I'm with you on the absurdity of historical 'explanations'; this is one of the things I'll never tire of when teaching and speaking on historical matters. That said, you're at least partially correct about the attacking a neighbouring state issue.
Mind you, I'm not picking a side here, but it must be pointed out that I conscious…
I'm with you on the absurdity of historical 'explanations'; this is one of the things I'll never tire of when teaching and speaking on historical matters. That said, you're at least partially correct about the attacking a neighbouring state issue.
Mind you, I'm not picking a side here, but it must be pointed out that I consciously left out the 'sovereign' issue, for this is the crux of the matter at-hand: was Ukraine a 'sovereign' country before Russia's attack? I don't think so, and whatever one might wish to say or state, I'd argue that neither morality nor history play much of role in international relations.
I suppose that Russia will go to considerable lengths to assure its camp followers in the Global South--and its new BFF w/benefits in Beijing, for that matter--that this entire shitshow is, mainly, a show. Hence, I suspect for time being, Russia would favour a client-state 'resolution' of its security concerns over outright annexation, however temporary such an avenue might ultimately prove, and Russia may 'only' do so to reassure its Chinese 'friends'.
You're correct, furthermore, about the absurdity of the symbols; other examples would incl. one of the Swiss cantons (St Gall), whose insignia also consists of a fasces. My above point was to highlight and explain as to why Russia claims 'de-nazification' as one of the aims of its intervention.
Curiously, on the same subject, the Russian oligarchs appear to be on the same page as the Ukrainian oligarchs, i.e., firmly in support of their continued rule and in close cahoots with their 'Western' counterparts, which suggests that this is a sideshow in the struggle between ordinary people and the globalist cabal.
Finally, you correctly, I think, point to Russia's 'valid concern', which Mr. Putin tried to obtain assurances and written guarantees for, but he ultimately failed to get Zelensky's masters in DC to agree. Hence, the current explosion, but I suppose my above paragraph goes at least somehow in the direction as to why, in all honesty, Mr. Putin fails to address the root causes of Ukraine's non-sovereignty. Sure, he's correct in pointing to the futility of talking to minions (EUrocrats), but wouldn't it make more sense--from his point of view--to try to 'engage' the EUropeans to make them move away from the US?
Oh, Ukraine as a sovereign state will always take us into the waters of "What's a state, really?" and then no matter how well intentioned the query we'll just mud wrestle. Remember the debates during the wars in Jugoslavia? Here there was zero focus on "How do we stop the killing?" and 100% on "Who's the bad guy, really?". And don't get me started on swedish political scientists and their take on Ireland historically, or Cyorus or Israel/Palestine. Every ------- time it's the same: can't debate the issues at hand or look at causality unless we know who is the bad guy first.
Ukraine is a state now. Whether or not it was one historically is moot. Israel wasn't a state historically, neither was Palestine. Or Germany for that matter. Or Italy. That's why I skip that issue - it goes nowhere.
(For swedes especially I think this "Find out who's the good guy" is an ongoing cultural trauma since WW2, seeing as when it started Germany was the Good Guy according to the socialist democrats and their news papers. somewhere around winter 1943-1943 they started coming around to the idea that naah, it was probably the Allies, and in 1944 it was definitively the Allies who were the Good Guys. The official narrative is we was on the right side all along, which is pure BS. Sweden holds the dubious honour of being the only nation in the world who had to pay reparations /to/ Germany after may 1945.)
I don't think making the european nations move away from the US is on the map at all, since that would mean we would then have to find a new compass point culturally, economically and military - and that compass is never going to point due Russia. Any such move would lead to a return to nationalism and stronger nation states and that's not in Russia's interest. A weak ineffective corrupt and US-dependant EU is, since it's a drain in the US as well. Keep the russian center strong (remember: they don't measure success in GDP, tokenism or dollars but in realpolitik), keep the bordering regions subservient as a buffer to the Motherland, and cause chaos outside as to prevent unified aggression towards Russia (which is what's happened every time someone or other has unified enough of western Europe).
I don't think its more complicated than that. One of my biggest Aha!-moments re: Russia was reading about Napoleon's war there and how he was made to defeat himself. That and studying the war against Finland taught me a lot of how the russians view war - they live and breathe the old saw that politics is war with other means. Life is struggle: dominate or serve, conquer or die. Where we see these as morals among others, they don't really see them, they just live them. Kind of how islam is for moslems, really. It just is, it can't be externalised or understood externally from living it.
I do not advocate war on Russia in Ukraine based on any notions of right or wrong but as a means to stop the invasion. Then the other issues needs solving - war can only ever solve issues by removing one of the parties involved, as all wars at the core are wars of genocide.
"I'm with you on the absurdity of historical 'explanations'; this is one of the things I'll never tire of when teaching and speaking on historical matters."
Eh, I'm not so sure about that. Some territory is more meaningful than other, and you can get your military to fight harder (and the rest of the population to endure more hardship) to defend or (re)conquer it than would be the case for something less meaningful.
Hi Rikard,
I'm with you on the absurdity of historical 'explanations'; this is one of the things I'll never tire of when teaching and speaking on historical matters. That said, you're at least partially correct about the attacking a neighbouring state issue.
Mind you, I'm not picking a side here, but it must be pointed out that I consciously left out the 'sovereign' issue, for this is the crux of the matter at-hand: was Ukraine a 'sovereign' country before Russia's attack? I don't think so, and whatever one might wish to say or state, I'd argue that neither morality nor history play much of role in international relations.
I suppose that Russia will go to considerable lengths to assure its camp followers in the Global South--and its new BFF w/benefits in Beijing, for that matter--that this entire shitshow is, mainly, a show. Hence, I suspect for time being, Russia would favour a client-state 'resolution' of its security concerns over outright annexation, however temporary such an avenue might ultimately prove, and Russia may 'only' do so to reassure its Chinese 'friends'.
You're correct, furthermore, about the absurdity of the symbols; other examples would incl. one of the Swiss cantons (St Gall), whose insignia also consists of a fasces. My above point was to highlight and explain as to why Russia claims 'de-nazification' as one of the aims of its intervention.
Curiously, on the same subject, the Russian oligarchs appear to be on the same page as the Ukrainian oligarchs, i.e., firmly in support of their continued rule and in close cahoots with their 'Western' counterparts, which suggests that this is a sideshow in the struggle between ordinary people and the globalist cabal.
Finally, you correctly, I think, point to Russia's 'valid concern', which Mr. Putin tried to obtain assurances and written guarantees for, but he ultimately failed to get Zelensky's masters in DC to agree. Hence, the current explosion, but I suppose my above paragraph goes at least somehow in the direction as to why, in all honesty, Mr. Putin fails to address the root causes of Ukraine's non-sovereignty. Sure, he's correct in pointing to the futility of talking to minions (EUrocrats), but wouldn't it make more sense--from his point of view--to try to 'engage' the EUropeans to make them move away from the US?
Oh, Ukraine as a sovereign state will always take us into the waters of "What's a state, really?" and then no matter how well intentioned the query we'll just mud wrestle. Remember the debates during the wars in Jugoslavia? Here there was zero focus on "How do we stop the killing?" and 100% on "Who's the bad guy, really?". And don't get me started on swedish political scientists and their take on Ireland historically, or Cyorus or Israel/Palestine. Every ------- time it's the same: can't debate the issues at hand or look at causality unless we know who is the bad guy first.
Ukraine is a state now. Whether or not it was one historically is moot. Israel wasn't a state historically, neither was Palestine. Or Germany for that matter. Or Italy. That's why I skip that issue - it goes nowhere.
(For swedes especially I think this "Find out who's the good guy" is an ongoing cultural trauma since WW2, seeing as when it started Germany was the Good Guy according to the socialist democrats and their news papers. somewhere around winter 1943-1943 they started coming around to the idea that naah, it was probably the Allies, and in 1944 it was definitively the Allies who were the Good Guys. The official narrative is we was on the right side all along, which is pure BS. Sweden holds the dubious honour of being the only nation in the world who had to pay reparations /to/ Germany after may 1945.)
I don't think making the european nations move away from the US is on the map at all, since that would mean we would then have to find a new compass point culturally, economically and military - and that compass is never going to point due Russia. Any such move would lead to a return to nationalism and stronger nation states and that's not in Russia's interest. A weak ineffective corrupt and US-dependant EU is, since it's a drain in the US as well. Keep the russian center strong (remember: they don't measure success in GDP, tokenism or dollars but in realpolitik), keep the bordering regions subservient as a buffer to the Motherland, and cause chaos outside as to prevent unified aggression towards Russia (which is what's happened every time someone or other has unified enough of western Europe).
I don't think its more complicated than that. One of my biggest Aha!-moments re: Russia was reading about Napoleon's war there and how he was made to defeat himself. That and studying the war against Finland taught me a lot of how the russians view war - they live and breathe the old saw that politics is war with other means. Life is struggle: dominate or serve, conquer or die. Where we see these as morals among others, they don't really see them, they just live them. Kind of how islam is for moslems, really. It just is, it can't be externalised or understood externally from living it.
I do not advocate war on Russia in Ukraine based on any notions of right or wrong but as a means to stop the invasion. Then the other issues needs solving - war can only ever solve issues by removing one of the parties involved, as all wars at the core are wars of genocide.
"I'm with you on the absurdity of historical 'explanations'; this is one of the things I'll never tire of when teaching and speaking on historical matters."
Eh, I'm not so sure about that. Some territory is more meaningful than other, and you can get your military to fight harder (and the rest of the population to endure more hardship) to defend or (re)conquer it than would be the case for something less meaningful.