Comments by "andy99ish" (@andy99ish) on "DW News"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bonnie7898 There is no such a thing as a "general" military alliance, as military alliances are not country clubs. Nor does one form military alliances against aliens from outer galaxies. From whom an alliance accepts and whom not, it can be very well deducted, who the foe of the alliance is. In the case of NATO it was the Soviet Union/the Warsaw pact. After communism has imploded NATO was nevertheless upheld. To justify its existence a new enemy had to be constructed. And that is Russia.
NATO did expand and there is no point in trying to discern "active" and "passive" elements of that endeavour. NATO officials have promised the Ukraine access in 2008, fully knowing that this will cause conflict with Russia sooner or later. The 2014 coup did only aggravate these tensions.
All in the present war is a tragic self-fulfilling prophecy: NATO seeks for a new mission, hence relentlessly confronts and provokes Russia, thereby finally triggers the very military aggression which was to be avoided.
Elements of cynicism is also clearly visible: The issue concerns a country with massive US investments (and not, say, poor Kurdistan), the idea of an evil empire is restored, the Western public is once again fed with the "good native, bad native" nonsense. As a result the US weapons industry thrives and natives pay the price in blood, only to be abandoned once the whole things gets to costly.
I was a staunch supporter of original NATO, of a firm yet reasonable USA, a declared opponent of communism and Western pacifism. But now NATO instead of securing peace has triggered a predictable war, most detrimental to everyone involved. And revived the threat of nuclear confrontation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@USB740 Once again, as you omitted my main argument: Soviet law was not applicable to relations between subjects of international law, in this case Russia and the Ukraine. That is why the Budapest accords were thought to be necessary. If you imply that the statesmen, diplomats and lawyers negotiating, concluding and guaranteeing these accords were ignorant persons just wasting their time, as anyway "there was no other recourse" than to transfer nuclear weapons to Russia, then you transgress the limits of a serious debater.
About the location of codes: US strategic command being located in Nebraska does not imply that US nuclear missiles are property of the state of Nebraska, does it ? Now, if in Soviet law there was that provision about ownership of nuclear weapons by one of the republics, then see my main argument above. So: no favors, nor a fulfillment of Soviet law, but a separate international agreement and its execution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chas721
Russia has accepted the Ukrainian vote of 1991. It did not deny its right to separate from Russia. Yes, Russia to some extent still has the idea , that the Ukraine is a part of the Rus - group of people. One can agree or disagree with that. But to construe a breathtaking insult out of that, or a denial of the right to exist is vastly exaggerated. Furthermore it smells of that savage nationalism, which is so typical of the Ukraine. That picture is reinforced by the sad fact, that the organizers of the Volhynia massacre of 1943/44 are official national heroes of contemporary Ukraine. So much about fascism.
Now Russia does not want the Ukraine to join a military alliance hostile to Russia, NATO. For sure there is an imperialistic element in that demand. But not more than the USA being hostile to any socialist government in the Americas. More generally if one lives close to an empire, he should not provoke it. That is even more true for young nations, like the Ukraine, which have not yet established a civil society (let alone a democracy) nor overcome massive corruption nor dealt with the dark spots in its own history.
The Ukraine out of fear of Russia has pushed for NATO membership, thereby triggering a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ukrainians defend themselves with great determination and skill. I can only hope that this will be complemented by realism. It will not be easy: Young nations tend to see themselves as being the center of the universe, to imagine that some kind of justice reigns the world and to place exaggerated hopes on allies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sassy6498 Your starting point is very typical and very odd. It assumes that Russia has no right to pursue its interests. And if they do so, that is automatically "blackmailing".
Russia in the last 30 years was not an expansive power. It has retreated from Eastern Europe. It has accepted that from Estonia to Romania countries have joined NATO. However when Russia made inquiries about joining NATO, it was turned down.
But there is a limit. Putin has made clear again and again, that Russia will not allow the Ukraine nor Georgia to join a military alliance directed against Russia. That is understandable. And actually much less of an imperialistic behavior than the West, more specifically the USA, is displaying. Who think they have every right to invade the Iraq, to destabilize Libya or to lecture China. Places many thousands of miles away, not neighbors, as Ukraine is to Russia.
The Ukraine, a very corrupt and politically unstable country, could have pursued modernization under neutrality. Finland, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Yugoslavia did fare well with their neutral status even during Soviet times.
Regarding the Russian-Ukrainian war there will be no winner. The Ukraine is already heavily damaged and will get more so given Russia's resolve. Western societies given the lingering economic crisis will not be ready or even able to finance its reconstruction.
Now Western reliance on Russian commodities is unfortunate - but growing dependence on Saudi oil is not any better. As you might know Saudi Arabia is the main exporter of radical Islam worldwide. And is bombing hospitals in the Yemen. More generally America deems China to be the number one rival. Russia's weakness (and much more so its disintegration) will massively empower China.
The war is a tragedy, as any war is. And harsh realism is not pleasant. But in the long run better than entertaining the illusion that one's country is the center of the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1