also watch Vlad Vexler and Elvira Bary (both on YouTube) to get the other side of the story. These are not US neocons; they are both USSR expats, and they understand Russian culture and politics far better than Sachs.
I'll give you the short version: this war has little or nothing to do with Russia's national security, and everything to do with keeping Putin in power and maintaining Russia's ability to threaten, extort, and subjugate its neighbors.
OK I will check out. But even if Putin is utterly bad ( wants to stay in power), wants to dominate its region- is this something the USA can or should combat with war. We tolerate plenty of bad dictators. We allowed China to take over Tibet. Is it realistic to think we can prevent Russia from wanting to dominate Ukraine? We would never accept that Mexico or China joined an military alliance with China.
Do you think it's significant or relevant that Mexico doesn't WANT a military alliance with China? Could there be ways of dealing with your neighbors that doesn't make them want a major military defense pact with your rivals? It's not like the US has never been to war with Mexico (we took land from them in a war! a LOT of land!). Why wouldn't Mexico fear us, and why would Ukraine fear Russia?
If Mexico were to ever want a pact with a US rival for self-defense, it would be because our relations with them deteriorated so badly that they feared we would invade.
I think you're right that we wouldn't willingly accept that. I'm not so sure "invade Mexico" would be our response outside us being actively at war with China. I also think that you can't present that analogy without addressing why it is that Mexico does not fear us and why Ukraine does fear Russia. Again, Mearsheimer is laser-focused on one and only one explanation for the invasion of Ukraine which posits the only agent in the whole thing is NATO (and moreso, the US). Everyone else merely reacts. That's not how the world works.
I've read Mearsheimer's case. I think it is a part of the overall picture, as I suspect are Sachs' ideas, but Mearsheimer ignores some pretty blatantly obvious additional motives. He's very one-note about the whole thing, but this situation, this war, is not monocausal (or even close to monocausal). I could suggest you read Foreign Affairs' rebuttal of Mearsheimer, including things like NATO expansion does not explain when Russia chose invasion, or the fact that Mearsheimer (and, it appears, Sachs) treats Ukraine as a pawn and not an agent; Ukraine was pushing for NATO membership far more than NATO was pushing to let them join. Much of Ukraine wants to join Europe in strategic partnership, not Russia. But to Sachs and Mearsheimer, it's all the fault of NATO and primarily the US. My position is that Mearsheimer -- a man who knows more about Russia and NATO than I ever will -- has myopically focused on a single cause. I also think the confuse "Russia's security" with "Russia's power." One can make an argument that those are the same thing, but if that's the case, then every large nation needs to dominate all its smaller neighbors. That's the great power competition, the spheres of influence idea. It's a frame of analysis that can be useful, and has a lot of truth in it. But it's also overly simple. There's a reason the US isn't dominating Canada and Mexico, and a reason that neither nation is seeking protection from the US (and has not historically for something like a century, despite fighting wars in the last couple of hundred years), and a reason that all those Eastern European nations that expanded NATO desperately wanted to join: they fear Russia.
It doesn't really seem like you're very interested in a conversation about this since you didn't respond substantively to any of my points.
I appreciate your response but I don't have time or space to respond in way that really does justice to the debate. You are well informed and have watched or read Meirsheimer and Sach's. Russia wants a security buffer around it and while we may not like that and it might seem unfair to those nations, this is a reality. You may be correct that the Eastern European nations are afraid of Russia ( although there seems to be increasing anti-war sentiment in Poland as well as Hungary). But Meirsheimer makes the point that Russia has no interest in invading these nations nor does it have the manpower. They invaded Ukraine because NATO membership was the red line. We may not agree, but this is the reality for Russia.
If Europe is so worried about Russian aggression, the Europeans who are nearly as rich as our country should strengthen their own defense. Europe spends less than half of what we do as a % of GDP and that is one reason why their trains and cities looks so nice. This should not be our war.
I certainly agree Europe needs to beef up its own defense. I don't mind being an ally of Europe, but I'd rather not be their defensive umbrella, as we have been for the past, what, 80 years?
If Russia's red line was NATO membership, why did they attack in February 2022? NATO wasn't offering Ukraine membership. There was no MAP, no accession talks. There's been a commitment since like 2008 that Ukraine would "eventually" be part of NATO, but there's never been any material movement to make that happen on the part of NATO. Ukraine requested accelerated application to NATO in 2022 -- but that's months after the invasion, and a decade after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. I can't imagine why Ukraine would be afraid of Russia.... But why did Russia choose February 2022?
They also claimed they wouldn't accept Finland being in NATO, but they did. Russia is not concerned about its security, indeed they claim that their principal goal is to restore the Russian/Soviet empire. Why not listen to what they are clearly telling us? Russia invaded for these reasons, and because the saw the growth of democracy (albeit flawed) and a turn towards the west, not because of the supposed threat of NATO on their doorstep as proposed by the appeasers in the West representing both the left and right. The war could stop tomorrow if Putin stopped his expansionist aims.
You write beautifully. Please persist. The world needs to know.
Thank you, Stephen; I persist! Readers like you give hope.
This is heartbreaking. Thank you for publishing it. I hope that we in the West will all keep faith with Ukraine.
Thank you for reading, Peter. Attention is currency nowadays:)
So moving and painful to read. Thank you for bringing your reality to life- even in the rubble, there is life.
Thank you, Lauri. "Even in the rubble, there is life" - what a beautiful way to put it!
US Civil War general William Sherman said: " War is hell." That's the hard reality. I disagree with the other commenters who seem to wish this war to continue. Because that is what will happen unless some sort of peace is made with Russia which will meet Russia's needs for security. Ukraine is their backyard, like Canada or Mexico for the USA. It is completely understandable that they want a neutral and barely armed Ukraine. It is understandable that they will not accept NATO bases on Ukrainian soil.
Bill Burns, former CIA director under Obama, said NATO membership is the reddest of red lines for Russia. Ukraine can't defeat Russia, can't win back the Russian majority provinces that have been lost ( which have always voted 90% for pro Russian leaders). Zelensky is a mad man on an ego trip. The crime was that our incompetent and corrupt foreign policy elites allowed the war to happen. They provoked it. Please watch Jeffrey Sachs on the subject.
So they voted 90% for pro-Russian leaders. Did they actually want to JOIN Russia? Because in 1991, they voted more than 80% for independence from Russia. They can certainly change their mind, but very few countries are in the habit of allowing secession. Crimea tried to declare independence back in 1994, so that certainly suggests that Crimea, at least, wanted to be its own state, or a much more independent sub-state of Ukraine. In any case, I don't really have a problem with the idea that Ukraine will likely have to give up territory. I do, however, think they MUST have *effective* security guarantees in exchange.
As for NATO: yeah, everyone knows how NATO has just been dying to attack Russia, how they really want to annex Russian territories. Totally get how Russia is scared that NATO is going to bomb them and take over Leningrad, maybe march on Moscow. I mean, we've been talking about how Russia is really historically a NATO country, and that it's an artificial state.
At best, Putin fears loss of *power*, not military conflict with NATO. And that's because he knows as soon as a nation gains NATO protection, they no longer need fear Russia's military, thus significantly reducing Russia's influence. He wants weak states surrounding him so that Russia can influence them for its own benefit. Wanting that doesn't make them monsters, but invasion as a means to get it does.
We in the US have been encouraging Canada to spend MORE on military might, more on arms. Not less. So apparently some countries are more capable of handling military might in a bordering nation than others.
I suggest you watch Jeffrey Sachs' videos for answers to your question. Sachs is professor at Columbia U, longtime advisor to the state department and he worked in Eastern Europe and in Russia after the fall of the USSR for the UN, World Bank etc. John Meirsheimer of U chicago is another expert. Both of them make a convincing case, which I cannot summarize here, that the current war in Ukraine is 100% the fault of the USA.
Okay, watch Sachs ... but also watch Vlad Vexler and Elvira Bary (both on YouTube) to get the other side of the story. These are not US neocons; they are both USSR expats, and they understand Russian culture and politics far better than Sachs.
I'll give you the short version: this war has little or nothing to do with Russia's national security, and everything to do with keeping Putin in power and maintaining Russia's ability to threaten, extort, and subjugate its neighbors.
OK I will check out. But even if Putin is utterly bad ( wants to stay in power), wants to dominate its region- is this something the USA can or should combat with war. We tolerate plenty of bad dictators. We allowed China to take over Tibet. Is it realistic to think we can prevent Russia from wanting to dominate Ukraine? We would never accept that Mexico or China joined an military alliance with China.
Do you think it's significant or relevant that Mexico doesn't WANT a military alliance with China? Could there be ways of dealing with your neighbors that doesn't make them want a major military defense pact with your rivals? It's not like the US has never been to war with Mexico (we took land from them in a war! a LOT of land!). Why wouldn't Mexico fear us, and why would Ukraine fear Russia?
If Mexico were to ever want a pact with a US rival for self-defense, it would be because our relations with them deteriorated so badly that they feared we would invade.
I think you're right that we wouldn't willingly accept that. I'm not so sure "invade Mexico" would be our response outside us being actively at war with China. I also think that you can't present that analogy without addressing why it is that Mexico does not fear us and why Ukraine does fear Russia. Again, Mearsheimer is laser-focused on one and only one explanation for the invasion of Ukraine which posits the only agent in the whole thing is NATO (and moreso, the US). Everyone else merely reacts. That's not how the world works.
I've read Mearsheimer's case. I think it is a part of the overall picture, as I suspect are Sachs' ideas, but Mearsheimer ignores some pretty blatantly obvious additional motives. He's very one-note about the whole thing, but this situation, this war, is not monocausal (or even close to monocausal). I could suggest you read Foreign Affairs' rebuttal of Mearsheimer, including things like NATO expansion does not explain when Russia chose invasion, or the fact that Mearsheimer (and, it appears, Sachs) treats Ukraine as a pawn and not an agent; Ukraine was pushing for NATO membership far more than NATO was pushing to let them join. Much of Ukraine wants to join Europe in strategic partnership, not Russia. But to Sachs and Mearsheimer, it's all the fault of NATO and primarily the US. My position is that Mearsheimer -- a man who knows more about Russia and NATO than I ever will -- has myopically focused on a single cause. I also think the confuse "Russia's security" with "Russia's power." One can make an argument that those are the same thing, but if that's the case, then every large nation needs to dominate all its smaller neighbors. That's the great power competition, the spheres of influence idea. It's a frame of analysis that can be useful, and has a lot of truth in it. But it's also overly simple. There's a reason the US isn't dominating Canada and Mexico, and a reason that neither nation is seeking protection from the US (and has not historically for something like a century, despite fighting wars in the last couple of hundred years), and a reason that all those Eastern European nations that expanded NATO desperately wanted to join: they fear Russia.
It doesn't really seem like you're very interested in a conversation about this since you didn't respond substantively to any of my points.
I appreciate your response but I don't have time or space to respond in way that really does justice to the debate. You are well informed and have watched or read Meirsheimer and Sach's. Russia wants a security buffer around it and while we may not like that and it might seem unfair to those nations, this is a reality. You may be correct that the Eastern European nations are afraid of Russia ( although there seems to be increasing anti-war sentiment in Poland as well as Hungary). But Meirsheimer makes the point that Russia has no interest in invading these nations nor does it have the manpower. They invaded Ukraine because NATO membership was the red line. We may not agree, but this is the reality for Russia.
If Europe is so worried about Russian aggression, the Europeans who are nearly as rich as our country should strengthen their own defense. Europe spends less than half of what we do as a % of GDP and that is one reason why their trains and cities looks so nice. This should not be our war.
I certainly agree Europe needs to beef up its own defense. I don't mind being an ally of Europe, but I'd rather not be their defensive umbrella, as we have been for the past, what, 80 years?
If Russia's red line was NATO membership, why did they attack in February 2022? NATO wasn't offering Ukraine membership. There was no MAP, no accession talks. There's been a commitment since like 2008 that Ukraine would "eventually" be part of NATO, but there's never been any material movement to make that happen on the part of NATO. Ukraine requested accelerated application to NATO in 2022 -- but that's months after the invasion, and a decade after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. I can't imagine why Ukraine would be afraid of Russia.... But why did Russia choose February 2022?
They also claimed they wouldn't accept Finland being in NATO, but they did. Russia is not concerned about its security, indeed they claim that their principal goal is to restore the Russian/Soviet empire. Why not listen to what they are clearly telling us? Russia invaded for these reasons, and because the saw the growth of democracy (albeit flawed) and a turn towards the west, not because of the supposed threat of NATO on their doorstep as proposed by the appeasers in the West representing both the left and right. The war could stop tomorrow if Putin stopped his expansionist aims.