That’s what Ukraine wants. Also NATO still hasn’t accepted them formally as a candidate (while they’ve stated their interest for a while).
It’s weird how somehow it’s ok to deny state sovereignty over which alliances they chose.
2 Likes
Go and tell that to Taiwan.
(…or to much of South America in the 2nd half of the 20th century)
1 Like
“Neutral” is surely what Putin wants? It would mean no military, and therefore do as he says, so not really neutral. In other words a vassal state of Russia a bit like it was before the Orange Revolution
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania got in NATO quickly. Ukraine was stuck half way talking about it but not getting any protection… probably not smart
Not necessarily. Switzerland, has a doctrine of being neutral but armed.
Could Putin agree for Ukraine to remain armed, now after he started his „operation“ and its purposes? I don‘t know. It would surely be a compromise, and I don‘t know if any of the parties would find it acceptable going forward.
“Special operation to denazify and demilitarise”.
Putin struck now before Ukraine’s military became too strong for Russia to neutralise in the future (or indeed too strong they could no longer stop them joining NATO)
About Switzerland, do you think it would still be neutral If Hitler would’ve won WW2(?)
1 Like
On a side note: Many articles in Foreign Affairs about the war in Ukraine are free these days It’s worth checking out also as a non-subscriber.
We’d be part of the Third Reich: “das heute noch in Europa vorhandene Kleinstaatengerümpel so schnell wie möglich liquidiert werden muss.” [link]
3 Likes
While it’s technically true, a lot depends on how you spin it. If you were walking down the street with your wife and kids, and you saw someone getting a beating, would you step in and risk the lives of your family?
The no-fly zone is an act or war, so who knows how would Putin react. That being said, I’m also sure the madness of Putin is part of russian propaganda to keep us at bay.
2 Likes
A military conflict with a nuclear power is a no-go, and I think the West is trying to see if and how a war can be fought economically.
I agree. It has been done before, for example by Kissinger and Nixon.
2 Likes
He his ready for that - as long as it is armed with his army.
1 Like
Probably he will give a try with Baltic states first.
About a no-fly zone I see two issues:
- it would be an attack from the Nato side
- the targets will be difficult to distinguish and (an escalation later) the Americans will end up carpet-bombing the Ukrainians…
2 Likes
Or hopefully he won’t, having seen the price he’s paying for Ukraine…
3 Likes
How about you look who wrote it?
Russia isn’t a terrorist - it’s a large nation state with great military power.
So what? NATO doesn’t have to invite or accept them as a member.
That was and is one of the big points of contention for Putin and Russia.
I’m not saying we should. I just agree that that’s the reality we’re living in.
The Americans did and do it all the time.
NATO isn’t some kind of world police. I’m also not sure if it’s common procedure for police to quickly intervene with use of force when they’re overpowered or…
Given the analogy of walking down the street, the aggressors aren’t just too powerful to overpower a few policemen - they’re able to blow up half the city when provoked by outsiders.
It’s a moral quandary for sure. But Police usually don’t rush to intervene when their intervention risks many more lives than they’re trying to save.
Police or the “West”, to run with the analogy. surely aren’t looking away.
They just aren’t engaging in use of armed force themselves (yet).
1 Like
I think you’re stretching this analogy. There is no World Police. Even the US is not so strong to ignore Russia. The nuclear threat makes the whole difference, as you can’t keep the war away from your own civilians.
Or maybe the policeman wants to react, but the criminal says: look, I know where you live, where your kids go to school. Stay out of it.
So it’s the sad reality that we are being bullied into submission. You can’t say that either option (act or not) is morally superior. If Warsaw gets nuked because of the recklessness and foolhardy bravery of some politicians, it will be also their fault, not only Russia’s. That’s why after some dumb comments from Polish politicians, Stoltenberg came and made it clear that NATO will not interfere.
1 Like
No they don’t. The Russians are primarily targeting the Ukraine military (and to a degree) government, not civilians (which is certainly not to say that they aren’t civilian casualties).
No, absolutely not. A red line must be drawn somewhere.
Just as Russia and Putin did with Ukraine’s accession to NATO.
But having Ukraine join NATO isn’t giving something up and neither is it “signing over” anything.
Let’s get the facts right:
Status quo is that Ukraine never was and isn’t a member of NATO.
NATO can choose to keep it that way and preserve the status quo.
Keeping and not changing the status quo isn’t signing over anything.
Being able to blow up entire cities isn’t the same as “shooting back”. It’s being able - and a credible threat of escalating the conflict waaayyy beyond a mere altercation on the street.
1 Like
You still claim this? Have you not seen enough destroyed blocks already? The longer this thing goes, the more reckless and heavy-handed this invasion becomes.
7 Likes
The west is actually hitting back quite hard with sanctions, and they will hopefully still tighten them still further eg Germany is starting up nuclear and coal/oil power.
Sadly it won’t save Ukraine in the short term, but it weakens Russia a lot. The “special operation” still has popular support in Russia apparently, if the economy goes bad and the oligarchs lose their western way of life surely that changes
(Finland and Sweden should also join NATO but do it quickly while Russia is busy in Ukraine, not be half in / half out for years like Ukraine was)
Apologize for HS, but it’s an area where human psychology is very powerful, we’ve all experienced the bystander effect (when someone clearly needs helps but nobody engages, and you might have people just pass by and not do anything).
There’s actually some pretty good framework on how to approach that (it’s called bystander intervention).
The 4 strategies are:
- direct intervention (directly engage)
- distract (engage but not directly)
- delegate (e.g. call the cops)
- delay (checkin or followup afterwards, offering support)
And it explicitly recognizes that people should do what they’re comfortable with, including how safe they feel in a given situation.
Knowing those strategies, and the fact that there are alternative to direct confrontation, can really help at least making it a conscious decision rather than ignoring and following the crowd.
1 Like
Yes. If they wanted to terrorise civilians, they could kill much more - and/or publicise them much more effectively. Look, I agree with you that it’s a war. And war usually does get „dirty“ and has civilian casualties at times. People may feel „terror“.
But there’s a distinction between war and terrorism.
And this is a „real“ war, not terrorism.
NATO has always been an open alliance (open door policy), any European country fulfilling the criteria can apply (though afaik Ukraine is far from being able to join).
Also, I don’t know what’s up with picturing NATO as some kind of powerful state-like entity, it’s an alliance, and it does what its member decides (through consensus), so it’s not a some kind independent organization that decides for everyone. (And we saw how messy consensus was during Trump’s presidency)
2 Likes
The US said exactly that 19 years ago when they launched the invasion of Iraq (using the term “surgical strikes”)…
Just propaganda. Or perhaps naivety, in both cases: some invaders don’t want to look like mass murderers.
4 Likes