Diplomat: Why the Minsk Agreements Failed in Ukraine (jacobin.com)

Wolfgang Sporrer is former head of the Human Dimension Department of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.

"There were three main reasons for the failure of the Minsk agreements. First, the Minsk agreements did not address the root cause of the conflict. It was stipulated, so to speak, that there was or had been some kind of ethnic conflict between Russians and Ukrainians in Ukraine, and that this was the reason for the outbreak of violence. And by settling this alleged ethnic conflict, the conflict could be pacified.

This was pure fiction. The ethnic conflicts that existed in Ukraine were no more serious than ethnic tensions in many other countries.

Moreover, the dividing lines in this conflict, if one insists on understanding them in ethnic terms, are incredibly blurred. This is not about the Russian versus the Ukrainian language or Ukrainian versus Russian national identity. Nor is it about religion, not even in the slightest. At most, one could find something like an eastern Ukrainian Donbas identity. But this regional identity of the Donbas is not much stronger than strong regional identities in other countries.

What this conflict is fundamentally about is Russia wanting to exert influence over the domestic and foreign policy orientation of the government in Kyiv. In the Minsk agreement, however, this fiction of an ethnic conflict was constructed instead, although Russia actually had no particular interest in obtaining any autonomy rights for eastern Ukraine, for Russian-speaking or ethnically Russian Ukrainian citizens.

A Ukraine that is neutral between Russia and the West is no longer a realistic option, simply because this would no longer be accepted by a large majority of the population in Ukraine.
Russia was not really interested in these issues, but Ukraine was not at all eager to grant such rights either, for fear of a supposed fifth column. However, Moscow was not only concerned with what was happening in the Donbas, but above all with what was happening in Kyiv. The Ukraine conflict is about the orientation of Ukraine, pure and simple. But the Minsk agreement addresses completely different issues. That’s why the process didn’t work.

The second reason for their failure was the low technical quality of the Minsk agreements. There were far too many provisions for their verification, and the sequencing of various measures also remained controversial to the end, as the agreement itself didn’t specify any.

The third reason for the failure — and this may sound banal now, but it is true — is that it has not been possible to meet in person since the end of 2019 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. As little as the Minsk agreements were actually implemented in practice, they did help to build trust.

The very fact that the parties were sitting around a table had a de-escalating effect. You don’t get the same sort of benefit online. For that, you need coffee breaks, shared meals, unofficial contacts and the like. If you lose the seemingly ancillary aspects of diplomatic talks, such a process is doomed to failure. With the Minsk process, therefore, an early-warning instrument pointing to a possible escalation of the conflict was also lost."

jamie said:

nan said:

jamie said:

nan - again, who is the current nazi leader - the people of Russia believe it is Zelenskyy  especially if you follow any Vlad media.  Are you onboard with that?  And again - feel to list all metrics that have been accomplished to alleviate the biggest nazi scourge since WWII.  And explain why no one else but Vlad (and you) have been railing on this fact?

Zelensky is and has been influenced by the far right.  

ok, so you're onboard with Russian media and don't deny that he's is a Nazi (and i suppose is the nazi leader - because you can't identify anyone else).  That is so sad.  Please quote Vlad media once in awhile.  I wish you could try to live in Russia and speak out against the government and see how long it takes before you're silenced.  But then again - you seem to think it's pretty great there, so you may have no reason to critique anyone in power there.  And Vlad will be the leader until 2036 - so it should be very stable under his rule.

Unfortunately - the ones who truly want this war more than anyone else is Vlad - this is the narrative for most of Vlad media:

The United States is not ready to give up its role as hegemon. This means that we are in for a long confrontation, from which there will be no escape: aftershocks will, to one degree or another, affect every corner of the globe. And the new world will go to the one who takes it. And it may turn out that we are witnessing the last moments of five hundred years of Western dominance.

It's the fight for a "new world order" - and Putin will not stop until he gets his way.  Hitler had a similar goal.  Wonder which country he'll demand to be demilitarized or denazified next?  Moldova is a given.  He won't stop in Ukraine until he gets the whole southern flank - I've been calling this for some time.

I changed my post -- I did not mean to say Zelensky is a Nazi--he's not--he's influenced by them.  Bad syntax.  I rarely read Russian media so any agreement I have with them is coincidental.  I'm sure what they are saying is true some of the time.  Even our media does that occasionally.  

They are right about the end of Western dominance.  And Joe Biden is helping expidite that by endangering the US dollar as the reserve currency and by stealing those Russian assets from the banks (makes our banking system not trustworthy).  We are in the run away train headed for the cliff because neocons have no reverse gear. 

I don't know how much territory in Ukraine will be taken by the Russians, but had the West allowed talks to take place--had Zelensky promised neutrality for Ukraine--they would have only lost Crimea.  And not lost a whole generation of Ukrainian men. Did you see they are clawing back Ukrainian men who have gone to parts of Europe.  Do you think those guys want to fight for Ukraine on the front lines? They have fought down to the last Ukrainian and now they are sweeping up the crumbs.  It's tragic.  This 60 billion is not going to change the outcome of the war and it means so many more will die for nothing.  Gotta get senile Joe - pause - elected so he can start the next proxy war with Taiwan and maybe Iran too.  Here we go down the drain - weeeeeeee!

PVW said:

I suppose my previous post can be reduced to a single question -- do you believe it is possible for a Ukrainian to legitimately oppose Russia, or is such opposition always a sign of someone being on the far-right or being under their influence?

Here is what we know based on Richard Sakwa's article:

in the 1990's support for joining NATO was low.

After that support for NATO grew but the country was divided and the Western (anti-Russian part) wanted to join NATO and the eastern part did not.

30-40%, not counting Crimea and the Donbas wanted close relations with Russia.

Poroshenko came in around 2014 and people thought he had close ties to Russia and that he would bring peace.  Never happened. 

Zelensky was elected in 2019 on a campaign platform that promised to have good relations with Russia, implement Minsk II and bring peace in the Donbas.  Never happened. 

So, you can do a venn diagram but there is no way of knowing how many people fall into each category.  The west always seems to claim that the people of Ukraine wanted to join NATO but that's only part of them, and probably all of the Nazis.  We can't know the population of the non-Nazi NATO supporters,  but probably some because the media was intensely anti-Russian.  

nohero said:

nan said:

Here is an article on a frequent MOL Ukraine thread topic.  

The author, Gordon Hahn challenges you to: Read it all and test your faith that the war in Ukraine was unprovoked and began in February 2022.

I'm reading it now, but I did not have that faith.

-------------------------------------------

Did the West Intentionally Incite Putin to War?

https://gordonhahn.com/2024/02/27/did-the-west-intentionally-incite-putin-to-war/

February 2024

And a recent update from 4/19/24.  I don't know what happened to Update 1:

UPDATE 2 TO “Did the West Intentionally Incite Putin to War?”

https://gordonhahn.com/2024/04/19/update-2-to-did-the-west-intentionally-incite-putin-to-war/

It's the same old stuff. It ignores the fact that Ukraine wasn't in NATO, and Russia invaded instead of negotiating.

"Ukraine might join NATO to attack Russia" is the same kind of threat as "Saddam might get WMDs". Putin and Bush launched pre-emptive wars with the goal of regime change. Supporting Putin's rationale is the same as supporting Bush's excuses for invading Iraq.

Your post is the same old stuff.  The comparison to Iraq is false because Iraq was based on a lie.  The Russian had legitimate reasons for invading.  It's true the Ukrainians were not in NATO but they were being armed and trained up to NATO levels. They were being armed up to the teeth. They were talking about being in NATO (and Zelensky went all over the Munich security conference and said he was going to get nuclear weapons and no one told him to shut up), and MOST IMPORTANT - they would not say they would remain neutral.  That's what the Russians wanted -- for the Ukrainians to promise to stay neutral.  

If NATO was off the table for Ukraine, why did they not promise to be neutral?  That would have stopped this whole war.  

tjohn said:

Diplomat: Why the Minsk Agreements Failed in Ukraine (jacobin.com)

Wolfgang Sporrer is former head of the Human Dimension Department of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.

"There were three main reasons for the failure of the Minsk agreements. First, the Minsk agreements did not address the root cause of the conflict. It was stipulated, so to speak, that there was or had been some kind of ethnic conflict between Russians and Ukrainians in Ukraine, and that this was the reason for the outbreak of violence. And by settling this alleged ethnic conflict, the conflict could be pacified.

This was pure fiction. The ethnic conflicts that existed in Ukraine were no more serious than ethnic tensions in many other countries.

Moreover, the dividing lines in this conflict, if one insists on understanding them in ethnic terms, are incredibly blurred. This is not about the Russian versus the Ukrainian language or Ukrainian versus Russian national identity. Nor is it about religion, not even in the slightest. At most, one could find something like an eastern Ukrainian Donbas identity. But this regional identity of the Donbas is not much stronger than strong regional identities in other countries.

What this conflict is fundamentally about is Russia wanting to exert influence over the domestic and foreign policy orientation of the government in Kyiv. In the Minsk agreement, however, this fiction of an ethnic conflict was constructed instead, although Russia actually had no particular interest in obtaining any autonomy rights for eastern Ukraine, for Russian-speaking or ethnically Russian Ukrainian citizens.

A Ukraine that is neutral between Russia and the West is no longer a realistic option, simply because this would no longer be accepted by a large majority of the population in Ukraine.
Russia was not really interested in these issues, but Ukraine was not at all eager to grant such rights either, for fear of a supposed fifth column. However, Moscow was not only concerned with what was happening in the Donbas, but above all with what was happening in Kyiv. The Ukraine conflict is about the orientation of Ukraine, pure and simple. But the Minsk agreement addresses completely different issues. That’s why the process didn’t work.

The second reason for their failure was the low technical quality of the Minsk agreements. There were far too many provisions for their verification, and the sequencing of various measures also remained controversial to the end, as the agreement itself didn’t specify any.

The third reason for the failure — and this may sound banal now, but it is true — is that it has not been possible to meet in person since the end of 2019 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. As little as the Minsk agreements were actually implemented in practice, they did help to build trust.

The very fact that the parties were sitting around a table had a de-escalating effect. You don’t get the same sort of benefit online. For that, you need coffee breaks, shared meals, unofficial contacts and the like. If you lose the seemingly ancillary aspects of diplomatic talks, such a process is doomed to failure. With the Minsk process, therefore, an early-warning instrument pointing to a possible escalation of the conflict was also lost."

No agreement drafted by a committee is going to make everyone happy, but discussing  flaws in the Minsk agreements is missing the forest for the trees.  The reason they failed is because the countries that were supposed to implement them did nothing - intentionally.  Could have been the best policy in the world and it was going to fail because that was the plan. This has been admitted by multiple high ranking leaders.  If you don't implement a policy as directed, then talking about why it failed is pointless and kind of dishonest.  

nan said:

So, you can do a venn diagram but there is no way of knowing how many people fall into each category.  The west always seems to claim that the people of Ukraine wanted to join NATO but that's only part of them, and probably all of the Nazis.  We can't know the population of the non-Nazi NATO supporters,  but probably some because the media was intensely anti-Russian.  

Let's talk about the population of non-Nazi NATO supporters, however many they may be -- do such people have any legitimate reason to oppose Russia? How can we identify a Ukrainian who legitimately opposes Russia vs one who is a Nazi or under their influence? I'm asking because your posts seem to strongly imply that opposing Russia itself is evidence of being a Nazi or under their influence.

nan said:

tjohn said:

Diplomat: Why the Minsk Agreements Failed in Ukraine (jacobin.com)

Wolfgang Sporrer is former head of the Human Dimension Department of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.

"There were three main reasons for the failure of the Minsk agreements. First, the Minsk agreements did not address the root cause of the conflict. It was stipulated, so to speak, that there was or had been some kind of ethnic conflict between Russians and Ukrainians in Ukraine, and that this was the reason for the outbreak of violence. And by settling this alleged ethnic conflict, the conflict could be pacified.

This was pure fiction. The ethnic conflicts that existed in Ukraine were no more serious than ethnic tensions in many other countries.

Moreover, the dividing lines in this conflict, if one insists on understanding them in ethnic terms, are incredibly blurred. This is not about the Russian versus the Ukrainian language or Ukrainian versus Russian national identity. Nor is it about religion, not even in the slightest. At most, one could find something like an eastern Ukrainian Donbas identity. But this regional identity of the Donbas is not much stronger than strong regional identities in other countries.

What this conflict is fundamentally about is Russia wanting to exert influence over the domestic and foreign policy orientation of the government in Kyiv. In the Minsk agreement, however, this fiction of an ethnic conflict was constructed instead, although Russia actually had no particular interest in obtaining any autonomy rights for eastern Ukraine, for Russian-speaking or ethnically Russian Ukrainian citizens.

A Ukraine that is neutral between Russia and the West is no longer a realistic option, simply because this would no longer be accepted by a large majority of the population in Ukraine.
Russia was not really interested in these issues, but Ukraine was not at all eager to grant such rights either, for fear of a supposed fifth column. However, Moscow was not only concerned with what was happening in the Donbas, but above all with what was happening in Kyiv. The Ukraine conflict is about the orientation of Ukraine, pure and simple. But the Minsk agreement addresses completely different issues. That’s why the process didn’t work.

The second reason for their failure was the low technical quality of the Minsk agreements. There were far too many provisions for their verification, and the sequencing of various measures also remained controversial to the end, as the agreement itself didn’t specify any.

The third reason for the failure — and this may sound banal now, but it is true — is that it has not been possible to meet in person since the end of 2019 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. As little as the Minsk agreements were actually implemented in practice, they did help to build trust.

The very fact that the parties were sitting around a table had a de-escalating effect. You don’t get the same sort of benefit online. For that, you need coffee breaks, shared meals, unofficial contacts and the like. If you lose the seemingly ancillary aspects of diplomatic talks, such a process is doomed to failure. With the Minsk process, therefore, an early-warning instrument pointing to a possible escalation of the conflict was also lost."

No agreement drafted by a committee is going to make everyone happy, but discussing  flaws in the Minsk agreements is missing the forest for the trees.  The reason they failed is because the countries that were supposed to implement them did nothing - intentionally.  Could have been the best policy in the world and it was going to fail because that was the plan. This has been admitted by multiple high ranking leaders.  If you don't implement a policy as directed, then talking about why it failed is pointless and kind of dishonest.  

except when the agreement is fatally flawed because it doesn’t address the real issue. It is as Kissinger said, Russia has either enemies or vassals as neighbors. 

nan said:

Here is what we know based on Richard Sakwa's article:

in the 1990's support for joining NATO was low.

After that support for NATO grew but the country was divided and the Western (anti-Russian part) wanted to join NATO and the eastern part did not.

I wouldn't agree with lumping wanting a more pro-European alignment with wanting to join NATO -- Ukraine wasn't part of NATO when Russia invaded, nor was it on track to be any time soon, so it seems it's not "NATO" per se that is the issue, but attitude toward Russia. You might respond that Ukraine was in some sense de facto becoming part of NATO by virtue of military training, etc, but there may well have been many Ukrainians who did not want to officially join NATO but who supported closer ties with Europe, including militarily. So I don't think you can reliably use views on NATO membership as a proxy for views on relations with Russia.

If we are going to talk about the 1990s, though, one obvious issue is the question of Ukrainian independence. Why do you think Ukraine chose independence? Was this, too, a Western and Far Right plot?

nan said:

...  I rarely read Russian media so any agreement I have with them is coincidental.  ...

nan said:

If NATO was off the table for Ukraine, why did they not promise to be neutral?  That would have stopped this whole war.  

Russia didn't give the new Ukrainian government much of a chance, did it? It invaded in Feb 2014.

PVW said:

nan said:

So, you can do a venn diagram but there is no way of knowing how many people fall into each category.  The west always seems to claim that the people of Ukraine wanted to join NATO but that's only part of them, and probably all of the Nazis.  We can't know the population of the non-Nazi NATO supporters,  but probably some because the media was intensely anti-Russian.  

Let's talk about the population of non-Nazi NATO supporters, however many they may be -- do such people have any legitimate reason to oppose Russia? How can we identify a Ukrainian who legitimately opposes Russia vs one who is a Nazi or under their influence? I'm asking because your posts seem to strongly imply that opposing Russia itself is evidence of being a Nazi or under their influence.

It seems you want to identify the "normal" people in Ukraine who hate Russia for real reasons, not like the racist Nazis. What "real" reasons were you thinking would be included?  Can you give me some suggestions?  

I think it would have been in the best interest of Ukraine to have a good relationship with Russia.  I don't think Russia had plans to invade Ukraine and/or seize land.  They had trading agreements which was beneficial for both because of geography.  So, unless you hate Russians because you think they are subhuman or you believe Putin is Hitler and he's trying to overthrow the world (and you are first name on list), why would you not like Russia? 

tjohn said:

nan said:

tjohn said:

Diplomat: Why the Minsk Agreements Failed in Ukraine (jacobin.com)

Wolfgang Sporrer is former head of the Human Dimension Department of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.

"There were three main reasons for the failure of the Minsk agreements. First, the Minsk agreements did not address the root cause of the conflict. It was stipulated, so to speak, that there was or had been some kind of ethnic conflict between Russians and Ukrainians in Ukraine, and that this was the reason for the outbreak of violence. And by settling this alleged ethnic conflict, the conflict could be pacified.

This was pure fiction. The ethnic conflicts that existed in Ukraine were no more serious than ethnic tensions in many other countries.

Moreover, the dividing lines in this conflict, if one insists on understanding them in ethnic terms, are incredibly blurred. This is not about the Russian versus the Ukrainian language or Ukrainian versus Russian national identity. Nor is it about religion, not even in the slightest. At most, one could find something like an eastern Ukrainian Donbas identity. But this regional identity of the Donbas is not much stronger than strong regional identities in other countries.

What this conflict is fundamentally about is Russia wanting to exert influence over the domestic and foreign policy orientation of the government in Kyiv. In the Minsk agreement, however, this fiction of an ethnic conflict was constructed instead, although Russia actually had no particular interest in obtaining any autonomy rights for eastern Ukraine, for Russian-speaking or ethnically Russian Ukrainian citizens.

A Ukraine that is neutral between Russia and the West is no longer a realistic option, simply because this would no longer be accepted by a large majority of the population in Ukraine.
Russia was not really interested in these issues, but Ukraine was not at all eager to grant such rights either, for fear of a supposed fifth column. However, Moscow was not only concerned with what was happening in the Donbas, but above all with what was happening in Kyiv. The Ukraine conflict is about the orientation of Ukraine, pure and simple. But the Minsk agreement addresses completely different issues. That’s why the process didn’t work.

The second reason for their failure was the low technical quality of the Minsk agreements. There were far too many provisions for their verification, and the sequencing of various measures also remained controversial to the end, as the agreement itself didn’t specify any.

The third reason for the failure — and this may sound banal now, but it is true — is that it has not been possible to meet in person since the end of 2019 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. As little as the Minsk agreements were actually implemented in practice, they did help to build trust.

The very fact that the parties were sitting around a table had a de-escalating effect. You don’t get the same sort of benefit online. For that, you need coffee breaks, shared meals, unofficial contacts and the like. If you lose the seemingly ancillary aspects of diplomatic talks, such a process is doomed to failure. With the Minsk process, therefore, an early-warning instrument pointing to a possible escalation of the conflict was also lost."

No agreement drafted by a committee is going to make everyone happy, but discussing  flaws in the Minsk agreements is missing the forest for the trees.  The reason they failed is because the countries that were supposed to implement them did nothing - intentionally.  Could have been the best policy in the world and it was going to fail because that was the plan. This has been admitted by multiple high ranking leaders.  If you don't implement a policy as directed, then talking about why it failed is pointless and kind of dishonest.  

except when the agreement is fatally flawed because it doesn’t address the real issue. It is as Kissinger said, Russia has either enemies or vassals as neighbors. 

Wonder what Henry would think that makes China? These days looks more like Russia is China's vassal and supplier of cheap energy, food, and raw materials.  But I digress....

PVW said:

nan said:

If NATO was off the table for Ukraine, why did they not promise to be neutral?  That would have stopped this whole war.  

Russia didn't give the new Ukrainian government much of a chance, did it? It invaded in Feb 2014.

For Crimea only.  And it was not the Ukrainian  government.  It was a western backed government.  They knew what that meant.  

tjohn said:

nan said:

tjohn said:

Diplomat: Why the Minsk Agreements Failed in Ukraine (jacobin.com)

Wolfgang Sporrer is former head of the Human Dimension Department of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine.

"There were three main reasons for the failure of the Minsk agreements. First, the Minsk agreements did not address the root cause of the conflict. It was stipulated, so to speak, that there was or had been some kind of ethnic conflict between Russians and Ukrainians in Ukraine, and that this was the reason for the outbreak of violence. And by settling this alleged ethnic conflict, the conflict could be pacified.

This was pure fiction. The ethnic conflicts that existed in Ukraine were no more serious than ethnic tensions in many other countries.

Moreover, the dividing lines in this conflict, if one insists on understanding them in ethnic terms, are incredibly blurred. This is not about the Russian versus the Ukrainian language or Ukrainian versus Russian national identity. Nor is it about religion, not even in the slightest. At most, one could find something like an eastern Ukrainian Donbas identity. But this regional identity of the Donbas is not much stronger than strong regional identities in other countries.

What this conflict is fundamentally about is Russia wanting to exert influence over the domestic and foreign policy orientation of the government in Kyiv. In the Minsk agreement, however, this fiction of an ethnic conflict was constructed instead, although Russia actually had no particular interest in obtaining any autonomy rights for eastern Ukraine, for Russian-speaking or ethnically Russian Ukrainian citizens.

A Ukraine that is neutral between Russia and the West is no longer a realistic option, simply because this would no longer be accepted by a large majority of the population in Ukraine.
Russia was not really interested in these issues, but Ukraine was not at all eager to grant such rights either, for fear of a supposed fifth column. However, Moscow was not only concerned with what was happening in the Donbas, but above all with what was happening in Kyiv. The Ukraine conflict is about the orientation of Ukraine, pure and simple. But the Minsk agreement addresses completely different issues. That’s why the process didn’t work.

The second reason for their failure was the low technical quality of the Minsk agreements. There were far too many provisions for their verification, and the sequencing of various measures also remained controversial to the end, as the agreement itself didn’t specify any.

The third reason for the failure — and this may sound banal now, but it is true — is that it has not been possible to meet in person since the end of 2019 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. As little as the Minsk agreements were actually implemented in practice, they did help to build trust.

The very fact that the parties were sitting around a table had a de-escalating effect. You don’t get the same sort of benefit online. For that, you need coffee breaks, shared meals, unofficial contacts and the like. If you lose the seemingly ancillary aspects of diplomatic talks, such a process is doomed to failure. With the Minsk process, therefore, an early-warning instrument pointing to a possible escalation of the conflict was also lost."

No agreement drafted by a committee is going to make everyone happy, but discussing  flaws in the Minsk agreements is missing the forest for the trees.  The reason they failed is because the countries that were supposed to implement them did nothing - intentionally.  Could have been the best policy in the world and it was going to fail because that was the plan. This has been admitted by multiple high ranking leaders.  If you don't implement a policy as directed, then talking about why it failed is pointless and kind of dishonest.  

except when the agreement is fatally flawed because it doesn’t address the real issue. It is as Kissinger said, Russia has either enemies or vassals as neighbors. 

This is one person's opinion of why an agreement that never got implemented was flawed.   There was no road test, so they could say the problem was it should have used the Agile method instead of waterfall. They did not have stand up meetings every morning and Ukrainians do best with stand up meetings.  

Garbage in Garbage out.   We do know why it never got implemented with the assigned supervision--they were stalling for time so they could arm and train the Ukrainians for war with Russia leading to regime change.  Neocon wetdream.  That's the real problem.  The other problems could have been worked out over time. 

drummerboy said:

nan said:

...  I rarely read Russian media so any agreement I have with them is coincidental.  ...

You read Russian media all the freaking time. You're just blissfully unaware of it.

Oh, so I do it in my sleep?  Is that how it works?  

nan said:

It seems you want to identify the "normal" people in Ukraine who hate Russia for real reasons, not like the racist Nazis. What "real" reasons were you thinking would be included?  Can you give me some suggestions?  

This thread is over two years old. If, in that time, you've never cared enough to learn enough Ukrainian history to answer the question yourself, I doubt anything I say will land.

Anyway, I'm satisfied I understand your position now.

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

...  I rarely read Russian media so any agreement I have with them is coincidental.  ...

You read Russian media all the freaking time. You're just blissfully unaware of it.

Oh, so I do it in my sleep?  Is that how it works?  

no, you do it while fully awake.

we had an exchange in this thread a while back where you pretty much refused to acknowledge that Russian propaganda in the U.S. even existed. "blissfully unaware" is a charitable characterization.

PVW said:

nan said:

Here is what we know based on Richard Sakwa's article:

in the 1990's support for joining NATO was low.

After that support for NATO grew but the country was divided and the Western (anti-Russian part) wanted to join NATO and the eastern part did not.

I wouldn't agree with lumping wanting a more pro-European alignment with wanting to join NATO -- Ukraine wasn't part of NATO when Russia invaded, nor was it on track to be any time soon, so it seems it's not "NATO" per se that is the issue, but attitude toward Russia. You might respond that Ukraine was in some sense de facto becoming part of NATO by virtue of military training, etc, but there may well have been many Ukrainians who did not want to officially join NATO but who supported closer ties with Europe, including militarily. So I don't think you can reliably use views on NATO membership as a proxy for views on relations with Russia.

If we are going to talk about the 1990s, though, one obvious issue is the question of Ukrainian independence. Why do you think Ukraine chose independence? Was this, too, a Western and Far Right plot?

Ukraine was invited to join NATO at the 2008 Bucharest Summit. In public the West has been saying Ukraine could join NATO (while saying otherwise in private).  They were arming and training Ukraine up to NATO standards. You seem to feel that unless they get flashing Bilboard that says NATO here with a pointing arrow that the Russians had no right to worry.  The Russians know what was going on over there and they had a right to be concerned.

Oliver Stone made at least one other film about Ukraine after the first one.  In that one, "Revealing Ukraine," they show how Ukraine was founded in 1991 and how they managed to get it approved.  The thought was that they had the kind of industries/people/agriculture/ they would need to be successful and they wanted to be a prosperous European city.  Things never worked out and the country was plagued by corruption and poverty. 

After the coup in 2014, the US put sanctions on people they did not like, such as Viktor Medvedchuk, an opposition leader (Zelensky imprisoned him for some times).  His family suffered under this. He wanted to maintain firendly relations with Russia.  The opposing group hated Russia and started knocking down monuments and pursuing hate crimes.  Ukraine became a very undemocratic place.  Lots of people left Ukraine--there was a brain drain. By 2018 Ukraine was in a deep economic crisis.  The Crimea was lost and there was a bloody war in the Donbas. 

Anyway, I'm rewatching this video and I'm reminded of how divided it became after 2014.  

PVW said:

nan said:

It seems you want to identify the "normal" people in Ukraine who hate Russia for real reasons, not like the racist Nazis. What "real" reasons were you thinking would be included?  Can you give me some suggestions?  

This thread is over two years old. If, in that time, you've never cared enough to learn enough Ukrainian history to answer the question yourself, I doubt anything I say will land.

I did learn Ukrainian history but, I did not participate in this thread for a long stretch and I'm forgetting some things (I have a lot going on outside of MOL).  I'm going back to review.  Also, I want to know what YOU THINK about this.  I would never think of the stuff you think about because we have different perspectives on this war.  You seem to desperately want to find a large group of upstanding, non-nazi citizens who have a legit beef with "Russian aggression" and want to join NATO.  But I don't presume to read your mind so I'm asking.  You complain that it's not enough dialogue and so I ask you a question and you are like "why don't you already know!"  

It's hard for me to imagine a country being open to neutrality while being actively occupied by a foreign country.

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

...  I rarely read Russian media so any agreement I have with them is coincidental.  ...

You read Russian media all the freaking time. You're just blissfully unaware of it.

Oh, so I do it in my sleep?  Is that how it works?  

no, you do it while fully awake.

we had an exchange in this thread a while back where you pretty much refused to acknowledge that Russian propaganda in the U.S. even existed. "blissfully unaware" is a charitable characterization.

Well, the Russian propaganda revealed during Russiagate was in fact a bunch of losers making shirtless Bernie Sanders memes and pictures of Jesus with captions about masturbation.  I kid you not.   Is that the Russian propaganda you thought I was in denial about?  There was also a fake group pretending to be Russian Propaganda and then making big bucks telling people how to protect themselves from Russian Propaganda.  I seem to recall you fell for that one, but it might have been another.  Then there was the Hamilton68 scandal, as revealed by Matt Taibbi, to beat them all (https://therealnews.com/hamilton-68-how-former-intelligence-officials-and-democratic-operatives-conspired-to-manufacture-russiagate).  

So how many of these did you fall for and what Russian propaganda am I missing?  Please advise.

PVW said:

It's hard for me to imagine a country being open to neutrality while being actively occupied by a foreign country.

They would not have been in that situation had they declared neutrality.  What's the big deal about saying you are neutral unless you are aiming to not be?

PVW said:

Anyway, I'm satisfied I understand your position now.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for your explanation of yours. 

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

It seems you want to identify the "normal" people in Ukraine who hate Russia for real reasons, not like the racist Nazis. What "real" reasons were you thinking would be included?  Can you give me some suggestions?  

This thread is over two years old. If, in that time, you've never cared enough to learn enough Ukrainian history to answer the question yourself, I doubt anything I say will land.

I did learn Ukrainian history but, I did not participate in this thread for a long stretch and I'm forgetting some things (I have a lot going on outside of MOL).  I'm going back to review.  Also, I want to know what YOU THINK about this.  I would never think of the stuff you think about because we have different perspectives on this war.  You seem to desperately want to find a large group of upstanding, non-nazi citizens who have a legit beef with "Russian aggression" and want to join NATO.  But I don't presume to read your mind so I'm asking.  You complain that it's not enough dialogue and so I ask you a question and you are like "why don't you already know!"  

nan said:

PVW said:

Anyway, I'm satisfied I understand your position now.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for your explanation of yours. 

It's not complicated. Ukrainians chose independence in 1991. The history of Ukraine since then has been about the dynamic between those seeking to continue on that path, and those who would not. It's a dynamic that makes sense on its own without having to resort to claims of Nazis and CIA plots.

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

...  I rarely read Russian media so any agreement I have with them is coincidental.  ...

You read Russian media all the freaking time. You're just blissfully unaware of it.

Oh, so I do it in my sleep?  Is that how it works?  

no, you do it while fully awake.

we had an exchange in this thread a while back where you pretty much refused to acknowledge that Russian propaganda in the U.S. even existed. "blissfully unaware" is a charitable characterization.

Well, the Russian propaganda revealed during Russiagate was in fact a bunch of losers making shirtless Bernie Sanders memes and pictures of Jesus with captions about masturbation.  I kid you not.   Is that the Russian propaganda you thought I was in denial about?  There was also a fake group pretending to be Russian Propaganda and then making big bucks telling people how to protect themselves from Russian Propaganda.  I seem to recall you fell for that one, but it might have been another.  Then there was the Hamilton68 scandal, as revealed by Matt Taibbi, to beat them all (https://therealnews.com/hamilton-68-how-former-intelligence-officials-and-democratic-operatives-conspired-to-manufacture-russiagate).  

So how many of these did you fall for and what Russian propaganda am I missing?  Please advise.

yeah, not doing this again. but there's more to life than what you call "Russiagate".

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

It seems you want to identify the "normal" people in Ukraine who hate Russia for real reasons, not like the racist Nazis. What "real" reasons were you thinking would be included?  Can you give me some suggestions?  

This thread is over two years old. If, in that time, you've never cared enough to learn enough Ukrainian history to answer the question yourself, I doubt anything I say will land.

I did learn Ukrainian history but, I did not participate in this thread for a long stretch and I'm forgetting some things (I have a lot going on outside of MOL).  I'm going back to review.  Also, I want to know what YOU THINK about this.  I would never think of the stuff you think about because we have different perspectives on this war.  You seem to desperately want to find a large group of upstanding, non-nazi citizens who have a legit beef with "Russian aggression" and want to join NATO.  But I don't presume to read your mind so I'm asking.  You complain that it's not enough dialogue and so I ask you a question and you are like "why don't you already know!"  

Ukraine spent the 20th century victimized by Moscow, with a few years in the middle being victimized by Berlin. With such a history, it shouldn't be especially surprising that many Ukrainians are wary of Russia, and yet you seem to struggle to imagine this.

They were all part of the USSR.  It was a different world. Russia is not the same Russia. The whole system changed.  Also,the Ukrainians were brutal to Jews during WWII and thanks to the Russians we won that war. Half the country speaks Russian and identifies with Russia.  The other half seems to identify with Stepen Bandara or puts up with Stepan Bandara celebrations.  So, yeah I struggle with imagining that Russia is what you should be worried about when you streets are named after nazis.  As Jerry Seinfield once said "if your clothes are covered in blood, maybe laundry is not your biggest problem."

So half the country likes Russia and then there is a Nazi group that wants to kill all Russians and then "All you others."  Why do you always focus on the theoretical "all you others group" that supposedly dislikes Russia in a western way as though they speak for the whole country?  We don't even know if they exist. 

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

It seems you want to identify the "normal" people in Ukraine who hate Russia for real reasons, not like the racist Nazis. What "real" reasons were you thinking would be included?  Can you give me some suggestions?  

This thread is over two years old. If, in that time, you've never cared enough to learn enough Ukrainian history to answer the question yourself, I doubt anything I say will land.

I did learn Ukrainian history but, I did not participate in this thread for a long stretch and I'm forgetting some things (I have a lot going on outside of MOL).  I'm going back to review.  Also, I want to know what YOU THINK about this.  I would never think of the stuff you think about because we have different perspectives on this war.  You seem to desperately want to find a large group of upstanding, non-nazi citizens who have a legit beef with "Russian aggression" and want to join NATO.  But I don't presume to read your mind so I'm asking.  You complain that it's not enough dialogue and so I ask you a question and you are like "why don't you already know!"  

Ukraine spent the 20th century victimized by Moscow, with a few years in the middle being victimized by Berlin. With such a history, it shouldn't be especially surprising that many Ukrainians are wary of Russia, and yet you seem to struggle to imagine this.

They were all part of the USSR.  It was a different world. Russia is not the same Russia. The whole system changed.  Also,the Ukrainians were brutal to Jews during WWII and thanks to the Russians we won that war. Half the country speaks Russian and identifies with Russia.  The other half seems to identify with Stepen Bandara or puts up with Stepan Bandara celebrations.  So, yeah I struggle with imagining that Russia is what you should be worried about when you streets are named after nazis.  As Jerry Seinfield once said "if your clothes are covered in blood, maybe laundry is not your biggest problem."

So half the country likes Russia and then there is a Nazi group that wants to kill all Russians and then "All you others."  Why do you always focus on the theoretical "all you others group" that supposedly dislikes Russia in a western way as though they speak for the whole country?  We don't even know if they exist. 

Sounds like you don't know much Ukrainian history after all. Or Soviet history either.

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

drummerboy said:

nan said:

...  I rarely read Russian media so any agreement I have with them is coincidental.  ...

You read Russian media all the freaking time. You're just blissfully unaware of it.

Oh, so I do it in my sleep?  Is that how it works?  

no, you do it while fully awake.

we had an exchange in this thread a while back where you pretty much refused to acknowledge that Russian propaganda in the U.S. even existed. "blissfully unaware" is a charitable characterization.

Well, the Russian propaganda revealed during Russiagate was in fact a bunch of losers making shirtless Bernie Sanders memes and pictures of Jesus with captions about masturbation.  I kid you not.   Is that the Russian propaganda you thought I was in denial about?  There was also a fake group pretending to be Russian Propaganda and then making big bucks telling people how to protect themselves from Russian Propaganda.  I seem to recall you fell for that one, but it might have been another.  Then there was the Hamilton68 scandal, as revealed by Matt Taibbi, to beat them all (https://therealnews.com/hamilton-68-how-former-intelligence-officials-and-democratic-operatives-conspired-to-manufacture-russiagate).  

So how many of these did you fall for and what Russian propaganda am I missing?  Please advise.

yeah, not doing this again. but there's more to life than what you call "Russiagate".

Never said Russiagate was all of life.  You are accusing me of not realizing I'm influenced by Russian propaganda. And then you can't state what you mean. So you were just going for a personal attack. Got it.