Russia Surrounded
- Thread starter Woebot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- craner boobs disco dasha nekrasova good old obsessive antiamericanism gullfire over leningrad j. h. prynne jamaican voodoo gang from predator 2 my indian mate in year 11 with downs syndrome oliver ukrainer sanctuary of apollo shaka's secret mission snake island the black sea the good old party spirit of desert storm the gust of kiev the russo-ucranerian war wagner man falling out of the sky we're all neocons now whatabouastic whataboutery whataboutish whataboutism whataboutistic who controls the serpent
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Well we can't all be a highly respect geopolitical analyst and commentator like you, can we.
Going to post below an extract from an open letter from a group of economists to the American economist Jeffrey Sachs, as they're rightly appalled at his support for Russia. As is entirely fucking predictable at this point, he ignores Ukrainians, talks over them, and pushes open Russian propaganda lines. They felt compelled to correct his historical misrepresentations and logical fallacies including the NATO expansion canard Vimothy has been pushing above
Pattern #1: Denying the agency of Ukraine
In your article “The New World Economy” from January 10, 2023, you write: “It was, after all, the US attempt to expand NATO to Georgia and Ukraine that triggered the wars in Georgia (in 2010) and in Ukraine (2014 until today).” Similarly, in your article “What Ukraine Needs to Learn from Afghanistan” from February 13, 2023, you write: “The proxy war in Ukraine began nine years ago when the US government backed the overthrow of Ukraine’s president Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych’s sin from the US viewpoint was his attempt to maintain Ukraine’s neutrality despite the US desire to expand NATO to include Ukraine (and Georgia).”
Let us set the record straight on the historical events from 2013-2014, which you hint at in the aforementioned misinformative statements: the Euromaidan had NOTHING to do with NATO, nor the US. The initial protest was sparked by Viktor Yanukovych’s decision not to sign the European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement, despite said agreement passing the Ukrainian Parliament with an overwhelming majority and enjoying broad support among the Ukrainian population.
The choice by Yanukovich’s regime to respond by brutally beating peaceful protesters (mostly students) on the night of November 30, 2013 only further alienated the population and intensified the protests. After the adoption of a set of laws forbidding the freedom of press and assembly (commonly termed the “dictatorship laws”) by Yanukovych in January 2014, the Euromaidan turned into a broader movement against government abuse of power and corruption, police brutality, and human rights violation – which we now refer to as the Revolution of Dignity.
Ukraine’s accession to NATO was never a goal of this movement. Hence, your attempts to trace the beginning of the war to “NATO” are historically inaccurate. Furthermore, treating Ukraine as a pawn on the US geo-political chessboard is a slap in the face to millions of Ukrainians who risked their lives during the Revolution of Dignity.
Pattern #2: NATO provoked Russia
You repeatedly emphasize that the expansion of NATO provoked Russia (e.g., “NATO should not enlarge, because that threatens the security of Russia,” from your interview to Isaac Chotiner at the New Yorker from February 27, 2023).
We want to draw your attention to a few facts. In 1939, it was the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that invaded Poland. In 1940, it was the Soviet Union that invaded the Baltic countries. In 1940, it was the Soviet Union that annexed parts of Romania. In 1956, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Hungary. In 1968, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Czechoslovakia. Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Hungary or Czechoslovakia did not invade Russia or the Soviet Union. No threat emanated from these countries. Yet these countries were attacked by the USSR / Russia. This is why these countries wanted to join NATO. It’s that simple. Since joining NATO, none of these countries have been attacked by Russia again.
Just like these countries, Ukraine (whose military budget was a mere $2.9 bn in 2013, prior to Russia’s military aggression against it) wants to have security and peace. It does not want to be attacked again by Russia (whose military budget in 2013 stood at $68 bn). Given that Ukraine’s agreement to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for security “assurances” from the US, UK and Russia (!) did nothing to prevent Russian aggression, currently the only credible guarantee is NATO membership.
We also want to draw your attention to the fact that Finland and Sweden applied for NATO membership in response to Russian aggression, and yet Russia did not complain about these two countries joining NATO. You do not seem to be particularly concerned about these two countries joining NATO either. This differential treatment of Ukraine vs. Finland / Sweden legitimizes “spheres of influence,” a notion that seems appropriate for the age of empires – but not for the modern era.
Pattern #1: Denying the agency of Ukraine
In your article “The New World Economy” from January 10, 2023, you write: “It was, after all, the US attempt to expand NATO to Georgia and Ukraine that triggered the wars in Georgia (in 2010) and in Ukraine (2014 until today).” Similarly, in your article “What Ukraine Needs to Learn from Afghanistan” from February 13, 2023, you write: “The proxy war in Ukraine began nine years ago when the US government backed the overthrow of Ukraine’s president Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych’s sin from the US viewpoint was his attempt to maintain Ukraine’s neutrality despite the US desire to expand NATO to include Ukraine (and Georgia).”
Let us set the record straight on the historical events from 2013-2014, which you hint at in the aforementioned misinformative statements: the Euromaidan had NOTHING to do with NATO, nor the US. The initial protest was sparked by Viktor Yanukovych’s decision not to sign the European Union-Ukraine Association Agreement, despite said agreement passing the Ukrainian Parliament with an overwhelming majority and enjoying broad support among the Ukrainian population.
The choice by Yanukovich’s regime to respond by brutally beating peaceful protesters (mostly students) on the night of November 30, 2013 only further alienated the population and intensified the protests. After the adoption of a set of laws forbidding the freedom of press and assembly (commonly termed the “dictatorship laws”) by Yanukovych in January 2014, the Euromaidan turned into a broader movement against government abuse of power and corruption, police brutality, and human rights violation – which we now refer to as the Revolution of Dignity.
Ukraine’s accession to NATO was never a goal of this movement. Hence, your attempts to trace the beginning of the war to “NATO” are historically inaccurate. Furthermore, treating Ukraine as a pawn on the US geo-political chessboard is a slap in the face to millions of Ukrainians who risked their lives during the Revolution of Dignity.
Pattern #2: NATO provoked Russia
You repeatedly emphasize that the expansion of NATO provoked Russia (e.g., “NATO should not enlarge, because that threatens the security of Russia,” from your interview to Isaac Chotiner at the New Yorker from February 27, 2023).
We want to draw your attention to a few facts. In 1939, it was the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany that invaded Poland. In 1940, it was the Soviet Union that invaded the Baltic countries. In 1940, it was the Soviet Union that annexed parts of Romania. In 1956, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Hungary. In 1968, it was the Soviet Union that invaded Czechoslovakia. Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Hungary or Czechoslovakia did not invade Russia or the Soviet Union. No threat emanated from these countries. Yet these countries were attacked by the USSR / Russia. This is why these countries wanted to join NATO. It’s that simple. Since joining NATO, none of these countries have been attacked by Russia again.
Just like these countries, Ukraine (whose military budget was a mere $2.9 bn in 2013, prior to Russia’s military aggression against it) wants to have security and peace. It does not want to be attacked again by Russia (whose military budget in 2013 stood at $68 bn). Given that Ukraine’s agreement to give up its nuclear weapons in 1994 in exchange for security “assurances” from the US, UK and Russia (!) did nothing to prevent Russian aggression, currently the only credible guarantee is NATO membership.
We also want to draw your attention to the fact that Finland and Sweden applied for NATO membership in response to Russian aggression, and yet Russia did not complain about these two countries joining NATO. You do not seem to be particularly concerned about these two countries joining NATO either. This differential treatment of Ukraine vs. Finland / Sweden legitimizes “spheres of influence,” a notion that seems appropriate for the age of empires – but not for the modern era.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
I don't really have a problem with people taking a totally amoral, vimothyish 'realpolitik' position on Russia (or China etc.), as long as they apply it consistently. But people who take that approach to Russia while also regarding the USA as the Great Satan deserve poking and derision.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Yeah, I think so - I mean, I disagree with vim on Russia, obviously, but the last thing you could accuse him of is being part of the anti-imperialist left, so the bit about poking and derision wasn't aimed at him.
sufi
lala
This sounds interesting:
Online Film Launch Event: "Arms Sales to Dictators, Displacement, and Militarised Borders"
Join London Campaign Against Arms Trade for a launch of their new film on the UK government and the UK arms industry’s involvement in and around the Syrian Civil war. Date: Monday 24th April Time: 18:30-20:00 https://crm.caat.org.uk/civicrm/mailing/url?u=6178&qid=3548879
Yeah it does look interesting. Saying Assad actually gassed people is a controversial claim in certain quarters.
vimothy
yurp
hmm, I think this is also a rather partial and one sided account of the tensions that led to the ukraine crisis. a better timeline can be found in adam tooze's crashed, in the chapter "fuck the eu", named after Victoria Nuland's now famous quote. tooze gives proper weight to the jockeying and lack of foresight on both sides which led to he crisis in 2014, much of which can be traced to the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent eu financial crisis in which the ukraine were given short shrift be either side, but were certainly not favoured by proposed deals from the eu or imf.
vimothy
yurp
as I said, the realist analysis leaves out a lot. it abstracts over all specific details about russian political culture. it abstracts over details of us political culture as well. it's simply focused on issues of great power positioning. clearly, a total account of the causes of the war would have to add these back in. the question is, are these total accounts necessary to understand the causes of the war, or can it be understood using the realist frame? it seems to me that realism gets you most of the way there
Not read that but I am a fan of Tooze so I'll add it to the ever growing list.
vimothy
yurp
the single chapter is not a long read
I would argue that the richer picture helps us position ourselves. What do we want to align with? What kinds of choices are we making about how we support? If I read you right though, you're saying this is a kind of side issue compared to watching the play of the great powers.
I know I'll want to read the whole thing the moment I pick it up. I've enjoyed hearing Tooze a lot when I hear him interview. Did hear a devastating diss about him the other day, see if I can find it.