A brief history of the Russia/Ukraine war
Link to quote: Remembering Obama’s ‘Russia Reset’: Hillary & The ‘Skolkovo’ Misadventure | National Review
I thought today might be a good day for a bit of history so, I'm beginning with this war everyone is so upset about. First off we have a case where one country is repeatedly attacked by another. There lies the moral case for Ukraine. A beleaguered democracy has been attacked by an autocracy. We also have to accept some disturbing statements recently made during a heated debate between Ukraine's leader and the leader of the US. That is the minor issue of the current leader of Ukraine having not held elections, banned opposition organizations, suspended habeas corpus and is conscripting young men into the army at a rapid pace. One could argue that it is necessary, but it doesn't look good. That may be the reason that Zelensky was recently trolled by President Trump - as a reminder of a few things.
In 2022 Ukrainian forces under Zelensky repelled the Russian offensive against Kiev and Zelensky became a world hero, a David victorious over Goliath. Trump is reminding Zelensky that the war did not end there.
Ukraine has at best 30 million of its 40 million people; the rest have fled.
Trump is reminding Zelensky of that fact.
The Europeans can't be counted on as allies. Nine of those NATO members still haven't met their 2% responsibility for funding NATO.
Trump is reminding Zelensky of that fact.
The US is expected to defend Europe's borders and Ukraine's borders while we have ignored our own borders.
Trump is reminding Zelensky of that fact.
Back in March Ukraine could have negotiated a deal with Russia when Ukraine was in a much better position instead of now when Russia is doing much better on the battlefield.
Trump is reminding Zelensky of that fact.
And oh yes, there is another thing; In 2014 the people of Ukraine elected Viktor Yanukovych, who was pro-Russian though fairly elected, but the Obama State Department and people like John McCain pressured the Ukrainians to oppose the Russian influence. Yanukovych was concerned about what would happen if Ukraine began to be tempted to join NATO.
Why?
Because he feared that Russia would invade what was the old breadbasket of the old Soviet Union rather that have it become a NATO member right on the Russian border.
Then what happened?
There was a coup or as the left likes to call it an insurrection an Petro Poroshenko, a pro-western politician was installed as leader, to be followed by Zelensky. The fact is that the Ukrainians did remove an elected government. That is what Vladimir Putin would call a provocation.
Zelensky is angry now because he has to make a mineral deal with the US before he can sit down at the negotiation table. I expect that he will sign that deal later today. Zelensky is also angry because he is not in a good bargaining position anymore. On top of that he lost the non-stop aid that Joe Biden was sending. Ukraine's cities are in ruin. He must deal.
Trump is angry because he is boxed in on this deal. I think the best he can do for Ukraine is something my friend on the left said yesterday: convince Putin to give up some of the land the Russians have acquired on the battlefield to create a security zone for Ukraine. How much land that Trump can get from Putin will be all important for Ukraine.
Putin may be relieved. One more year of this war and fate may have seen him removed from power, one way or the other.
That is today's lesson. Class dismissed.
Tags
Who is online
137 visitors
Food for thought.
Pretty much describes the reality of the situation and is easy to digest.
The reason I have refused to take sides on the Russia/Ukraine conflict is not just because I have the blood of both sides running through my veins (my mother and her family emigrated from Ukraine to Canada and my father and his family emigrated from Russia to Canada, where they met and married), but also because there are IN FACT two sides to the story. And my refusing to take sides is NOT tantamount to taking a side as I would most likely be accused of doing by not taking the side of those who would accuse me of doing so.
Ukraine just doesn’t have the manpower to evict Russia from its 2014 boundaries. All the wishing about what’s fair and how things should be isn’t going to change that. The 2023 summer offensive was its shot to win the war. Since, Russia just keeps capturing territory, square kilo by square kilo, as Ukraine is worn down.
Absent nato ground troops or some spectacular internal Russian collapse , there’s no reason to believe this can change in. 2025 or any time soon thereafter. Ukraine will just keep losing ground, troops and population it will need in the future, which is what it should be focused on. Live and prepare to fight another day when the chance presents.
Gee, that's swell but doesn't get the history right. Viktor Yanukovych was replaced by . It was Turchynov who ignored Russia's annexation of Crimea, declared the Ukrainian 'separatists' in Donbas were terrorists, and deployed the Ukrainian military to eastern Ukraine to fight Ukrainians instead of Russians. Turchynov disenfranchised 'pro-Russian' Ukrainians in an undemocratic manner for the benefit of Ukrainian oligarchs.
Petro Poroshenko was not elected in a democratic manner. The Ukrainians in Crimea had been disenfranchised. Many of the people in the Donbas region had been disenfranchised. The way Poroshenko was elected would be the equivalent of disenfranchising Texas and Florida in the United States.
The war with Russia started in 2014. And the illegitimate government of Ukraine, created by a parliamentary coup, bears most of the responsibility for starting the war. Don't allow the liberal know-nothings in the United States get away with telling us that Russia had no right to protect its interests in Ukraine.
The real history may sound like a nuanced fact check but history really has been influenced by those nuances. Remember when Alexander Haig declared he was in charge following the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan? That incident rang a lot of alarm bells.
Russia's interests in Crimea aren't any different than the United State's interests in Guantanamo. If the U.S. can violate the sovereignty of Cuba because the Castro regime posed a threat to U.S. interests in the Caribbean then why cannot the same argument apply to Russian interests in the Black Sea? Ignoring those nuances won't capture the whole of the facts or the complete history.