Great and well balanced summary of this tragic situation. The US is willing to fight down to the last Ukranian and any voice for a pragmatic settlement is pro-Putin treachery!
Can you please respond to my comments from the previous comment thread (for the previous piece)? I wrote you some long comments explaining why I find our interactions frustrating. I think that it would be healthy if we could talk about that before jumping into the next conversation. I was expressing my concern with the fact that you seem (I can't be sure, but *seem*) to not read the pieces that you then comment on, which puts me in an awkward situation. Go back and look at the comments if you get a chance; I would appreciate it. :)
Excellent article that provides insight into many of the historical, cultural and geographical factors that led up the current conflict in Ukraine. Learned a lot from reading it and now look at this whole situation with a more informed perspective.
The idea that Euromaidan was a coup is patently absurd. A coup involves the armed forces of a country seizing power. No such thing happened in Ukraine. What happened was that in his brutal attempts to suppress protests, Yanukovych alienated even his own party to the point that his position became untenable. As such, he clearly decided that there wasn't a future for him in Ukraine and thus left the country, after which he was formally removed from office by the Ukrainian Parliament. How exactly that constitutes a "coup" is beyond me. The leader of a country can hardly expect to remain in power when he has fled to another, especially after massacring dozens of people.
I also love how you seem to think that only the Ukrainian election of 2010 was valid - not the elections of 2014 or 2019, in which the regional divisions were far less noticable than in previous ones. Of course, Ukraine was only a democracy from 2010-2014. Everything before and after was fascist despotism.
"A coup involves the armed forces of a country seizing power."
I thought that it was just the overthrow of an elected government. So if you overthrow a dictator, you might just call that a "revolution"; you'd call it a "coup" if it's an elected government in a democracy.
"What happened was that in his brutal attempts to suppress protests, Yanukovych alienated even his own party to the point that his position became untenable. As such, he clearly decided that there wasn't a future for him in Ukraine and thus left the country, after which he was formally removed from office by the Ukrainian Parliament."
Do you know any good source that provides this "there was no coup" account of things? I will definitely look into this and publish about it; I have a few key questions that I hope to answer that should settle the matter of whether it was a coup.
One person told me this: "It's agreed on all sides that he fled right after the US-backed opposition refused his proposal to have an election. Whether it was a coup is not a matter of fact but of interpretation."
"you seem to think that only the Ukrainian election of 2010 was valid"
A couple people have said this. I was just providing maps to go along with Matlock's comment about how that particular election illustrates the divide; I'm not sure why that's bad.
A "coup" is a sudden violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group. January 6th in the US was an attempted coup. Mubarak being removed from power in Egypt during the Arab spring was not a coup. The Arab spring is more similar to the Euromaidan than January 6th.
It does not have to be the military, although usually the military is the only force capable of succeeding in a coup.
Also, when you say "US backed" it makes it sound like something orchestrated and funded by the US, where we played an active role in its success, similar to our actions in South and Central America in the 50's. Again it's more similar to Egypt in the Arab spring, where our "backing" was limited to, "we like you guys"(the people) and "we don't like you guys"(the government).
Hi Andrew, apologies this is off topic, I've been looking for a recording of the Chomsky-Gzowski interview and followed a trail of breadcrumbs through your youtube page to here, which seems like your most active page. Did you ever manage to get that interview processed and uploaded anywhere? I've always wanted to see it and I'd be happy to contribute in some way to that or getting any other historical chomsky content uploaded.
If you prefer you can email me at my firstname dot lastname at gmail, or dm me on twitter @garethdmm!
I have a ton of Chomsky material. I feel guilty about it because I was supposed to get it digitized but it just proved to be a huge project. I actually did get together with some guys and we assembled a team; we were going to get it done. But then the team just fell apart; people had other things to do. So that was very demoralizing.
I'd be happy to hand off the material to someone else but I would have to know that they were ultra-responsible of course. And I should note that there's a copy of all of the material at UBC in British Columbia, so I guess that much (or even all? not sure) of the material is safely archived there as well.
Thanks for commenting! I just want to ask if you read my previous piece on this. I believe that it's linked at the very start of this one. I apologize if I wasn't more clear that this piece is the second piece and that the first one is important to read beforehand.
This piece that you're commenting on begins with these words:
I’ll use this piece to talk about whether it was necessary to integrate Ukraine into NATO. Someone might read my 12 February 2023 piece—which talks about the history that preceded the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine—and say “Maybe integrating Ukraine into NATO was indeed ‘highly provocative’, but how else could we have protected Ukraine from Russian aggression?”. This piece will address that question—I’ll quote from various commentaries and then give my own thoughts.
Thanks; I just wasn't sure if you'd read the previous piece. A lot of people don't seem (somehow?...I guess that they don't read things and instead launch into their responses without reading for some reason) to recognize that the point about Russia's security concerns and crossing the "red lines" of Ukraine and Georgia and everything is from the US establishment. That's a big thing to start with; it's not left-wing radicals who have been saying this for 30 years, but rather the people I quote like WIlliam Burns and a striking range of others. That doesn't mean that they're correct but these experts (both hawks and doves) are about the furthest thing from radical that you can imagine. So it does prompt the question of how every top Russia expert got things so wrong; it's not like these people are left-wing. Chomsky did an interview recently where someone attributed the "red line" stuff to him and he had to go through where the notion actually comes from and how it comes from this long "Who's Who" list of US Russia experts. The people who devised US Cold-War policy; not left-wingers.
I would be interested to know, by the way, about the technical reasons why the missile systems aren't offensive. I myself have often frowned at the notion that the missiles would be used to attack Russia...it seems far-fetched. But on the technical side of things, I totally understand the problem. Suppose you walk into a store with a handgun and say "It's just a defensive handgun"...that's not going to go well because nothing about the actual gun makes it "defensive". And I'm sure that other countries, not just Russia, would take the same approach and not be comforted by the notion that the weapons are merely "defensive". So if you know any technical reason that there's no threat then I'd be interested.
On the other side of things, like I mentioned, I'm not sure what the exact threat truly is. Like, what scenario does Russia envision leading to a missile strike against them? Maybe there are such scenarios. But the very presence of the missiles alone doesn't seem like something that's a real threat. Although, how would other countries react? Presumably the exact same way; it's intolerable.
I'd like to see actual Russian security analyses; that would presumably explain precisely why the missiles were seen as a danger.
Thanks for the interesting comment! It's super interesting because you and I have mirror-image views of the war; completely polar-opposite perspectives. My view is that this is about security concerns (as far as we can tell; nobody actually knows what the Kremlin decision-making was). And my view is that these security concerns are a broader Russia thing; it's not all about Putin. In fact Boris Yeltsin freaked out about NATO too; he was a US darling as you know. So it's interesting because I'm talking about security concerns that go way back before Putin and that extend beyond Putin. Remember what the head of the CIA said about not being able to find ANYONE in Russia who was remotely OK with Ukraine joining NATO. So it's not about Putin. Here's the quote I'm talking about:
Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests. At this stage, a MAP offer would be seen not as a technical step along a long road toward membership, but as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze.…It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
Great and well balanced summary of this tragic situation. The US is willing to fight down to the last Ukranian and any voice for a pragmatic settlement is pro-Putin treachery!
Thanks! I appreciate the kind words.
Can you please respond to my comments from the previous comment thread (for the previous piece)? I wrote you some long comments explaining why I find our interactions frustrating. I think that it would be healthy if we could talk about that before jumping into the next conversation. I was expressing my concern with the fact that you seem (I can't be sure, but *seem*) to not read the pieces that you then comment on, which puts me in an awkward situation. Go back and look at the comments if you get a chance; I would appreciate it. :)
Excellent article that provides insight into many of the historical, cultural and geographical factors that led up the current conflict in Ukraine. Learned a lot from reading it and now look at this whole situation with a more informed perspective.
Thanks for the kind words! Glad you found it useful!
The idea that Euromaidan was a coup is patently absurd. A coup involves the armed forces of a country seizing power. No such thing happened in Ukraine. What happened was that in his brutal attempts to suppress protests, Yanukovych alienated even his own party to the point that his position became untenable. As such, he clearly decided that there wasn't a future for him in Ukraine and thus left the country, after which he was formally removed from office by the Ukrainian Parliament. How exactly that constitutes a "coup" is beyond me. The leader of a country can hardly expect to remain in power when he has fled to another, especially after massacring dozens of people.
I also love how you seem to think that only the Ukrainian election of 2010 was valid - not the elections of 2014 or 2019, in which the regional divisions were far less noticable than in previous ones. Of course, Ukraine was only a democracy from 2010-2014. Everything before and after was fascist despotism.
Thanks for commenting; I appreciate it.
"A coup involves the armed forces of a country seizing power."
I thought that it was just the overthrow of an elected government. So if you overthrow a dictator, you might just call that a "revolution"; you'd call it a "coup" if it's an elected government in a democracy.
"What happened was that in his brutal attempts to suppress protests, Yanukovych alienated even his own party to the point that his position became untenable. As such, he clearly decided that there wasn't a future for him in Ukraine and thus left the country, after which he was formally removed from office by the Ukrainian Parliament."
Do you know any good source that provides this "there was no coup" account of things? I will definitely look into this and publish about it; I have a few key questions that I hope to answer that should settle the matter of whether it was a coup.
One person told me this: "It's agreed on all sides that he fled right after the US-backed opposition refused his proposal to have an election. Whether it was a coup is not a matter of fact but of interpretation."
"you seem to think that only the Ukrainian election of 2010 was valid"
A couple people have said this. I was just providing maps to go along with Matlock's comment about how that particular election illustrates the divide; I'm not sure why that's bad.
Clarification: If the *people* overthrow a dictator, you might just call that a "revolution".
A "coup" is a sudden violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group. January 6th in the US was an attempted coup. Mubarak being removed from power in Egypt during the Arab spring was not a coup. The Arab spring is more similar to the Euromaidan than January 6th.
It does not have to be the military, although usually the military is the only force capable of succeeding in a coup.
Also, when you say "US backed" it makes it sound like something orchestrated and funded by the US, where we played an active role in its success, similar to our actions in South and Central America in the 50's. Again it's more similar to Egypt in the Arab spring, where our "backing" was limited to, "we like you guys"(the people) and "we don't like you guys"(the government).
Hi Andrew, apologies this is off topic, I've been looking for a recording of the Chomsky-Gzowski interview and followed a trail of breadcrumbs through your youtube page to here, which seems like your most active page. Did you ever manage to get that interview processed and uploaded anywhere? I've always wanted to see it and I'd be happy to contribute in some way to that or getting any other historical chomsky content uploaded.
If you prefer you can email me at my firstname dot lastname at gmail, or dm me on twitter @garethdmm!
The unfortunate part is that you never really know what you're going to get. Some of it is gold, I'm sure. Some of it is uninteresting.
There's also quite a nightmare involved when it comes to editing the video files and preparing it for Youtube upload. A lot of work, for sure.
I have a ton of Chomsky material. I feel guilty about it because I was supposed to get it digitized but it just proved to be a huge project. I actually did get together with some guys and we assembled a team; we were going to get it done. But then the team just fell apart; people had other things to do. So that was very demoralizing.
I'd be happy to hand off the material to someone else but I would have to know that they were ultra-responsible of course. And I should note that there's a copy of all of the material at UBC in British Columbia, so I guess that much (or even all? not sure) of the material is safely archived there as well.
Thanks for commenting! I just want to ask if you read my previous piece on this. I believe that it's linked at the very start of this one. I apologize if I wasn't more clear that this piece is the second piece and that the first one is important to read beforehand.
This piece that you're commenting on begins with these words:
I’ll use this piece to talk about whether it was necessary to integrate Ukraine into NATO. Someone might read my 12 February 2023 piece—which talks about the history that preceded the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine—and say “Maybe integrating Ukraine into NATO was indeed ‘highly provocative’, but how else could we have protected Ukraine from Russian aggression?”. This piece will address that question—I’ll quote from various commentaries and then give my own thoughts.
Thanks; I just wasn't sure if you'd read the previous piece. A lot of people don't seem (somehow?...I guess that they don't read things and instead launch into their responses without reading for some reason) to recognize that the point about Russia's security concerns and crossing the "red lines" of Ukraine and Georgia and everything is from the US establishment. That's a big thing to start with; it's not left-wing radicals who have been saying this for 30 years, but rather the people I quote like WIlliam Burns and a striking range of others. That doesn't mean that they're correct but these experts (both hawks and doves) are about the furthest thing from radical that you can imagine. So it does prompt the question of how every top Russia expert got things so wrong; it's not like these people are left-wing. Chomsky did an interview recently where someone attributed the "red line" stuff to him and he had to go through where the notion actually comes from and how it comes from this long "Who's Who" list of US Russia experts. The people who devised US Cold-War policy; not left-wingers.
I would be interested to know, by the way, about the technical reasons why the missile systems aren't offensive. I myself have often frowned at the notion that the missiles would be used to attack Russia...it seems far-fetched. But on the technical side of things, I totally understand the problem. Suppose you walk into a store with a handgun and say "It's just a defensive handgun"...that's not going to go well because nothing about the actual gun makes it "defensive". And I'm sure that other countries, not just Russia, would take the same approach and not be comforted by the notion that the weapons are merely "defensive". So if you know any technical reason that there's no threat then I'd be interested.
On the other side of things, like I mentioned, I'm not sure what the exact threat truly is. Like, what scenario does Russia envision leading to a missile strike against them? Maybe there are such scenarios. But the very presence of the missiles alone doesn't seem like something that's a real threat. Although, how would other countries react? Presumably the exact same way; it's intolerable.
I'd like to see actual Russian security analyses; that would presumably explain precisely why the missiles were seen as a danger.
Thanks for the interesting comment! It's super interesting because you and I have mirror-image views of the war; completely polar-opposite perspectives. My view is that this is about security concerns (as far as we can tell; nobody actually knows what the Kremlin decision-making was). And my view is that these security concerns are a broader Russia thing; it's not all about Putin. In fact Boris Yeltsin freaked out about NATO too; he was a US darling as you know. So it's interesting because I'm talking about security concerns that go way back before Putin and that extend beyond Putin. Remember what the head of the CIA said about not being able to find ANYONE in Russia who was remotely OK with Ukraine joining NATO. So it's not about Putin. Here's the quote I'm talking about:
Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests. At this stage, a MAP offer would be seen not as a technical step along a long road toward membership, but as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze.…It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.