Reasonable take, but I’m not as optimistic as the author.
At this point the situation is stuck in a feedback loop, snowballing towards a tragedy.
Can’t believe this dumb shit just played the “both sides” card on actual armed imperial aggression.
It’s Georgia’s fault it got invaded because the duly elected government crushed an armed internal insurrection? Yes, per the Times
Yanukovych’s ouster? He was merely “Pro-Kremlin,” and not “the most corrupt official in the world with a running string of human rights abuses that helped drive people to the street.”
Euromaidan? Violent riots, with no nod to the reason why — namely Yanukovych repudiating a painstaking trade deal with the EU and taking a $15 billion dollar bribe to do so.
Crimea? Merely annexed.
New Russia? Not a big deal because “separatists” didn’t establish much of a toehold.
Yup. Sure sounds like Western delusion to me, as opposed to a wannabe tsarist asshole bullying his neighbors to cobble back together a geographic imprint of the USSR. The delusion was, as always, thinking that if we ignore it *this time* he’ll stop. Tyrants have never been appeased, and Toal should know this.
What a toadying schmuck.
Ireland taking the cowardly neutral road again.
[removed]
For the 1997 new NATO members, the pact is the only guarantee of possible Russia deterrence. Claiming otherwise is simply wrong. Russia just got a bit better and instantly a threat of war appeared.
It lacks crucial mechanism of a peaceful change of leadership as most of society wouldn’t approve an offensive war at its borders especially with economical difficulties.
Only NATO can keep Russia in check in Europe.
The question is what is really motivating Russia to act the way it does. There are two guesses:
One is that Russia is fearing to be isolated and surrounded by hostile countries.
The other is that Russia wants to restore it’s borders at least to the Russian speaking world possibly to old Soviet borders.
Either would explain Russian actions but would call for very different action. My impression is that Russia started with scenario one but sees that it just doesn’t work, pushing it more and more to scenario two, which is why I would agree with the article.
6 comments
Reasonable take, but I’m not as optimistic as the author.
At this point the situation is stuck in a feedback loop, snowballing towards a tragedy.
Can’t believe this dumb shit just played the “both sides” card on actual armed imperial aggression.
It’s Georgia’s fault it got invaded because the duly elected government crushed an armed internal insurrection? Yes, per the Times
Yanukovych’s ouster? He was merely “Pro-Kremlin,” and not “the most corrupt official in the world with a running string of human rights abuses that helped drive people to the street.”
Euromaidan? Violent riots, with no nod to the reason why — namely Yanukovych repudiating a painstaking trade deal with the EU and taking a $15 billion dollar bribe to do so.
Crimea? Merely annexed.
New Russia? Not a big deal because “separatists” didn’t establish much of a toehold.
Yup. Sure sounds like Western delusion to me, as opposed to a wannabe tsarist asshole bullying his neighbors to cobble back together a geographic imprint of the USSR. The delusion was, as always, thinking that if we ignore it *this time* he’ll stop. Tyrants have never been appeased, and Toal should know this.
What a toadying schmuck.
Ireland taking the cowardly neutral road again.
[removed]
For the 1997 new NATO members, the pact is the only guarantee of possible Russia deterrence. Claiming otherwise is simply wrong. Russia just got a bit better and instantly a threat of war appeared.
It lacks crucial mechanism of a peaceful change of leadership as most of society wouldn’t approve an offensive war at its borders especially with economical difficulties.
Only NATO can keep Russia in check in Europe.
The question is what is really motivating Russia to act the way it does. There are two guesses:
One is that Russia is fearing to be isolated and surrounded by hostile countries.
The other is that Russia wants to restore it’s borders at least to the Russian speaking world possibly to old Soviet borders.
Either would explain Russian actions but would call for very different action. My impression is that Russia started with scenario one but sees that it just doesn’t work, pushing it more and more to scenario two, which is why I would agree with the article.