When stakes are as high as they are now, it is imperative to try to understand the other guy's position. As offensive to Western values as is Russia's invasion of Ukraine , it is as simple as that.
Jonathan, certainly interesting, and i am all against invading Canada, but i believe this is not so much a matter of projecting on the Russian people what /we/ think, as of seeking to understand what /they/ think. Kennan, a Russophile,, was especially good at this. i am not done with spelling out my argument, more next week, so forgives the shorthand argument here. david
I wrote you a long comment Sunday but it was done before I was invited to sign in, and it was lost.
Some of my points have been made by Mark Walker, but I just want to express my disgust at equating Ukraine's fight to maintain its internationally recognized independence against imperialist aggression with the Southern states' violent rebellion to maintain their ownership and enslavement of human beings. You do so by labelling both as "secession."
Ukraine gained independence in 1991. Its status was later affirmed by treaty, with Russia a signatory, Then, Russia invaded in 2014 and has effectively been trying to defeat or annex Ukraine since. There is no secession here, only imperialist aggression.
True, there are large numbers of Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine, but after a year of bombardment and war crimes, most now choose Ukrainian. Also, it is important to recall how the Russian-speakers came to Ukraine: Stalin killed as many as 5 million Ukrainians by genocidal starvation, then shipped in Russians to replace them.
Kenan's statement simply amounts to extending American Manifest Destiny to the Russians. And with that comes the OK to kill the people of the areas you desire, accompanied by arguments that they are inferior so their rights and lives don't matter.
Kenan's containment may have prevented WWIII, but it did little for the people of the Soviet bloc. He is no great hero to me.
Since the beginning of human settlement, if not before, groups have vied for control of territory. They always have good reasons, going back into the mists of history. Why shouldn't the British control Ireland? Why shouldn't the Serbs control Kosovo? Why shouldn't the Israelis control the West Bank?
In such conflicts there are never clear rights and wrongs. Yes, people don't like to be controlled by others they regard as different. Members of the religious right don't like to be controlled by alien secularists in Washington. But when does a dislike turn into a right to independence? And when does it turn into a right to punish or expel unwanted populations?
When does control by others amount to colonial exploitation, thereby justifying a right to break free? One could make that case for Ireland and for Ukraine. But in both cases you have mixed residents with diverse loyalties. Ireland wound up split, as will probably happen with Ukraine. I note that, contra Kennan's suggestion that Russians settled Ukraine, Ukrainian is a completely separate Slavic language, not a dialect of Russian.
Henry George sought to resolve competing claims to territory by proposing that governments tax the land, that is, collect the economic rent. Then share it equally across the population in the form of public works and benefits. To some extent that sharing happens in modern democratic societies. But today growing inequality increasingly limits that sharing and provokes widespread discontent.
I think that realizing that Russians see the Ukraine war as a war of succession helps put the conflict into a broad historical perspective. Perhaps that perspective will make it a bit easier to resolve.
Yes, Kennan helps to see this through Russian eyes. That doesn't mean those eyes are seeing things clearly or correctly. There is a very big difference between the secession of the US South and the Ukrainian wish to be a sovereign nation: Russia agreed in 1991 not only to Ukraine's "secession" but to those of lots of other formerly independent states. In fact, Yeltsin was perhaps encouraging it. Kennan was envisioning "an attempt to carve [Ukraine] out," at a time when there had indeed "never been any economic separation." The situation is different today. Nevertheless, the US afterward dropped the ball on cooperation with Russia.
The analysis today might want to elaborate two points:
First, economic integration does not mandate political integration. Two countries can cooperate on trade and maintain separate political existences. There is no necessary reason why Russia needs to control Ukraine in order to carry out its historic trade relationship with the region. Think of Canada and the U.S. as being almost completely integrated economically, but no one would suggest a U.S. invasion is necessary or desirable.
Second, Ukraine has been politically independent of Russia since 1990 or so—more than 30 years. This is not a sudden break-away region like South Carolina in 1861. Treating it as such violates the autonomy of the Ukrainian people, which in my mind outweighs the ego needs of Putin for empire.
None of the above necessarily justifies the expansion of NATO, a separate issue.
I think the analogy with the US Civil War is misleading. Why would the Russians see Ukraine as a separatist state? They never joined in the way the American colonies and subsequent states and territories did (initially through ratification of the Constitution by the majority of state legislatures, themselves elected by suffrage of white male property owners). If they can claim Ukraine based on seeing them as separatists, why stop there? There’s also the former members of the USSR in the Baltics, the Caucasus and Central Asia, not to speak of Belarus.
John,
When stakes are as high as they are now, it is imperative to try to understand the other guy's position. As offensive to Western values as is Russia's invasion of Ukraine , it is as simple as that.
Jonathan, certainly interesting, and i am all against invading Canada, but i believe this is not so much a matter of projecting on the Russian people what /we/ think, as of seeking to understand what /they/ think. Kennan, a Russophile,, was especially good at this. i am not done with spelling out my argument, more next week, so forgives the shorthand argument here. david
David
I wrote you a long comment Sunday but it was done before I was invited to sign in, and it was lost.
Some of my points have been made by Mark Walker, but I just want to express my disgust at equating Ukraine's fight to maintain its internationally recognized independence against imperialist aggression with the Southern states' violent rebellion to maintain their ownership and enslavement of human beings. You do so by labelling both as "secession."
Ukraine gained independence in 1991. Its status was later affirmed by treaty, with Russia a signatory, Then, Russia invaded in 2014 and has effectively been trying to defeat or annex Ukraine since. There is no secession here, only imperialist aggression.
True, there are large numbers of Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine, but after a year of bombardment and war crimes, most now choose Ukrainian. Also, it is important to recall how the Russian-speakers came to Ukraine: Stalin killed as many as 5 million Ukrainians by genocidal starvation, then shipped in Russians to replace them.
Kenan's statement simply amounts to extending American Manifest Destiny to the Russians. And with that comes the OK to kill the people of the areas you desire, accompanied by arguments that they are inferior so their rights and lives don't matter.
Kenan's containment may have prevented WWIII, but it did little for the people of the Soviet bloc. He is no great hero to me.
Hi David,
Thanks for this reverse perspective.
Since the beginning of human settlement, if not before, groups have vied for control of territory. They always have good reasons, going back into the mists of history. Why shouldn't the British control Ireland? Why shouldn't the Serbs control Kosovo? Why shouldn't the Israelis control the West Bank?
In such conflicts there are never clear rights and wrongs. Yes, people don't like to be controlled by others they regard as different. Members of the religious right don't like to be controlled by alien secularists in Washington. But when does a dislike turn into a right to independence? And when does it turn into a right to punish or expel unwanted populations?
When does control by others amount to colonial exploitation, thereby justifying a right to break free? One could make that case for Ireland and for Ukraine. But in both cases you have mixed residents with diverse loyalties. Ireland wound up split, as will probably happen with Ukraine. I note that, contra Kennan's suggestion that Russians settled Ukraine, Ukrainian is a completely separate Slavic language, not a dialect of Russian.
Henry George sought to resolve competing claims to territory by proposing that governments tax the land, that is, collect the economic rent. Then share it equally across the population in the form of public works and benefits. To some extent that sharing happens in modern democratic societies. But today growing inequality increasingly limits that sharing and provokes widespread discontent.
I think that realizing that Russians see the Ukraine war as a war of succession helps put the conflict into a broad historical perspective. Perhaps that perspective will make it a bit easier to resolve.
Yes, Kennan helps to see this through Russian eyes. That doesn't mean those eyes are seeing things clearly or correctly. There is a very big difference between the secession of the US South and the Ukrainian wish to be a sovereign nation: Russia agreed in 1991 not only to Ukraine's "secession" but to those of lots of other formerly independent states. In fact, Yeltsin was perhaps encouraging it. Kennan was envisioning "an attempt to carve [Ukraine] out," at a time when there had indeed "never been any economic separation." The situation is different today. Nevertheless, the US afterward dropped the ball on cooperation with Russia.
Hi David,
The analysis today might want to elaborate two points:
First, economic integration does not mandate political integration. Two countries can cooperate on trade and maintain separate political existences. There is no necessary reason why Russia needs to control Ukraine in order to carry out its historic trade relationship with the region. Think of Canada and the U.S. as being almost completely integrated economically, but no one would suggest a U.S. invasion is necessary or desirable.
Second, Ukraine has been politically independent of Russia since 1990 or so—more than 30 years. This is not a sudden break-away region like South Carolina in 1861. Treating it as such violates the autonomy of the Ukrainian people, which in my mind outweighs the ego needs of Putin for empire.
None of the above necessarily justifies the expansion of NATO, a separate issue.
Best regards, Jonathan
I think the analogy with the US Civil War is misleading. Why would the Russians see Ukraine as a separatist state? They never joined in the way the American colonies and subsequent states and territories did (initially through ratification of the Constitution by the majority of state legislatures, themselves elected by suffrage of white male property owners). If they can claim Ukraine based on seeing them as separatists, why stop there? There’s also the former members of the USSR in the Baltics, the Caucasus and Central Asia, not to speak of Belarus.