"despite lots of blather, stretching over many decades, and still being mouthed, Ukraine wasn't welcomed into NATO." So why bother making such destablising promises in the first place? And what's the problem with working toward a realistic settlement that acknowledges that reality? Has Finland really suffered because it was supposedly "neutralised"?
A negotiated solution to the Donbas war has been in place since the signing of the Minsk II accords in 2015, as Anatol Lieven of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft has repeatedly stressed. The prospect of NATO expansion appears to be the pact’s main obstacle to implementation. Minsk II calls for granting autonomy to the Donbas region in return for its demilitarization. But Ukraine has "[refused] to guarantee permanent full autonomy for the Donbas", Lieven writes, out of fear "that permanent autonomy for the Donbas would prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and the European Union, as the region could use its constitutional position within Ukraine to block membership."
In Lieven's view, this could change with one critical shift: "If the United States drops the hopeless goal of NATO membership for Ukraine, it will be in a position to pressure the Ukrainian government and parliament to agree to a 'Minsk III' by the credible threat of a withdrawal of US aid and political support."
But why do that when the arms merchants benefit so much from a steadily rising confrontation (and billions of arms sales to the Ukraine gov't, which incidentally came into power promising a new era of peace and co-existence with Russia)?
Thank you for this article. It is scary how far Russia's anti-NATO, anti-Ukraine propaganda has taken hold, particularly amongst the political Left (as is clear from some of the commentary you've received).
I think it was 1939 but they got a bloody nose and left. The point is that they adopted a neutral foreign policy and were left alone by the Soviet Empire. It worked well for them. No need for Ukraine to upset the apple cart.
As long as Europe depends on Russian gas, many NATO members won't be willing to risk cutting off supplies to uphold any sovereignty principles.The upside if there is any is that Ukrainians have for the most part abandoned Russian as a language, their Church is now separate from the Russian Orthodox one post Crimean annexation, and any occupying force will have a very tough time there.
Cyber war and political turmoil are the weapons Russia may have at its disposal, and that may be a bit easier to defend.
"despite lots of blather, stretching over many decades, and still being mouthed, Ukraine wasn't welcomed into NATO." So why bother making such destablising promises in the first place? And what's the problem with working toward a realistic settlement that acknowledges that reality? Has Finland really suffered because it was supposedly "neutralised"?
A negotiated solution to the Donbas war has been in place since the signing of the Minsk II accords in 2015, as Anatol Lieven of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft has repeatedly stressed. The prospect of NATO expansion appears to be the pact’s main obstacle to implementation. Minsk II calls for granting autonomy to the Donbas region in return for its demilitarization. But Ukraine has "[refused] to guarantee permanent full autonomy for the Donbas", Lieven writes, out of fear "that permanent autonomy for the Donbas would prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and the European Union, as the region could use its constitutional position within Ukraine to block membership."
In Lieven's view, this could change with one critical shift: "If the United States drops the hopeless goal of NATO membership for Ukraine, it will be in a position to pressure the Ukrainian government and parliament to agree to a 'Minsk III' by the credible threat of a withdrawal of US aid and political support."
But why do that when the arms merchants benefit so much from a steadily rising confrontation (and billions of arms sales to the Ukraine gov't, which incidentally came into power promising a new era of peace and co-existence with Russia)?
Thank you for this article. It is scary how far Russia's anti-NATO, anti-Ukraine propaganda has taken hold, particularly amongst the political Left (as is clear from some of the commentary you've received).
I'm beginning to think that part of it is who is going to sell gas to Europe: Russia or U.S.A.
The West's 21st century Chamberlain moment...
I think it was 1939 but they got a bloody nose and left. The point is that they adopted a neutral foreign policy and were left alone by the Soviet Empire. It worked well for them. No need for Ukraine to upset the apple cart.
As long as Europe depends on Russian gas, many NATO members won't be willing to risk cutting off supplies to uphold any sovereignty principles.The upside if there is any is that Ukrainians have for the most part abandoned Russian as a language, their Church is now separate from the Russian Orthodox one post Crimean annexation, and any occupying force will have a very tough time there.
Cyber war and political turmoil are the weapons Russia may have at its disposal, and that may be a bit easier to defend.