Russia wanted to take Ukraine long before Zelensky or any NATO expansion or even Putin, see https://youtu.be/IavEOx3hUAk , an interview of Dzhokhar Dudaev, Chechen leader during the the war with Russia in 1994-1995.
I would say that the fact that his country is at war with a super power is more likely to correlate with the psichotic personality of the leader of the super power than with him being a comedian. He has inspired loyalty and drive in his people which is all / as good as a general could do now
So you're suggesting that for a sovereign power to consider joining NATO is "flirting irresponsibly". Can I assume that you think it irresponsible because Ukraine borders Russia? If so, that ship sailed years ago. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are all NATO members (that happened under Putin's first stretch as president).
If Russia wanted to maintain a NATO-free buffer around its borders, what lesson do you think attacking the country that isn't a NATO member sends to the others? Surely it's "let's join NATO before Putin sends in the tanks". I'll believe otherwise when Putin attacks Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia. I won't hold my breath.
> So you're suggesting that for a sovereign power to consider joining NATO is "flirting irresponsibly".
This was indeed quite irresponsible of Ukraine, as we can see: they are now at war with Russia without any real support from the side they were negotiating with (USA / NATO have not and will not deploy to protect Ukraine). The losses (ref. the refugee count, loss of territory) have already been deeply damaging to Ukraine and its future: they were already aging, female dominated population prior to this with very bad economy. I cannot call this behavior responsible in any interpretation; and if these are sovereign actors then the armed veto is legitimate tool in order to pursue national interests.
> Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are all NATO members (that happened under Putin's first stretch as president).
I think the total number of tanks Baltic states have is around 0; Russia has something like 12,000+. Ukraine has the second largest army in Europe after Russia. Russian govt. probably considers (at this point) it a mistake to not intervene in the Baltic NATO process though.
> If Russia wanted to maintain a NATO-free buffer around its borders, what lesson do you think attacking the country that isn't a NATO member sends to the others?
From the point of view of Russian strategical behavior & deterrence something had to change in the way Russian govt. behaves to stop the further expansion into Ukraine. Clearly, whatever calculus they used previously for strategical deterrence was not enough to stop the expansion (hence, the expansion towards Russia over time).
There's a good point hidden in there, in the Yoda sense. Do or do not; there is no try. I.e. if you wanna join NATO, a lot more energy should be put into joining NATO and far less into talking about joining NATO.
But perhaps in real, non-armchair politics, you cannot have one without the other.
I try to observe things from "30 thousand feet", the current climate in Western countries is hysterical, emotional and it clouds a lot of things. Mostly try to keep it to Thomas Schelling's teachings when analyzing a given situation (behavior & deterrence being the important keywords).
> the current climate in Western countries is hysterical, emotional and it clouds a lot of things.
Sure, but in contrast, the earlier climate was complacent and submissive to all the evil things Putin did during his reign. We might be in the other end of the spectrum right now, but the other end wasn't a good position either.
Ukraine has been wanting to get into NATO since 2008, and really wanted to get into NATO since Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014. All this happened before Zelensky's presidency, which started in 2019.
Also popular opinion has been pro-NATO since 2014, and Ukraine is a democracy.
> and now his country is at war with a military superpower.
No, this has aged well. If anything western narratives have changed to paint him as a hero. Putin is a megalomaniac corrupt dictator. There is no point fighting him. Zelensky could concede the four points and end the war but he chose to force all men to fight for him.
Can't read the paywalled article, so also don't know when it was written, but I will speak in the present.
Of course any leader elected in peace is out of his depth in wartime. There aren't that many war-experienced electable leaders around, and it's difficult to have them in place when needed. But Zelensky is doing fine, to the surprise of many. There are two kinds of leaders who, elected in peace time, suddenly find themselves leading a country at war. One kind is found wanting and is replaced. The second kind finds surprising strength and LEADS. Zelensky is of the second kind. Could someone else do better? Possibly. Could others do a worse job? Definitely.
Let's not forget that Putin is also out of his depth. This bit of adventurism was planned as a short simple slam-dunk, but that turns out to have been a pipe-dream. There's a quote from Churchill:
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
22 comments
[ 0.23 ms ] story [ 49.2 ms ] threadIf Russia wanted to maintain a NATO-free buffer around its borders, what lesson do you think attacking the country that isn't a NATO member sends to the others? Surely it's "let's join NATO before Putin sends in the tanks". I'll believe otherwise when Putin attacks Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia. I won't hold my breath.
This was indeed quite irresponsible of Ukraine, as we can see: they are now at war with Russia without any real support from the side they were negotiating with (USA / NATO have not and will not deploy to protect Ukraine). The losses (ref. the refugee count, loss of territory) have already been deeply damaging to Ukraine and its future: they were already aging, female dominated population prior to this with very bad economy. I cannot call this behavior responsible in any interpretation; and if these are sovereign actors then the armed veto is legitimate tool in order to pursue national interests.
> Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are all NATO members (that happened under Putin's first stretch as president).
I think the total number of tanks Baltic states have is around 0; Russia has something like 12,000+. Ukraine has the second largest army in Europe after Russia. Russian govt. probably considers (at this point) it a mistake to not intervene in the Baltic NATO process though.
> If Russia wanted to maintain a NATO-free buffer around its borders, what lesson do you think attacking the country that isn't a NATO member sends to the others?
From the point of view of Russian strategical behavior & deterrence something had to change in the way Russian govt. behaves to stop the further expansion into Ukraine. Clearly, whatever calculus they used previously for strategical deterrence was not enough to stop the expansion (hence, the expansion towards Russia over time).
But perhaps in real, non-armchair politics, you cannot have one without the other.
Sure, but in contrast, the earlier climate was complacent and submissive to all the evil things Putin did during his reign. We might be in the other end of the spectrum right now, but the other end wasn't a good position either.
Ukraine has been wanting to get into NATO since 2008, and really wanted to get into NATO since Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014. All this happened before Zelensky's presidency, which started in 2019.
Also popular opinion has been pro-NATO since 2014, and Ukraine is a democracy.
> and now his country is at war with a military superpower.
Russia is not a military superpower.
Russia is still part of a small club of countries that can send human civilization back to the Stone Age.
For what its worth the West is pushing Zelensky to fight. The US doesnt care about Ukraine or Russia. They just want to sell their weapons.
Putin's actions in Ukraine will encourage other nations to join NATO. Sweden and Finland are considering joining now:
https://time.com/6158727/finland-sweden-wrestle-with-the-ben...
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/03/04/nato-br...
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/03/1084112625/neutral-finland-sw...
All Putin will achieve is the isolation of Russia. And that isolation will put Russia in China's pocket.
Either he is power hungry or US is forcing him to cling on to his title. Today he suspended all left and socialist parties including the party that got the second highest votes https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/3/21/why-did-ukraine...
Also keep in mind that Medvedchuk got more votes than him but Zelensky had him arrested.
Same feces as Russia just a different orifice.
BBC article in 2014 on rise of neo-nazism in Ukraine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SBo0akeDMY
Human Rights Watch on Ukraine killing civilians https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets...
> Zelensky could concede the four points and end the war but he chose to force all men to fight for him.
I mean a person getting raped can also stop the rape by convincing themselves that the act is consensual, right?
There's every point in fighting him. Capitulation and submission are never appealing propositions.
> Zelensky could concede the four points and end the war but he chose to force all men to fight for him.
Putin could end the war but he chose to send conscripts to fight for him.
Of course any leader elected in peace is out of his depth in wartime. There aren't that many war-experienced electable leaders around, and it's difficult to have them in place when needed. But Zelensky is doing fine, to the surprise of many. There are two kinds of leaders who, elected in peace time, suddenly find themselves leading a country at war. One kind is found wanting and is replaced. The second kind finds surprising strength and LEADS. Zelensky is of the second kind. Could someone else do better? Possibly. Could others do a worse job? Definitely.
Let's not forget that Putin is also out of his depth. This bit of adventurism was planned as a short simple slam-dunk, but that turns out to have been a pipe-dream. There's a quote from Churchill: