Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Battle for Babi Yar | 76 comments (76 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Battle for Babi Yar (none / 1)
... civilian casualties are still only in triple digits ... WTF

This war was needless ... many saw the risk of escalation coming for over a decade. We have the science to make war ... in the previous Cold War we had the science to make and keep the peace. After the fall of Communism in both Russia and China, the western Atlanticists sought to install a Unipolar Power grab by military means.

Russia is a provincial military power with little economic means to sustain its population. It has a build the necessary nuclear deterrence to survive their system of governing. The West used to have a policy of coexistence ... see Willy Brandt, I admired him and he was a hero to Americans. Angela Merkel deserves respect, she was spat upon by Trump & Co. ... shameful.

The biggest powers involved in the Ukraine crisis carry just as much responsibility and failed in coming together and even negotiate with Russia. The military might of England, France, US and NATO has never before come together in human history. The dumba$$es failed the Ukrainian people. SHAME and murderous the cyclus of escalation.

Oké the EU has used the repressive tool of censorship ... the ultimate sign of weakness. Unbelievable funding of Western propaganda has spread over us. Usually in Hilversum we are treated with a small fish to explain the Kremlin and Putin and are the likes of Anne Applebaum or Radek Sikorski invited for their announced "neutral" expertise. Yesterday in the studio the NATO deputy SG to inform us what is right and what is wrong. Treated as a royal highness and the presentator gave him an uninterrupted stage. America historicus Maarten van Rossem was told to shut up.

This evening the studio got James Clapper in an interview to spread his truths. WTF

In my lifetime, I was witness to multiple millions of deaths directly linked with military aggression of the United States of America. We [America] do not respect borders or sovereignty of states, we shred the UN Charter, we don't do ICC except for our adversaries ... we basically do not do good, nor are we held accountable. There are notable repeat offenders and whether Democrat or Republican, the job is there.

We should be better than "them". We are not "exceptional" as it reminds me of the übermensch class. We do make mistakes ... a debate or discussion or negotiation should never end. War in Europe is not an option, never!

Hasbara is a dead language

by Oui (Oui) on Thu Mar 3rd, 2022 at 08:39:17 PM EST
War Is Not A Path Forward ... (none / 0)


Hasbara is a dead language
by Oui (Oui) on Thu Mar 3rd, 2022 at 11:10:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Battle for Babi Yar (4.00 / 2)
Thanks for a somewhat-clearer statement of your views.
I disagree that Putin could have been appeased.

I agree about Merkel, and I revere Willy Brandt. I find it interesting that Putin waited until Merkel was out of power before launching his anschluss; if anyone could have made a difference, it is she. Macron made a good-faith attempt, but he was clearly getting the run-around, it is crystal clear that Putin wasn't interested in negotiating anything; his non-negotiable demands were clearly complete bullshit, designed to be unacceptable.

You can tell me all day that Russia is historically justified in having an irrational fear of invasion; it remains true that any such fear is irrational. Nobody in Europe (nor, I daresay, in the US) is interested in putting troops on Russian soil. Do you really believe the contrary?

Still. Until a week ago, your position was respectable enough. But once Russian troops entered Ukraine, it became clear that this whole charade had been, from the beginning, about taking back control of Ukraine, because what was fundamentally unacceptable for Putin (and non-negotiable for the European actors) was that Ukraine should be a liberal democracy, rather than a Russian vassal state. He has made it clear that he believes that redefining borders would be historically legitimate and desirable.

It follows, in my view, that 100% of the responsibility for this entirely optional war is on Putin.

It seems that you believe the contrary. Can you outline the concessions that the other parties (Biden, the EU, individual countries, NATO ?) should have made, starting in December (no, not going back decades, please, we're talking about the current crisis) in order to avert war?

I don't really believe that you defend the idea of war to change borders. But perhaps you do?

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Fri Mar 4th, 2022 at 08:11:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Battle for Babi Yar (none / 0)
I honestly don't see how the fear being irrational or not has anything to do with, well, anything.
My reference here is of course the Iraq war, where the neocon cabal were on a mission to remake the Middle East and the world, intending a short stop in Baghdad before they moved in on Tehran. Their stated reason was a violation of the disarmament treaty they forced on them after the last war. Now, as we all know, the WMDs were entirely fake and even if Iraq had had them that would hardly have justified a war of aggression. After all they would have been entirely defensive in nature. Yet despite the obvious futility there was an enormous effort to prove a negative. Weapon inspectors looked under every rock, half the world was contorting itself to assuage the Americans' stated concerns.
Now, what do we have in this case? Well, the WMDs, or the quest for NATO membership is real, and the peace treaty has not been implemented. Would the Russians have found another excuse, because the Kremlin is driven by an irredentionist drive to recreate the Russian empire? Obviously it's impossible to say with 100% certainty, but we didn't try at all.

So to answer the stated question: A public committment that Ukraine would not be accepted into NATO. Hardly a big ask since the only purpose of the organization is to fight a war with Russia and no one is willing to do that over Ukraine as we see now. Then a recommittment to the treaty of Minsk. Also not that big of a concession since we already accepted it after 2014.
Would that have prevented the war? I certainly don't know, but the attempt wasn't made.

by generic on Fri Mar 4th, 2022 at 02:02:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Battle for Babi Yar (none / 0)
I see two possibilities.

1) An assurance that Ukraine will never be accepted into NATO, [presumably decided by some sort of NATO meeting with the power to make such a decision (?) ] would obviously have been perceived as a betrayal by the Ukrainian government, and rightly so. It would have been perceived, rightly, by Putin as a licence to do as he saw fit with Ukraine, which would this be implicitly recognised as his back yard.
He would then have proceeded to do as he saw fit with Ukraine; perhaps promising to stop doing so if the front line states were excluded from NATO.

2) Putin would have said "But you haven't stripped the front line states of their NATO membership, which I also demanded", and would have proceeded to invade Ukraine.

Neither of these two principal demands of his were acceptable. The fact that he has invaded Ukraine is in fact proof that it would not have been a good idea to accede to them.

As for your analogy(?) with Iraq, I'm afraid I don't understand it at all. What demands, what threats has the USA made against Russia recently? If I'm not sadly mistaken, it is Russia which was the demander, and is now the invader.
So, let's try it that way: "Putin and his cabal were on a mission to remake Eastern Europe, intending a short stop in Kyiv before they moved on to ..."

Actually, Saddam acceded to the coalition's demands and they invaded anyway.
Hum, this interpretation of your analogy doesn't do your case much good.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Fri Mar 4th, 2022 at 03:48:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Battle for Babi Yar (none / 1)
Russia is the US in that analogy.

As to 1) Of course it is a betrayal of the Ukrainian government. As is sitting on your ass while they get slaughtered. Which we are going to do, because the alternative is fighting a war with a nuclear power.

by generic on Fri Mar 4th, 2022 at 04:07:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Battle for Babi Yar (4.00 / 2)
There's a fundamental difference between the US and Russian approaches to empire.

The US is essentially pragmatic. It takes what it wants when it wants it, hiding behind a constant foghorn of imperial propaganda - amplified during crises - to justify its petro-militarism.

It's primarily narcissistic - superior, indifferent to suffering, dishonest, but still fundamentally realistic.

Putin's view is mystical, not pragmatic. He's driven by macho fascist mysticism, which is more psychopathic than narcissistic.

He has no problem with either personal or national martyrdom, and sees both as a test of risk and fire. If Russia - and Putin - are as great as he believes, they will prevail. If they are weak, they deserve to die anyway. Suicide by cop is not a problem for him.

Both of these are insane in their different ways, but I have no doubt that the latter is more dangerous.

The real threat to Putin is any form of democratic liberalism. He sees that as enfeebling, and he can't afford to tolerate it on his border - not when there's significant cultural and personal traffic across that border.

So this is not really about military capability or even about resources. It's about machismo and a threat to Putin's view of himself as the alpha in that part of the world.

It's clear from Dugin's template that Ukraine was always going to be invaded no matter what NATO did or didn't do.

It's possible that if Putin is terminally ill he might not have gotten around to it. But it's not at all credible that he would never have considered it. Or - given his record of other atrocities - made concrete plans for it.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Mar 4th, 2022 at 04:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Battle for Babi Yar (4.00 / 2)
Honestly I wouldn't put too much weight on Dugin's influence. If your mind is completely colonized by fascist philosophers you'd probably get your country stuck in an ill advised war before you've been in office for a quarter of a century.
However there is some indication that Putin himself fell for the dumb-guy mythology that his regime invented. Basically the victory in WW2 is still the founding myth of the Russian state, but all ideology has been stripped, since Putin is just as opposed to Communism as his opponents in Ukraine. So Nazism in this moron's version of history is reduced to being anti-Russian. In that sense you could see all governments after Maidan as NAZI governments. Which doesn't bode well for the prospect of peace negotiations to say the least.
by generic on Fri Mar 4th, 2022 at 06:37:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Battle for Babi Yar (4.00 / 2)
A related view.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Mar 6th, 2022 at 04:52:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Battle for Babi Yar | 76 comments (76 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: