Zelenskyy vs Putin vs the United States/NATO

View Comments

• Angels might fear to tread these boards, but Roswell does, as might we all. So, study Russian history from Catherine on, but focus on Lenin, Stalin, Yeltsin, Putin eras. Look at the North Atlantic, so far from Kyiv. Assess a huge conga line of USA operatives with little sense, experience, clarity. Consider the barrage available of ICBM types, especially Russia's S S 23 biggies; both sides appear to have c. 6,000 first class warheads each. Contemplate the view of them passing across in the eight or so minutes of W W 3. Reassess Putin's view of history relevant to him, to Russia. Always, constantly reassess, apportion. Start over again. Now...

• "If you really want my opinion..."

  Well, no --- not without a reason.

• Steve, it’s already stated. Read Part 1.

  But thank you for pointing out that I should have worded that sentence better. I’ll change it now.

• That's OK Roswell, I thought Part One was you playing the devil's advocate.

  Cheers.

• A well reasoned analysis.
  I've made my position clear on many occasions, but a couple of points often ignored by the pro Putin brigade-
  ° just 3 days before invading Ukraine, Putin denied any plans to invade
  ° the invasion occurred before (non war) diplomatic measures were exhausted- such as a blockade and economic sanctions

• Roswell, I’d like to go through your Part One if you don’t mind.

  Unprovoked invasion.
  There’s two points here, it was not unprovoked as explained by Arestovich in a 2019 interview in which he forecast almost to the day when Russia would act, and why Ukraine wanted Russia to act. For the interview, see
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xNHmHpERH8&t=449s

  There was no violation of international law because in the face of Ukraine’s attacks on its own people seeking autonomy within Ukraine, Russia had signed a friendship agreement with the two Republics. That would allow the Republics to ask for military help in case of attack. And that’s why, on the 24th of February when Putin decided to launch the offensive, it could invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter that provides for assistance in case of attack.
  It’s never mentioned in the Western media that concern over Ukraine’s troop movements so alarmed Moscow that the Russian Parliament on February 15, a few days before the invasion, asked Vladimir Putin to recognize the independence of the Republics, which he refused to do. On February 21 he agreed to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Donbass Republics.
  The intervention is also covered under international law since 2005, by the Responsibility to Protect.

  Rejection of diplomacy.
  Russia’s demands were made after several years of pleading with Europe for security guarantees that would provide security for all of Europe. Russia’s draft security treaties were ignored, so fearing a threat to Russian security Moscow explained that the consequences of not entering a treaty would be serious. As we now see.

  Proxy war in Donbass.
  There was no proxy war. There was a rebellion by the Donbass to protect their language, and status as Ukrainian citizens. Russia was not involved in the rebellion, as verified by the OSCE. This was confirmed by an admission by the chief of the Ukrainian Security service (SBU) in 2015 that there were no Russian units in Donbass. As well a U.S. intelligence map published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021 does not show Russian troops in the Donbass.
  Jacques Baud has shed light on the “proxy” war with this.
  In June 2014, as the West tried to explain Russia’s (imaginary) intervention in the Donbass conflict, Russia expert Mark Galeotti “revealed” the existence of a doctrine that would illustrate the Russian concept of hybrid warfare. Known as the “Gerasimov Doctrine,” it has never really been defined by the West as to what it consists of and how it could ensure military success. But it is used to explain how Russia wages war in Donbass without sending troops there and why Ukraine consistently loses its battles against the rebels. In 2018, realizing that he was wrong, Galeotti apologized—courageously and intelligently—in an article titled, “I’m Sorry for Creating the Gerasimov Doctrine” published in Foreign Policy magazine. Despite this, and without knowing what it meant, our media and politicians continued to pretend that Russia was waging a hybrid war against Ukraine and the West. In other words, we imagined a type of war that does not exist and we prepared Ukraine for it. That explains a lot of misperception.

  Russia annexing Crimea.
  Ukraine did not have a legal right to Crimea. Crimea was independent from Kiev even before Ukraine became independent from Moscow in December 1991.

  There is no evidence that Putin “seeks to rebuild” a Russian empire. The Guardian article you linked to should have alerted you to that. When a writer says “It’s long been known that Putin hankers for a lost age of…” you know that what follows is primarily assumption. Speculation. Mind-reading.

  But you are correct -- Russia does see Ukraine’s western alignment as a threat.

  Perhaps the tragedy was best summed up by Jacques Baud when he wrote -- Also, it simply is not accurate that those who hold the United States and NATO responsible for the crisis are saying, in effect, “Good on you, Vladimir Putin.” Rather, most of those who emphasize Western culpability for the Ukraine crisis seem to view the Russian invasion of Ukraine as an unmitigated disaster. They see it as an event that—regardless of what the underlying causes might be—has resulted in horrible suffering, destruction, and death. Many critics of NATO, in fact, are also explicitly critical of Putin, even as they emphasize the role of the West in precipitating the crisis.
  In fact, after the expansion of NATO to Russia's doorstep had begun, George Kennan stated that NATO's decision was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Far from protecting the West, he explained, expansion would lead the U.S. toward war with Russia. And once this outcome occurred, Kennan predicted, proponents of the expansion would say this proved that inherent Russian militarism was the cause. Kennan stated: “Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the proponents of expansion] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are — but this is just wrong.” Kennan's prediction was thus doubly correct: First, about Russian reactions to NATO expansion; second, about the circular, self-justifying response of those Western policy hawks who were on the wrong side of events.

• Are you sure Article 51 is applicable? There are plenty of international law experts that say it doesn't. See the requirement for UN membership
  Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

• The right of the republics to declare independence from Ukraine without consultation with Ukraine was established by the ICJ.
  The consequent attack on the republics by Ukraine, was therefore illegal under section 2.4 of the UN Charter.
  Art.4 of the Charter recognises states that are not members of the UN.
  The right of Russia to intervene to protect the newly independent states (known as R2P, Responsibility to Protect) is established in the Kosovo Advisory opinion of the ICJ that was endorsed by the UN in 2005.
  Because Ukraine’s attack on the Donbass was illegal, NATO support for Ukraine is also illegal under international Law.

  The Montevideo Convention On The Rights and Duties Of States, as a restatement of customary international law, codified existing legal norms and principles that apply not merely to the signatories, but to all subjects of international law as a whole. From the Convention Article 1.
  The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Those conditions are fulfilled in the case of the Donbass republics. Thus, under international law, both republics are sovereign States, irrespective of the lack of recognition of this status by other states, as per Art. 3 of the Convention.
  Article 3. The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.

• Steve, you might have missed my point. I wrote:

  “The question of who is to blame for the war in Ukraine is highly contentious and depends heavily on political perspectives, historical interpretations, and ideological biases. Here’s a breakdown of the main arguments from different sides:”

  The intention of my article was to report on what people believed. As such, there is no right or wrong answer.

• You said - "And that’s why, on the 24th of February when Putin decided to launch the offensive, it could invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter that provides for assistance in case of attack."
  It's good to see that you've walked away from this, and your claims have now proven to be far more tenuous and disputed