[jamincan]

I'm rejecting Kissinger's entire framework. This isn't a war between NATO (or the US) and Russia, so as much as we might want to end the war, we can't. The entire premise of his article presumes that the west can determine the outcome at all apart from tilting the scales one way or another.

[psychphysic]

Are you suggesting NATO has not had any influence on this war?

The US just agreed a further 2bn in military aid including a patriot system.

Ukraine only fighting chance has been due to NATOs support.

Eastern Europe has always been a buffer between NATO and Russia in a landwar it's obviously preferable for Russia to lose in Ukraine than in a NATO territory from NATOs perspective.

What did you think was going on here it not a war between NATO and Russia?!

No one cares about the other wars around the world with even worse humanitarian disasters. Here marks the real criticism people have of Kissinger, real politik is ugly and we don't like looking at it or those who talk about it.

[jamincan]

I think I clearly stated that the US and NATO has had influence, sufficient to tilt the war in either direction, but I also think it's unrealistic to believe that influence can be leveraged to end the war let alone set the terms for peace.

The world in the 21st century is not one in which individual sovereign countries are beholden to the dictates of great powers and where therefore a simplified framework for understanding global politics that only considers great powers is useful.

Ukraine fought off the initial Russian attack without US and NATO, do you think they would stop fighting now if support were withdrawn? How exactly do you think the US and NATO could force Ukraine and Russia to the table? Do you think that eastern European countries would withdraw support from Ukraine even absent the US and NATO when Russian incursions on neighbouring territory represent very real threats to them? The entire premise that the US can end this war feels like a hopelessly naive relic of a different era.

My own point of view is that the only way this will end peacefully is with the full withdraw of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory. The question of how this can be achieved without Russia becoming destabilized and fracturing, which I don't feel is desirable, is certainly a concern, although I fear that that may be the only thing that leads to their withdraw. (See Timothy Snyder's piece on the subject: How does the Russo-Ukrainian War end? [1])

1. https://snyder.substack.com/p/how-does-the-russo-ukrainian-w...

[hackinthebochs]

>The world in the 21st century is not one in which individual sovereign countries are beholden to the dictates of great powers and where therefore a simplified framework for understanding global politics that only considers great powers is useful.

What reason is there to think this is true? What I see is the appearance of a post-realpolitik world in the wake of an utterly dominant U.S. hegemony. Realpolitik is still in effect; it's just sufficiently hidden behind the stability of a U.S. centric world order and the ongoing Nash equilibrium of the current borders in most of Europe that some people can convince themselves the world has fundamentally changed. It's hard to distinguish between a post-realpolitik world and Nash equilibrium. On the surface they look identical.

[psychphysic]

There is none.

The invasion of ukraine snapped a lot of people who weren't paying attention awake. And they believe we're in a novel situation.

It's just another cold war style proxy war, this is Kissinger's wheelhouse.

[psychphysic]

I don't believe at all that Ukraine fought off the initial invasion alone.

In fact I think that's been categorically disproven with green berets admitting to providing on ground training extensively before the invasion and admissions of extensive intelligence support from those AWACS weren't circling the black sea for training purposes.

Even an admission that the base near Poland which was struck was the primary place western troops trained Ukrainian troops.

Likely a cohort of Ukrainian troops which were trained and equipt were already present in Ukraine likely at the instance of the US when intelligence predicted invasion within a year.

Why would Ukraine turn it down?

I'm sorry but the miracle of the Ukrainian farmers defense is a laughable fairy tale it was achieved through careful preparation and huge military losses. All driven by savvy NATO advisors.

Whether or not the Ukrainian government really believed Russia would invade is another question. Biden suggests not.

[AnimalMuppet]

It's not a war between NATO and Russia. It's a proxy war (on NATO's part). The difference matters.

If this were a war between NATO and Russia, all those bases that Russian missiles are coming from would be gone. So would Russia's air force. And then the ground-attack planes would start in on all the Russian troops in Ukraine. And they'd feel free to go after every mass of troops that Russia brought anywhere near the border.

None of that is happening. That's how you know it's not a war between NATO and Russia.

To your larger point: You think Russia has the power to destroy the world, so we should let them have their way with Ukraine. You're like a business owner who doesn't interfere when the street gang rapes people outside, because they might burn your business if you did. Can't you see how morally bankrupt that is?