"The Ukraine war could provide us with an opportunity to rethink the approach to security in Europe." Yes, and dare I say more? Not just European security but the way overall global "security" is viewed, measured, balanced (or not), articulated. We need definitions, language, concepts that go beyond the fractured molds of post-WWII think. Let's have coffee....
I came here via Responsible Statecraft. You make excellent points. One point you fail to make, however: Raytheon, Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing, et. al., which are all well represented in every American administration, want and need prolonged armed conflict. Without Afghanistan, where we left at least $7B in materiel to a new Islamic caliphate, the Military Industrial Complex needs new markets to exploit. Enter Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe whose president (like ours) is a mere figurehead. Our respective fates are in the hands of oligarchs like Kolomoiskyi and Zuckerberg.
So it is difficult to see an optimistic future for Europe, or America for that matter. But do keep writing.
I can’t agree that NATO expansion triggered Russian fears of a military threat. It seems clear that Putin is quite deliberately using that as an excuse to do something that he has wanted to do for many years, predating his presidency, namely, restore some version of the USSR. Putin is quite well aware that the chances of Ukraine ever entering NATO were (and remain) close to zero. And while expanding NATO was wrong and unnecessary in the 1990s, the record shows that even Russia was offered a chance to apply for NATO membership at one point, and Putin himself commented favorably on the idea — although maybe plotting all along to reverse that great geopolitical catastrophe (as he calls it) of the USSR’s fragmentation. In hindsight, I’m glad that the Baltic states and Poland are NATO members now, otherwise they’d be next on Putin’s shopping list. Maybe they still are.
Have to disagree, Bob. I don't know how you can say NATO expansion was wrong and also say it did not trigger fears. The worst combination was to expand NATO and, at the same time, pretty much stiff Russia in the NATO-Russia Council. Or, as I say, to fail to lay out an approach to European security that took everyone's fear and interests into account. Nor do I know how you know what was in Putin's mind about Ukraine. there has been plenty of smoke around the fire of encouraging Ukraine to imagine it would be a member. And, of course, Putin is taking advantage of the insecurity fears that are basic to Russian national security views for centuries. I am wondering how you think Russia was invited to join NATO? By whom and when? Putin expressed interest in it, but I have no data showing that they were actually invited. Willing to learn.
What I’m saying is that the fears of a NATO Ukraine may have existed but that they were waaay overblown. In any case the 2008 invite to Ukraine split NATO and it was opposed by Germany and France, so it was never a real invite. In any case after 2014, when Putin invaded, any chance of Ukraine ever joining NATO dropped to below zero. Which Putin knows.
In Angela Stent’s book on Putin, I recall, there’s a section about the less-than-well-thought-out idea of expanding NATO to include Russia.
In any case, Ukraine poses no threat to Russia militarily. The real threat it does pose is to spark a Euromaidan style uprising in Moscow, which Vlad the Impaler is properly fearful of. Let’s hope they hang him.
Don't disagree with it all. Nor would I suggest expanding NATO to include Russia. Better to work at replacing NATO, downstream, with a security arrangement that works for everyone. Devilishly hard; the alternative is continuous insecurity with occasional outbreaks of what we are seeing now.
WOW! You've given me so much to consider. May I share this with friends? I belong to a current events group and this would definitely give us plenty to discuss and probably debate. Keep 'em coming.
"The Ukraine war could provide us with an opportunity to rethink the approach to security in Europe." Yes, and dare I say more? Not just European security but the way overall global "security" is viewed, measured, balanced (or not), articulated. We need definitions, language, concepts that go beyond the fractured molds of post-WWII think. Let's have coffee....
Thank you for everything you say in your article. Thank you for providing some sanity in a world in which it is so lacking.
This sits more comfortably
Say more
Brilliant!
I came here via Responsible Statecraft. You make excellent points. One point you fail to make, however: Raytheon, Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing, et. al., which are all well represented in every American administration, want and need prolonged armed conflict. Without Afghanistan, where we left at least $7B in materiel to a new Islamic caliphate, the Military Industrial Complex needs new markets to exploit. Enter Ukraine, the most corrupt country in Europe whose president (like ours) is a mere figurehead. Our respective fates are in the hands of oligarchs like Kolomoiskyi and Zuckerberg.
So it is difficult to see an optimistic future for Europe, or America for that matter. But do keep writing.
I can’t agree that NATO expansion triggered Russian fears of a military threat. It seems clear that Putin is quite deliberately using that as an excuse to do something that he has wanted to do for many years, predating his presidency, namely, restore some version of the USSR. Putin is quite well aware that the chances of Ukraine ever entering NATO were (and remain) close to zero. And while expanding NATO was wrong and unnecessary in the 1990s, the record shows that even Russia was offered a chance to apply for NATO membership at one point, and Putin himself commented favorably on the idea — although maybe plotting all along to reverse that great geopolitical catastrophe (as he calls it) of the USSR’s fragmentation. In hindsight, I’m glad that the Baltic states and Poland are NATO members now, otherwise they’d be next on Putin’s shopping list. Maybe they still are.
Have to disagree, Bob. I don't know how you can say NATO expansion was wrong and also say it did not trigger fears. The worst combination was to expand NATO and, at the same time, pretty much stiff Russia in the NATO-Russia Council. Or, as I say, to fail to lay out an approach to European security that took everyone's fear and interests into account. Nor do I know how you know what was in Putin's mind about Ukraine. there has been plenty of smoke around the fire of encouraging Ukraine to imagine it would be a member. And, of course, Putin is taking advantage of the insecurity fears that are basic to Russian national security views for centuries. I am wondering how you think Russia was invited to join NATO? By whom and when? Putin expressed interest in it, but I have no data showing that they were actually invited. Willing to learn.
What I’m saying is that the fears of a NATO Ukraine may have existed but that they were waaay overblown. In any case the 2008 invite to Ukraine split NATO and it was opposed by Germany and France, so it was never a real invite. In any case after 2014, when Putin invaded, any chance of Ukraine ever joining NATO dropped to below zero. Which Putin knows.
In Angela Stent’s book on Putin, I recall, there’s a section about the less-than-well-thought-out idea of expanding NATO to include Russia.
In any case, Ukraine poses no threat to Russia militarily. The real threat it does pose is to spark a Euromaidan style uprising in Moscow, which Vlad the Impaler is properly fearful of. Let’s hope they hang him.
Don't disagree with it all. Nor would I suggest expanding NATO to include Russia. Better to work at replacing NATO, downstream, with a security arrangement that works for everyone. Devilishly hard; the alternative is continuous insecurity with occasional outbreaks of what we are seeing now.
WOW! You've given me so much to consider. May I share this with friends? I belong to a current events group and this would definitely give us plenty to discuss and probably debate. Keep 'em coming.
Laurie: please share it widely. Thanks.
definitely