It is also interesting to consider cases where the shoe is on the other foot as when NATO country Turkey seized part of Cyprus or the mostly Albanian part of Serbia went for independence backrf up by US bombing of Belgrade and building a major American base, Camp Bondsteel, in Kosova and then threatening to protect Kosova against any invasion (by Serbia).
I'm still waiting for the day that you write an article about Ukraine that blames russia for this war and its continuation instead of blaming Ukraine and the West.
I also think it would be kind of comical and silly to write a piece denouncing Russia. The media is full of pieces that blame Russia; why should I add to the chorus?
The only time I've ever been interested in the question of aggression is when someone actually did try to defend the invasion. But it's so stupid to try to say that it wasn't criminal and that it wasn't aggression; obviously it was. Did Putin exhaust every possible diplomatic avenue? Not even remotely close. That's why it seems like it's not worth writing about. And by the way, I don't even think that it matters if you exhaust every diplomatic avenue, does it? I mean, under what imaginable circumstances are you allowed to invade another country?
You asked me to write a piece about how Russia committed an act of aggression and has done things (like the annexation) that have harmed diplomatic prospects. I'm asking you why I should do this when zillions of such pieces exist. Does that seem like a serious use of one's time? I think it would be silly; people would read it and say "Uhh...why did you write this? I already know all of this".
On annexation? That's blaming Russia; rightly so, of course, since that annexation was a Kremlin decision that harmed the prospects for a peace treaty. Lieven and I talk about this.
Thanks for commenting! I agree that it's important to challenge the view that Chomsky and others put forward and not just assume that they're making strong arguments. See this piece where I tried to explain: https://join.substack.com/p/the-rising-tide. But let me know if you have any criticisms.
On 3, it's also addressed in the piece you're responding to; Chomsky is more conservative on this and Lieven has a stronger position. And see here too where it talks about "imposing" or "forcing": https://join.substack.com/p/stopping-the-killing. This is a good question; it gets confusing as to what exactly constitutes "imposing" or "forcing".
On 4: I'll get you an answer to that. That's a really good question.
1: My first and second Lieven interviews both address this. You start with the official Russian demands. But the annexation messed things up terribly of course; it was a much less daunting situation when I interviewed Lieven in June. And the Ukrainian government has gotten extremely hardline. So that's why my second interview with Lieven is much bleaker than the first one; see the second section titled "Prospects" (https://join.substack.com/p/stopping-the-killing).
2: Again, this is discussed in my second Lieven interview. Their government is hardline. But there are polls (of the Ukrainian people) showing some support for negotiations.
>But there are polls (of the Ukrainian people) showing some support for negotiations.
"Even with sustained Russian bombing of Ukrainian cities, a majority of Ukrainians refuse to surrender. 95 percent of respondents would want to continue fighting even in such a war scenario[use of a nuclear weapon on Ukraine], only three percent support a Ukrainian capitulation. Furthermore, according to the poll, 88 percent of respondents would only accept a ceasefire if Russia were to withdraw all troops from Ukraine, including Crimea. For more than seven out of ten respondents (78 percent), a withdrawal of Russian troops just to the demarcation lines of February 24, 2022 would be unacceptable. Almost three quarters (72 percent) want long-term arms deliveries. A clear majority trust the US and NATO to defend their country more than the EU."
It is also interesting to consider cases where the shoe is on the other foot as when NATO country Turkey seized part of Cyprus or the mostly Albanian part of Serbia went for independence backrf up by US bombing of Belgrade and building a major American base, Camp Bondsteel, in Kosova and then threatening to protect Kosova against any invasion (by Serbia).
I'm still waiting for the day that you write an article about Ukraine that blames russia for this war and its continuation instead of blaming Ukraine and the West.
Thanks for commenting! See my latest Lieven piece where we talk about the annexation.
I did. Same anti-western pro-russian talking points.
I also think it would be kind of comical and silly to write a piece denouncing Russia. The media is full of pieces that blame Russia; why should I add to the chorus?
Why add to the chorus of anti-western propaganda?
The only time I've ever been interested in the question of aggression is when someone actually did try to defend the invasion. But it's so stupid to try to say that it wasn't criminal and that it wasn't aggression; obviously it was. Did Putin exhaust every possible diplomatic avenue? Not even remotely close. That's why it seems like it's not worth writing about. And by the way, I don't even think that it matters if you exhaust every diplomatic avenue, does it? I mean, under what imaginable circumstances are you allowed to invade another country?
You asked me to write a piece about how Russia committed an act of aggression and has done things (like the annexation) that have harmed diplomatic prospects. I'm asking you why I should do this when zillions of such pieces exist. Does that seem like a serious use of one's time? I think it would be silly; people would read it and say "Uhh...why did you write this? I already know all of this".
On annexation? That's blaming Russia; rightly so, of course, since that annexation was a Kremlin decision that harmed the prospects for a peace treaty. Lieven and I talk about this.
Thanks for commenting! I agree that it's important to challenge the view that Chomsky and others put forward and not just assume that they're making strong arguments. See this piece where I tried to explain: https://join.substack.com/p/the-rising-tide. But let me know if you have any criticisms.
On 1, see the final paragraph. It's important to try. And better yet, see the section here (https://join.substack.com/p/stopping-the-killing) titled "Trying".
On 2, it's addressed in the piece you're responding too. But also in my first Lieven interview, since this is a good question that you raise: https://join.substack.com/p/we-can-achieve-peace.
On 3, it's also addressed in the piece you're responding to; Chomsky is more conservative on this and Lieven has a stronger position. And see here too where it talks about "imposing" or "forcing": https://join.substack.com/p/stopping-the-killing. This is a good question; it gets confusing as to what exactly constitutes "imposing" or "forcing".
On 4: I'll get you an answer to that. That's a really good question.
1: My first and second Lieven interviews both address this. You start with the official Russian demands. But the annexation messed things up terribly of course; it was a much less daunting situation when I interviewed Lieven in June. And the Ukrainian government has gotten extremely hardline. So that's why my second interview with Lieven is much bleaker than the first one; see the second section titled "Prospects" (https://join.substack.com/p/stopping-the-killing).
2: Again, this is discussed in my second Lieven interview. Their government is hardline. But there are polls (of the Ukrainian people) showing some support for negotiations.
>But there are polls (of the Ukrainian people) showing some support for negotiations.
"Even with sustained Russian bombing of Ukrainian cities, a majority of Ukrainians refuse to surrender. 95 percent of respondents would want to continue fighting even in such a war scenario[use of a nuclear weapon on Ukraine], only three percent support a Ukrainian capitulation. Furthermore, according to the poll, 88 percent of respondents would only accept a ceasefire if Russia were to withdraw all troops from Ukraine, including Crimea. For more than seven out of ten respondents (78 percent), a withdrawal of Russian troops just to the demarcation lines of February 24, 2022 would be unacceptable. Almost three quarters (72 percent) want long-term arms deliveries. A clear majority trust the US and NATO to defend their country more than the EU."
>I guess the overarching point is that while the US cannot be trusted, neither can Russia.
Even if this were true, the degrees to which they cannot be trusted are not the same.