Most people agree about the ongoing Ukrainian war. Russia invaded Ukraine. Invasion is wrong. There is much resulting damage and suffering and death.
This is all true.
But it focuses on the superficial, immediate goings on and misses out on the context and reasons. There is no point in blaming people or regimes for things they have been compelled to do by circumstance, for which they have no choice.
There is an opportunity for a new world order where regimes are punished for invasion, by for example being excluded from international banking systems and trade and airspace. As a first consequence, Israel would be immediately punished for its ongoing invasion of Palestine, in breach of a peace treaty which it has signed, and the ongoing genocide in the occupied territory. This is a much worse and clear cut case than that of Russia and Ukraine.
But Israel will not be punished as Russia has been. Because this is not about war and peace, or right and wrong, or crime and punishment, or even good and bad or preventing suffering. This is about the USA and Russian and their ongoing political competion. Russia is being punished, and its people pushed into further poverty, and losing access to the sea, just because it suits the USA’s geopolitical interests.
Economies need access to the sea. It is the one crucial thing they need for security and prosperity. Landlocked countries are all poor.
Russia is already a very poor country. It cannot risk losing access to the Mediterranean. Losing this access would mean losing trade routes, making goods more expensive, and the people poorer. Being cut off from the sea is a disaster for a country, even one with coastal provinces thousands of miles away.
Russia will not lose access to the sea in Ukraine. It will fight forever and make huge sacrifices to keep that access. It will do whatever it takes, because it has no choice. The alternative is eternal destitution.
Russia must regain good political relations with Ukraine, or else subsume the south-eastern portion containing the deep-water ports.
Russia also has a good justification for invading. Ukraine signed a peace treaty with Russia, then broke its rules. Then it made laws to persecute Russians living in Ukraine. That provoked Russia and created the political opportunity to invade.
Ukraine has nothing to gain from separating Russia from the sea, and economically much to lose. Ukraine has nothing to gain from being endlessly at war. This USA’s war.
It is the USA which is working to separate Russia from the sea. It has worked hard on this for years, supporting (or possibly instigating) the Ukrainian regime change, and heavily supporting the Ukrainian government and army since then.
The USA is paying for the war and supplying the weapons and all sorts of support. It is a proxy war between Russia and the USA, identical to many others before it, spanning 100 years.
Russia has repeatedly asked for peace talks. It wants to end the war, regain access to the sea, and guarantee the protection of Russians. So why does Ukraine refuse to negotiate a peace?
This option would anger the USA. Ukraine would be punished forever by the global powers, and maybe become a poor pariah state like others which opposed the USA (like Russia).
There are theories. For example what happened to Gaddafi and Libya after refusing to trade in dollars. But I think only Mr Zelenskyy knows. He has been working very closely with USA agencies for years. There must be some personal arrangement where this is in his interests.
Without USA support, the war would end in an instant. Ukraine would be forced to negotiate a peace, a new border would be drawn, and the region could become more prosperous. This would be the ideal result.
It is unrealistic to talk of reparations from Russia. These only happen after total defeats, like in world war 1. They usually inspire the conflict to resume soon after. This will not be the outcome.
The war will end in the normal way, with compromise. Probably Russia will get some land. Ukraine will get peace and maybe economic aid.
The war will continue until the USA stops supporting it.
But the USA is very happy for the war to continue. I has a need to be at war constantly, to spend and justify its military budget, to test and develop weapons and strategies and logistics, to test its competitors’ military abilities.
The best thing about the war is that it wastes Russia’s money and weakens it economically. Pushing Russia deeper into poverty is a major focus of the USA regime. The USA will try to keep the war going forever.
You must log in or register to comment.
Landlocked countries are all poor.
Switzerland, Austria, Hungary, Luxembourg, and Kazakhstan have entered the chat
I’m glad you mentioned those. They have free access to the sea through trade deals with their neighbours. It’s similar to how Paris has free access to the sea, despite being landlocked, because it has free trade with Normandy. It’s similar to how Russia used to have access to Ukraine’s ports.
So maybe a trade agreement instead of a fucking Invasion?
And Paris has free trade with Normandy because it’s the same country. So…
You’re thinking like a normal person. You need to get inside the head of a military strategist. Countries are often destroyed over much less (like Iraq or Libya), and sometimes for no reason at all (Palestine). Destroying countries for political goals is considered normal and correct for these people. If they had more moral qualms, they could not create great global powers.
Any of the three belligerents Biden, Zelenskyy or Putin could end the war today if he wanted to, if they were thinking like normal people. But each has reasons why it’s more convenient to continue it.
Read this paragraph again
There is an opportunity for a new world order where regimes are punished for invasion, by for example being excluded from international banking systems and trade and airspace. As a first consequence, Israel would be immediately punished for its ongoing invasion of Palestine, in breach of a peace treaty which it has signed, and the ongoing genocide in the occupied territory. … But Israel will not be punished as Russia has been. Because this is not about war and peace, or right and wrong, or crime and punishment, or even good and bad or preventing suffering. This is about the USA and Russian and their ongoing political competion.
Russian and Ukraine both currently have access to the Black sea, and economically speaking, the current border isn’t an issue for anyone.
The crimea ports aren’t economic assets, they’re strategic assets. They represent a tactical/strategic advantage, and pretty much everyone is on board with the conflict out of an interest in just that.
Except Ukraine, who just want to keep their country… which should, at least in my opinion, take precedence over the strategic value.
Your argument that Russia needs to annex Ukraine to have sea access for the sake of its economy is disingenuous. All Russia needs to do to maintain the economic value of Mediterranean access is negotiate a deal over the kerch strait with Ukraine (and Ukraine isn’t being all that upstanding in that regard either). A very simple kerch strait access treaty could fix everything you’re referring to, but I frankly don’t think anyone really cares about that aspect at all. They want the strategic advantage. Pretty sure all of them just want the strategic advantage.
This is very interesting now. There is definitely something to what you say. But I need to understand this better.
Russian and Ukraine both currently have access to the Black sea
I guess you mean that they both already have deep-water ports, useful for large scale trade and the military. So what then is the strategic advantage for Russia of controlling (a) the Kerch Strait or (b) Urkaine?
Not deep water ports per se, just access… Russian can establish economic trade via the black sea using the kerch strait. It would take some investment, but could support the entirety of Russian maritime trade. Having military naval assets dependant on using it is strategically not all that viable though, too easy to blockade, mine, etc.
So Russia wants Ukraine (or crimea, or both) so they have the strategic advantage of not being confined militarily, and NATO wants it so they can affect that confinement from a convenient location.
Having military naval assets dependant on using it is strategically not all that viable though, too easy to blockade, mine, etc.
Yes. But also having your economy or major shipping dependent on it would not be viable, for the same reason.
The thing I don’t understand though, what is the major strategic importance of this region (eastern Ukraine) when Russia already has big ports on the Black sea?
tldr russian apologist propaganda
This is about the USA –
I stopped caring about your opinion right here.
Pretty sure this invasion is about annexing Ukraine.
