Multiple things can be true at the same time...

Putin can be a total murderous despot and a determined anti-USA force in the world and the USA's activities in the region could have encouraged Putin's actions towards Ukraine.

One of the things I was taught in my formal military education (starting at CGSC) was to always put yourself in your adversary's shoes. Not only to take your adversary's view/position on the battlefield but also their strategic/geopolitical interests into consideration as well. This was not an exercise to determine the justification of your position but to understand the viewpoint and actions of your adversary in order to try and predict what further moves they may make.

In many cases - the foreign policy establishment simply states Putin is a despot and that serves as justification for whatever policy they wish to implement. To attribute all of Putin's motives toward Ukraine as simply Putin being a murdering thug bent on subjugating Ukraine to his Russian empire's will is to ignore the real concerns Putin has for the survival of HIS Russian State.

Sure - Putin wanted that land in Ukraine for its value (especially Crimea) but to ignore his security interests with having a "less than friendly to Putin" regime on his border is also a tremendous motivation and determinant of his actions. There is no doubt that Putin saw the growth of NATO - especially among former Soviet States - as a purposeful encroachment towards isolating Russia and surrounding him/Russia with adversaries. How would the USA react if South America, Mexico and Canada were signing military security pacts with China??

I fully believe that Putin is an enemy of everything the USA stands for - would like nothing more than to see his regime fall. However, I also can't find a lot of error in Dr. Sachs' analysis of US activities and the subsequent actions of a geopolitical adversary. Whether there is a direct linkage to all these actions/events as he puts forth should be reasonably discussed.

What I find disturbing is that our foreign policy elites kill this kind of debate and routinely fill the space with one sided propaganda that reinforces their position. These kinds of discussions should/must be done - not from a standpoint that the USA is the bad guy in all this - but from an understanding of how our geopolitical adversaries will react and how we can end up in WW III if we fail to take their viewpoint into consideration.

For far too long the neocons of the Republican Party have silenced these kinds of discussions through their view that the USA is 'righteous and always right' and combine that with an aggressive spreading 'democracy at the point of a gun' philosophy. What's amazing is that somewhere along the way the once overly pacifist Democratic Party joined forces with them (for whatever reason... MIC money cough...cough...) and our foreign policy under both Democrat and Republican Inc. has, for the most part, essentially become a distinction without a difference.

Swarley

Paw Master [16638]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 18006

Joined: 1999

This summation of Russian-NATO relations reeks of hackish propaganda.

Nov 12, 2024, 2:44 PM

I'm sure Jeffrey Sachs is a well-regarded academic with many an accolade and accomplishment to his name. This summary, taken in itself, reeks of Russian propaganda talking points.

The very point of taking the "not one inch eastward" point as some absolute...some holy commitment...is clearly disingenuous. It wasn't incorporated into a treaty...there is ample argument as to whether it was a reference exclusively to East Germany or intended to be more broadly applied. It was a talking point in support of reunification. It was uttered when the WARSAW Pact still existed. Heck, it was uttered with the USSR still existed, and at BEST could be considered a gentlemen's assurance to THAT country. Since then, decades have passed, in which Russia has attacked several neighbors. Does that comment from 1990 matter more than the Founding Act of 1997? Why does that not come up in this discussion? It doesn't support the "poor betrayed Russians" narrative?

Putting all that aside...imagine claiming that the "not one inch eastward" was clear international law (which it is clearly not)...America put it into their constitution, so fundamental is its rule. And then we betrayed it. By some accounts, this war...a war that would stop the day Russia withdrew its troops...has resulted in...I dunno...a million casualties between the countries? Hundreds of billions in wasted money and wasted infrastructure. For what? Was NATO about to attack Russia?

Finland is now a NATO member and can see St. Petersburg from their collective houses. Why weren't they attacked when they expressed interest in joining NATO? Because that justification is a smoke screen?

The man said it himself...Russia considered joining NATO. How can an academic with a straight face say that Russia attacked Ukraine in part because NATO...an organization they expressed interest in joining...expanded toward them more than a 1990 comment implied it would?

Listen to the way this "academic" casually references NATO's 1999 bombing of Serbia to "break up that country". As if that summed it up. As if there wasn't a potential for Albanian genocide. Argue the virtues of that intervention, fine. Casually throw it out in defense of a 2022 invasion of the Ukraine by Russia? Complete hack propaganda. And to say "Russia didn't like that very much." Yeah, genius...why do you think that was? Humanitarian reasons?

Our Ukrainian coup? That "nasty phone call"? Has anyone read the transcript? Did I miss the voter fraud? Did we attack anyone? How nasty was that phone call? A million dead people nasty? Yikes. Stupid foreign diplomats supporting western leaning politicians.

This guy knows that NATO doesn't expand by incorporating new members by force, right? That they have to request membership and that they have to meet a slew of requirements to do so. Why does he think all these countries next to Russia want to join the only alliance that seems to preclude Russia from attacking them?

And then...you guys help me with this. According to Sachs, five days after being attacked...after Zelenskyy's famous "I don't need a ride, I need weapons" comment...he was for neutrality? Possibly, I'd need a reference. But, he couldn't be neutral, because the US and the UK wouldn't let him? How exactly does that work? The Ukraine is fighting because we won't let them stop? Explain how we have that power over them. If they had wanted to quit fighting at any time, against US and UK wishes, how would we stop them? What exactly was the deal on the table five days into the war that the US and UK FORBID Ukraine from taking? Is Sachs implying that Russia said "Hey, remain neutral and you can have your entire country back"? My money is on "no."

Sorry for the rant. I don't come on here much anymore but this whole argument was an insult, in my opinion, and the fact that it's given credence even more so. Jeffrey Sachs may be a genius but here he comes across as, truly, a paid propagandist or a useful idiot.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

null

Wow. Helps to know your history:

Re: Wow. Helps to know your history:

What's astonishing

Re: What's astonishing

Re: Wow. Helps to know your history:

wow the Putin #### sucking has already started

Lawd, APM***

What did he say that isn't true? I was in Europe when we were bombing

All that went out the window...

Yes, in 2014 they were aggressors. Also in Georgia, South Ossetia.

You think Russia was backed into a corner?***

Re: You think Russia was backed into a corner?***

Debate the points... Message, not the messenger. He just relayed the video.***

Thank you.***

But the Uni-Party doesn't exist...***

Chatgpt says

Re: Multiple things can be true at the same time...

You advocated sending US troops there 2 years ago.

You talking to me or APM??

APM. He throws out some flippant positions at times.***

I don't think I have ever advocated troops to Ukraine. I DID think Biden was

This summation of Russian-NATO relations reeks of hackish propaganda.

Re: This summation of Russian-NATO relations reeks of hackish propaganda.

TigerBoard POTD