ATL Bear said:
whiterock said:
Amal Shuq-Up said:
ATL Bear said:
muddybrazos said:
ATL Bear said:
whiterock said:
HuMcK said:
My friend, you prove too much. Preferring to remain in the Slavic orbit rather than aligning with EU does not ipso facto make one a Russian asset. A majority of Ukrainians did in at least one election give Yanukovic a majority vote, so it's not like he had no constituency. And while in office, Yanukovich did not do as one would expect a "Russian Asset" to do, like execute bilateral agreements tying Ukraine to Russia, refuse to participate in any pro-EU policies, etc..... In fact, he presided over extensive diplomatic negotiations with the EU resulting in final agreements, even issued executive orders in support of Ukraine's turn west. He did not step back from the process until literally the last moment, in response to direct Russian threats.
If he was the Russian puppet your argument needs him to be, Ukrainian history would read a little differently.
Your error here is common to liberals - to live in a worldview with constructed enemies, and mis-define as needed to keep those enemies a real and present danger. In so doing, they themselves become what they fear - intolerant bullies addicted to virtue posture rather than effective policy. The beauty of contrive problems is that one can define them away. Real problems not so much. Those one need only blame on the constructed enemy.
I'm usually never in alignment with Humck, but he's right on Yanukovych. Now he's overplaying Manafort's role as a Russian stoolie, as Manafort was hired to move him Westward and to be more broadly appealing. He failed to do so as it played out with Russia being a more "persuasive" partner.
Yanukovych is apparently Putin's desired replacement for Zelensky in Ukraine.
So why is this a bad thing? It would end the conflict, Ukraine remains neutral and not in Nato then we avoid more conflict w/ Russia. Do we really need to fight a world war over a Russian vassal state?
I'm all for ending the war. I would fear a Yanukovych regime would trade war with Russia for an internal civil war. I think splitting the country and giving Russia its buffer would likely avoid that. Let Western Ukraine look West, and let Russia have its sphere and buffer. Just my opinion.
After Mother Russia is given a little living space, where does she next ask the "buffer zone" to be moved?
You have just identified the weakness in the arguments of the Great Power school who argue that if we give Putin the space Russia deserves, he will play nice. He's stated openly that he wants the Baltics, Poland, Hungary, et al....out of Nato as well, and he's been pretty consistent at stating what his worldview actually is and acting on it, so we have to take him at his word. The moment Ukraine were to fall, Putin would move to consolidate and fold Moldova back into the Russian orbit (he's already got a pro-Russian breakaway region there....). Then, he will start playing games in the poorer and less stable of the former WP countries - Bulgaria, Romania - to get a movement going to pressure the govts to pull out of NATO. Success there isolates Turkey (a long-time Great Power rival) and establishes a precedent for how nations leave NATO. SO: The defense of Nato is occurring right now IN UKRAINE. While Ukraine might not be a strategically important country to the USA, we do have a stake in the outcome of the current war there - an independent Ukraine materially benefits our national interest (to the extent that NATO remains of strategic benefit to US interests).
Yanukovich: Of course he is Putin's man now. Putin gave him asylum and would literally reinstall him as a puppet. But puppet he was not prior to the EuroMaidan movement, which he participated in positively for years and did not squelch until after Putin issued him an ultimatum. Had he been a Russian stooge all along, Ukraine would have turned police state years before the crowds assembled in the Maidan.
Putin can think whatever he wants. The execution of such is an entirely different matter. Russians are known for bluster and bravado. The Soviet Union was a facade of strength nearly its entire existence built on brash claims and bold rhetoric with some military hardware mixed in for show.
I'd argue NATO will be stronger after this Putin excursion. Isn't your daughter (right to be a proud Dad BTW) in the middle of the logistical change in defense resources as we speak? You of all people would know that's going to continue even after a peace agreement (hopefully) happens in whatever form. What does Putin do as we move forward with amassing MORE military and defensive positions on his borders? What if Finland makes good on their interest in NATO? What does he do by losing European energy markets longer term? There are severe economic considerations beyond the military ones.
I get that Putin isn't someone to be easily trifled with, but there's a practical aspect around all of this that limits his options regardless of his interests.
Daughter indeed won her award for logistical response to the current crisis.
The part in bold: the game of Great Power Geopolitics never stops. Nations always have interests, but some of those interests can change over time. And that is what makes this exercise so interesting.
What if, instead of accepting the rather conventional GPG dynamic on whether Belarus/Ukraine return to the slavic orbit or become the shatterzone between Russia and Western Europe, we think in terms of trying to end the millennia old GPG dynamic in Eastern Eurasia? What if instead of allowing Russia to perceive itself as a Slavic nation sandwiched between East and West, we sought to make Russians think & act like Europeans? That is what democracy and the liberal society of Western Europe poses to do, and is why Putin hates it so.
If our goal is to start the same kind of transition in Russia that we see in Ukraine......a nation turning to adopt the liberal order and all that comes with it, then what we do is slowly move the shatterzone eastward. this scenario poses to let NATO bound on Russian borders and seek to push social transformation within Russia toward a true federal state operating on democratic processes, where the people rather than their leaders make decisions about the future of the country. THAT is why we saw so much pressure to include Ukraine in EU/NATO. THAT is we have seen regime change in Russia floating around in public discourse. It appears that's what's afoot.
To deal with a risen China, we need Russia to quit worrying about NATO. NATO....an entente of liberal democracies is not going to invade Russia. We need Russia to to prioritize what it already knows - that China is a far bigger long-term threat to the integrity of Russia than the west could ever be. Russia simply finds (and has historically always found) that the eastern powers are easier to deal with than the western ones. The former just want tribute; the latter make demands on all kinds of things like freedom, equality, due process, etc....
By far, the safest, easiest, and least costly nation to remove from the current Chinese axis of evil opposing the liberal order (China, Russia, Iran, NK) is......Russia. Iran cannot change (shia islamic state), and NK cannot be touched (next door to China). Only with Russia do we have cultural and geopolitical bridgeheads to build upon.
How we do that is a complicated conversation. Trump tried a direct approach, to just reassuret Putin to realize that the USA is not the biggest problem facing Russia, that we would let Russia be Russia as long as Russia quit poking westward. Right now, it appears we are working to anaconda the thing....to squeezethe EU right up next to Russia and apply tightening social pressure to start a transition within Russia toward the liberal order. Putin manifestly sees it that way. I can't disagree with him. Res ipsa loquitur. It's manifestly happening in the news, before our eyes. Reasonable people can disagree on whether it's wise or not, but it's ambitious to the point of audacity.
