The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
This isn't a proxy war; it is a war between a hegemon which disagrees that those days are over, and a nation which aspires to join that concensus, but has the misfortune to have a long border with the aforesaid hegemon.
The danger for Europe is that letting the hegemon win the war sets a, to put it mildly, dangerous precedent.
I'm not a nationalist; international borders are largely arbitrary historical accidents; but allowing a hegemon to revise them by military conquest is ALWAYS a bad idea. Nevertheless, I hope that Ukraine will agree to a territorial settlement, because the war has to end. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
And frankly "..and a nation which aspires to join that consensus.." is ahistoric and completely removes meddling by one side from consideration. Do you deny that the first pro-Western Orange Revolution government was voted out of office, and I think our guy got something like sevenths place in that election? Or that the US was involved in the Maidan revolution to the point they got to pick the PM afterwards? And finally, Zelensky was voted in as the peace candidate with large majorities, but in the end was unable to implement any part of the ceasefire, at least to a large part because of the threat of violence be far-right elements.
And I certainly agree that the majority of Europeans would like to believe that that age is over, but what the majority of Europeans wants never mattered much when it came to matters of war.
How is this not a proxy war?
You seem to consider that the Maidan revolution is tainted, but no revolution is ever pure. It's axiomatic. That the US was in favour of it, or meddled, is largely beside the point. The actual people of Ukraine had the right to overthrow their president after he flip-flopped over the crucial issue of choosing between Europe and Russia.
Also rember : the government that follows a revolution always betrays the revolution; that's axiomatic too. Poroshenko, as an oligarch himself, was singularly ill-equipped to fight corruption. The fact that he was overwhelmingly defeated by a candidate who is clearly pro-European possibly illustrates a popular aspiration in that direction, no?
And frankly "..and a nation which aspires to join that consensus.." is ahistoric and completely removes meddling by one side from consideration.
I have no idea why you believe that the aspiration of Ukrainians to join the EU is ahistoric. It's been a fundamental, and divisive, issue for the last couple of decades. The succession of presidents elected - Yushenko, Yakunovich, Poroshenko, Zelenskiy - would seem to show a temopral strengthening of popular desire to strengthen ties with the EU and reduce dependency on Russia.
If you believe that Ukrainians have been fooled by the US into becoming pro-EU, rather than making a clear-eyed choice, can you explain the process to me? It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
You'll have to walk me through that part. Consider that after Maidan, there was a certain amount of meddling by one side (annexation of Crimea, the Donbass war) which dwarfs anything the Americans attempted.
Maidan had, to the best of my knowledge, never more popular support than about 40%. And do you think that it's expected for a revolution to have another country's representative pick the political leadership afterwards? Political meddling is a matter of chronology, not arithmetic.
have no idea why you believe that the aspiration of Ukrainians to join the EU is ahistoric. It's been a fundamental, and divisive, issue for the last couple of decades. The succession of presidents elected - Yushenko, Yakunovich, Poroshenko, Zelenskiy - would seem to show a temopral strengthening of popular desire to strengthen ties with the EU and reduce dependency on Russia.
The point is exactly that it was disputed. Both "pro-Russian" and "pro-western" candidates could win, and would very likely not win reelection. Before the war Zelensky polled at 20% and if election had been held the "pro-Russian" opposition might very likely have won. But, of course the party leader was put under house arrest for conspiring with Russia (under orders of the Poroshenko government, funnily enough)
by gmoke - Nov 30
by gmoke - Nov 24
by gmoke - Nov 7
by gmoke - Nov 11
by Oui - Jan 20
by Oui - Jan 19
by Oui - Jan 17
by Oui - Jan 16
by Oui - Jan 15
by Oui - Jan 151 comment
by Oui - Jan 14
by Oui - Jan 141 comment
by Oui - Jan 132 comments
by Oui - Jan 133 comments
by Oui - Jan 13
by gmoke - Jan 138 comments
by Oui - Jan 12
by Oui - Jan 122 comments
by Oui - Jan 11
by Oui - Jan 112 comments
by Oui - Jan 10
by Oui - Jan 101 comment