It should be indication of how powerful western ideological dominance is that makes you imply it was only Russia who interfered with Ukrainian internal politics. I'm aware of one phone leak out of probably many between a US official and an ambassador in Ukraine where she was dictating which guy to place as the foreign minister of Ukraine…
It should be indication of how powerful western ideological dominance is that makes you imply it was only Russia who interfered with Ukrainian internal politics. I'm aware of one phone leak out of probably many between a US official and an ambassador in Ukraine where she was dictating which guy to place as the foreign minister of Ukraine just after 2014. Already widely public Trump leaks on US aid to Ukraine should be regarded as the tip of the iceberg regarding the size and depth of the US involvement in Ukrainian politics. Ukraine was a battleground long ago and the west was doing everything they could in order to get Ukraine out of Russian influence. And spheres of influence is still a relevant concept. In 19th century and until the world wars outright colonialism the fashion was. As you consider Nato a mere a defence pact, I would like to point your attention to the remarks by Stoltenberg just a few days ago, saying "cannot give authoritarian regimes any chance to exploit our vulnerabilities and undermine us" referring to Chinese economic expansion (a gross invasion of civil political space) and I would like you to imagine a situation where China, Russia, Iran and some other countries established a "defence" pact and the general secretary of that pact would make similar remarks against the US. Would the US response and headlines of major newspapers be anything short of framing these remarks as 'casus belli'?
Jan, most countries from Eastern Europe have tried a buffer state/neutrality strategy in the past and it has always ended with invasion from Russia. It has a very bad rep in Eastern Europe and is not taken seriously anymore.
Also, Russia has very limited soft power capacities. In the 19th century, if you were living in Russian Empire, you could genuinely look up to Petersburg or Moscow as world class metropolis, Russia could claim high culture and civilization and even offer some carrots to colonized nations. In the 19th century, Paris and London were so far away, that people from Russian Empire did not even know that these places existed.
Not anymore. Today, Russia is a relatively weak, poor, and poorly managed country - it has very little to offer. And if you are Georgian or Ukrainian, how do you want to live - like in Russia or like in Germany or France? This shift moves through society on many levels (young people learn English, not Russian; people want to study in western universities, not Russian; they want to travel to the West, not Russia, and so on and so, etc.).
Ukrainian society has slowly and surely drifted to the west. It has happened naturally and thats why it is very hard to stop.
Then two questions: 1) why wasn't becoming an EU member a bigger topic for Ukrainian politicians than becoming a Nato member 2) why was west more eager to accept Ukraine into the military club rather than the socioeconomic club? Ukraine is economically backwarded but if Romania and Bulgaria could became members, Ukraine could also become a member given the circumstances. During the heated first weeks of the invasion when European leaders embraced Ukraine as the immediate new member of the union tomorrow, Russia didn't seem to have any problem with that (it's a question if EUs urgency waned just because of that).
Then there comes the question of politicians, Ukrainian politicians: why to push that much for Nato membership, why not to follow a more balanced path? Obviously it's better business for the west to accept Ukraine as a military outpost rather than an economic burden. You just need blinded or stupid politicians without a sense of how power works to play along. Because people just want. Who doesn't want to be a westerner? Probably a vast majority of the world population today would love to pursue western lifestyles. But it should politicians that need to realistically moderate. I think this is what happened in Ukraine.
It should be indication of how powerful western ideological dominance is that makes you imply it was only Russia who interfered with Ukrainian internal politics. I'm aware of one phone leak out of probably many between a US official and an ambassador in Ukraine where she was dictating which guy to place as the foreign minister of Ukraine just after 2014. Already widely public Trump leaks on US aid to Ukraine should be regarded as the tip of the iceberg regarding the size and depth of the US involvement in Ukrainian politics. Ukraine was a battleground long ago and the west was doing everything they could in order to get Ukraine out of Russian influence. And spheres of influence is still a relevant concept. In 19th century and until the world wars outright colonialism the fashion was. As you consider Nato a mere a defence pact, I would like to point your attention to the remarks by Stoltenberg just a few days ago, saying "cannot give authoritarian regimes any chance to exploit our vulnerabilities and undermine us" referring to Chinese economic expansion (a gross invasion of civil political space) and I would like you to imagine a situation where China, Russia, Iran and some other countries established a "defence" pact and the general secretary of that pact would make similar remarks against the US. Would the US response and headlines of major newspapers be anything short of framing these remarks as 'casus belli'?
Jan, most countries from Eastern Europe have tried a buffer state/neutrality strategy in the past and it has always ended with invasion from Russia. It has a very bad rep in Eastern Europe and is not taken seriously anymore.
Also, Russia has very limited soft power capacities. In the 19th century, if you were living in Russian Empire, you could genuinely look up to Petersburg or Moscow as world class metropolis, Russia could claim high culture and civilization and even offer some carrots to colonized nations. In the 19th century, Paris and London were so far away, that people from Russian Empire did not even know that these places existed.
Not anymore. Today, Russia is a relatively weak, poor, and poorly managed country - it has very little to offer. And if you are Georgian or Ukrainian, how do you want to live - like in Russia or like in Germany or France? This shift moves through society on many levels (young people learn English, not Russian; people want to study in western universities, not Russian; they want to travel to the West, not Russia, and so on and so, etc.).
Ukrainian society has slowly and surely drifted to the west. It has happened naturally and thats why it is very hard to stop.
Then two questions: 1) why wasn't becoming an EU member a bigger topic for Ukrainian politicians than becoming a Nato member 2) why was west more eager to accept Ukraine into the military club rather than the socioeconomic club? Ukraine is economically backwarded but if Romania and Bulgaria could became members, Ukraine could also become a member given the circumstances. During the heated first weeks of the invasion when European leaders embraced Ukraine as the immediate new member of the union tomorrow, Russia didn't seem to have any problem with that (it's a question if EUs urgency waned just because of that).
Then there comes the question of politicians, Ukrainian politicians: why to push that much for Nato membership, why not to follow a more balanced path? Obviously it's better business for the west to accept Ukraine as a military outpost rather than an economic burden. You just need blinded or stupid politicians without a sense of how power works to play along. Because people just want. Who doesn't want to be a westerner? Probably a vast majority of the world population today would love to pursue western lifestyles. But it should politicians that need to realistically moderate. I think this is what happened in Ukraine.