Mr. Alter, I appreciate your detailed response to my contentions.
I am not morally neutral on slavery. Of course, I found slavery reprehensible.
The North found that the odium of slavery superseded any right the South might have had to secede. And the North denied the South the right to secede even though neither constitutional law, nor any federal statutory law, forbade the right to secede.
Similarly, Russia is entitled to deny Ukrainian separatism because Ukrainian nationalism at this juncture seems part and parcel of a plan to endanger Russia. All Russia and its allies ask for is Ukrainian neutrality and the exclusion of Ukraine from Nato.
In 1953, Moscow and Washington agreed that Austria would be neutral. When was the last time Austria was attacked by the big bad Russian bear ?
During the cold war, Rumania followed a foreign policy that was independent of Moscow and Washington. When was Rumania attacked by the big bad Russian bear ?
Some historians report that at Yalta, Churchill and Stalin envisioned how Eastern Europe would be divided. They scribbled numbers on an envelope. Churchill and Stalin agreed that the West would have a 90 percent controlling interest in Greece and that Russia would have a 90 per cent controlling interest in Rumania. The notion that super powers may divy up the world like this may seem offensive to contemporary -- and dare I say delicate and adolescent ears -- but grand designs orchestrated by super powers sometimes kept people form slaughtering one another. Although there are many aspects of the Congress of Vienna that I found loathsome and repugnant to my affection for the doctrine of self determination, this accord kept the peace from 1814 to 1914 (Although it certainly began to unravel in the 1860's) and during that century agricultural and industrial output soared and human want and misery was in retreat.
Finally, if I were a Russian, I would look upon the world with horror and alarm because Hitler's friends are all joining Nato. Poland has joined Nato. Of course it was not an ally of Hitler; it was attacked by Hitler. But under the leadership of Pilsudksi, Poland tried to be a good friend of Nazi Germany. In March of 1939, when Hitler demanded the provinces of Bohemia-Moravia from Czeck., Poland sought to make Hitler's demands seem legitimate by also demanding and receiving Czeck. territory. (And let's not forget that Russia, at the time of Munich, proposed joint action, with France and England, to stop Hitler, but Poland axed that plan and insisted that England and France not help Czeck.)
Also, Hungary, another new member of Nato, joined Poland, in March 39, in demanding and taking territory from Czeck., to validate Hitler's seizure of the heart of Czeck., namely the aforesaid bohemia-moravia. And Hungary has joined Nato. Ditto Rumania. And Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Croatia and Skovakia all joined the Wehmacht it murdering Russians and Jews.
Very simply, If I were a Russian I would be extremely anxious by the apparent formation of a vast and immense Western juggernaut ready to recapitulate the ravages and advances of the Teutonic Knights and the Panzer divisions.
However, you can fool most of the people most of the time. De Toqueville (I cannot spell to save my life; I am referring to the author of "Democracy in America.") said that Americans are so sure of their freedom and goodness that they never question their freedom and that like little children believing that their mommies and daddies are forever virtuous, they never doubt the benevolence of their government. And this infantilism and ignorance brews the galling credulity that makes them imbibe the lies de jour as readily as dumb fish biting bait from fish hooks. Because most Americans know almost nothing about history, many of them see Putin as a second Hitler. Because they know nothing about history, they don't know that in World War Two, while the Soviets were evacuating Jews to the East, Ukrainians were among the most ardent and eager employees of the final solution.
I heard Arthur Miller say. in 1980, that there was more freedom of speech in Moscow that there is in America. The audience was aghast. I will never forget his explanation: People in Russia expect the government and the press to lie and have, therefore, learned to think and to read critically, to read between the lives, to go beyond the shadows and images and to try to identify something true. In America, people have not learned how to read critically (Hell, so many Americans can barely read, let alone think critically) and they will jump on the anti-Russian bandwagon with juvenile earnestness and glee.
I don't deny that Putin's strategic position is weakening. However, that does not detract from the validity of his position.
Putin, very simply is correct, and his actions are justifiable. Nato has moved 1000 miles to the East since the Berlin Wall Fell. In 1989, the Bush admin. (through I think James Baker) agreed that in consideration for Germany's inclusion in Nato, Nato would not advance any further to the East.
Since then, Nato has moved far to the East, including many allies of the Third Reich (Most Americans suffer from the delusion that the states between Germany and Russia were all sweet innocents; in fact, most of those states were seething with fascism and antisemitism -- see some of my posts, including https://davidgottfried.substack.com/p/the-new-york-times-is-lying-about?utm_source=url )
In effect, Nato is stronger and greater thanks to the inclusion of former, fervid allies of Hitler. 20 Million Russians died because of Hitler. Any Russian leader who did not try his utmost to thwart NATO expansion would be guilty or rank political malpractice.
Yes, a few hundred Ukrainians have died because or Russia's incursion. May I remind apologists of the West that America slaughtered Hundreds of Thousands of Indochinese people in the vietnam war, and Vietnam was 10,000 miles from California. Ukraine, by contrast, is adjacent to Russia.
Also, for those pro Ukrainian pols with some familiarity with American government, may I remind you of the American civil war. The South wanted to break away from the Union, but the Union thought it did not have the right to choose its destiny and had to be wedded to the Union with no right of divorce. (And Northerners believed this even though nothing in the constitution, or any federal statutes, provided that the Union could control states even when those states wanted to secede from the Union) The Ukraine was under Moscow's domination since the time of Catherine the Great. If we believe that the North had the right to control the South, we must accept that Russia has the right to rule Ukraine
Of course, Russia would accept an independent Ukraine just so long as Nato were defanged. Why can't we all agree that Ukraine will be neutral. The West has been adamantly opposed to the Finlandization of Ukraine. Why ?
NATO was formed to stop alleged Russian and Communist expansionism.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, no credible threat of Communist or Russian expansion has existed. (Except to the extend that Nato's expansionism has revived it)
Nevertheless, Nato has continually expanded. WHY. Perhaps It seeks to decimate Russia. Since the Teutonic knights invaded Russia upon the Order of the Pope, the West has exhibited intense unrelenting hostility toward Russians and Slavs.
Thanks, David. You make several good and historically valid points until you approach the end of your post. At that point, you turn morally neutral on the critical questions of slavery and the right to self-determination. Your “whatabout?” reference to our awful wars in Indochina is based on the idea that two wrongs make a right. But even within the analogy, if today’s Russians are the Americans in Vietnam, then we are just doing what the Soviets did then—helping defend against aggression with weapons but not troops. Your Civil War analogy might work for, say, the breakaway Chechen republic or even for Crimea, where Russia had some legitimate claims. But Ukraine has been a country for 30 years and to violate its borders would be a hugely dangerous precedent if not strongly resisted. Reasonable people can differ about NATO expansion but the decision must rest with nations, not superpowers operating under the law of the jungle, which is no law at all. Finlandization —neutrality—might be the right result but the decision on that rests with the democratically-elected government of Ukraine, not with superpowers. So, no, Putin was not “right” unless you believe might makes right. And I hope you don’t.
I don't think Putin cares what his own country thinks of him. Delusions of grandeur drive him - of bringing back the old days of soviet dominance. Ukraine and Belarus are just the beginning, so he thinks. And he's betting on Trump regaining the presidency in 2024, withdrawing the US from NATO and joining in a coalition of authoritarians to reshape the world order. But he's dreaming.
I agree that those are his ambitions. But fighting a well-armed insurgency will bog him down in a quagmire and he will start looking for a diplomatic solution.
It's about the money, too. Most of the world will arm the Ukrainians while Russia bleeds from sanctions. What people don't realize is that Russia is a poor country, a has-been on the world stage and that this is why Putin wants Ukraine and Belarus. A victory will, he thinks, impress not only the world but the Russian people. It's rather pathetic.
Ukraine has more trade with Europe than Russia does. But i think Putin’s imperial ambitions go beyond economics. He wants to be remembered as “Vladimir the Great” or “Tsar Putin.” But after just 72 hours, we know he won’t be. His puppet government would have zero chance of pacifying the country and then successfully ruling it. Zero.
I think it's been discussed several times over the years that Putin wants to rule Russia until he dies. He's not about to realize that dream if his present unpopularity is any indication. Right now he's a bit preoccupied by the efforts to round up the thousands of protesters who are not at all happy because Putin is spending money on the invasion while Russia's economy collapses. I would be surprised if this war lasts more than a few weeks; Putin will back off and offer a truce.
excellent when I was in "Russia" few years back, every family divided. half hated him, half liked him for stabilizing things. I predict he ends up ending his own life..sorry, but he is going mad
Mr. Alter, I appreciate your detailed response to my contentions.
I am not morally neutral on slavery. Of course, I found slavery reprehensible.
The North found that the odium of slavery superseded any right the South might have had to secede. And the North denied the South the right to secede even though neither constitutional law, nor any federal statutory law, forbade the right to secede.
Similarly, Russia is entitled to deny Ukrainian separatism because Ukrainian nationalism at this juncture seems part and parcel of a plan to endanger Russia. All Russia and its allies ask for is Ukrainian neutrality and the exclusion of Ukraine from Nato.
In 1953, Moscow and Washington agreed that Austria would be neutral. When was the last time Austria was attacked by the big bad Russian bear ?
During the cold war, Rumania followed a foreign policy that was independent of Moscow and Washington. When was Rumania attacked by the big bad Russian bear ?
Some historians report that at Yalta, Churchill and Stalin envisioned how Eastern Europe would be divided. They scribbled numbers on an envelope. Churchill and Stalin agreed that the West would have a 90 percent controlling interest in Greece and that Russia would have a 90 per cent controlling interest in Rumania. The notion that super powers may divy up the world like this may seem offensive to contemporary -- and dare I say delicate and adolescent ears -- but grand designs orchestrated by super powers sometimes kept people form slaughtering one another. Although there are many aspects of the Congress of Vienna that I found loathsome and repugnant to my affection for the doctrine of self determination, this accord kept the peace from 1814 to 1914 (Although it certainly began to unravel in the 1860's) and during that century agricultural and industrial output soared and human want and misery was in retreat.
Finally, if I were a Russian, I would look upon the world with horror and alarm because Hitler's friends are all joining Nato. Poland has joined Nato. Of course it was not an ally of Hitler; it was attacked by Hitler. But under the leadership of Pilsudksi, Poland tried to be a good friend of Nazi Germany. In March of 1939, when Hitler demanded the provinces of Bohemia-Moravia from Czeck., Poland sought to make Hitler's demands seem legitimate by also demanding and receiving Czeck. territory. (And let's not forget that Russia, at the time of Munich, proposed joint action, with France and England, to stop Hitler, but Poland axed that plan and insisted that England and France not help Czeck.)
Also, Hungary, another new member of Nato, joined Poland, in March 39, in demanding and taking territory from Czeck., to validate Hitler's seizure of the heart of Czeck., namely the aforesaid bohemia-moravia. And Hungary has joined Nato. Ditto Rumania. And Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, Croatia and Skovakia all joined the Wehmacht it murdering Russians and Jews.
Very simply, If I were a Russian I would be extremely anxious by the apparent formation of a vast and immense Western juggernaut ready to recapitulate the ravages and advances of the Teutonic Knights and the Panzer divisions.
However, you can fool most of the people most of the time. De Toqueville (I cannot spell to save my life; I am referring to the author of "Democracy in America.") said that Americans are so sure of their freedom and goodness that they never question their freedom and that like little children believing that their mommies and daddies are forever virtuous, they never doubt the benevolence of their government. And this infantilism and ignorance brews the galling credulity that makes them imbibe the lies de jour as readily as dumb fish biting bait from fish hooks. Because most Americans know almost nothing about history, many of them see Putin as a second Hitler. Because they know nothing about history, they don't know that in World War Two, while the Soviets were evacuating Jews to the East, Ukrainians were among the most ardent and eager employees of the final solution.
I heard Arthur Miller say. in 1980, that there was more freedom of speech in Moscow that there is in America. The audience was aghast. I will never forget his explanation: People in Russia expect the government and the press to lie and have, therefore, learned to think and to read critically, to read between the lives, to go beyond the shadows and images and to try to identify something true. In America, people have not learned how to read critically (Hell, so many Americans can barely read, let alone think critically) and they will jump on the anti-Russian bandwagon with juvenile earnestness and glee.
I don't deny that Putin's strategic position is weakening. However, that does not detract from the validity of his position.
Putin, very simply is correct, and his actions are justifiable. Nato has moved 1000 miles to the East since the Berlin Wall Fell. In 1989, the Bush admin. (through I think James Baker) agreed that in consideration for Germany's inclusion in Nato, Nato would not advance any further to the East.
Since then, Nato has moved far to the East, including many allies of the Third Reich (Most Americans suffer from the delusion that the states between Germany and Russia were all sweet innocents; in fact, most of those states were seething with fascism and antisemitism -- see some of my posts, including https://davidgottfried.substack.com/p/the-new-york-times-is-lying-about?utm_source=url )
In effect, Nato is stronger and greater thanks to the inclusion of former, fervid allies of Hitler. 20 Million Russians died because of Hitler. Any Russian leader who did not try his utmost to thwart NATO expansion would be guilty or rank political malpractice.
Yes, a few hundred Ukrainians have died because or Russia's incursion. May I remind apologists of the West that America slaughtered Hundreds of Thousands of Indochinese people in the vietnam war, and Vietnam was 10,000 miles from California. Ukraine, by contrast, is adjacent to Russia.
Also, for those pro Ukrainian pols with some familiarity with American government, may I remind you of the American civil war. The South wanted to break away from the Union, but the Union thought it did not have the right to choose its destiny and had to be wedded to the Union with no right of divorce. (And Northerners believed this even though nothing in the constitution, or any federal statutes, provided that the Union could control states even when those states wanted to secede from the Union) The Ukraine was under Moscow's domination since the time of Catherine the Great. If we believe that the North had the right to control the South, we must accept that Russia has the right to rule Ukraine
Of course, Russia would accept an independent Ukraine just so long as Nato were defanged. Why can't we all agree that Ukraine will be neutral. The West has been adamantly opposed to the Finlandization of Ukraine. Why ?
NATO was formed to stop alleged Russian and Communist expansionism.
With the fall of the Soviet Union, no credible threat of Communist or Russian expansion has existed. (Except to the extend that Nato's expansionism has revived it)
Nevertheless, Nato has continually expanded. WHY. Perhaps It seeks to decimate Russia. Since the Teutonic knights invaded Russia upon the Order of the Pope, the West has exhibited intense unrelenting hostility toward Russians and Slavs.
Thanks, David. You make several good and historically valid points until you approach the end of your post. At that point, you turn morally neutral on the critical questions of slavery and the right to self-determination. Your “whatabout?” reference to our awful wars in Indochina is based on the idea that two wrongs make a right. But even within the analogy, if today’s Russians are the Americans in Vietnam, then we are just doing what the Soviets did then—helping defend against aggression with weapons but not troops. Your Civil War analogy might work for, say, the breakaway Chechen republic or even for Crimea, where Russia had some legitimate claims. But Ukraine has been a country for 30 years and to violate its borders would be a hugely dangerous precedent if not strongly resisted. Reasonable people can differ about NATO expansion but the decision must rest with nations, not superpowers operating under the law of the jungle, which is no law at all. Finlandization —neutrality—might be the right result but the decision on that rests with the democratically-elected government of Ukraine, not with superpowers. So, no, Putin was not “right” unless you believe might makes right. And I hope you don’t.
I don't think Putin cares what his own country thinks of him. Delusions of grandeur drive him - of bringing back the old days of soviet dominance. Ukraine and Belarus are just the beginning, so he thinks. And he's betting on Trump regaining the presidency in 2024, withdrawing the US from NATO and joining in a coalition of authoritarians to reshape the world order. But he's dreaming.
I agree that those are his ambitions. But fighting a well-armed insurgency will bog him down in a quagmire and he will start looking for a diplomatic solution.
It's about the money, too. Most of the world will arm the Ukrainians while Russia bleeds from sanctions. What people don't realize is that Russia is a poor country, a has-been on the world stage and that this is why Putin wants Ukraine and Belarus. A victory will, he thinks, impress not only the world but the Russian people. It's rather pathetic.
Ukraine has more trade with Europe than Russia does. But i think Putin’s imperial ambitions go beyond economics. He wants to be remembered as “Vladimir the Great” or “Tsar Putin.” But after just 72 hours, we know he won’t be. His puppet government would have zero chance of pacifying the country and then successfully ruling it. Zero.
I think it's been discussed several times over the years that Putin wants to rule Russia until he dies. He's not about to realize that dream if his present unpopularity is any indication. Right now he's a bit preoccupied by the efforts to round up the thousands of protesters who are not at all happy because Putin is spending money on the invasion while Russia's economy collapses. I would be surprised if this war lasts more than a few weeks; Putin will back off and offer a truce.
excellent when I was in "Russia" few years back, every family divided. half hated him, half liked him for stabilizing things. I predict he ends up ending his own life..sorry, but he is going mad
I love that idea of “owning his own life.” It’s more lyrical than merely holding him accountable.