1429
Wagner boss Prigozhin killed in plane crash in Russia
(www.bbc.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2023
1429 points (98.6% liked)
World News
32318 readers
406 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Well, there's really no reason to use hard power on any country that hasn't been courting NATO. You can just use soft power (Belarus, Kazakhstan) in that case. Precisely when this ceases to work and a country does starts approaching Russia's rivals, Russia appears to employ their military power (Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine).
Good points. Soft power seems to have been starting to work in Ukraine, too, until Maidan in 2014. For me, the key thing is 'approaching Russia's rivals'.
On the one hand, Russia's not going to like that. On the other hand, if we accept that Russia exercising soft power in e.g. Belarus and Kazakhstan means hard power isn't necessary – they're already within its orbit/under it's wing – then when e.g. Ukraine approaches the US and turns away from Russia, the US has already effectively taken control of Ukraine before Russia invades. Albeit through soft power.
And that throws a different light on the civil war in which Ukrainian militias are shelling ethnic Russian Ukrainians for being 'separatists'. Because it means it's being supported by Russia's arch-rival, the US, a country well known for such destabilising and provocative antics, as the recent history of West Asia attests.
The Donbas separatists were already well supplied, and the Crimea was already well invaded, by RU, well before the West really started pouring support. I hope this sheds a different light on things for you
I have no idea what timeline you're working with. The US was meddling in Ukraine since at least 1994. This ramped up in 2005. It supported a coup in 2014. Then the civil war started. The US was involved from before and throughout.
Every party was involved since at least the cold war. Do you think the separatists would have started the civil war without backing from RU?
No idea what you think I've been trying to say, here, I'm afraid.
Do you believe Russia has meddled less in Ukraine than the US?
This seems to be a poorly framed question. A big portion of the Ukrainian population is Russian. What does it mean for Russia to meddle in that context?
Do you think Russia should decide what Ukraine does because part of its population feels Russian?
Those Ukrainians don't just 'feel' Russian they are Russian. They are ethically Russian and Russia issued hundreds of thousands of passports in the region a while back. The idea that someone can only be one 'nationality', etc, is a rather US way of looking at things. Loads of countries accept dual citizenship. I also reject the framing that insists or implies that Ukrainians must be of one ethnicity. That concept of an ethno-state is aligned with fascism.
FWIW I do not think that Russia should decide what happens in Ukraine. That's for Ukrainians to decide. Unfortunately, it's hard to parse what Ukrainians would want because the US is and has been heavily involved in manipulating politics, the press, and popular opinion. In that case, I kinda reject the question of whether Russia should have a say: the only two current options are who should decide between Russia and NATO. Ukraine deciding on it's own isn't really an option.
It's also tricky now because the separatist regions appear to have not only separated but also joined Russia. This could've been avoided if Ukraine had granted those regions more autonomy, as they agreed in Minsk II. As it is, the question now might be 'Should Russia decide what happens in Russia?' The lawyers will have fun working whether the law supports that. The answer isn't clear.
My view would still be no, not in Donetsk and Luhansk; that should be for the people of Donetsk and Luhansk to decide—if they're part of Russia and Russia was concerned with their autonomy, Russia can still grant it where Ukraine wouldn't.
This is all rather idealist, though. Only in communist countries do the 'people' decide what happens.
It's also still a warzone dominated by Russia; there will be an internal struggle between Russian factions. I'm not overly optimistic, considering Spain and Catalan, Britain and Wales, Scotland, and NI, and Kurdistan to Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq, the US to Hawaii and Puerto Rico, to name a few similar situations.
Do you think the US should decide what Ukraine does because it's decided that it's okay to sacrifice Ukrainians to achieve its geopolitical goals?
I think the Ukrainians should decide what Ukraine does. The idea that their opinion can't be trusted because 'they were brainwashed by the CIA' is quite childish. Manafort made millions lobbying for Russian interests there.
Regarding your ethno-state reasoning: Do you believe the smaller Russian republics should be allowed to leave the federation? Do you think the Russian government would let them?
I don't know why or how you interpreted what I said as meaning that Ukrainians
I said it is difficult to parse what Ukrainians want i.e. from what I am told Ukrainians want. The means of information distribution are not owned and controlled by ordinary Ukrainians. Further, almost all the press to which I have access is western; it doesn't even pretend to be Ukrainian although it frequently pretends to speak for them. They know what they want; I'm just not privy to that information.
On this topic, more broadly, I can recommend a book called Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti. It's similar to Manufacturing Consent but in my view significantly better because it begins with concrete analysis and moves towards a theory of the political economy of news media whereas Herman and Chomsky begin with a model and set out to illustrate it's truth.
Starting an analysis of what Ukrainian people think by relying on outputs that are owned and controlled by particular interests (frequently US/western bourgeois interests, inside and outside Ukraine) will not explain what ordinary Ukrainians want. This does not mean that Ukrainians don't have a view or can't be trusted to decide their own fate.
I said that Ukraine deciding on it's own isn't an option because it's materially not an option. The west and Russia are already involved. Zelensky cannot do what he wants or what he thinks the majority of Ukrainians want because and for as long as NATO is running the show. To paraphrase a famous quote, we make history but not in conditions that we choose. It seems idealistic to suggest that Ukrainians can just decide what they want to do and have it happen. It also seems idealistic to suggest that Ukrainians would all think the same.
You'll also note that I said, to quote:
And I reiterated:
I don't know what you're referring to in relation to 'smaller Russian republics', I'm afraid. You'll have to be specific and I would have to do some research. If you're trying to probe my view on self determination, I'm in favour of self determination but it's problematic to suggest that the future of any region should be determined exclusively by and for a single ethnicity.
If I wasn't clear, the concept of an ethnostate is or is dangerously close to being fascist; the idea of breaking up Russia into states along ethnic lines is fascist. In the inverse, this might also apply if Russia expelled all ethnicities other than ethnic Russian from the annexed regions of Ukraine, for example. We'll have to see how that plays out in the short, medium, and long term.
Before asking me another question, I'm going to say that it feels like you're asking loaded questions and misinterpreting me to try to catch me out. I'm not going to play along for much longer if it continues.
I'm sorry if these questions seem loaded to you, for me they seem like simple questions.
If you think Zelensky is forced by NATO and cannot decide for himself, why do you think he's travelling the world asking for more support and weapons than NATO is willing to give? Why not just fold?
Zelensky is not forced by NATO in the sense of being a hostage. Although he does seem to be in over his head. Hence trying to come to a peace deal last year and then being told by NATO, apparently through Boris Johnson, that it wasn't going to fly.
Since then, especially since the start of the counteroffensive, there have been several reports in US media explaining that the US military pushed Ukraine into the action knowing that it was under supplied and unlikely to achieve its goals. The US 'hoped' Ukrainian grit would see the day. Those soldiers are braver than I am for running headfirst through minefields into Russian artillery and defensive lines that Russia had months to prepare. But it's a careless and tragic use of Ukrainian lives.
The US knows that it has not – likely cannot – supplied Ukraine with what it needs. Neither can the rest of NATO. If Ukraine is to keep fighting, it must look elsewhere. NATO doesn't have the industry for it. Other US reports confirm this and hint if not confirm that the US interest is not in helping Ukraine to secure it's independence but to fuel the US economy while trying to undermine the Russian economy. Ukraine is collateral damage for the US. This is the same US that had Ukraine dismantle it's military through the 90s by insisting on economic reforms attached as conditions to IMF and World Bank loans.
NATO support is waning. Partly because Ukraine is losing. (Partly because the US plans to start a war with China, which will occupy all its attention. In fact, a new cold war may have started this week, according to China and the US.) Zelensky may be able to regain that support but only if things turn around on the battlefield soonish. Until the steps taken to do so clash with US/NATO goals, Zelensky can do what he likes.
It's not that Zelensky can't decide for himself. It's that if he hadn't already decided to align with the US, he wouldn't be where he is. He is where he is because his class interests align with those of the US/Anglo-European bourgeoisie.
With this context and clarification of what I meant about the US running the show, I can now address your question.
Seeking weapons outside the NATO-sphere to better achieve NATO goals does not, to be trite, conflict with NATO goals. The US is not going to be upset if Zelensky can get support from elsewhere to keep fighting US enemy #2 (China being enemy #1).
Zelensky is also one man. Just like with Putin, Biden, or anyone else, individual men can't make decisions of this nature alone.
Can he just fold? Without the support of whoever supports him, if he decides to fold, alone, he'll be replaced or assassinated or otherwise incapacitated. Does he have the power to fold if he did just take a stand? I'm unsure what the Ukrainian constitution says or of how it will be effected by martial law.
Why do you think NATO support is waning? They're staring to send fighter planes. The only cracks in the armor seem to be the upcoming US presidential election where the MAGA politicians seem to be pushing for surrender (using the same sick argument "to save Ukrainian lives").
NATO told him the deal 'wasn't going to fly'? NATO told him two things back then : a deal with Russia can't be trusted (take that as you want, Georgia is proof of this as Russia is just jept pushing for more and more land, peace deal or not) and, much more important : NATO would support their defense until the end if they had to. Of course the surrendermonkeys hated this and try to paint this as 'blocking a peace deal'.
If the Ukrainian government can't be trusted to decide on when to surrender, who do you suggest?
I'm at a loss as to how you're interpreting my words. You say you're asking simple questions, then you put words in my mouth and ask me to defend them.
When did I say or imply this?
If you think saving Ukrainian lives isn't a good reason to find an alternative to war, this is unlikely to become a fruitful discussion.
As long as Russia is unwilling to retreat (let alone pay reparations), you can't just say "let's find an alternative to war" without it seeming like a euphemism for Ukraine to surrender its territory.
Which alternative do you propose where the killing ends and Russia doesn't get to conquer their territory?