In addition, wouldn't it be 'ironic' if parts of western Ukraine would be 'occupied' by, say, Poland, Hungary, and the like to 'ensure protection' against Russian occupation? (As if the Russians would like to occupy that part of Ukraine…)
I doubt that the 'humanitarian' impulses we're observing right now are more tha…
In addition, wouldn't it be 'ironic' if parts of western Ukraine would be 'occupied' by, say, Poland, Hungary, and the like to 'ensure protection' against Russian occupation? (As if the Russians would like to occupy that part of Ukraine…)
I doubt that the 'humanitarian' impulses we're observing right now are more than skin-deep, and I fully expect 'leaders' in Poland and Hungary to exact a pound of flesh for their generous assistance to Ukraine.
As to your specific question: I suspect that to Mearsheimer and his ilk, of course such a course of action must be avoided, for it leads to a rather undesirable outcome = 'only' half of Ukraine. The 'West' doesn't like to share, hence I suspect that to be the background of his argument.
As to your consideration, I agree wih it: at this point, there's hardly a 'better' outcome, esp. as it allows both sides--Russia and 'the West' to walk away claiming something alin to 'success: the former can push back against NATO, and Ukraine may be 'permitted' to join 'the West' also on paper, provided certain key things are taken care of, esp. the no territorial problems clause (to perhaps join NATO) and the 'EUropeanisation' of the bureaucracy (to join the EU).
This, though, places Zelensky and his handlers at odds (on top of the 'the West doesn't like to share' aspect) with each other, for in order to fully 'join' the EU and NATO, whoever runs the Rump Ukraine (R-UK) must first rescind its claims on the eastern and southern parts, thereby affirming Russia's points. Neither 'Zelensky', Klitschko, or their ilk are able to do the former, and I don't see any 'Western' politician to pull of the latter.
What, then, remains?--Stalement, like in Korea, that is, IF we're lucky.
That video was the first I'd seen/heard of Mearsheimer. But I thought it was a pretty good talk. In a nutshell, he said (again, this was in 2014, soon after the Russian annexation of Crimea) that the West kept ignoring Russia's legitimate security concerns, that Ukraine wasn't of key strategic interest to the West, but was to Russia, and that the best thing that could possibly happen was for Ukraine to remain neutral as a sort of buffer zone. He also said he didn't think Putin would invade Ukraine (too costly), but that if the West kept behaving as it did, Putin would "wreck" Ukraine to make it impossible for it to join NATO.
I agree with this one.
In addition, wouldn't it be 'ironic' if parts of western Ukraine would be 'occupied' by, say, Poland, Hungary, and the like to 'ensure protection' against Russian occupation? (As if the Russians would like to occupy that part of Ukraine…)
I doubt that the 'humanitarian' impulses we're observing right now are more than skin-deep, and I fully expect 'leaders' in Poland and Hungary to exact a pound of flesh for their generous assistance to Ukraine.
As to your specific question: I suspect that to Mearsheimer and his ilk, of course such a course of action must be avoided, for it leads to a rather undesirable outcome = 'only' half of Ukraine. The 'West' doesn't like to share, hence I suspect that to be the background of his argument.
As to your consideration, I agree wih it: at this point, there's hardly a 'better' outcome, esp. as it allows both sides--Russia and 'the West' to walk away claiming something alin to 'success: the former can push back against NATO, and Ukraine may be 'permitted' to join 'the West' also on paper, provided certain key things are taken care of, esp. the no territorial problems clause (to perhaps join NATO) and the 'EUropeanisation' of the bureaucracy (to join the EU).
This, though, places Zelensky and his handlers at odds (on top of the 'the West doesn't like to share' aspect) with each other, for in order to fully 'join' the EU and NATO, whoever runs the Rump Ukraine (R-UK) must first rescind its claims on the eastern and southern parts, thereby affirming Russia's points. Neither 'Zelensky', Klitschko, or their ilk are able to do the former, and I don't see any 'Western' politician to pull of the latter.
What, then, remains?--Stalement, like in Korea, that is, IF we're lucky.
That video was the first I'd seen/heard of Mearsheimer. But I thought it was a pretty good talk. In a nutshell, he said (again, this was in 2014, soon after the Russian annexation of Crimea) that the West kept ignoring Russia's legitimate security concerns, that Ukraine wasn't of key strategic interest to the West, but was to Russia, and that the best thing that could possibly happen was for Ukraine to remain neutral as a sort of buffer zone. He also said he didn't think Putin would invade Ukraine (too costly), but that if the West kept behaving as it did, Putin would "wreck" Ukraine to make it impossible for it to join NATO.
And here we are now...