The war in Ukraine is an imperial war, instigated by another empire. So if you consider imperial wars to be horrible, supporting their victims is a good way to make amends, no?
No, its not.
Exactly one party launched an unprovoked war of aggression to seize territory from another sovereign state.
EDIT: After, I should add, successfully convincing NATO not to let them in in the interests of regional stability and avoiding provocation (and did the same thing with Georgia, first.)
Turning around 8 years into the war and blaming NATO for provoking the war based on the relation between NATO and Ukraine that developed after the war started, demonstrating the bad faith of the stability argument, is a particularly brazen propaganda move,
It's warped.
This article makes no sense what so ever, and repeats multiple Russian talking points including a often included comment about NATO expansion
That comment and supposed promise never happened in the way it is presented, I’d suspect someone who is familiar with this situation to know that.
That the author of that _opinion_ doesn’t know that is telling of his actual familiarity with the situation.
The entire thing reads like Russian propaganda and reads like it’s trying to dissuade western weapons to Ukraine, a key Russian goal.
Gorbachev himself said that it never happened in that way.
It’s worrying that someone who is meant to be be a ‘expert’ in this are gets such a key fact wrong, what else is wrong in that article?.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-...
The article you cite from the military think tank says clearly that Gorbachev was given assurances. Military think tanks are not generally valid or good sources for such topics.
You are using a secondary source that talks about the primary source to try and discredit the primary source itself.
This doesn’t work and is entirely an underhanded method to try and present non factual information as true.
Once again the fact that Sachs does not know this from a primary source is worrying, what else is he entirely unaware of the reality around the situation?.
That aside, what is important is Russia was under the understanding that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet bloc countries right up to its border and create a security threat which we are seeing now play out. If you find something that Sachs got wrong, I would love to hear it.
Its not splitting hairs. International law is not civil contracts, and even in contracts wide classes of important agreements must be in writing with clarity as to essential terms to be binding.
> Yes there are no signed agreements.
Which is really the end of the discussion as to whether there was a durable commitment to the USSR inheritable by any of the USSR’s successor states, individually or collectively. If a signed agreement did exist, we'd have to look at its details to see what its exact scope and temporal parameters and conditions were and whether such heritability made sense, and what commitments the other way were tied to it, and whether it was even logically possible for the putative successor states claiming to inherit the interest to uphold them. But it doesn’t, so we don’t need any further analysis.
Binding, long-term, international agreements heritable by successor states don't come out of private oral assurances that aren’t incorporated into formal international agreements.
Russia trying to conjure such an agreement retroactively after first trying and failing to jump the line and get into NATO ahead of other states in the region is especially brazen, though.
To whom, documented where? Gorbachev's foreign minister Shevardnadze also gave a lengthy interview denying all those claims when the narrative first surfaced. https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e...
As he points out, NATO membership of Warsaw Pact countries and even then-occupied parts of the USSR (Baltics) was beyond comprehension. There were no such discussions inside the Soviet leadership, within Warsaw Pact, nor with NATO, because they couldn't have imagined that Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union itself would cease to exist in a very short time.
It's an anachronistic hoax that doesn't fit into the timeline of events.
None exist, unlike the assurance that Russia would never invade Ukraine.
> Yes there are no signed agreements.
Of course there aren't cause it never happened, and was never promised.
> One interview with the dead Gorbachev is a source, but assurances were given by Western leaders to other people in Russia as well which are documented.
There were never any real agreements, to anyone in any way shape or form that constituted and actual agreement that was meant to be enforced, the leader of the country himself has said that already.
> That aside, what is important is Russia was under the understanding that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet bloc countries right up to its border and create a security threat which we are seeing now play out.
No they weren't their leader literally said he knew that wasn't the guarantee, this is more Putin invented fiction to just his imperialistic war of conquest.
> If you find something that Sachs got wrong, I would love to hear it.
Here's an article that refutes everything he wrote.
> https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1661857051725709314.html
Here's another
> https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2023/03/20/open-letter-to-jeffrey...
By the way, I looked up Jeffery Sachs cause you seem to love him as a source, so I googled him, turns out he's appeared on Russian propaganda shows hosted by Vladimir Solovyov.
Now why would Sachs go on a show that just pure Russian propaganda I wonder?.
(1) While there were signed treaty agreements ruling out NATA expansion (beyond Germany) -- notes by Baker (and others) do acknowledge that the Soviets/Russians were left with something of an "understanding" that this wouldn't happen.
For example we have Baker's assurance to Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”
(2) As Gorbachev himself (whom the other commenter in this thread seems intent on reminding us is still "dead", for some reason) put it: “It [NATO expansion] was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990". Along with other statements that it was a bad idea and unnecessarily provocative.
(3) Unfortunately everything changed with the unequivocal violation of Ukraine's territorial sovereignty 2014, which irrevocably upturned both the 1994 Budapest Memorandum -and- whatever sweet nothings were exchanged by Gorby and Baker (now also quite dead) in 1990. And thoroughly legitimized any means Ukraine might seek to protect itself, including joining NATO if it so wishes -- from that point ever onward.
(4) In any case -- the idea that the arc of events in above in any way comes even close to legitimizing, minimizing or excusing the current mass slaughter that is currently being inflicted on the people of Ukraine; or that is places "blame" on the West, or creates some kind of metaphysical equivalence of imperial powers; or that the best course of action for the Ukrainians at this point is to sit back and accept the designs that that large country to the north has on their territory and their future -- is, in the scheme of things, pure and utter horseshit. Something only a self-deluded intellectual can believe.
It's really quite straightforward, actually.
If Russia or China built up Mexico or Canada's military with arms and training and they were hostile to us, I think we would be a little concerned.
I read the two blogs which give different perspectives.
I do not see any problem with somebody from the US being interviewed by foreign press or vice versa. That does not make a person immediately sided with the government where that outlet is based or of the interviewer. I wish we would see more of this both ways.
What do you think we should do about Russian nuclear missiles set up in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad enclave (1), while its official state media is calling to nuke London (2) and everyone up to Putin himself (3) are making nuclear threats?
(1) https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1...
(2) https://twitter.com/Biz_Ukraine_Mag/status/16248569347959480...
(3) https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-threatens-worst-ever-c...
No assurances were written or made in any way, Jeffery Sachs fever dream and Putins imagined grievances don't count as sources.
> I am unaware of assurances Russia made to Ukraine. I am familiar with the Minsk accords which were broken.
I see you’re not at all familiar with this conflict nor with the history of Russian Ukrainian relations then.
In fact considering Jeffery Sachs never mentioned this I’m starting to doubt his familiarly with this conflict and it’s history in general too.
The Budapest Memorandum (which is written down btw) was a international agreement where in exchange for Ukraine giving up there nuclear weapons and long range strike capability, Russia, the UK and The USA pledged to the following points.
>> Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[7]
>> Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.
>> Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
>> Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
>> Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[8][9]
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
This agreement was signed in 1994, well before any invasion and well before any coerced Minsk accords happened.
So considering Russia has been fragrantly violating this agreement and how much you love to bring up agreements that don’t even exist, you must agree that Russia must leave Ukraine right?, under this agreement which is written down they agreed to never violate their sovereignty something they are doing right now.
> I read the two blogs which give different perspectives.
Those perspectives are called reality, something Jeffery Sachs is clearly not very familiar with.
> I do not see any problem with somebody from the US being interviewed by foreign press or vice versa. That does not make a person immediately sided with the government where that outlet is based or of the interviewer. I wish we would see more of this both ways.
To call Vladimir Solovyov media is incredibly generous let’s look at some choice clips from his show shall we.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTTGsOgxMd4
Talks about and to another Putin supporter about completely wiping out Ukraine from the face of the earth.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnkTLKJt6K0
Here he talks angrily about Ukrainian refugees and about not even stopping at Ukraine, clearly a threat to the rest of Europe.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y0LQqAZHCw
Here he lies about only hitting military targets.
Theres thousands more clips, Solovyov is more akin to Jospeh Goebells than to any actual foreign press.
The British were after Crimea 180 years ago. (see charge of the light brigade) It's a big prize. And it had been Russian from the 1700s until 1956. And now it is again. Likewise many of the breakaway republics (until 1920s). And what happened to Russia in the 90s. How the borders of Ukraine came to be. What happened in Kosovo. How American "imperialism" works, and what it is.
That is not to excuse any Russian behavior either. They have traditionally been imperialistic and expansionist. Their neighbors have reasonable cause to fear them.
But this is multiple parties instigating civil war, inserting puppet governments, creating propaganda, stirring up hate and taking sides, arming and providing intelligence for their own gain.
It's not at all just "Evil Russia and we are helping democracy!" in reality. This sentiment, (targeted at the historical and event illiterate) is propaganda to get you to play along, pay for it, fight for it or at least not complain. And the same holds true with whatever Russian media is telling it's citizens. I'm sure it has a very good story about evil imperialists and the misdeeds of the CIA, so that's why the rich should get richer and you should put on army fatigues.
It's an economic war. Like most, or even all wars are in reality.
War is a racket. Always has been. The little people pay with blood, the big people stand to turn big profits and maybe if they are lucky the little people enjoy a favored economic position later at the expense of whomever they subjugated.
It's frankly shocking to me that people don't understand this by now.
War may be a racket, but history is what it is and now we're here. There are several morally corrupt parties, but that does not make them equal. That is a fallacy. Civilians suffer, and they suffer tremendously. We mustn't lose sight of right and wrong even when we're deep in moral relativism.
There has been a lot of bloodshed, including of civilians before the "war" started and much of it was from the side that is now aggrieved.
I understand the economic reasons for not wanting Russia to control so many resources and important trade routes, but in this case if there is a "more wrong" party in my opinion it is the meddlers from further off. This is only my opinion and I really think there isn't much of a "morally right" party in this sitution.
Let me also put it like this.
I don't necessarily control what bad people in other places do, but I expect my own society to not behave badly. To not overturn other societies and cause death and suffering and chaos for economic gain and then give me bullshit reasons and propaganda about "truth and justice and democracy". I believe if more people on all sides thought this way we would have less problems but as you say, here we are.
The "coup" theory you're referring to is nonsense. Nobody in Ukraine (nor anyone else who understand the actual event chronology, and just how marginal and insignificant the events you're referring to were) puts any stock in it.
To many other cognitive distortions in your post for me to unpack. It's clear that your whole thought process is backwards -- starting from a moralistic position ("Western geopolitical elites bad; those who seem oppose what they want, good"), and building your "understanding" of recent history from that.
If you mean LNR & DNR, then that's just plainly not true. At most they were majority Russophone (depending on how you count "native language"), which is not at all the same thing.
You might also want to look up what ethnic Russian citizens in e.g. Moldova or Latvia think about the perspective of Russia "helping" them the way it "helped" ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
The citizens of Crimea and Donetsk are largely both ethnically and linguistically Russian. Luhansk it is less, but still around half or more. And they have generally voted largely in favor of Russian leaning candidates. Never mind the declarations of independence after the 2014 coup, the taking up of arms, and the subsequent military resistance to the Ukrainian state.
Crimea is a different story, but if we go there we'll also have to talk about things like why Crimean Tatars aren't the majority of the population there anymore.
It's too bad that those same people now run Russia, and the war is the direct consequence of that.
If we're going to go back that far -- it was all part of the Crimean Khanate from 1443 up until 1783 (not 1700 as you know perfectly well), whose border extended up to the Dnipro, all around the Azaq deñizi (which later occupiers would call the Sea of Azov) and then some.
So clearly none of the occupying powers since then have any legitimacy.
That is not to excuse any Russian behavior either.
No, you're just trying to minimize it, and use it as a wedge to get some emotional talking points in.
Except the USSR released it. Nothing to do with the US. And Russia trying to recapture it now has nothing to do with the fact that it’s been it’s own country for almost 50 years. Not to mention Ukraine has repeatedly sought entrance into NATO for exactly this fear and Russia has dissuaded NATO from considering it under threat of viewing it as a direct aggression against Russia.
> It's an economic war. Like most, or even all wars are in reality.
Whatever else I don’t think the war in Ukraine is an economic one. It seems more like a militarily and politically strategic one. Ukraine (specifically Crimea) is an extremely important naval base (at least that’s my impression). The US has also supported the pro-Western political factions within Ukraine which is a problem for Putin considering Ukraine’s proximity to the Russian border and Crimea. Additionally Putin regularly engages in acts of military aggression because it boosts his strongman image which helps him domestically, which, along with the political assassination, helps maintain his power over the political environment in Russia. Putin is already wealthy enough. His moves are about acquiring geopolitical power, not basic wealth.
No, it is largely a cultural thing. There's considerable evidence that Putin really believes all the tripe about "triune people" that was written in his 2021 essay [0], and genuinely sees independent Ukraine as a deliberately manufactured cultural "anti-Russia" that cannot be allowed to exist for that reason alone.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/turkeys-erdogan-touts-s...
Sure, it’s unclear Erdogan would go so far as to violate NATO treaties, but I wouldn’t call Turkey the US’s unabashed ally.
I don’t know that I buy the whole cultural angle when Putin very reliably acts squarely within the model of realpolitik power acquisition.
And one party instigated by allowing victims of imperial subjugation to seek protection against further imperial subjugation by joining a military alliance... or something like that?
These things are all quite different, it is strange to use the same word to describe them.
As silly as that sounds as provocation, its not even true. Directly reacting to Putin's requests, NATO denied Ukraine and Georgia MAPs in 2008, leading almost immediately to Russia invading Georgia, and 6 years later—immediately after Ukraine tossed out a Russia-friendly government for one that sought closer ties with the West but explicitly disclaimed any intention of seeking NATO membership (in large part because NATO caved to Russia in 2008), Russia invaded Ukraine.
And what I say is true. There are multiple imperial instigators in this war. Russia is certainly one of them.
What you said is patently false there is only one imperial instigator in this war, that’s Russia what remains after that is the imagined fever dreams of people trying to justify and support a war of imperialism by Russia that is systematically doing what it can to wipe out the existence of the country it seems to subjugate.
It's a testament to the awesome power of US propaganda that you can't throw a stone in Texas without hitting a house flying the Ukrainian flag, but almost no one actually knows the history and circumstances leading up to the war.
I think these two pieces provide some good background:
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/the-war-in-ukraine-was-...
As for NATO expanding east, Russia has something of a grievance there but the U.S. and NATO should never have relegated some of the former Soviet states to the status of "buffer regions" in perpetuity in the first place. Those countries have the right to self-determination and security just like anyone else.
Well there was a bit more going on than that (for example, as to why the other members were not present, and how that came to pass).
But either way - the "coup" allegation is bogus, and not taken seriously by anyone in Ukraine.
The threat to his regime and its legitimacy is to have a democratic neighbor with russian speakers who live better lives, in what is a former colonial subject of the glorious russian empires.
NATO does make a great bogeyman though for internal audiences, to shift attention away from the futures they are deprived of by dictatorship.
NATO was formed on Russia's borders, it didn’t need to expand to reach them.
And countries near you joining a regional security arrangement isn’t a casus belli, most especially not against completely different countries that you have already succeeded in getting the alliance not to admit, thereby also quelling the country’s interest in joining the alliance.
I know Russian propagandists like to point to the renewed interest in NATO membership Ukraine developed in 2014 for the war, the problem with that is that that interest (aside from not justifying the war in any case) was a direct result of Russia launching the war of aggression.
Holy jeepers, this whole line of discussion you're pushing is ridiculous beyond words.
But point in fact: Norway, which borders you-know-which-country, was one of the founding signatories of NATO at the time of its formation.
Russia was a constituent Republic of the Soviet Union and NATO was on the border of Russia, as well as the Soviet Union, when it was formed.
> The US made assurances that NATO would not expand eastward
Informal assurances of current intent given to the Soviet Union around the time of German reunification and never reduced to a treaty or even a formal executive agreement are not binding commitments with unlimited time horizons inheritable by successor states. (And, anyhow, Russia's active pursuit of NATO membership, including under Putin until he got upset that he couldn't bypass the readiness requirements and be directly admitted ahead of others, would have been a clear repudiation of it if it did still have some applicability.)
Norway is a founding member with a land border, and borders don't just happen on land; the US also is territorially adjacent to Russia.
Either way I don't think it matters. The point ultimately is that NATO expansion is not some kind of Western imperialist creep - neighbors of Russia rushed to join NATO as soon as they could because they wanted security based on their own past experience. It was never a threat to Russia.
In other words - your view is that the Ukrainians are incapable of deciding on their own whether to keep fighting their perfectly well-meaning Russian liberators, or not.
Does that make slaughtering up to 100,000 young men, and many civilians who get in the way, justified?
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is in every way just as bad as USA's invasion of Iraq.
Both are horrific crimes, which should see the executives of the Russia, and the USA, hang. If anybody should hang, Bush (and Blair?) up there with Putin.
Unsure what to do with Obama. His use of remote control killing robots should put him up there on the gallows.
Actually I would put the three of them (and Blair) in goal for life - I do not approve of killing for any reason.
Unlike the rulers of the USA and Russia