The situation is getting worse and worse with respect to Western media BS, but thankfully, the Russians are treading very carefully these days (I don't want to imagine how this would be otherwise…)
He says that a situation where Eastern Ukraine becomes a part of Russia, and Western Ukraine joins NATO, is precisely the sort of situation one would want to avoid. To many nukes too close to each other. Alas, that may be the best scenario that still remains possible. Can you see a (realistic) outcome that would be better?
Ha, that's quite something. I've only heard of Mearsheimer (read some stuff), but I'm thoroughly underwhelmed by his 'analysis'. I didn't know that he said the apparently ± the same, but it shows how much I know about him.
I'll see if I can listen to his thesis before saying more. Thanks for letting me know!
Just to be clear: *he* says this is a scenario one would want to avoid (this was back in 2014, btw). And *I* say I cannot see a realistic scenario (one that *still* remains realistic) that would be better. Which part you disagree with?
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.
Re: Koreanisation of Ukraine
Have you seen this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
He says that a situation where Eastern Ukraine becomes a part of Russia, and Western Ukraine joins NATO, is precisely the sort of situation one would want to avoid. To many nukes too close to each other. Alas, that may be the best scenario that still remains possible. Can you see a (realistic) outcome that would be better?
Ha, that's quite something. I've only heard of Mearsheimer (read some stuff), but I'm thoroughly underwhelmed by his 'analysis'. I didn't know that he said the apparently ± the same, but it shows how much I know about him.
I'll see if I can listen to his thesis before saying more. Thanks for letting me know!
Just to be clear: *he* says this is a scenario one would want to avoid (this was back in 2014, btw). And *I* say I cannot see a realistic scenario (one that *still* remains realistic) that would be better. Which part you disagree with?
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...
Financial over politics... we'll die because of that... The real enemy is Wall Street and their gangs!
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-the-west-chose-capitalism-over-democracy-in-russia-and-paved-the-way-for-a-kleptocratic-nationalist-to-wage-war-11646059137