Comments by "irresistablejewel" (@irresistablejewel) on "How the war in Ukraine will end | John Mearsheimer and Lex Fridman" video.
-
@RobinHarris-nf4yv "“The Ukrainians did not agree to peace because they were not allowed to. They first had to ask the Americans about everything they discussed"
(That is the view of: Gerhard Schröder; Germany’s former chancellor; who was appointed the mediator at peace talks in Istanbul, March of 2022). It has been widely reported that America and the UK blocked a peace deal; various reasons given (depending on media outlet), I assume their earlier "investments" would be lost if Ukraine declared neutrality.
Anyways: I don't regard Prof Mearsheimer as an extremist (more a realist); he already detailed why Russia might go to war; or "intervene" in the ongoing Ukrainian civil war, around four years before it came to pass; he (& I) have first hand knowledge of: America; China and Russia, he seems to understand a lot more than most commentators (imo).
Don't see the problem with interviewers asking naive questions; like what does America think it's doing in Eastern Europe?
(answers on a postcard... to #10 Downing St. London SW1A 2AB)
The O.P. is perhaps correct (prob a fan of Kitboga too); that talk of optimism (when in comes to human nature) is maybe a bit ambitious (Which is no laughing matter)
I don't want to sound like I'm preaching sedition, but my trust in: government; banks and the media (here) is pretty low; I thought it was a good interview, by Lex.
From my point of view: it was clear (for a long time) that Ukrainian neutrality was a key issue for Russia (not open to further negotiation); the EU and NATO having recruited other former Soviet states, wanted Ukraine; it was for different reasons, but: buying land; sending "aid" (EU) and "investment" (USA); America's interest in the EU gas supply (from Russia), threatening sanctions on proposed alternatives, on which Ukraine charged tariffs, etc. Does it look like the cosignatories to a neutrality agreement were respecting it?
The rest of the agreement was all about USSR assets, not the cosignatories, in short I agree with the Profs opinion that Western interests are no use as a future cosignatories.
So when some (no names) claim the conflict was unprovoked; it had already been explained (don't break promises to Russians); neutrality or war.
The real question, Lex was asking was; how to stop this? I don't believe the Prof has the answer, but he can tell you what you are looking at. A total failure in diplomacy, for one.
Casinos are my game (banned in Russia, thank goodness!); never play 00 Roulette (rip-off); right or wrong, in the game of military top trump; if there's no peace deal, then we have time to look at what superpowers (with righteous indignation !?) can do. Or in Western terms, how they fix their own economic problems; without global conflict.
So while I hesitate to make predictions and I "have no dog in the fight" (I just hate the media hate); look at the map. It doesn't look like Russia is marching on Berlin.
The Prof says, 4 Oblasts (regions) gone; they wanted to go; if this continues Odessa is of cultural significance to Russia (he's correct); while there's still that nagging question of what America thinks it's doing in Eastern Europe? Maybe trying to mess up the E.U. economically (although credit where credits due, their charity towards a non-EU member might look like a financial incentive... and who wants charity anyway?); the E.U. has it's own problems.
As a mediator myself (for the mafia, in Moscow 92'... it was like Chicago 1930, in the movies; no need to look for trouble )
... those who don't have a vested interest should leave the discussion; in other words... what's in it for you? (things could turn violent, I don't want that).
For me that should leave Ukraine and Russia in opposition; anyone else hanging around needs to explain themselves (even if they don't speak the language).
That's roughly how it goes; I may have to lock the doors and provide additional security (KGB moonlighting) until they sort it out, or nobody's leaving. I hate to insist.
Lex reminds me of my partner, fluent in Yugoslavian; Russian; English, strong silent type (lost a lot of friends and family in Yugoslavia, another story), good communicator, more importantly understands the "Slavic" mentality, while I deal in "battles of will" (if you will) and i know trouble when it walks in the door it's what I do); I can declare neutrality; I'm actually here to help. Russia demands a neutral Ukraine; any objections?
If America expresses a vested interest I'd like to know what it is? (if this is the Cuban missile crisis in reverse, it ended in a nuclear ultimatum).
Is there not a better use for public money that superpowers producing weapons? How about a base on Mars...?... before infighting or AI takes charge? Just a suggestion.
The Prof says he has a greater affinity to the Chinese way of thinking; they don't have a vested interest in the conflict, offered to mediate; so did Africa, instead you got me.
I know a lot of casino managers; I've never met Trump, but casino managers are not gamblers, they are "percentage men"; war is bad for (his) business; why fund it?
The OP talks of trust; or rather a lack of trust in Western institutions; I don't know what return on "investment" America seeks, I suspect Trump could resolve this in a day; but that's our secret. All I'd say is Chicago School economics and globalism doesn't work for me and I don't see Russia or China embracing it.
"I am grateful to Lex for his seemingly repetitive naive questions and for the Mearsheimer's bulletproof answer. Anyone exposed to this cannot make the mistake of thinking upside down" (dandysd). Couldn't have put it better myself. So I had to use all these words... time to mind our own business (no offence meant); some accountability.
I never needed a gun.
1
-
1