Well, I would no doubt be banished for life if I wrote what I feel about this post - ‘agrandissement’ (sic) as in aggrandisement by NATO. Um, well, maybe but more likely Mad Vlad’s Tsar-like vision of the reinstatement of Russia as it existed in, say, 1952.
-
-
Six of one, half a dozen of the other is my assessment of what has brought this situation about, but I have to disagree with my erstwhile friends on the Left that NATO's cautiousness when it comes to admitting the candidate states to membership cannot be argued to be the main cause, or the greater threat to world peace. It always used to be No 1 principle that invasion by one country of another's territory was a primary rule-breaker as regards transgressing national self-determination - one axiomatically knew which side to support, irrespective of political systems.Originally posted by HighlandDougie View PostComment
-
Possibly more of an opinion piece ('expert comment') than a truly academic article, but "Attacking and seizing territory in Ukraine, therefore, perpetuates a Russian narrative around its right to a sphere of influence – or, call it what it is, an empire" seems justified.
Ukraine is - and was - internationally recognised as a sovereign state, therefore it also should be its right to seek alliances where it wishes: to join Nato and the EU if that is what Ukrainians want. Blaming Nato for 'provoking the war' ignores Putin's own self-evidently false claims: that Ukraine is not a real country, Ukrainians are Russians, the puppet government is run by Nazis (and more).It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.Comment
-
Here is Professor Lawrence Freedman's latest article: 'A third victory parade with no victory.'
It was written before Russia's latest offensive on the Kharkiv Front, but its conclusions ae still valid.Comment
Comment