Disappointed that Persuasion would run this. It is more of a temper tantrum than a proper response to the carefully reasoned article by Layne and Schwarz.
"But Putin’s concern has never been about actual military aggression from the defensively-oriented Western alliance."
They spent quite a lot of time outlining instances of NATO aggression, and the ways in which it was alarming to Russia. I could go on with many other point by point responses, but this one is illustratrive enough. Schoenfeld is basically sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming "nah uh."
THE greater issue here is the question of how to organize A European security structure after the fall of the Soviet Union. Europe considered structures other than NATO that would also include Russia (why Putin emphasized Russia's European identity in his 2000 response to the Russia-in-NATO question.) Under George H.W. Bush, the US was trying to establish normal, if not cordial relations with Gorbachev and Yeltsin, including providing economic aid. A central question at the time was how to unify Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall. To the surprise of many, Gorbachev agreed to U.S./European plan to unite West and East Germany and acquiesced to Germany remaining in NATO. In return, Sec. of State Baker famously pledged that NATO would not move 'one inch' further East. Russia was on life support and either Gorbachev was too naive or Russia too weak to get that pledge formalized. And let's be at least fair: Russia has been continuously attacked from the West, notably twice in the 20th century and lost 20 million in defeating Nazi aggression. The three Russian leaders (Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin) each opposed NATO expansion to the Russian border. That was a huge, well-known and proverbial "red line". Nothing unique. No major power wants a foreign military alliance on its doorsteps. Certainly the US took appropriate action in the Cuban missile crisis and few Americans could ever imagine Russia or China building bases in Central America. I have found European's sense and utilization of history (in general) stronger that most (in general) Americans. As a nation, we'd be doing ourselves a great favor by understanding how other countries assess their self-interests and concerns. (The National Security Archives @ George Washington University collects documents, notes and conversations about this period as they become declassified.
Of course as a reader I don't know what the "truth" is- but it's good to read this opinion. Since we no longer can rely on our gut responses to situations, nor can we afford to merely react to situations and opinions, information is useful insofar as one needs to have an opinion. Personally, regarding Putin, I think it's quite clear what he is up to, just as it's clear what other politicians are up to- just look at them! But then each of us is on our own; we all respond differently to different people, and situations. As for Crimea being part of Russia, and there being a stated brotherhood, why all the bombing then? Is that how one treats one's own? I know in person many Russians and Ukrainians. But we are separated by a lot of distance, and none of us are discussing serious politics on FB. At the beginning of the war I called my friend who is a brilliant Ukrainian man who lives outside of his country since 2014, and the annexation of Crimea. He blames the US for everything! I don't know what his logic is- he also loves Donald Trump and our right wing- again, I don't know why. He was concerned about the war, said he predicted it but thought it came sooner than he expected. Russians I know are worried that everyone in the world will hate them. No need to worry- if they wait long enough everyone changes their minds. Basically what this essay says is what I want to hear. But I don't know if it's correct or not. A lot of opinions make me very uncomfortable, but I listen to them. Thank you, Russell Brand, et al. Is there life beyond opinions? I am a pacifist but I would have been unhappy if we had let Germany take over the whole of Europe in WWII. My grandfather fought and died in WWI.
To the further amusement of the chattering classes, we could continue a discussion of the evils and foibles of United States and NATO policies throwing in erudite references to the Cuban Missile Crisis, Suez Crisis, Monroe Doctrine, Six-Day War, Gallipoli, Magna Carta, Council of Nicaea, etc. However, the question of whether Putin and Russia were justified in any way shape or form in the invasion of the Ukraine would remain. Has anyone west of Moscow come up with a defensible justification for the invasion?
Disappointed that Persuasion would run this. It is more of a temper tantrum than a proper response to the carefully reasoned article by Layne and Schwarz.
"But Putin’s concern has never been about actual military aggression from the defensively-oriented Western alliance."
They spent quite a lot of time outlining instances of NATO aggression, and the ways in which it was alarming to Russia. I could go on with many other point by point responses, but this one is illustratrive enough. Schoenfeld is basically sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming "nah uh."
Compelling and about “whataboutism”- recalls Orwell’s richly deserved attack on Brits who believed “no nation can err but their own “
Good, too, to be reminded of ugly roots of American isolationism, Pat Buchanan and worse . Not the company Harpers ought to be keeping!
THE greater issue here is the question of how to organize A European security structure after the fall of the Soviet Union. Europe considered structures other than NATO that would also include Russia (why Putin emphasized Russia's European identity in his 2000 response to the Russia-in-NATO question.) Under George H.W. Bush, the US was trying to establish normal, if not cordial relations with Gorbachev and Yeltsin, including providing economic aid. A central question at the time was how to unify Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall. To the surprise of many, Gorbachev agreed to U.S./European plan to unite West and East Germany and acquiesced to Germany remaining in NATO. In return, Sec. of State Baker famously pledged that NATO would not move 'one inch' further East. Russia was on life support and either Gorbachev was too naive or Russia too weak to get that pledge formalized. And let's be at least fair: Russia has been continuously attacked from the West, notably twice in the 20th century and lost 20 million in defeating Nazi aggression. The three Russian leaders (Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin) each opposed NATO expansion to the Russian border. That was a huge, well-known and proverbial "red line". Nothing unique. No major power wants a foreign military alliance on its doorsteps. Certainly the US took appropriate action in the Cuban missile crisis and few Americans could ever imagine Russia or China building bases in Central America. I have found European's sense and utilization of history (in general) stronger that most (in general) Americans. As a nation, we'd be doing ourselves a great favor by understanding how other countries assess their self-interests and concerns. (The National Security Archives @ George Washington University collects documents, notes and conversations about this period as they become declassified.
Of course as a reader I don't know what the "truth" is- but it's good to read this opinion. Since we no longer can rely on our gut responses to situations, nor can we afford to merely react to situations and opinions, information is useful insofar as one needs to have an opinion. Personally, regarding Putin, I think it's quite clear what he is up to, just as it's clear what other politicians are up to- just look at them! But then each of us is on our own; we all respond differently to different people, and situations. As for Crimea being part of Russia, and there being a stated brotherhood, why all the bombing then? Is that how one treats one's own? I know in person many Russians and Ukrainians. But we are separated by a lot of distance, and none of us are discussing serious politics on FB. At the beginning of the war I called my friend who is a brilliant Ukrainian man who lives outside of his country since 2014, and the annexation of Crimea. He blames the US for everything! I don't know what his logic is- he also loves Donald Trump and our right wing- again, I don't know why. He was concerned about the war, said he predicted it but thought it came sooner than he expected. Russians I know are worried that everyone in the world will hate them. No need to worry- if they wait long enough everyone changes their minds. Basically what this essay says is what I want to hear. But I don't know if it's correct or not. A lot of opinions make me very uncomfortable, but I listen to them. Thank you, Russell Brand, et al. Is there life beyond opinions? I am a pacifist but I would have been unhappy if we had let Germany take over the whole of Europe in WWII. My grandfather fought and died in WWI.
To the further amusement of the chattering classes, we could continue a discussion of the evils and foibles of United States and NATO policies throwing in erudite references to the Cuban Missile Crisis, Suez Crisis, Monroe Doctrine, Six-Day War, Gallipoli, Magna Carta, Council of Nicaea, etc. However, the question of whether Putin and Russia were justified in any way shape or form in the invasion of the Ukraine would remain. Has anyone west of Moscow come up with a defensible justification for the invasion?