When will war criminal Putin end this heinous war?
“as Zelenskyy hinted last week — probably seeking to acquire nuclear weapons”
Didn’t see this.
The division of Germany served greater economic and political purposes, and was come to by allies (ish) with conventional parity.
This is a different situation.
Western hegemony is, and stands in the future offer a better deal for Ukraine than Russian suzerainty. If Russia wants to stop the westward expansion of NATO the answer cannot be misery and suffering for potential NATO converts. A competitive program of economic liberalization might have done a better job at staving off the west.
Thinkers like Mearsheimer have argued that NATO expansion destabilized the situation in eastern Europe, but that expansion simply wouldn’t be possible if the good will of former eastern bloc countries hadn’t been absolutely depleted by years of interference. If Russia hadn’t demonstrated intent with military action, a neutral eastern bloc may have been possible. Alas, they chose the sword.
People would prefer a distant hegemon to a proximate overlord.
>But consider the alternative. A defeated, divided, demoralised, depopulated Ukraine, pulsating with anger against the west and — as Zelenskyy hinted last week — probably seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.
Everyone know this is not possible. Any form of Ukraine emerging from this war would be heavily dependent on external aids to rebuild. They are at the mercy of either Moscow or Washington, and neither are keen to see yet another country building nuclear weapons. And that is just the financial challenges, not to mention the significant amount of technical challenges and lost institutional knowledge following the break up of USSR.
I think that’s Trey’s but only with a set price that might be unacceptable to Ukraine in territory and a cease fire zone.
5 comments
When will war criminal Putin end this heinous war?
“as Zelenskyy hinted last week — probably seeking to acquire nuclear weapons”
Didn’t see this.
The division of Germany served greater economic and political purposes, and was come to by allies (ish) with conventional parity.
This is a different situation.
Western hegemony is, and stands in the future offer a better deal for Ukraine than Russian suzerainty. If Russia wants to stop the westward expansion of NATO the answer cannot be misery and suffering for potential NATO converts. A competitive program of economic liberalization might have done a better job at staving off the west.
Thinkers like Mearsheimer have argued that NATO expansion destabilized the situation in eastern Europe, but that expansion simply wouldn’t be possible if the good will of former eastern bloc countries hadn’t been absolutely depleted by years of interference. If Russia hadn’t demonstrated intent with military action, a neutral eastern bloc may have been possible. Alas, they chose the sword.
People would prefer a distant hegemon to a proximate overlord.
>But consider the alternative. A defeated, divided, demoralised, depopulated Ukraine, pulsating with anger against the west and — as Zelenskyy hinted last week — probably seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.
Everyone know this is not possible. Any form of Ukraine emerging from this war would be heavily dependent on external aids to rebuild. They are at the mercy of either Moscow or Washington, and neither are keen to see yet another country building nuclear weapons. And that is just the financial challenges, not to mention the significant amount of technical challenges and lost institutional knowledge following the break up of USSR.
I think that’s Trey’s but only with a set price that might be unacceptable to Ukraine in territory and a cease fire zone.
Comments are closed.