US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth presented some realities and conditions for peace that burst the bubble of deception - which has kept the war going. Hegseth argued there would be no NATO membership for Ukraine, Ukraine would not recover its territories, and the US would not offer any security guarantees. Such a position has been criminalised across the West as a betrayal of Ukraine, but the opposite is true as ignoring reality has been the source of destruction. To quote Niccolò Machiavelli: “Men will not look at things as they really are, but as they wish them to be - and are ruined”.
Hegseth outlined a painful reality that is dangerous to ignore. First, regarding territorial losses:
“We want, like you, a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine, but we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective. Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering”.
Second, NATO expansion was taken off the table:
“the United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome of a negotiated settlement”.
Third, the US will not participate in any security guarantees:
“Security guarantees must be backed by capable European and non-European troops. If these troops are deployed as peacekeepers at any point, they should be deployed as part of a non-NATO mission and should not be covered under Article 5… To be clear: As part of any security guarantee, there will not be U.S. troops deployed to Ukraine”.
It is relevant to claims of NATOs “expansionist” nature. But we can drop that topic.
I’d just like to point out that the “Russia was provoked” arguments are based on the realism school of foreign affairs, which boils down to “might makes right”. Seeing fellow lefties more radical than me espouse it with such glee is always such a sad thing.
Now I don’t quite know what you want me to do with that list. Yes, they were (probably, haven’t checked but will take you at your word) members of NATO at the time. Do you want me to find sources for them aspiring to become members of NATO well before the invite? But that would be going back to the “NATOs expansionist nature” debate. Do you want to discuss the relevance of the “not one inch eastward” comments? But there are plenty of sources articulating that better than we could.
This is so confused. There is no “glee” about it, and might doesn’t make right morally, it makes right factually. The realist school and we historical materialists almost never want the same outcomes, but it’s not uncommon for us to agree on some facts on the ground.
Here are some more “unprovoking” facts on the ground.
I got this far writing a response, haven’t read the last few articles or watched the Chomsky but since it hasn’t progressed in over a week and I will continue to be happily occupied for the foreseeable future, I’ll post it now.
Okay, so we’re putting to rest the “expansionist NATO” argument, now we’re at “offensive NATO” and “the US manipulation of Ukraine”? This discussion is becoming way too unfocused, and I’d appreciate it if you could keep it tighter and, you know, not sprawling linkspam that takes this long with the time I can priorise for it. Answering the main points I thought I read in the articles.
----- NATO -----
No duh? So was the Nordic socdem model. Doesn’t make it a bad idea.
NATO did not start nor was it involved in any armed conflict against the SU, or in any armed conflict with the “eastern bloc” in Europe during the cold war (unlike the SU). As an offensive alliance, it would have kind of sucked. Espionage is related to three letter agencies and embassies, with or without military alliances.
Also this claim somewhat contradicts point 1; point 1 assumes the European members to be sympathetic to the SU, point 2 hostile.
Are you confused about European history? Because if there’s one thing worthy of note, it’s that we’ve been at each others’ throats all the damn time. This “Pax Americana” has been a wonderful anomaly compared to any similar timespan in history since basically the Roman empire, all the more exceptional since it included tense hostilities and the turmoil of the end of the SU. Sure, correlation is not causation, but something has certainly worked here, and NATO doesn’t at least seem to have harmed the process.
The newly formed Federation of Russia was very unstable until at least 1993, nobody knew which way it’d go, and already in 1994 it started the first Chechnyan war. Also, since when are international organizations terminated within a span of a couple of months or even a few years, without pressing need?
Borders are where military outposts tend to be. Wouldn’t really make sense in the middle? Russia has military outposts near all their neighbors, before and after they joined NATO.
It certainly wasn’t the ideal solution (which would have been for the violence to stop at the first diplomatic “hey, cut it out”) , but can’t say it was worse than what continuing the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians would have been. What would have been your next step at stopping it, or would you have let it continue, or do you believe it didn’t happen?
American projects with nominal NATO presence from other countries would have happened with or without NATO. Also they’re mostly not in Europe. If your point is that US foreign actions are often questionable, and that they’re probably an unreliable ally, yes to all of that.
That was interesting, didn’t know about it before, thank you! Again I’m doubtful of how important NATO was for it; if the US wanted to have “insurgency assistants” or even faux-terrorists (though as I read those links are questionable?) in European countries, it wouldn’t have been that difficult even without.
Has not happened and would hopefully be veto’d by its European members. The US should form a similar military alliance under a new name there if they want to, the security interests of Europe and the Far East have little in common and it makes no sense to attempt stuff too many different things in the same organisation.
----- UKRAINE ------
I’d also like to point out that the speed at which some people go from “realistically Russia had no choice but to attack this smaller neighboring country” to “Ukraine nazis bad” truly is astounding.
Unlike a lot of people, I don’t really see anything that queationable in the transcript. Shop talk between workmates foregoing the empty niceties and using “want” as for “would like to, our aim is”, just like I do at work.
In the 2019 parliament election they got 2.15% of the vote. It hardly represents the view of the common Ukrainian.
Funny timing, and Yanukovich fleeing to Russia (not even the eastern territories, actual Russia!), and being unanimously being voted out by the parliament.
As many opinions as there are people. Here’s a scientific article looking at the info available in 2023 (including plausible confessions), and coming to the conclusion it was a Russian false flag (of which they have a long history).
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2023.2269685
Over the past 35 years. I’d love to know the full story of this, and how it compares to other former SU countries. Some of it must be the support for former SU countries, some NED, but there’s a lot more to cover. Without the information, the number, while interesting, is useless.
BBC 2014: “the Kremlin has characterised the new leaders in Kiev as a “fascist junta” made up of neo-Nazis and anti-Semites, set on persecuting, if not eradicating, the Russian-speaking population. This is demonstrably false.”
Hill 2017: “The odious Russian media tried to paint Ukraine as a land of Nazis, though that is patently wrong. Ukraine has a thriving Jewish community, and its far-right is still on the fringe. It’s the same in America.”
I don’t see that as different from any other country?