Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,200 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 19 hours, 42 minutes ago by
.
-
Posts
-
A thought occurred to me. If Ukraine formally recognised Donbas and Crimea as separate entities no longer part of Ukraine this would effectively remove the obstacle in the way of Ukraine joining NATO would it not? NATO’s own rules on membership don’t currently allow Ukraine to join precisely for this reason – that part of its territory is contested. Maybe Ukraine might decide to cut their losses and cut Donbas and Crimea adrift in return for which they would then be able to join NATO and presumably secure their future against any future invasion. Russia won’t like the idea of Ukraine joining NATO but the pros might outweigh the cons in this case
One of the reasons why NATO did not admit Ukraine as a member of their military alliance is because they had internal problems in the Eastern part of the country, if they cede that region to Russia they might become member of NATO
Putin won’t accept that.
He doesn’t want a NATO neighbour that can strike Moscow in two minutes. He already has such neighbours that can strike it in five.
And his concern also is that, once in NATO, Ukraine could then attack Crimea and Donetsk, with any Russian riposte triggering Article 5.AC but what if Ukraine ratified an agreement that Crimea was Russian perhaps with co-signatories in the shape of the western powers. A peaceful settlement would be in their interests anyway as well as Russia’s. I don’t think the fact that NATO could strike Moscow in two minutes as opposed to five if Ukraine was not in NATO would make much material difference
But Robbo, isn’t it NATO that wants secretly to prolong the war? Hence the pumping in of weaponry.
This is quite a useful sketch of the different conflicting perspectives on the Left on Ukraine and the “traps” that they entail. Yet disappointingly the writer falls into his own trap by way of a summary:
“We should support the Ukrainian right of self-determination and its struggle for national liberation from Russian occupation. We must advocate the right of Ukranians to secure arms from wherever they can to defend themselves—even as we must point out to Ukrainians the strings that will come attached to any weapons and support they seek from the United States and other imperial powers.”
“Self determination” – the mantra they apply to states, but never to individuals.
“I self-determine that I shall refuse to take part in your war.”
Leftist and Rightist: “Off to prison with you! Self determination applies to the state, not to you!”
Zelensky can yield over NATO, but if he yields on Crimea and the Donbas, he will be ousted by the nationalists, don’t you think?
So he can never satisfy Russia on that.
“Self determination” – the mantra they apply to states, but never to individuals.
Good Point AC. In the end, the position advocated in the article is a nationalist one and therefore, ipso facto, a capitalist one. The author might just as well side with NATO which he condemns other leftists for doing because realistically where else are you getting to get your weapons from to fight your war of “national self-determination”?
The very definition of fascism: from fasces, the bound sticks symbolising unity in the state; the individual having no raison d’etre except as part of the state.
Fascism/Nazism is a degenerated form of bourgeois nationalism ( extreme nationalism ) and apologism of the dictatorship of one single party. There are not fascists, and there is no fascism
Correct. Fascism is simply capitalism minus any workers’ “rights.”
If it wasn’t having such terrible consequences for ordinary people in terms of death, injury, displacement, and destruction, the whole business would be an object study of capitalist diplomacy and war and how might is right.
In all diplomacy the outcome depends on how each side reckons the might of the other. If a compromise can’t be reached (as it usually is) then the only way of testing who is mightiest is war. Which has happened in this case. Neither Putin nor Zelensky and their advisers are irrational (mad) even if they appear to be. Russia has chosen war as, presumably, it appeared to its government that there was no other way to achieve its main goal (of Ukraine joining NATO or being armed by NATO). Zelensky is stirring up fanatical, even suicidal nationalism because the threat of mass opposition to the Russian invasion is one of the few bargaining chips that his government has (his goal will be the survival of the Ukrainian state).
At some point the war will end and their will be a settlement. What will it be? How can we know? How can anyone know? But I think we can rule out a permanent Russian occupation of the whole of Ukraine. Ukraine joining NATO is out too. That leaves plenty of room for a whole range of possible solutions. For what it’s worth (and that’s not much) I don’t think there will be an escalation to a wider war or it becoming another Afghanistan for Russia.
What won’t help is Johnson and Truss saying that Russia must not only fail but must be seen to fail and calling for Putin to be out on trial. A more diplomatic approach would have been to say Putin must fail but must not be seen to have failed. But it looks as if Russia has already won on the main point.
I hope you are right this time, ALB.
:/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.