On territory, Russia can have a different view and they are entitled to it - but doesn't change that it is a wrong perception. Not sure, if Russia's perspective should then guide policy "in the West".
I understand you think that perception is wrong, but remember, global geopolitics is not about "who is right", it's about "how do we find the least violent solution to this conflict".
If you read MacNamara's book on Vietnam, he actually goes back and talks through the war with the North Vietnamese leaders at the time. The big takeaway was there were plenty of opportunities to de-escalate the conflict (acknowledged by both sides), but each side was so sure they were right that there was no backing down.
It's a tough pill to swallow to realize you could have gotten the same thing as you have today without killing a few million of your own citizens.
Edit: Your reply "If Russia wants to go nuclear over this, then so be it" is the most horrifying thing I've read in a while. But regardless there is a lot of evidence to show if Hitler had been restrained early in the lead up to WW2, before Germany had rearmed, it could have prevent WW2.
Also not sure it is always about "least violent solution", was WWII the least violent solution or what would have been the least violent one and how could it have been reached?
The argument is "if the US could be so wrong about the best path forward in Vietnam and Iraq, why are we so sure we're right about Ukraine"?
Instead of viewing everything from a US/Western European/NATO lens, take a step back and ask "If I were Russia how would I view this?".
The idea is that if not expanding NATO stops Russia from invading Eastern European countries, then that seems like a good trade off versus what we have now.
Of course the criticism is "Russia would have invaded anyways even if NATO hadn't expanded". And maybe that's right, but we'll never know at this point since that decision was never made.
Like I said, the US was wrong to invade Vietnam and Iraq, and Russia is just as wrong to invade Ukraine.
> take a step back and ask "If I were Russia how would I view this?"
As a big mistake. Russia is not getting anything out of this that's going to help Russia in any way. Russia has made itself the enemy of everybody around them. They've completely alienated all Ukrainians, nearly half of which used to be friendly towards Russia.
> The idea is that if not expanding NATO stops Russia from invading Eastern European countries
"Expanding NATO" is the wrong way to look at this. NATO doesn't expand itself, it accepts new members who apply to join NATO. NATO hasn't conquered anyone. Membership is entirely voluntary.
NATO membership has shown itself to be the best protection against Russian aggression; Georgia and Ukraine have been invaded, but Estonia has not. Refusing membership to Estonia in a faint hope that Russia would not attack is a dangerous game to play with an entire country.
And maybe a better analogy is if your next door neighbor was blasting music at 2am.
They’re wrong but you have a choice:1) call the cops and now you have a pissed of neighbor you get to live with forever or 2) go over and nicely ask them to turn it down.
The neighbor is wrong and your right to call the cops but you may just screw yourself over rather than just nicely asking them to turn it down.
That's how Russia gained it's land area. Pure fucking violence. I have no idea while western colonialism has been judged harshly no-one in the west has spent much effort lamenting the fates of the people subjugated by Russia.
This is not you neighbour blasting music. This is a narcist psycho terrorizing the neighbourhood by wanton burglary and murder. For years. The war in Ukraine is this psycho once again breaking in, shooting your grandmother, raping your son, stealing your washing machine and then telling everyone proudly how rightfull he was to do so.
They went in with the full intent to end Ukrainian identity once and for all. Pure genocide. The last time they tried this was by manufacturing a famine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
What's the best analogue to think about this? While Germany was effectively de-nazified after ww2 Russia never de-stalinized or made amends for it's imperial stance. You really have to think of the Russian state you would think about Germany if it was run by third reich institutions.
The statement I was making was "everyone benefits when problems are resolved with minimal bloodshed".
Do you disagree with that?
I believe Ukraine needs all the weapons and support so the war can end in a clear Ukrainian victory.
My current view is pretty much aligned with PM of Estonia Mrs. Kallas: “I think what everybody has to understand is that peace is not an ultimate goal if it means that the aggression pays off”
https://www.newstatesman.com/international-content/2022/05/e...
NATO members are more than willing to "fight Russia to the last Ukrainian", but I guarantee that if things really heat up, they'll throw Ukraine under the bus just like they did South Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria.
The best outcomes for everyone involved is some settlement where Ukraine continues to exist and NATO and Russia both agree to not interfere. See the agreement over Laos in the 1960's - neutrality.
The difference with Vietnam couldn't be bigger: in Vietnam, the US was fighting other people's war, most of whom didn't want it. The US was fighting the local population much of the time. This is pretty much the most generous way to interpret Russia's position in the war. Ukraine is fighting for itself, for their country and their freedom, because they know what will happen if Russia wins.
It's not NATO that's demanding that Ukraine fights; it's Ukrainians themselves who want to fight, because they know they can't afford to lose. And Ukraine has the people, they just need the weapons.
> The best outcomes for everyone involved is some settlement where Ukraine continues to exist and NATO and Russia both agree to not interfere.
That's what everybody thought, but Russian promises not to interfere turned out to be worthless. This agreement existed, but Putin broke it. He wants to control Ukraine, and made that very clear. He denies that Ukraine has any right to determine its own fate.
Asking NATO not to interfere is asking NATO to allow Russia to take over Ukraine.
Again, you’re making the same mistake nations make when they get into wars.
I guarantee when the shooting stops - 1) Ukraine will have lost strategic territory, 2) Ukraine will not be a part of NATO and 3) NATO will disengage.
That’s a full on win for Russia. That’s exactly what they stated they wanted back in 2015.
The simple fact is that Russia can't force a victory, and neither can Ukraine. So the issue becomes who can hold out the longest, and with the support it's getting, that's probably Ukraine.
The only way to stop Ukraine from joining NATO, by the way, is to keep the war going. As soon as there's a peace deal, Ukraine will apply to join NATO and will probably be accepted this time. If Russia wants to prevent that, it has to offer security guarantees to Ukraine that are a lot harder than the ones they broke last time, and that will include returning all occupied land. I think that's very unlikely to happen.
Russia will probably keep Crimea, because that's impossible for Ukraine to take back. Even so, they might be stuck with sanctions.
And I'm not sure why you think Ukraine can outlast Russia? Russia has 10x the GDP and 3x the population. They're also holding oil and gas over Western Europes heads.
Take a look at the exchange rate for the ruble. It's higher than before the war. Russia is forcing people to buy their gas with rubbles. They have way more leverage than you think they do.
No NATO country will provide anything more than arms. Hell, Germany had to be pressed to provide anything remotely useful.
Russia will grind it out, and once Ukraine realizes their victory will destroy the country and NATO won’t swoop in to save the day, they’ll compromise.
Keep dreaming. There's no way Russia can possible get everything it wants. They'll have to compromise, and so will Ukraine.
That's awkward language. Who gets to grant permission for the invasion of a foreign country?
The question is whether it's legitimate to go to war against the invader. NATO is not a schoolmaster, issuing invasion passes. Unfortunately NATO doesn't have clean hands (Libya, and arguably Iraq).
Though in this particular case, the demands Putin made before the invasion, that NATO should promise never to allow Ukraine in, and should abandon eastern Europe entirely, sounded a lot to me like Putin was basically demanding permission to invade those countries.
Because while NATO can't give permission to invade, it can most certainly enforce a denial of that permission by defending the target of the invasion. And that's what Putin was asking from NATO: a promise not to defend Ukraine or any other country in eastern Europe.
Could it? Isn't that in direct opposition to the declared purpose of the UN?
NATO is now trying to prevent escalation while still trying to help Ukraine and prevent it from being conquered. The problem is that now there's a violent and bloody stalemate. It needs to stop, but the only way to stop is for Putin to pull his forces out of Ukraine, and he's not going to do that without some very strong arguments.
You could run the same analysis for the US involvement in Vietnam.
1) The US was anti colonial after WW2 (the US assumed colonial holdings would foment communist uprisings), and had given the Philippines it independence.
2) The US had no real strategic interest in Vietnam beyond a non-communist aligned country. it had negotiated a neutral policy towards Laos with the communist bloc. It wasn’t interested in resources or territory, at least not in anyway similar to what France had done.
Why on earth would North Vietnam think that US was just replacing France as a colonial power? That’s absurd! No way they think that, it’s just rhetoric!
——-
Of course after decades of being under the colonial yoke of France, Vietnam had a very different perspective. It was clear post-WW2 France was hell bent on restoring the colonial structure. And the only thing France understood was military defeat.
So the North, very reasonably, thought the US was lying about any sort of “neutrality in IndoChina” and that Vietnam would have any sort of independence. So they held to a hardline and were willing to sacrifice 2M+ Vietnamese for the goal of total victory and independence.
Think about it from Russia’s perspective. They had warned in 2015 about their "red line" for NATO expansion.