No question there were a lot of mistakes made even before 2014, that was just one of many.
Agreed on prior mistakes, but I think we can agree that there's a pretty clear path from Viktor Yanukovych's ousting and where we are today.
I just finished reading this
book, a quick read. You'd like it since it goes along with your narrative.
I searched the internet for articles from the author of your book, Benjamin Abelow and he is certainly on the same page as I am on a fair amount of things. However, based on what he's said elsewhere, it seems that he thinks that Russia could have handled things in a better way, one not needing their intervention in Ukraine. I don't see this better way that he seems to believe in. I got this from a quote from an interview he gave to Real Change:
**
[Real Change:]
On the theme of truth, assuming that if we take the case that you make in the book as truth, what does it matter who got us here if we’re here? This is a hard one to formulate, because it sounds like I’m saying, “Oh, who cares?” But what I’m trying to ask is what is the importance of knowing how we got here to getting out of it or to coming to a better resolution than we’re heading towards?
[Benjamin Abelow:] I think I see where you’re going, and I think it’s an important question. Here’s what my response would be: When one has a certain understanding of a situation about what is going on or how one got there, it has very direct consequences for what steps one should be taking and what steps one thinks one should be taking in the future. So in my book I discuss how narratives shape policies. That if, for instance, if one believes that this war was started as an unprovoked land grab by a new Hitler or a new Stalin who is trying to rebuild the Russian empire or the Soviet empire in some way, and that that person is basically an unhinged madman who understands nothing but sheer military power, and that that person cannot be constrained in any rational way, and that that person is not acting out of any valid security concerns, however dangerous and misguided their actions might be, that leads to certain consequences. It means that any form of negotiation and compromise gets automatically understood as appeasement, just like Chamberlain in Munich when he negotiated with Hitler.
So if you think you’re negotiating with Hitler, any compromise is going to be understood to be appeasement. In contrast, if you come to, by an act of let’s call it “strategic empathy,” place yourself in the other side’s shoes and try to understand what valid security concerns they might be trying to address, even if their method of addressing it is dangerous and harmful and destructive and violent, then it leads to different conclusions.
**
Source:
A path to peace: Author Benjamin Abelow on ending the war in Ukraine | realchangenews.org
Problem w/ correcting past mistakes by the West is that it would ignore serious proximal mistakes made and being made by Russia. They're like a jilted lover who somehow thinks he/she will get their ex back by stalking and harassing which only further alienates the ex.
I've seen that argument before from a youtuber I generally like (I forget his name). I don't buy it though. I think that Putin's stated reasons for starting their military intervention in Ukraine were as he said: for Russia's security and to defend eastern Ukrainians who had been getting killed by the Ukrainian military for the past 8 years. The timing coincided with a fresh assault by the Ukrainian military against the people of the Donbass region.
Ukraine and Russia are done.
I certainly think that the Ukrainian people have taken a very heavy toll in this war. As to Russia, certainly it has been hard, especially for the Russians actually doing the fighting in Ukraine, but I think that they're doing a whole lot better than Ukraine on the whole.
And who will rebuild Ukraine no matter who wins? Certainly not Russia.
Actually, they've already begun. Here's an example, and this clearly isn't by a publication that is sympathetic to Russia:
After months of bombing, Russia starts rebuilding Mariupol | elpais.com
I'm now in the process of reading
this one.
I took a look at the description of that book. Here's the last line of it: "With its panoramic view, Overreach is an authoritative, unmissable record of a conflict that shocked Europe to its core." I have to point out here that John Mearsheimer predicted this war years ago:
**
Analysis & prediction on Ukraine from 6 years ago: “The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path & the end result is Ukraine is going to get wrecked.” -John J. Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago
**
Source:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsi...lysis_prediction_on_ukraine_from_6_years_ago/
There's no shortage of books on the subject of this conflict. Very complicated.
It's complicated, sure, but I think I've got the pieces fairly well understood at this point. I think Mearsheimer said it pretty well fairly recently. indi.ca lays it out in an article he published a few days ago:
**
A Bloodbath
Since resolve is roughly equal on the Russian and Ukrainian side and actually drained by the Americans, all that’s left is population and artillery. Here, as mentioned, Ukraine is fucked. Russia wins by sheer attrition, but it’s a terrible victory which merely moves their NATO problem a few years forward and few oblasts over. If you go by Western propaganda Putin started this war for fun, but if you follow the record, he actually did everything he could to avoid it. As Mearsheimer said in response to a question (and as anyone can look up)”
No, I don’t think he had any other options. I do believe that Putin was deeply committed to finding a negotiated settlement to the problem. As I said to you in my formal comments, he was deeply committed to the Minsk agreement because what he wanted to do was shut down the conflict in the Donbass so he would not have to invade. With regard to NATO expansion, EU expansion, and the efforts to make Ukraine a western bulwark on Russia’s borders, he went to great lengths to explain to the West why that was unacceptable. On December 17, 2022, he sent a letter to Biden and to NATO saying that they have to do X, Y, and Z so we can find a solution to this problem, but we refused to go along. I think that Putin was left in a position where he felt he had no choice. To answer your question, there was no other way to deal with the problem. So, I think he, with great reluctance, invaded Ukraine.
To people who say this violates the ‘rules-based order’, what is that exactly? Under the ‘rules-based order’ America ‘pre-emptively’ attacked Iraq, and Iraq is nowhere near America. Ukraine is right next to Russia and hostile troops were amassing there. The example America and NATO have set is to attack wherever you feel like based on completely made up threats. Russia more than anyone is following the rules based order because they actually were threatened by NATO and complained about it for decades.
**
Source:
https://indica.medium.com/why-russia-will-win-c443fc7f4e7a