Written By:
Guest post - Date published:
1:04 pm, March 24th, 2025 - 126 comments
Categories: Diplomacy, Disarmament, Europe, nuclear war, Peace, Russia, Ukraine, war -
Tags:
As any rookie strategist knows, outcome-focussed policy is based around the alignment of ends, ways and means: what you set as your goals must be matched with a clear strategy and the necessary resources to achieve them. Ukraine as a Western proxy war has proven a massive failure on all three counts.
Henry Kissinger nailed it back in 2014: “For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.” The former US Secretary of State was cautioning the West against using Ukraine as a proxy for East-West confrontation. He was ignored and the US and EU abandoned a more nuanced approach to diplomacy in favour of a massive militarisation of Ukraine. In January 2022, the West rejected Russia’s central demand for a written guarantee that Ukraine would not join NATO. The Russian army crossed the border a month later.
NATO’s Project Ukraine crossed what US Ambassador to Moscow William Burns called “the reddest of red lines” for the entire Russian political establishment. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russians are dead; the West is staring into the face of defeat on the battlefield; Ukraine is shattered and will take generations to recover; an economically wounded and divided Europe seems to be having a mental break-down; and, whenever the war finally ends, Ukraine will face harsh conditions imposed on it, ironically, by both the US and Russia.
The entire Western elite from the US President through to people like Boris Johnson, Macron, Starmer, Von der Leyen and co had in recent years become obsessed with what Kissinger derided as posturing over policy.
He suggested the West and Russia “should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing” in order to solve the Ukrainian crisis. So let’s assess those ends, ways and means.
The West’s goals in the war were variously stated as regime change in Russia, dismemberment of the Russian federation, the crushing of the Russian economy, defeat on the battlefield and the reconquest of all territory, including Crimea. Ukraine, they all said, was on an irreversible course to NATO membership. Such were the dreams of warriors.
To the contrarians like me, the Western “ways” – its strategy and tactics – seemed daft. Given Russia saw the conflict as existential, in the highly unlikely event of Western success on the battlefield, the war risked escalating to the nuclear level, perhaps limited to tactical nukes, perhaps not.
Which triggers the paradox: the closer the West got to military success, the closer the West got to nuclear war. In the end, Russia was able to eviscerate the Ukrainian counter-offensive of 2023 which failed to even cross the first of a series of Russian defensive lines. Roads and fields in eastern Ukraine were littered with billions of dollars of brand new Bradley fighting vehicles, Leopard tanks, other expensive kit and, most tragically, tens of thousands of bodies. With the exception of the successful but strategically misguided Kursk incursion into Russia, now eliminated, the Ukrainians have been slowly pushed back and teeter on the edge of collapse.
Despite the invocations of a few madmen generals and politicians, the West committed few boots on the ground. The Ukrainians did the fighting and dying; the West supplied the resources. The contrarian military analysts like Mark Sleboda and Colonels Danny Davis and Douglas MacGregor pointed out the futility of this approach, pitting the Ukrainians up against a Russian army that was more numerous, better equipped and, once it overcame teething problems, more lethal.
The West also lost the military industrial competition as Russia had a significant advantage in stockpiles of artillery and an arms industry that could both innovate and ramp up production in ways the profit-driven suppliers in the West simply could not.
In contrast, Russia’s ends, ways and means were conceived and executed more effectively. The West, for example, chose dramatic, headline-grabbing tactics like the Kursk incursion; the Russians contented themselves with attrition warfare.
Consequently their core goals are likely to be realised: an end to NATO expansion, return to Ukrainian neutrality, incorporation of at least four ethnic Russian oblasts plus Crimea into Russia, protections for ethnic Russians remaining in Ukraine, and limits on its military. Given the dramatic shift in the EU to becoming a military bloc – Russia could possibly seek to veto Ukrainian membership of the EU which previously had been acceptable to them.
None of this will be pleasing to many people in the West but realist analysis is not about comforting illusions; it is about facing harsh truths and navigating a path to a better world for everyone.
It is time to de-demonise Russia and to start the process of normalising relations with the super-power to achieve the best outcome for all parties, particularly Ukraine. Vilification is useful to mobilise support amongst the gullible masses at the start of and during wars, but when peace comes it is time to put aside the propaganda. The Russians, if victorious, will not be sipping coffee in Vienna next week nor marching into Piccadilly Circus. As Glenn Diesen has pointed out many times, Russia’s focus and future lies firmly in building a prosperous Eurasia and ushering in a multipolar world.
All the mainstream experts, four-star generals and Western leaders foolishly miscalculated and, as former US Ambassador Chas Freeman predicted, callously tried to fight to the last Ukrainian. War, with all its horrible consequences, should not be undertaken if the result is likely to be a worse end state than you could have achieved through diplomacy. So who got it right?
The analysis of those virtually barred from the mainstream media has been proven correct. People like John Mearsheimer, Danny Davis, Glenn Diesen, Brian Beletic, Mark Sleboda, Alexander Mercouris, Rachel Blevins, Geoff Roberts, Chas Freeman, Pascal Lottaz, Ray McGovern, Larry Wilkerson and, dare I say it, myself, saw long ago where this was heading: Russia could not and would not be defeated in a war on their borders which they saw as necessary to overcome an existential threat. Mearsheimer predicted with great accuracy a decade ago what would happen, why it would happen, and why it could and should have been avoided.
The West developed over decades a sickening obsession with moralistic narratives combined with endless violence that usually achieved the opposite of their stated objectives – think of Vietnam, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Ukraine.
It is high time for the West to get off its high horse and have the intelligence and decency to make peace with Russia and end the Israeli-Western genocide of the Palestinian people, not to mention the brutal assaults on Yemen and Lebanon that has stripped it of all preaching rights.
Eugene Doyle
Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz.
Long time commenter, grumpy, has had this post from a russian friend explaining his view on what has been happening in the Ukraine. As this event has excited considerable comment over the last few months, this will probably be a good discussion post.
Vladimir Putin has effectively conceded that the Ukraine war is not going well for Russia by seeking to conscript 300,000 new soldiers, planning for referenda in Russian held areas and threatening the use of Nuclear weapons if Russia's modified territorial integrity is threatened.
The downing of Malaysian Airlines MH17 was a Russian sponsored war crime. When will Vladimir Putin be arrested? UPDATE: Animation and actual photos and video of the BUK launcher added.
Ohh, dueling posts!
This is a masterclass in what I was originally critiquing in my essay over the weekend: the seductive pull of geopolitical realism morphing into moral relativism — all dressed up as nuance.
You frame this as a war of Western hubris and Russian strategic discipline. And sure, there's truth to be found in critiquing Western foreign policy. But what’s striking is the asymmetry in your moral concern. You walk us through “ends, ways, and means” in Ukraine like it’s a seminar room at a War College, but there’s not a whisper about Russia’s own ends: the erasure of Ukrainian sovereignty, the annexation of territory, the systematic targeting of civilian infrastructure.
Let’s be clear: acknowledging U.S. hypocrisy does not require becoming a court stenographer for the Russian General Staff.
This kind of selective “realism” is what has gutted the credibility of the anti-imperialist left for decades: the inability to hold multiple powers accountable without lapsing into soft justification for one of them.
You quote Kissinger. I’ll quote Orwell: "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist." Today, the updated version reads: "Uncritical realism is objectively pro-authoritarian."
Yes, we need a less hubristic, more pluralist foreign policy. But let’s not pretend that means neutrality between a democratic state defending its territory and an autocracy seeking to erase it.
And neither should we indulge the fantasy that Ukraine, or any of the former Soviet bloc states, are mindless puppets with no strategic aims or independent agency. That’s the same old Stalinist erasure of smaller nations dressed up in multipolar drag.
And just to bring this back to Earth: almost none of this matters electorally. The average kiwi voter isn’t game-theorizing NATO’s deterrence posture or replaying Mearsheimer lectures: they’re wondering if they’ll afford rent or feed their kids next month.
If the Left wants to win anything real, it should stop simping for despots and start speaking to people’s material realities.
Because here’s the kicker: this entire framework , where the world is carved up into imperial spheres and everyone is either a proxy or pawn, is deeply reductionist. It erases the agency of smaller nations, dismisses the democratic will of working people outside the West, and reduces internationalism to a grim board game of “who's worse.”
That’s not nuance: that’s just ideological cosplay masquerading as strategy.
You come across as warmonger.
You say want what to represent what working people want – they don't want their children sucked into wars for imperialists and corporate cock suckers. Because you seem to not want to engage with reality – try this speech and see if you can gleam anything from it.
Working people want fair wages and good quality of life, – your war mongering mates in Ukrainian have stripped Ukrainians of those things. And the longer the war goes on, the more Ukrainians will be stripped of every right they had.
So here is a major reality check for you – don't be disabled in Ukrainian because they really don't give a shit. Lets not forget the sick reality – Russia is evil to disabled (spot the gaps in the link) as well.
And before you go on and on like you probably will in your usual fubar strawman way. No, I don't support Russia, yes I think authoritarians are fuckwits. As I think of most smug assholes who think they are right all the time.
More importantly, "War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means." ~ Carl von Clausewitz – with many of our so called leaders are willing to pull the lever on war, rather than actually engage in the hard work of diplomacy and compromise. So it's a bit hard to read to your smug rants when you won't actually stand up for working people, and decry anyone who wants to end stupid wars and keep our leaders held to account.
And you come across as the smuggest of assholes — the kind who thinks quoting Clausewitz makes them a geopolitical sage, while parroting Kremlin-adjacent talking points with all the nuance of Winston Peters after a bottle of single malt.
Let’s cut the crap: the only warmongering happening here is Russia’s.
Ukraine didn’t wake up one day and decide to cosplay NATO. They got invaded. Their cities shelled, civilians slaughtered, children kidnapped, infrastructure reduced to rubble. All because an ageing autocrat with nukes and a nostalgia boner for the USSR decided reality was optional.
You want to talk about working people? Tell that to the factory workers turned soldiers. The mothers giving birth in bomb shelters. The pensioners rebuilding their homes for the third time because “diplomacy” apparently means "let the tanks roll in unopposed. Just as long as it’s not your suburb."
And yes, war is politics by other means — in this case, the politics of fascist land grabs and revanchist fever dreams. Ukraine did try diplomacy. They gave up their nukes for paper promises. They even swallowed the theft of Crimea as a grotesque injustice they couldn’t stop: all while Putin smiled for the cameras and quietly prepared for a full-scale invasion.
Where was your reverence for dialogue then? When Crimea was annexed? When MH17 was blown out of the sky? When the streets of Bucha were filled with bodies?
You rant about “warmongers” like you've uncovered some hidden truth, but all you're really doing is offering rhetorical reacharounds to the man actually dropping bombs.
You're not anti-war. You're just anti-democracy — and too much of a coward to say it out loud.
And while you’re busy flailing around about “corporate cock suckers” like a teenager who just discovered Noam Chomsky (who, frankly, was a far better linguist than he ever was a political thinker), the rest of us are out here grappling with actual complexity: climate collapse, democratic erosion, surveillance capitalism, the slow-motion extinction of nuance itself.
You know, grown-up problems. Try engaging with one of them sometime.
"Ukraine didn’t wake up one day and decide to cosplay NATO. They got invaded. Their cities shelled, civilians slaughtered, children kidnapped, infrastructure reduced to rubble." –
And what happened between 2014 and 2022?
What happened between 2014 and 2022? They also got invaded, their cities shelled, civilians slaughtered, children kidnapped, infrastructure reduced to rubble, just on a much smaller, more localised scale.
Russia stole Crimea and fueled a proxy war in the Donbas?
please dial back the personal abuse. There's a line between robust debate and starting a flamewar, and you're on it. Yes, I know what adam said, but I'm talking to you. As a mod.
I won't be responding to this person to make your life simpler. As I find hard to react to their the lies without starting a flame war.
Understood. I may have got a little carried away with my own rhetoric there.
They gave up their nukes for paper promises.
The nukes in question were only positioned in Ukraine. Apparently they were under Russian control in any case.
Technically correct. Which, as we all know, is the best kind of correct
There was absolutely no way the nascent Ukrainian state would have been able to even use the nuclear arsenal that the USSR left behind, even if they wanted to.
But still, it was important gesture towards peace that the Russians repaid with 30 years of meddling, lies, annexation, and eventually invasion.
"…wars for imperialists…"
Hilarious that you write that in the process of shilling for Europe's last major imperial power, which is busy destroying one of its neighbours in the interests of regaining lost imperial possessions.
Shilling, where exactly have I done that?
Come on point out exactly, come on show where I have supported Russian Imperialism.
I suspect that the Eastern parts of Ukraine should not have been given to Ukraine in the first place Lenin was probably careless when he allowed the setting up of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, thinking that it did not matter as the two countries were on the same side anyway. Kruschev almost certainly gave away Crimea for political reasons: he needed Ukrainian support for his hold on the Soviet premiership, which he had only just obtained after the death Stalin.
Yeltsin, on handing over Ukraine in the early nineties, also alluded to a border dispute, but suggested that Russia would probably not pursue that dispute if Ukraine remained friendly. Unfortunately Ukraine eventually became decidedly unfriendly by allying itself with Russia's main enemy, the USA.
Interesting reinterpretation of history. That isn't exactly what happened. But I guess it makes it simple enough to fit in a meaningless slogan.
There were considerable problems in the setting up of the SSR. Lots of competing governments between 1917 and 1922. And a lot of conflict, in particular the Ukrainian-Soviet war against other socialists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Soviet_Socialist_Republic#History
The proper way to arbitrate border disputers is diplomatic. Invading and annexing without ever bothering to take it to any kind of arbitration makes the aggressor nation to be run by stupid arseholes. All that does is cause endless persistent conflicts and a lot of dead people.
But hey, if as a armchair general that is what you support, then you can probably guess what I think of you.
That wasn't noticeable unless you are a deluded apologist for empires. The US and NATO weren't exactly chasing Ukraine. It was the opposite, they put as many barriers between Ukraine and either of them as they could.
Ukraine was chasing NATO because as they saw it, the Russian federation kept interfering in their internal politics.
But I guess an old empire builder / colonist supporter like you doesn't really consider the smaller nations have any rights to self-determination?
A 2025 world in which Biden, Macron, and Merkel chose not to resist Russia's invasion of Ukraine would look like this:
Russia fully takes over Ukraine and then Moldova. That's troops and missiles on the NATO border, a minor trigger action and full war between Europe and Russia since all NATO members don't agree on how to respond.
World grain prices and European gas and electricity prices go through the roof and they stay there because there's no time to restabilise alternative supply.
Russia more actively takes over Syria and united Iran and China into a formal defence alliance.
The governments of Russia and Iran continue to work in concert to actively undermine democratic elections, and they do it far more successfully across the Baltic states, Balkan states, United States, France, Germany, Hungary, and Poland.
As a result there is a massive decline in global democracy itself. And it doesn't return.
And a very high likelihood given tens of millions of Ukraine and Moldovan refugees flooding eastern Europe that the EU itself collapses as non-governable.
It's still possible all of this will occur. But even if as in Spain in the 1930s the good guys don't always win, you decide what is worth fighting for and you fight.
In the early 1940s between the full Axis powers there was a good chance the West would lose. They were getting to invade Australia. And the UK.
We chose to fight.
Same with Zelynsky.
Make sure you are sitting down before you look up the winner of the US election.
Hence the alternative history framing at the beginning.
Come on dude put your brain into gear – why would Russia take over a population it can not control? Did you miss the whole Soviet era – when those populations were a nightmare for Moscow? Do you really think the Russian leaders are that stupid? Couple it with the fact the West would actively supporting a resistance – it would devolve to shit for Russia, fast.
Not sure I like what has happened in Syria – yeah the fuckwit has gone, but the new head chopper leader is not someone I trust an inch.
Grain – the shit the lack of grain is creating for Africa is a nightmare at the moment – it can only get worse the longer this war goes on.
As I said at the start of the war – where was the diplomacy? Where are the people at the table talking this shit through – nothing but crickets and at best – people talking past each other.
The war started in 2014 with the Russian invasion of Crimea. That was done without any diplomatic action by Russia. Subsequently the Russian Federation supported with both equipment and 'off-duty' troops a insurrection in parts of East Ukraine.
The Russian military actions appear to have been in response by a failed attempt by the then president of Ukraine to override the will of the Rada to have a trade treaty with the EU, and to impose a trade treaty with Russia instead.
Have a read of the founding documents of the Ukrainian state from 1991 – the one that said that the sole body to express the will of the people was the Rada.
That led to attempts to impeach the President who then fled to Moscow after realising that he wouldn't have the votes in the Rada to prevent it.
The avowed intent of the Russian Federation in 2022 when they invaded the rest of Ukraine was to take over Kiev and impose a more friendly, presumably puppet, government. Presumably tearing up the constitution and imposing another while under Russian guns.
Regardless of what the people of Ukraine wanted.
As a supporter of Empires, I guess that is what you'd call diplomacy? Usually known as gunboat diplomacy.
Fuck off with that lie.
Good faith debate – yeah nah.
The problem I have is that when I look at your arguments, that is what they amount to. They carry the great power realpolitik stench.
I answered that. You seem to have skipped acknowledging that or answering it.
The problem between Russia and Ukraine to me appears to be a complete failure of diplomacy. The founding document of the current Ukrainian state from 1990 states in Section II
The Verkhovna Rada is the 450 deputies. So Russia
bribingdoing a deal with a Ukrainian president isn't any kind of effective diplomacy. The Russina federation appears to have tried that at least twice without the support of the Verkhovna Rada. Both were ejected from the position of president and I think both wound up living in Moscow?.The subsequent constitutional documents follow the same form.
I mention this particular 1990 document because apologists for the Russian Federation invariably selectively quote part of section IX in external and internal security. My bold.
Repeated Russian (gunboat) 'diplomacy' seems to have forced the intention to be changed. In the intervening three decades since that document it became clear to the deputies of the Verkhovna Rada that the Russian Federation was intent on treating Ukraine, not as a sovereign state, but as one that could only be economically and politically subservient to the Russian Federation.
Which is why they keep pestering the EU and NATO about joining those bodies – despite being repeatably put off and vague promises about the future.
That is what Russian 'diplomacy' has brought about.
WOW ! What an imagination you have ! You should try writing a novel since you have a real genius for creating fiction.
"Ukraine as a Western proxy war has proven a massive failure." Given that Ukraine as a western proxy war doesn't exist, neither success nor failure is possible.
Still, congrats on providing a perfect example of what Res Publica wrote about the other day.
It is time to de-demonise Russia and to start the process of normalising relations
If Putin declared his intent to switch to peaceful co-existence, I'd agree. His ongoing reluctance to act like Trump's puppet suggests he lacks that intent currently.
Kissinger nailed it back in 2014: “For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.” The former US Secretary of State was cautioning the West against using Ukraine as a proxy for East-West confrontation.
Senility can be a creeping thing. Peter the Great's reputation was built on westernising Russia, n'est ce pas? If Russia has easternised itself since, nobody seems to have publicised that reversal, but I'm open to being proven wrong via quotes.
His view of Europe's policy stance as using Ukraine as proxy has merit if European leaders had announced their intent to confront Putin in this way. Perhaps HK was reading their sub-text, but if so I suspect he may have read too much into it. Whilst Putin does seem to be recycling Tsarist style, could just be he's into rectifying the USSR's dying release of various fringe states.
The West’s goals in the war were variously stated as regime change in Russia, dis-memberment of the Russian federation, the crushing of the Russian economy, defeat on the battlefield and reconquest of all territory, including Crimea. Ukraine, they all said, was on an irreversible course to NATO membership. Such were the dreams of warriors.
Seeing that as posturing all around the park is fair enough, but media talking heads aren't necessarily warriors unless you specify them as such, and even then they're likely to be directors of combat rather than combatants themselves.
The west has never spoken with one voice – pretending concord on the topic was always feasible seems like ignorance of biodiversity. Geopolitics in an era of globalising power where the role of the hegemon seems to be shrinking opens up posturing as a way to signal virtue. Players in the game are consequently motivated by human nature to do virtue signalling as an efficient way to influence the views of other players.
Senility can be a creeping thing. Peter the Great's reputation was built on westernising Russia, n'est ce pas? If Russia has easternised itself since, nobody seems to have publicised that reversal, but I'm open to being proven wrong via quotes.
Boris Yeltsin tried to "westernise" Russia in the early nineties. The results were disastrous; though it could be argued that he tried to do it far too quickly.
His view of Europe's policy stance as using Ukraine as proxy has merit if European leaders had announced their intent to confront Putin in this way.
Why would they have to announce it to make it untrue. But in any case the "proxy war" would be between Russiand the USA.
defeat on the battlefield and reconquest of all territory, including Crimea.
I think it was Zelenskyy who said that. Zelenskyy also made no secret of his desire to join NATO.
I'm with Z on that. My take is that Europe has been stone-walling on NATO expansion to include Ukraine because it would make them an enemy of Putin while they wannabe friends with him. Silly stance, huh?
A CNN contributing writer tries to illuminate the dictator's nationalism here: https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/22/europe/russia-putin-ultimate-goals-ukraine-intl-cmd/index.html
Some vikings went east, back a millennium or more. It'd carry more weight if Putin was in the habit of wearing the standard horned helmet while declaring his geopolitical positioning to the media. Distributing photos of his inner-circle cabal also wearing them helmets would work a treat too. Tribal insignia have achieved a surprising degree of trendiness this century, and I blame branding psychology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus%27_people
That would be the Mr Kissinger, who opined about Chile:
“I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.”
The consequences of that position were unspeakable.
It is interesting today to read essentially pro-kleptocracy, 1970s-style arguments dressed up in a revamped “realism”.
There is no doubt, however, that, once support for Ukraine was decided in principle, the level and intent of support should have matched the rhetoric. That said, levels of preparedness in many states for the last two world wars was at best patchy. Liberal democracies take some time to focus on challenges, as, for example, Lord Grey of Falloden’s autobiography captures clearly for 1914.
Yes agree.
Oddly NZ is one of the very last to do this catching up.
In inferring that, realism is simply window dressing for support for a particular Russian authoritarian policy, the question must be in which ways it has been unrealistic.
The suggestion, as I interpret it, was that the West had limited ability to exhert force in Ukraine due to both geographic proximity and to the risk of nuclear escellation. That seems wholy consistent with both the course of the conflict and the Biden administrations decisions on NATO membership and levels of military support. I don't understand why the Trump statement that Ukraine won't join NATO was a perceived change in policy, Biden said as much previously. Biden also put limits on arms available to Ukraine often citing the risk of nuclear weapons escellation should the US become too directly involved.
There has never been a Western perspective that what Russia did by invading was moral and good however. Just its not going to be possible to do very much about the result, and extending that would not be moral and good.
I've never rated Kissinger as anything more than academic who had a track record of being consistently wrong.
About the only thing that I think that he ever did right was to help normalise US and Chinese diplomatic relations in 1970/1. And he did support a dentente with the USSR that was already there.
The results of his actions in Chile, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Yom Kippur war, Argentina, East Timor, Bangladesh and a many others were all complete diplomatic disasters when you look at what he supported and what the subsequent body count and social disruption of that support in those flash points was.
His realpolitik ideas have been mostly notable for giving us some of the longest sets of chronic diplomatic problems running for the 50 years.
Ukrainians did the fighting and dying; the West supplied the resources
To illustrate that, there's a bunch of helpful graphs here: https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine
From a moral perspective, nations are likely to see mutual benefit in solidarity, so any delusional posturing is beside the point. We have a UNSC member in blatant breach of UN ethos: everyone knows state sovereignty is meant to be immune to attack because the UN was set up to deliver that outcome. So Putin's primary win thus far is discrediting the UN as a credible force in geopolitics.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/23/trump-expansionism-threatens-the-rules-based-order-in-place-since-second-world-war
Trump is trying to coerce Ukraine to cede land for peace, land taken by conquest – this was forbidden by the UN in 1949.
The USA has form for this. In 2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_recognition_of_the_Golan_Heights_as_part_of_Israel
Israel's an unusual case. Given that its neighbours consider themselves under a religious obligation to destroy it, some areas must be denied to those neighbours to ensure they have no choice but to "refrain from the threat or use of force against a country's territory or independence." Russia isn't facing the same problem: its neighbours have no ill-intent towards it and it's so enormous that no invasion by any of its neighbours could succeed anyway.
I don't think the Isreal/Paestine situation is religious. I think that Hamas – and others – think that Isreal treats Gaza egregiously, and that it stole, in 1948, the land that occupies.
With Russia, I think tghe USA and some elements in Europe have promjted the myth that Russia is a threat to its neighbours.
People in western countries like to discreetly ignore the depth of religious feeling in the Muslim world. Of all the peoples displaced in the 1940s, the Arabs are the only ones who maintain the same intensity of feeling about it 80 years later, and it's because they see it not just as a great injustice to the Arabs, which could be gotten over, but also because land that was conquered for Islam cannot be given up to non-Muslims, and if it is lost it must be recaptured, especially if it's in the heart of the Middle East and with a major holy site in it. You can't just 'get over' clearly stated requirements from the almighty creator of the Universe and everyone in it. They're literal obligations.
Re Russia, its neighbours have been given repeated, indisputable evidence over centuries that Russia is a threat to their independence. Anything Americans or western Europeans might have to say about it is irrelevant to them.
Centuries ? I'm talking about the present. And I never said that the myth of a Russian threat was relevant to Russia. It is certainly seems to influence Europe.
The past affects the present. There's a reason all the ex-Soviet possessions in eastern Europe were clamouring to join NATO and that reason involves both the past and the present. But even if we ignore the past, Russia is in the process of invading and annexing one of its neighbours right now.
But even if we ignore the past, Russia is in the process of invading and annexing one of its neighbours right now.
But given the provocation it can't be taken as evidence that Russia, in general, is a threat to other nations.
What provocation?
Having a blue and gold dress on above the knee and saying it prefers the EU to Russia as a partner?
Unwillingness to be subjects of a Russian 'sphere of influence' isn't a "provocation." The fact that it's seen by Vlad Putin as a "provocation" is exactly why all of these countries, including Ukraine, were so keen to become NATO members.
What 'provocation'.
Not even the most one-eyed Putin supporter can believe that Ukraine was any threat to Russia.
Even if Putin believed that Ukraine being granted NATO membership was an existential threat to Russia (God knows why) – Ukraine was decades away from meeting the minimum qualifications – and the option wasn't even particularly popular amongst the Ukrainian population.
Of course, all that changed following the 2014 Russian-backed attacks.
Looks like a comprehensive list of reasons why neighbouring countries should regard Russia as a threat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia#Russian_Federation_(1991%E2%80%93present)
I think Russia’s done a perfectly good job of provoking this conflict all on its own. No help needed from ‘the West.’
You can usually spot the aggressor by the little things: like repeatedly invading neighbours, annexing their land, and insisting entire nations are ‘fake’ and don’t really exist
The land that Israel occupies is the WB and Gaza (since 1967). The land won in their "1948" war of independence (nakba) is now part of the state of Israel and is recognised as such. The UN made annexation of land via war illegal in 1949.
I'd argue Jordan and Egypt running the WB and Gaza was the occupation, which Israel ended. But regardless: the WB and Gaza as "the occupation" is something only people in western countries believe. When Palestinians refer to "the occupation," they mean any square kilometer of ex-mandate Palestine that has Jewish self-determination.
Not only people in western countries, believe it or not. We can agree to disagree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_Palestinian_territories
Green = Countries that have recognised the State of Palestine
Compelling evidence on display, for sure. Nice to see the wiki elves using the Green brand to highlight the concord. Inadvertent, perhaps, but aesthetically charming as a mental framing design.
If you step right back and think about what was happening between Russia and Europe before the war started it becomes clear as to why the war was necessary from a long term US perspective.
Germany and Russia in particular but Europe and Russia generally, were becoming increasingly integrated. Economically this was through the energy resources that Russia was pumping across the frozen tundra directly into a booming German industrial sector.
Border and travel restrictions were beginning to disappear and large numbers of young people were choosing to study in Europe or Russia and open travel arrangements were being discussed.
In essence Europe and Russia were becoming increasingly integrated and interdependent socially and economically. Had this process continued un-impeded what would the outcome have been?
If there had been no sanctions on Russia and Nordstream 2 hadn't been destroyed and Europe was now receiving vast quantities of energy at stable prices what would their economy look like?
If Russian and European citizens were increasingly travelling between each others countries and beginning to lose a sense of the border, what does that lead in the long run?
Would such a prospect have been considered an economic threat by the US?
Why do you think the US would care? They'd made no attempt to interfere in the Merkel-led economic integration of Russia into Europe.
Really, the US economy does very nicely – and the German economic problems (rising population age, decreasing numbers of workers, unaffordable EU contributions (they pay for 1/4 of the total EU costs), etc.) – would have still been in existence with stable energy prices. Although the Green-led decommissioning of nuclear power plants – relying solely on imported gas can be seen (in hindsight) as a poor political and economic policy.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/germanys-economy-has-gone-from-engine-to-anchor/
I wonder what's causing other countries in Europe to out-perform Germany?
Although the Green-led decommissioning of nuclear power plants – relying solely on imported gas can be seen (in hindsight) as a poor political and economic policy.
And will be seen thataway by traditional Germans. Doing the right thing at the wrong time is unfortunate in effect currently, yet strategically sensible. Recently I read something about micronuke tech developing. Depending on intelligent design, or lack thereof, the prospect of local power generation looms. Biologists use the theory of the adjacent possible to conceptualise possibilities of imminence, when it seems more suited to sociological application. Can't make progress if you don't try.
Relative German economic stagnation was already underway prior to the Russian energy crisis. With the significant factors being: aging workforce, reliance on exports (largely high-tech engineering – very exposed to the Chinese/SE Asian market turndown), high workforce costs, as well as high energy costs.
All of which is not to say that Germany is a basket case now, but that the economic factors are getting worse, rather than better. And there are not any easy solutions on the horizon. Their current political woes are another symptom of this – people don't see the current policies (inherited from the Merkel era) 'working' and are flailing around looking for alternatives.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/02/21/world/europe/germany-economy-election.htmlhttps://archive.ph/Jt3Jq
The economies which are outperforming Germany in the manufacturing sector have lower wages/conditions and lower energy costs (and they're mostly not in the EU). The EU economies which are outperforming Germany, have different productive sectors (tourism, services, finance) – and are often small (Malta, the outstanding growth EU economy from last year, is almost entirely tourism – and is a flyspeck in the EU totals).
But, given that Germany is 1/4 of the entire EU productive sector – the fact that it seems to be catching cold – is likely to have severe impacts on the EU as a whole.
The priority in any conflict from those in it and outside it – should be to stop it as fast as possible. Not for any reason other than preserving the lives of the young men and woman who pay the price on the frontline and the civilian colatoral.
It might have made sense in Feudal times to get all pompous and courageous and 'rail against the moral injustice that must be punished' but in the modern world – when weighed against the value of human life – Ukrainian, Russian, Palestinian and Israeli – non of it means a thing. The balance of the scales will always tip to the the preservation of human life.
Just stop killing. What ever it takes to achieve that as quickly as possible.
And then Putin learns that threatening war and death wins. Where does he stop? Who borders Ukraine?
The West found out that capitulating for peace doesn't end in peace.
I think, though obviously I cannot ber sure, that Hitler would have been quite happy to enter into an alliance with Britain, but Chamberlain went and declared war. So I'm guessing that as between Britain and Germany Britain should be considered the aggressor.
It would seem that Rudolph Hess was parachuted into Britain to persuade the British PTB that Britain and Germany should be mates.
The problem with people who lie, as Hitler did to Chamberlain at Munich have is being seen as untrustworthy. The subsequent invasion of Czechoslovakia led to the guarantee made to Poland.
This is why no one of a liberal democracy trusts Putin – the delegitimising language used about Ukraine is of the lebensraum era.
@mpledger 10.1
So you think this war should continue "to the last Ukranian".
So, from your perspective, nothing is worth fighting for.
When faced with a war-threat (from a government which had previously demonstrated unequivocally that they are prepared to carry through, i.e. Russia) – you would support immediate surrender.
Your opinion is likely to be welcomed by authoritarian regimes across the world.
We’ve tried this before. In Munich, 1938. Where democracy blinked in the face of an autocratic regime that would have promptly collapsed had Chamberlain and Daladier had the moral courage to push back even a little.
Whether appeasement comes from naivety or cynical self-interest, the result is the same: the aggressor is emboldened, and the victim is sacrificed.
Pretending moral neutrality is the high ground only helps those with no intention of playing by the rules. Pacifism that ignores power dynamics isn’t peacekeeping: it’s enabling.
These types of statements are fine if they lead to an outcome – yes if Western postering and billions in weapons had delivered a quick conclusion to either the Ukraine/Russia or Israeli/Gaza conflicts then they would hold more weight.
The US, Europe and West in general have blustered and opined and wound up their military industries to deliver armaments on an un-precedented scale – and after close to 2 years – nothing, no progress in either warzone.
Tens of thousands of lives lost and what is the proposed solution to these terrible outcomes – more of the same, more pompous rhetoric, more weapons to Ukraine and Israel, more militarism and threats of violence – leading to the relentless and unnecessary destruction of human life.
And no Russia is not going to march into Europe – that is not logistically realistic when you look at the size of the Russian economy and population.
Neither is Hamas any kind of existential military threat to Israel.
BTW – that is not to say that I agree with the actions of either – Russia in particular had a lot more leavers to pull economically before resorting to invasion and it didn't event try. Given what Russia lost in terms of closer and faster integration with the European economy I think it was a massive strategic error but I'm not in charge of Russia at the moment.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness in your response.
I don’t read you as someone reflexively blaming “the West” for everything, but as someone genuinely horrified by the scale of suffering and looking for a better way.
I think we probably share more common ground than it might first seem.
Where I diverge is on the idea that nothing has come from support to Ukraine. Without it, we’d likely be seeing a Russian client state today — along with a clear message to any smaller democracy: sovereignty is conditional on whether your neighbors respect it.
There’s no doubt the costs, in both blood and treasure, have been terrible. But to the Ukrainians, it still appears preferable to the alternative. And as long as they are prepared to risk their lives and homes to secure their existence as a nation, I feel we’re obliged to support them.
I also agree Russia isn’t about to steamroll through Europe. But the Baltic states, Poland, and others with a deep historical memory of occupation have good reason not to gamble on restraint.
Deterrence isn't about assuming the worst. It’s about making sure the worst doesn't become viable.
In the round, militarism without a strategy, or rhetoric without diplomacy, is a dead end. Supporting Ukraine’s resistance should go hand-in-hand with a relentless push for ceasefires, humanitarian corridors, and long-term political solutions that uphold Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
We need both courage and compassion — not just one or the other.
Feb 2022.
For mine Putin was influenced by the American (bi-partisan) decision to withdraw from Afghanistan (Biden supported GOP aid to the mujahideen there back in the 1980's). Defending human rights there, not part of the American forever war. That would have had huge impact on him as an Andropov era KGB man.
He saw a post American Iraq regime with Shia militias in Syria. Assad's regime still in power in Damascus. Hezbollah dominant in Lebanon. Wagner was active in Africa including Libya. Only Turkey stood up to them. The Americans just had a base in Syria to secure the Kurds running prisons for the IS remnant.
Given Putin's education – first thesis The Most Favored Nation Trading Principle in International Law and post USSR second thesis Energy dependencies and their instrumentalisation in foreign policy, the sanctions may had had an influence (over a decade of sanctions on Iraq by 2003).
He would have warred on Ukraine to win – either a quick regime change (to end sanctions), or withdraw from the north and seek to acquire Nova Russia (southeast). Easily or by prolonged war – attrition, with the price matched by the gain of undermining EU will and or breaking NATO if Trump was re-elected.
Given Trump's new penchant for being hegemon and claiming territory for the USA, normalising aberrant behaviour – it is now the whole UN Charter order in peril.
In such a world – only nuclear arms or location provides security.
An unprincipled peace in Ukraine is the beginning of the end for the 20th C order. The PNAC has what it wanted. But a world in which no one trusts the USA and they no longer have (and will become desperate to get back) unilateral power.
The world of 1945 FDR and WW (his GOP opponent) to the world of DJT and JDV. A failure of leadership. And the GOP is now the one it was before WW, the one that wanted fascism before liberal or social democracy.
I couldn't agree more SPC.
The rules-based international order is on the verge of collapsing around our ears, which is providing ample opportunities for all sorts of aspiring regional hegemons to chance their arm at a time where the USA's commitment to its partners, and even to democracy itself, is somewhat…. ambiguous.
It's a dangerous time for small states. And it would be wise for New Zealand to look for fresh allies and fresh defences to shore up our chances.
It's a great question.
We seem to be in an era where being non aligned means being at the mercy of the biggest bully on the block.
Is it time we made a decision, and throw ourselves into the BRIC/Chinese block? Theyre our major trade partners after all. Any human rights squeamishes are tough no matter whic block we choose.
That's an even better question! And one that might be fun to tackle in another guest post. Assuming my weekend's effort didn’t annoy the mods too much
My two cents on that dilemma is this: alignment with China comes with enormous attendant risks. It would threaten our relationships with our closest and most important allies, make us cripplingly dependent on Chinese goodwill to sustain our economy, and place us in the orbit of brutal authoritarian regimes that are fundamentally opposed to our values.
We do have to accept that no great power ally is going to be perfect — or even act in little old Aotearoa’s best interests all the time.
But between being a western henchman and being Xi Jinping’s vassal?
I’ll take the devil I can post memes about over the one that tries to ban Winnie the Pooh.
Also, taking the long view, it seems unlikely that 'China' is going to be around as a strong alliance partner (even with NZ as a very junior partner in the alliance) in the mid-term.
Assuming that global warming is going to have a significant impact on agriculture (persistent droughts) – China is increasingly reliant on importing food. Food which may not be around in the quantities needed.
Assuming that manufacture is increasingly moving away from China to other countries (we're already seeing this in places like SE Asia and Mexico), and/or being 'in-sourced' (which the US is trying to do). China has little to trade for the food it will need.
Knowing (there is no assumption here) that China's population is tanking – and has been for decades. Which means that the productive workforce is shrinking, just as the aging workforce is retiring. While China offers little in the way of pensions, all that means is that the 'little emperor' generation is going to be responsible for supporting 2 parents and 4 grandparents on a single income. Of course they won't be having kids.
Assuming that the political presentation that China is currently engaging in is winning no friends (either in neighbouring countries or internationally). China has few friends – and even fewer in any position to help.
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/01/20/the-bigger-threats-to-chinas-economy/
China doesn't look like a valuable long-term strategic partner for NZ.
If I were a Pacific nation – I might be inclined to take China for everything it's got right now, in terms of building infrastructure, and development (as many solar or wind power stations as can be squeezed in), along with infrastructure to maintain and repair them. And then renege when it comes to repayments…. Sorry, we've revalued our currency, and $1 is now worth 1 billion yuan. [Slightly tongue-in-cheek – but along the lines of when you owe the bank $100 and can't pay, you have a problem; when you owe $1 billion, then the bank has a problem]
The threat China poses is military – but the putative pacific nation (and the real NZ one) -are a very long way away from China – and the ability to realistically project military power (or invasion) is fairly unlikely. The risk to neighbouring countries (like Taiwan) is greater – especially that attacks will be made in the death-convulsions of Xi's state.
"Also, taking the long view, it seems unlikely that 'China' is going to be around as a strong alliance partner (even with NZ as a very junior partner in the alliance) in the mid-term."
I'm inclined to disagree. US hegemony is disintegrating. Capitalism is is in its death throes.(although it may take time to modify itself to any positive degree.) The 21st centurry will belong to China.
Assuming China is included in these "brutal authoritarian regimes", I agree that China and NZ are both "fundamentally opposed to" adopting some of each other's 'values'. Given our geographical separation, I reckon the values on which 'we' differ can continue to coexist, for now.
In these Trumpian times, security depends on continued peaceful co-existence – Kiwis who feel compelled to characterise NZ's largest export market as being governed by a brutal authoritarian regime might reflect on whether such characterisations do more harm than good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_head_tax
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for universal human rights, and would argue that New Zealand's comparatively short-lived human rights record is, on balance, objectively better than China's, but the Chinese 'regime' faces significant geopolitical challenges of its own.
While China's governance mechanisms are very different from ours, many Chinese people are not so unlike you or me – when you get to know them. And, since there are about 270 Chinese (gooseberries) for every Kiwi(fruit), getting to know one or two might not be such a bad idea. Kiwi's do love a good charm offensive.
Nice line! I might have to steal that one . It's too good not to reuse sometime.
Aww jeez — I guess all those years I spent learning Mandarin and studying Chinese history at university were wasted then. Must just be that I don’t really understand China.
对不起, 同志!
i might be wrong, but China does seem to slightly trigger you? I refer also to earlier comment on barbarians….
I would refer you to some others who also regard/ed others as barbarians. Historical I know…but maybe little known?
Cruel Irony…
And maybe with perspective, some still adhere to a particular view…
Why the italics? Why the whataboutery?
Yes, history is full of empires behaving badly. That doesn’t mean we abandon moral judgment now. Pointing out American imperialism in the 19th century doesn’t excuse authoritarian expansionism in the 21st. We can (and should) be capable of holding more than one historical truth at a time.
And for what it’s worth, I speak both Japanese and Mandarin — and I’m well aware of Japanese historical and current attitudes towards other ethnic groups.
tldr; they make Winston Peters look woke and embracing of multiculturalism by comparison.
Just as I’m aware that Chinese discourse still sometimes uses wārén or "dwarves" as a slur for Japanese people.
But trying to muddy present-day criticism of a powerful authoritarian state by reaching back to 1872 isn’t perspective — it’s deflection.
And it avoids the actual discussion: how small states like ours should navigate a dangerous and shifting geopolitical landscape without losing our values, our sovereignty, or our voice.
Res Publica..No reply button to your comment. so
I used italics purely as a means to mildly show how some might have an alternate take on yours.
And the whataboutery? Well… thats maybe your personal take..on someone having a differing view.
Which I am perfectly entitled to do. And will, always…
Oh and you (and others?) might not know of the USA and its prison population.
Some might call it repression….
This is about the UN Charter – collective security of nations.
Peter Fraser was right – nations with the UNSC veto would be the threat to the new order (and those they protect). Russia not withdrawing its forces after 1945 began it all. Then the lack of international input to ensuring the 1947 mandate was implemented (leading to the 1949 decision to end border changes by war/force of arms). Then the USA blocking the Taiwanese strait. Then the fool who took "UN" forces to the Yalu River (while Beijing was not in the UN).
It is not about Ukraine perse.
It is about standing up to hegemony.
I absolutely agree. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: if us smaller states don’t hang together, we will surely be hung separately.
Collective security must mean something, or it means nothing at all.
So you are now admitting that Putin could not be expected to ignore the goings on in Ukraine between 2014 and 2022. Appeasement would not have worked; the Minsk agreemnents had failed; he could not countenance Ukraine joining NATO; he had to invade.
He had to invade, is the most tankie comment made yet.
Ukraine is a sovereign country.
the most tankie comment made yet.
True just the same.
Ukraine is a sovereign country.
A sovereign counrtry has to be able to defend itslf, and must do so when required. Russia is a sovereign country.
Closet fascist ideology – power determines borders and obedience to rule, rather than consent.
And if consent is not present, what then ? There had been border dispute between Ukraine and Russia long before 2014, the civil war, and the invasion.
They agreed on borders in 2003.
This was more moot after the end of Treaty of Friendship in 2019.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty
However it is likely the substance of the earlier dispute remained. Any agreement made in 2003 probably depended on Ukraine remaining friendly. Russia would probably have wanted to ensure land access to her naval base in Crimea as part of the deal, and also an assurance that Ukraine would not join NATO.
Based on your definition, virtually every Pacific nation would fail the test of 'sovereignty'. None of them could defend themselves against a serious aggressor (China, Japan, US).
Nor, to be frank, could NZ.
We area all ‘defended’ more by distance, and the lack of anything that someone larger and better armed seriously wants.
Your definition effectively excludes the majority of the UN.
Based on your definition, virtually every Pacific nation would fail the test of 'sovereignty'. None of them could defend themselves against a serious aggressor (China, Japan, US).
Nor, to be frank, could NZ.
You are so right. It's lucky none of us are under attack.
Well, you'll no doubt be rooting for the US – by your definition a 'sovereign' power – to take over Canada and Greenland.
Neither of which can 'defend' themselves.
An international order, based solely on military power, is not a goal that I think that most on the Left (or even most Kiwis, regardless of their political orientation) would desire. It seems surprising that you do so.
I won't be "rooting" for anybody. I will probably just be an interested spectator. However if the US does invade canada, it, like Russia with respect to Ukrfaine, will not give back any territory that it manages to grab.
Again – your might-makes-right argument.
Interesting that you won't be 'rooting' for the US (if it happens – which I think is highly unlikely) – but are, indeed 'rooting' for Russia.
Makes your affiliation really clear.
By 'Minsk Agreements' – are you referring to the treaty that Russia forced Ukraine to sign in 2014 – and then immediately breached the terms?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements
I don't think Russia broke the terms. I think it would have been either the Ukrainian government forces, or possibly the Eastern rebels. Either way it's not at all clear which side was first to break the agreement.
Later there was a second Minsk agreement. I think Putin relied to much on the Minsk agreements, otherwise he may have invaded earlier, before Ukraine had had time to get its act together, and brought the war to suitable conclusion earlier, and with less destruction and bloodshed.
I'm assuming that you believe the figleaf of independence that Russia has claimed with their proxy forces in the Donetsk People's Republic from 2014 onwards. A position which is only held by Russian apologists.
Of course, by your own definition the DPR had no sovereignty – since it was entirely unable to defend itself without Russian-backed paramilitary forces (the same ones which set it up to begin with).
And, if Russia had no involvement in the conflict – why were they even signatories to the Minsk Agreements?
Of course, by your own definition the DPR had no sovereignty – since it was entirely unable to defend itself without Russian-backed paramilitary forces (the same ones which set it up to begin with).
Of course it could defend itself, since it could rely on Russian support. However you seem to be missing the point I was trying to make. Sovereignty may provide immunity from outtside interference in a state's internal affairs, though the US does not seem to agree, but it's no defense against an external attack.
And, if Russia had no involvement in the conflict – why were they even signatories to the Minsk Agreements?
I don't know, but I'm sure you are about to enlighten me. However you seem to be implying that eastern Ukrainians themselves took no part in the conflict, and that their original attempt to gain some measure of autonomy, which federalization might have provided, did not occur.
Oh, goodness. So in your cockeyed view of reality, it's fine for the DPR to 'defend' itself by outsourcing the defense to Russia (making it entirely clear that it was, in fact, a puppet regime). But it's suddenly a major issue for Ukraine to ask for and accept defense assistance.
Your point appears to be that neighbouring States to Russia should fall over themselves to appease Putin, under threat of military attack. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
Your definition of 'sovereignty'
Tells us that you believe that no State has the right to remain independent, if they have something that someone else wants (and has the power to take). Dictators Rule OK.
"Putin could not ignore Ukraine?"
That framing treats Ukrainian independence and agency as optional — as if Ukraine’s choices about democracy, alliances, and foreign policy are somehow dependent on Russia’s goodwill, rather than being the sovereign right of a free nation to chart its own course.
The Revolution of Dignity wasn’t a coup or some Western plot. It was a mass movement by Ukrainians demanding accountability, democracy, and a future free of Russian domination. To dismiss that as something that "forced Putin’s hand" comes dangerously close to justifying imperialism.
The Minsk agreements didn’t fail because of Ukraine. They failed because Russia armed, funded, and directed separatists while denying any responsibility. That’s not diplomacy failing — that’s bad-faith brinksmanship.
And as for NATO: countries seek alliances because of aggression from their neighbors, not the other way around. If Putin couldn’t “countenance” that, the answer wasn’t to invade a neighbor — it was to stop threatening and invading them.
The first two premises are that Ukraine is doomed – defeatism. And that the blame for this falls to the West.
The strategy can be reducted down to, nations on their own cannot easily survive an attack by the regional hegemon.
If they lack a security partnership, they are dependent on the rules based order working.
But as Fraser noted in the 1940's, what about the UNSC nation with a veto (and later nuclear weapons)?
Ukraine is only doomed if Trump is prepared to end the UN Charter era by forcing a peace on Ukraine which involves loss of the Russian occupied territory and no security guarantees (he covets Canada Greenland and Gaza – and has had Panama Canal port sold to Black Rock).
Whether the EU goers along with this is the issue.
There is $200B in assets that can be seized and given to Ukraine.
All POTUS has to do is say if the Russians agree to a permanent cease-fire now, the money will go to rebuild Ukraine, rather than to buy weapons.
Then move to a negotiation over easing sanctions for security guarantees for Ukraine.
Why Trump is obstructing the obvious is not yet completely clear.
The impossible is cession of Ukraine land to Russia or Russian forces leaving while Putin is Russian leader.
“The impossible is cession of Ukraine land to Russia or Russian forces leaving while Putin is Russian leader”.
That will happen anyway: in fact it has happened already. Russia will never give up the territory in question. The relinquishment of the territory in the first place was Lenin's doing (relinquishment of Crimea was Kruschev's doing); I'm guessing Russia did not agree to these at the times they occurred, but was not able to overrule Soviet decisions.
No land has been ceded. And to acquire land by force of arms has been illegal since 1949.
@Belladonna below
Russia existed even before the Soviet Union was formed. During he Soviet era it was one of the many states that made up the Soviet Union. At the beginning of the nineties Mikhail Gorbachev was Soviet premier and Boris Yeltsin was preident of Russia. Yeltsin got rid of Gorbachev by getting together with the presidents of a mumber of other Soviet states, behind Gorbachev's back, and they disolved the Soviet Union, leaving Gorbachev powerless.
I would assume, though I could be wrong, that once the Union ceased to exist the Ukrainian Soviet state also ceased to exist, and sovereignty over Ukraine would have reverted to Russia. That would be why, I am thinking, Yeltsin granted Ukraine independence a second time, though he nevertheless pointed, at the time, to a longstanding border dispute. Had Putin been president at the time he might have insisted on keeping Donbas, Crimea, and part of Southern Ukraine on the basis of that dispute. However that's something we will never know.
Ukraine has been a nation state member of the UN since 1945, the only one of the USSR to be in the UN independently of the USSR.
I don’t think Yeltsin or Gorbachev granted Ukraine independence so much as they realised the only way to maintain Russia’s hegemony over its former satellites would have been through armed force.
And that would’ve been, at best, messy — enormously destructive, possibly nuclear — and would almost certainly have triggered a hardline coup. This time with the military on the side of the hardliners.
In that scenario, the closest Yeltsin gets to climbing onto a tank is when the communists hogtie his body to one for public display after his execution.
Honestly, the bravest thing either of them ever did was something almost unthinkable for Soviet political leaders: they accepted reality.
They saw the empire was finished. They let go — not out of idealism, but because they knew clinging to it would burn everything down.
Putin, by contrast, couldn’t bring himself to do the same.
Still, Russia will not be giving it back.
Acquiring land by force is illegal only if the UN doesn't allow it. However, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the case I think the UN would have given a biased decision had Russia applied to the UN prior to the invasion. The US would have vetoed it.
Can you name one occasion where the UN has allowed the acquiring of land by force?
The UN Charter provides nations with security backing (subverted by the Russian UNSC veto here and its nukes otherwise) and the 1949 ruling prevents recognition of border changes.
Can you name one occasion where the UN has allowed the acquiring of land by force?
Isreal? Syria, very recently.
The land won in 1948, beyond the 1947 Jewish designated area was because no Palestine State was declared in the rest of the Palestine mandate.
Not off another member state. That was the price paid by Arab nations not accepting the UN decision and then not winning in the fight for all of the mandate area.
The larger state of Israel (than the 1947 partition plan) was accepted as a member state of the UN.
While it now occupies the WB, East Jerusalem and Gaza, these are not recognised as part of Israel by the UN.
Syria's borders as a member state of the UN are unchanged. Israeli occupied in 1967 and annexed in 1981, part of the Golan Heights – this is not recognised by the UN, but by the USA since 2019).
Turkish Cypris?
The Turkish occupied area of Cyprus is not recognised as a separate nation by the UN, nor as part of Turkey.
And to acquire land by force of arms has been illegal since 1949.
Well they do say that "possession is nine tenths of the law". But in any case Russia will never give the territory back. And if the US were to grab all or part of Canada by force the UN would have to change its mind about that law since the US would probably not give the territory back either.
Not in the UN. No other nation would recognise it.
Over 100 nations of the UN recognise a Palestine state despite occupation of Gaza and the West Bank since 1947.
What is this 'Russia' of which you speak? The country which has only been in existence since the dissolution of the Soviet Union?
What possible claim can it have to other republics – which rapidly took the opportunity to exit their forced Soviet political marriage.
In any case, your argument that might-makes-right – makes all of this pseudo-historical posturing unnecessary. Apparently, in your view, Putin has the power to take the territory – and no one has the 'right' to stop him.
In any case, your argument that might-makes-right – makes all of this pseudo-historical posturing unnecessary. Apparently, in your view, Putin has the power to take the territory – and no one has the 'right' to stop him.
By your arument, if a country wants to attack another country, and has good cause to do so, all the other country has to do to defend itself is to say "you can't attack us, its not allowed, we are a sovereign state". Cor blimey, a country could get away with blue murder if that was all it had to do.
Presumably,by your reckoning, the US states on its eastern seabord still belong to Great Britain. Great Britain itself probably belongs to Normandy.
Where does Israeli violation of Palestinian sovereignty fit into this free for all.
I'm sure you are itching to tell us.
States will only criticise other countries actions when it suits their interests, in fact will take diametricly opposite positions in other cases. I am supportive of international law but the rules based order is a complete crock.
Then what kind of international order would you support then?
Then what kind of international order would you support then?
Not one in which the rules advantaged some states to the detriment of others.
Well, yes, that's exactly what the UN is about.
Since 1949 there is an international agreement which prevents states from unilaterally changing their borders.
By that reckoning, the occupation of Crimea by Russia – is patently illegal.
Not that I expect a Russian apologist to admit this.
There were two referenda at the time. The first inicated that the people wanted to be an independent state, so not part of Ukraine. They then had another in which, as an inpendent state, they indicated that they wished to be part of Russia.
and no one has the 'right' to stop him.
I didn't say that, and I don't think I even implied it.
Your claim that a state can only be sovereign if it can effectively defend itself from aggressors, certainly implies that it has no right to exist if the converse holds true.
I said a sovereign state must be able to defend itself. I used the word "must" in the tactical rather than the legal sense.
i.e. it must be allowed to defend itself.
So Kosovo is illegal?
And I guess the Golan Heights and now further areas of Syria.US troops still occupying the oilfields of Syria
Where is the condemnation and analogies of Hitler
what's your point?
Reply to Belladonna
Syria today is an unusual one.
Russia still has air and sea bases there (not so many people).
Turkey occupies a northern region and created an Arab force to kill Syrian Kurds.
But America …
The US presence in the oil field area first denied it to IS and then protected the area from the said Arab force and also Turkish air attacks on Kurds (they run prisons for defeated IS forces). The Kurds were the major force on the ground with Americans in taking out IS there.
Syria has asked for the Turkish armed Arab force to become part of their army. The Kurds doing so is more complicated, given the fate of the IS prisoners (some of whom are war criminals) and there is not as yet a new Syrian government, just an occupying force.
And it might take time for Turkey to agree to end its military presence and cease military actions on a regional people of another nation state (its on going war crimes) this will take time, given the nature of Erdogan's nationalist politics.
Kosovo is a bit like Abkhazia and South Ossetia (both taken off Georgia by Russia), why mention Kosovo and not them?
As for 2/3rd of the Golan Heights being occupied and then annexed (1981), the annexation recognised in 2019 by Trump and not quashed by his partner in Israel can stay but we will walk away from the women of Afghanistan (Joseph Biden).
America has a Christian dominionist manifest destiny cult problem with its relationship to Zionist Israel.
Will Felicity, now the American Diplomat, solve this problem?
Postscript – Alice in Wonderland with Guernica overtones
Or will Witkoff, Kushner and Trump redevelop Gaza as the 51st state?
God's waiting room for Palestinian civilians and then God's Area 51 Rapture centre aged care home for rich retired people of the prosperity religion (oligarchs of more than one continent) who can afford the property values by the seaside.
But if diplomacy – surely if Lebanon and Syria choose peace the 1949 Golan Height borders will be in play (land for peace).
But what then of Palestinians vs the will of eretz Israel Zionists and the Americans and the agenda for a one party state Christian dominionism that leads to who knows where?
Thorough as.
https://www.ricksteves.com/watch-read-listen/read/understanding-yugoslavia