Russian disinformation.
"Spoiler Alert: Official Ukrainian sources confirm that Putin did stop in March 2022, after Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky agreed to forswear membership in NATO."
This parrots a recent comment made by Putin to explain the debacle of their initial push to seize Kiev. Putin did not stop. He was stopped.
Subtle difference.
If you want more solid analysis of why negotiations have frequently failed, try this.
The tensions escalated dramatically in 2021. Russia massed forces on the Ukrainian border and stepped up its aggressive and imperialist rhetoric. In December 2021, emboldened by the chaotic Western withÂdrawal from Afghanistan, Moscow switched levels and addressed its demands directly to the United States and NATO. Russia preÂsented the Western allies with an ultimatum, in the guise of twodraft treaties conÂcerning âsecurity guaranteesâ: NATO should agree to admit no new members and to refrain from any form of military activity in Ukraine and other states neighbouring Russia. The alliance was also to restrict its military activities to the states that were already members in May 1997. The United States was to withdraw its nuclear weapons from Europe. Russia was demanding nothÂing less than the division of Europe into Russian and American spheres of influence, and a âresolution of the Ukraine questionâ over the heads of the Ukrainians. Hence, the Russian diplomatic offensive was logiÂcally directed above all towards Washington and in second place to the European NATO allies. As well as the aforementioned maximal demands, the documents also conÂtained proposals for consultation mechanisms, confidence-building and arms conÂtrol. Despite intense diplomacy between the Western capitals and Moscow in January and February 2022 Putin was not prepared to negotiate on individual aspects. The United States responded positively to some of the Russian proposals, but Moscow inÂsisted on the whole package and stayed its course to rupture.
I recommend you read the first part of the article before moving on to this one, as it provides some much-needed context. But if youâre too lazy to do that, hereâs a brief summary of Karaganovâs points:
The crisis of capitalism: The modern capitalist model prioritises profit and fosters unnecessary consumption, leading to significant environmental degradation. This systemâs encouragement of relentless consumerism has contributed to resource depletion and a detachment from sustainable living practices.
Global resource crisis: Major global issues such as pollution, climate change, and the scarcity of essential resources like fresh water remain unresolved. These challenges are exacerbated by growing consumerism and unequal resource distribution, leading to intensified competition and internal societal tensions.
Rising social inequality: Social inequality has been escalating since the collapse of the USSR, diminishing the middle class in the West and increasing visible wealth gaps. This trend contributes to societal instability and discontent.
Societal and intellectual decline: The West, in particular, is experiencing societal degradation, driven by urbanisation and excessive digital consumption, which leads to a decline in critical thinking and increased susceptibility to manipulation. This, combined with oligarchic control, undermines traditional values and promotes divisive ideologies.
Virtualisation of life: Modern man is increasingly living in a virtualised state, where fears and challenges are digitalised, detaching people from real-world issues and historical drivers of human progress, like hunger and the threat of violence.
Western elitesâ intellectual decline: Western elites, especially in the US, have lost strategic thinking capabilities, leading to poor governance and international policy blunders. This decline contributes to a weakened global leadership role.
Global power redistribution: Karaganov highlights the significant shift in global power from the West to rising nations, particularly Russia and China, as one of the major sources of international tension. This shift is causing geopolitical instability and redefining international relations, as the West grapples with losing its long-standing hegemony.
Deteriorating global governance: The post-war international governance structures are collapsing and are unable to maintain global stability. The arms race and the breakdown of security agreements further complicate this landscape.
Increasing risk of conflict: The Westâs reaction to its declining dominance includes heightened propaganda, economic sanctions and proxy wars, fostering an environment ripe for conflict, especially with Russia and China. This tension is aggravated by dehumanisation tactics and the re-arming of strategic capabilities.
Technological and arms race: Karaganov warns of the growing technological and arms race, including developments in bioweapons and AI, which threaten to destabilise global security. The proliferation of advanced weapons, like drones and hypersonic missiles, adds to the precariousness of international relations.
Potential for catastrophe: There is a profound concern in Russia about the increasing likelihood of large-scale disasters or even a global catastrophe, driven by the above challenges.
I will now look at Karaganovâs policy recommendations for Russia in light of the aforementioned geopolitical context â which make for an even more interesting, though arguably more disquieting, read.(...)
Yeah, too lazy to plow through most of your links.
But these are all criticisms of current Russian society and policy.
I recommend you read the first part of the article before moving on to this one, as it provides some much-needed context. But if youâre too lazy to do that, hereâs a brief summary of Karaganovâs points:
The crisis of capitalism: The modern capitalist model prioritises profit and fosters unnecessary consumption, leading to significant environmental degradation. This systemâs encouragement of relentless consumerism has contributed to resource depletion and a detachment from sustainable living practices.
Global resource crisis: Major global issues such as pollution, climate change, and the scarcity of essential resources like fresh water remain unresolved. These challenges are exacerbated by growing consumerism and unequal resource distribution, leading to intensified competition and internal societal tensions.
Rising social inequality: Social inequality has been escalating since the collapse of the USSR, diminishing the middle class in the West and increasing visible wealth gaps. This trend contributes to societal instability and discontent.
Societal and intellectual decline: The West, in particular, is experiencing societal degradation, driven by urbanisation and excessive digital consumption, which leads to a decline in critical thinking and increased susceptibility to manipulation. This, combined with oligarchic control, undermines traditional values and promotes divisive ideologies.
Virtualisation of life: Modern man is increasingly living in a virtualised state, where fears and challenges are digitalised, detaching people from real-world issues and historical drivers of human progress, like hunger and the threat of violence.
Western elitesâ intellectual decline: Western elites, especially in the US, have lost strategic thinking capabilities, leading to poor governance and international policy blunders. This decline contributes to a weakened global leadership role.
Global power redistribution: Karaganov highlights the significant shift in global power from the West to rising nations, particularly Russia and China, as one of the major sources of international tension. This shift is causing geopolitical instability and redefining international relations, as the West grapples with losing its long-standing hegemony.
Deteriorating global governance: The post-war international governance structures are collapsing and are unable to maintain global stability. The arms race and the breakdown of security agreements further complicate this landscape.
Increasing risk of conflict: The Westâs reaction to its declining dominance includes heightened propaganda, economic sanctions and proxy wars, fostering an environment ripe for conflict, especially with Russia and China. This tension is aggravated by dehumanisation tactics and the re-arming of strategic capabilities.
Technological and arms race: Karaganov warns of the growing technological and arms race, including developments in bioweapons and AI, which threaten to destabilise global security. The proliferation of advanced weapons, like drones and hypersonic missiles, adds to the precariousness of international relations.
Potential for catastrophe: There is a profound concern in Russia about the increasing likelihood of large-scale disasters or even a global catastrophe, driven by the above challenges.
I will now look at Karaganovâs policy recommendations for Russia in light of the aforementioned geopolitical context â which make for an even more interesting, though arguably more disquieting, read.(...)
Inside the Russian mind Understanding the contemporary Russian mindset and âspiritâ through the work of Sergey Karaganov, one of Russiaâs most influential (geo)political thinkers
This is a mighty fog of obfuscation. Can someone please point out something—anything—that justifies invading a neighboring country, starting a war that has killed hundreds of thousands and made refugees of millions?
got as far as the part about after the breakup, Russia just wanted to be accepted and integrated by the west but was snubbed?!
how about their own greedy leaders, political and economical, failed to put in place the laws necessary to allow the society to shift to free markets.
there are lies, damn lies, statistics and then very clever people with an agenda.
oh crikey, you couldn't get a piece that was better designed to sow division in the west.. so we are meant to take the reincarnation of the Soviet Union as the solution to the West's problems (of resource depletion, social inequality, etc... ) ? Please..
Inside the Russian mind Understanding the contemporary Russian mindset and âspiritâ through the work of Sergey Karaganov, one of Russiaâs most influential (geo)political thinkers
oh crikey, you couldn't get a piece that was better designed to sow division in the west.. so we are meant to take the reincarnation of the Soviet Union as the solution to the West's problems (of resource depletion, social inequality, etc... ) ? Please..
Inside the Russian mind Understanding the contemporary Russian mindset and âspiritâ through the work of Sergey Karaganov, one of Russiaâs most influential (geo)political thinkers
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reiterated that Russia is not interested in any negotiations that do not result in Ukrainian territorial concessions beyond the parts of Ukraine Russian forces already occupy.
As Kaja Kallas keeps saying. The Russian negotiating strategy is to
1. Demand something that is not yours
2. Set ultimatums and threats
3. Not budge an inch in the ensuing negotiations
because
4. there will always be someone in the west who is weak enough to grant your concessions and you come away with more than you had at the beginning.
This is precisely what Putin is doing here:
"He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that. "
I mean since 1997? c'mon.
"4. there will always be someone in the west who is weak enough to grant your concessions and you come away with more than you had at the beginning."
In 1949, China declared independence, an event known in Western
discourse as "the loss of China" â in the US, with bitter recriminations
and conflict over who was responsible for that loss. The terminology is
revealing. It is only possible to lose something that one owns. The
tacit assumption was that the U.S. owned China, by right, along with
most of the rest of the world, much as postwar planners assumed. The
"loss of China" was the first major step in "America's decline." It had
major policy consequences.
um.. what does that have to do with Georgia? Quite apart from the fact that NO imperial power has the right to own any territory merely by force of arms. Not the UK, Not France, Not Russia, nor the U.S.
so what exactly is your point? That the U.S. actually did have a right to China just as Russia has a right to Georgia? Is this Mearsheimer in action? Or what exactly are you trying to say?
does Georgia belong to someone other than Georgians then R.?
news to me.
In 1949, China declared independence, an event known in Western
discourse as "the loss of China" â in the US, with bitter recriminations
and conflict over who was responsible for that loss. The terminology is
revealing. It is only possible to lose something that one owns. The
tacit assumption was that the U.S. owned China, by right, along with
most of the rest of the world, much as postwar planners assumed. The
"loss of China" was the first major step in "America's decline." It had
major policy consequences.
âThe background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.
So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.â
To repeat, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
As Kaja Kallas keeps saying. The Russian negotiating strategy is to
1. Demand something that is not yours
2. Set ultimatums and threats
3. Not budge an inch in the ensuing negotiations
because
4. there will always be someone in the west who is weak enough to grant your concessions and you come away with more than you had at the beginning.
This is precisely what Putin is doing here:
"He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that. "
