Why Can’t the West Admit That Ukraine Is Winning?
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
it's the kind of thing an american liberal writer for some left-of-center mainstream rag would write.
i have no idea who the author is -- it doesn't matter -- but to flippantly talk about 'winning' when some signficant amount of a country's population is dead, injured, on the run, traumatized, terrorized, starving, suffering, displaced, males of fighting age (18-60) locked in the country, separated from their families/children, martial law, more political parties shut down, most/all alternative press shut down, more oligarchs fleeing the country with suitcases of cash, yet more political instability, legal alcohol sales cut off with zillions of weapons going to amateurs, foreign fighters coming into your country, massive brain drain, with much of the world's poorest just starting to feel the disastrous effects of the war, with it all bringing us much closer to ultimate climate doom -- is that 'winning'?
if so, what is losing?
anyways, i'm sure that writer is winning.
Given the stated goals of the insane dictator in the Kremlin, and that Ukraine’s fight is for its survival as a sovereign nation, the author's proposition that the current situation has high potential for a Ukrainian 'win' within the brutal, barbaric parameters imposed upon them seems valid to me, given the all too likely alternative of an all out collapse of the Ukrainian resistance to Russian forces.
I would be interested to know of any alternative courses that Ukraine could take given the resources available to them and their situation between the Russian 'rock' of blunt force war criminal tactics and the 'hard place' that NATO has left them in after their post Soviet expansion..
Longer term, the prospect of Ukraine returning to the trajectory it had been aspiring towards since the Orange revolution is fraught for reasons including the dim prospects for a stable resolution to the current invasion and the problems you mentioned.. Care to discuss realistic steps that Ukraine or the NATO members could take?
I think the author states it well here:
" The Ukrainians are doing their part. Now is the time to arm them on the scale and with the urgency needed, as in some cases we are already doing. We must throttle the Russian economy, increasing pressure on a Russian elite that does not, by and large, buy into Vladimir Putin’s bizarre ideology of “passionarity” and paranoid Great Russian nationalism. We must mobilize official and unofficial agencies to penetrate the information cocoon in which Putin’s government is attempting to insulate the Russian people from the news that thousands of their young men will come home maimed, or in coffins, or not at all from a stupid and badly fought war of aggression against a nation that will now hate them forever. We should begin making arrangements for war-crimes trials, and begin naming defendants, as we should have done during World War II. Above all, we must announce that there will be a Marshall Plan to rebuild the Ukrainian economy, for nothing will boost their confidence like the knowledge that we believe in their victory and intend to help create a future worth having for a people willing to fight so resolutely for its freedom."
..which is why I posted the article.
i haven't heard any serious analysts say putin is insane -- they all seem to say just the opposite -- perfectly sane, rational, legitimate security concerns, etc.
i think the primary alternative Ukraine has had for years was (and still is) to declare they were never going to become a part of hostile-to-russia military alliance -- Nato, or anyone else.
people talk about Ukraine having no options - like they were doomed to die from an utter lack of indepedence if they did not join Nato? but every country in the world is constrained in some ways, even the US.
ukraine could have opted out of nato, got some security guarantees back from russia in return, probably either joined the EU or joined it in all but name, built some military alliance with other EU members within reason as negotiated with russia, etc.
nobody suffers, nobody dies, try to build up a reasonable democratic tradition, influence russian society by setting a good example of what effective democratic government looks like, etc. russia will get rid of putin eventually, and possibly grow slightly more democratic, etc.
but the US was not interested in any of that.
that's why the US is not interested in negotiating an end to the war -- instead, now we're fighting not for independence or our lives or our homeland, but 'principles':
> When asked to elaborate on his point, [State Department Employee, Ned] Price said that the war is “bigger” than Russia and Ukraine. “The key point is that there are principles that are at stake here that have universal applicability everywhere,” he said.
he didn't have to say the most important principle at stake in the Russia-Ukraine war: the principle that the US alone should continue to control the world.
https://news.antiwar.com/2022/03/21/us-signals-its-discourag...
i'd generally agree with this Ukrainian peace activist guy -- less war, more peace -- it's not rocket science -- but it's also not what the US wants -- so it's up to us who want and end to the war to pressure the US to end it:
https://www.democracynow.org/2022/3/22/yurii_sheliazhenko_ru...
1. Could you help me understand why you feel the SAIS (Johns Hopkins, established 1943) and the CSIS (Georgetown, established 1962) are "blob-ular"?
2. I must be missing out on a lot of "serious analysts" Can you provide me with some links to the ones portraying Putin as " perfectly sane, rational, (having) legitimate security concerns, etc."?
3. As a thought experiment, I tried using your logic for Ukraine's "primary alternative" to Poland in 1939, but I am having trouble with it turning out as anything other than the actual historical outcome.. could you show me how that logic works?
4. Apparently the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurance was not the kind of "security guarantees" you are referring to, could you explain exactly what security guarantees beyond the Budapest Memorandum you envisioned..?
5. Could you explain what methods Ukraine would have used to "set a good example for Russia" other than holding elections as they did? How many invasions, poisoned presidents do you think are acceptable while the Ukrainian people wait for Russia to "get rid of (P)utin eventually"?
6. I must have missed the part where America was pushing Ukraine to war with Russia while being distracted by all that MSM coverage of the massive buildup of Russian military hardware on the Ukrainian border, in Ukrainian Crimea and in the 'independent' Belarus (which is doing so well for its people by doing exactly what you are advising Ukraine to do, right?) - all the while calling it a "military exercise" and denying their intent to invade.. could you post your sources for the Americans pushing Ukraine to war during the Russian military buildup on their borders?
7. I am very interested to know what you think of the UN General Council vote supported by 141 of the 193 members condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where only Russia, North Korea, Syria, Eritrea and Belarus voted against it? How do you fit this into your claim that the principle being fought for is "that the US alone should control the world"? How many of the 141 UN members do you suppose would like to have Russian influence on world affairs..?
8. The conflict is (so far) limited to Ukraine. Using only documented historical information, which principles do you think are more likely to prevent its expansion :those advocated by NATO or those advocated by Putin? Please address your answer such that it is convincing to the people of the sovereign nations of Georgia, Moldova, and the Baltic states.
Thanks in advance.