this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2022
6 points (68.8% liked)

Europe

3904 readers
7 users here now

Europa

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AdAstra@lemmy.ml
6
Germany Deserves a Big Share of the Blame for the Ukraine Disaster (www.counterpunch.org)
submitted 2 years ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/europe@lemmy.ml
30 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] poVoq@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Hmm, that is a very weak argument and also very hindsightish. Sure maybe a German veto to NATO expansion would have prevented this, but also none of the other 29 NATO members vetoed this.

I also find it highly likely that if Germany would have vetoed it, then G.W. Bush would have started a new defensive alliance with the eastern European states under the "coalition of the willing"... countries like Poland very much pushed for tighter US defensive integration all these years. And the result of this would have probably been even worse than NATO from a Russian perspective.

On the other hand Germany did a lot of peace building with Russia through economic means, despite facing stiff resistance about this from the former east block, now newish EU member states.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It's not hindsightish. Experts have been warning that NATO actions would ultimately lead to a conflict for decades now. Even Joe Biden famously said this would be the likely outcome of NATO expansion back in 1997. People keep acting as if this is some unprovoked aggression that came out of the blue and that nobody could have predicted.

Germany could have vetoed this two weeks ago. All they had to do was to say that they block Ukraine joining NATO. That's all it would've taken to aver the war. And of course it's important to note that every NATO country acknowledged that Ukraine would never be realistically admitted to NATO. Yet, the NATO bloc continued refusing of making a legally binding statement to that effect.

The west led Ukraine up the garden path intentionally encouraging false expectations on the part of Ukraine and then Ukraine was discarded like a used pawn once Russia invaded. Now, the west continues to fan the flames of war which Ukraine has no hope of winning prolonging the misery and suffering.

[–] UnreliantGiant@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

It’s not hindsightish

Germany could have vetoed this two weeks ago. All they had to do was ...

Thanks Captain Hindsight.

But I doubt Germany could have done anything at this point anyway. Putin wants to get rid of the current Ukrainian government, and his demands to NATO before the invasion were probably just an attempt to get NATO further away from Ukraine to have an easier time invading it. At worst for Putin NATO would ignore the demands (which they did) and give him another alleged reason to invade. Remember they say they're only there to "denazify" and demilitarize Ukraine, and it's totally not a war. If Putin really felt forced by NATO to invade, he would probably just be honest about it. But he would invade either way, because you don't just accidentally build up thousands of troops along a border with a country where you've wreaked havoc for the past eight years, and then blame Germany when all of NATO didn't bend over to your demands mere days before you invade.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Thanks Captain Hindsight.

It's not hindsight when the experts have been warning you that this will happen for many decades.

But I doubt Germany could have done anything at this point anyway. Putin wants to get rid of the current Ukrainian government, and his demands to NATO before the invasion were probably just an attempt to get NATO further away from Ukraine to have an easier time invading it.

Russia literally spent 8 years trying to get meaningful security guarantees from NATO, and it was stonewalled. Stop trying to rewrite history.

But he would invade either way, because you don’t just accidentally build up thousands of troops along a border with a country where you’ve wreaked havoc for the past eight years, and then blame Germany when all of NATO didn’t bend over to your demands mere days before you invade.

This is a profoundly absurd statement.

[–] UnreliantGiant@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Russia literally spent 8 years trying to get meaningful security guarantees from NATO, and it was stonewalled. Stop trying to rewrite history.

Do you know why NATO troops are deployed at their eastern borders ("enhanced forward presence")? Because of the annexation of Crimea and the Donbas war. Of course Ukraine wants to be in NATO when their neighbor does stuff like that. Russia brought this to themselves. And with that they're trying to play the victim in this story. They want security guarantees? How about they guarantee the security of their neighbor first and get out of there, then there might be a chance to talk

Why is the second statement absurd? Okay I overdid it a little, but placing tens of thousands of troops at a border for months is a huge logistical undertaking and certainly not something someone would do just like that. I don't know a reason to do this other than to invade a neighbor

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do you know why NATO troops are deployed at their eastern borders (“enhanced forward presence”)? Because of the annexation of Crimea and the Donbas war.

That's some impressive historical revisionism there. Last I checked NATO overthrew the legitimate democratically elected government in Ukraine and replaced it with a right wing regime. This is what triggered Russia to annex Crimea and Donbas to seek independence. That's well documented history by the way:

They want security guarantees? How about they guarantee the security of their neighbor first and get out of there, then there might be a chance to talk

Russia was perfectly fine with Ukraine doing its own thing until NATO overthrew their government. How about NATO not going around starting color revolutions and invading countries for the past 30 years?

Russian invasion of Ukraine is not justifiable, however it's reductionist to ignore the reasons behind why the invasion happened. The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO, and plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this for many years now. Here's what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:

https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/

https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/

50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:

George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.

Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"

Academics, such as John Mearsheimer, gave talks explaining why NATO actions would ultimately lead to conflict this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4

These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.

[–] UnreliantGiant@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

NATO overthrew the legitimate democratically elected government in Ukraine and replaced it with a right wing regime

NATO? You think Euromaidan is a creation of NATO? If anything you might mean the US here. Right wing regime? Yeah there were right wing groups involved, but they didn't exactly make it into the government. Poroshenko wasn't good either, but he was democratically elected and certainly not worse than Janukowytsch. I can't attest to the validity of those elections though, I wasn't there. Also Zelenskyy is of jewish heritage and no far right party gained a seat in the 2019 government, you can hardly call that a right wing regime.

Russia was perfectly fine with Ukraine doing its own thing

You're aware Janukowytsch was basically Putins puppet right? That's not Ukraine doing its own thing. I'm still convinced Putin enabled this whole mess in eastern Ukraine because he lost his puppet and wants to bring it back. If Ukraine joined NATO, that would become impossible. This is why Putin is so scared of NATO

Russian invasion of Ukraine is not justifiable, however it’s reductionist to ignore the reasons behind why the invasion happened.

Agreed

The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO

Disagreed. I believe if NATO didn't expand to the east (those countries joined voluntarily by the way), Russia would have caused much more chaos there in the past 30 years. Or maybe it could have worked out better, we will never know since it didn't happen.

plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this

It's easy to find people who predicted the future when it's already in the past. But in the present things are not as obvious

That's it from me

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago

Literally linked you sources, and yes Euromaidan is very much a NATO project with US being in the driver seat of the whole organization. These groups very much did make it into both the government and the military.

Arguing that Zelensky is of jewish heritage is like saying US doesn't have a problem with racism because Obama is black. Also, wait till you find out about Israel.

You’re aware Janukowytsch was basically Putins puppet right

That's a pretty big claim. I don't see how he was Putin's puppet any more than Scholtz is Biden's puppet.

Disagreed

All the experts on the subject matter disagree with you, but I'm sure you know best.

It’s easy to find people who predicted the future when it’s already in the past. But in the present things are not as obvious

People have predicted this since 1997, I've literally linked you examples of that. At least read the comment you're replying to.

[–] poVoq@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Hindsightish in the sense of what if... useless speculation at this point in time. And I highly doubt that Russia would have stopped everything if Germany would have announce this two weeks ago, after all everyone knows such announcements mean little and can change with elected governments quickly.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Russia has been pretty clear regarding what their demands were, and those demands haven't changed now. They want Ukraine to be a neutral country. The fact of the matter is that NATO could've negotiated with Russia in good faith, but instead it chose not to. Now you're dismissing the whole idea of diplomacy claiming that it's not even worth considering.

[–] poVoq@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Maybe, just maybe, diplomacy would have worked around 2017 when it would have been followed up with blocking weapon sales to Ukraine, but two weeks ago? You are delusional if you think that would have worked.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Russian demands haven't changed from two weeks ago.

[–] poVoq@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Do you even read what I write before you reply? I never claimed they changed.

Two weeks ago there were all the Russian troops in place and all the western weapons (and western trained Ukrainian troops) already inside Ukraine. No amount of pledging to block Ukraine from joining NATO on behalf of the current German government would have stopped this.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

If you accept that the demands haven't changed, then you understand that if these demands were met prior to the invasion then there wouldn't be an invasion?

[–] poVoq@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The demands include demilitarization of Ukraine. How would the German government be able to take away weapons from Ukraine that they already have?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Once again, my point was that the west did not engage in diplomacy with Russia and did not make any attempts to address their concerns. If you don't understand why it's desirable to try and resolve problems before they escalate into an open conflict, I really don't know what else to tell you. Painting Russia as being implacable and claiming that any negotiations would be pointless is a self fulfilling prophecy.

[–] poVoq@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The German government did engage in diplomacy (a lot and several times), and also refused to export weapons to Ukraine until after the war broke out. So blaming this on the German government as the original article does is just plain wrong.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The German government did not engage in any meaningful diplomacy. At no point did any western nations take Russia's concerns seriously or made any attempt to address them. Blaming German government for failing to do what it could to try and avert the war is absolutely correct position to take. In fact, any of the NATO member governments could've done this, but Germany was certainly in the best position to do so.

[–] poVoq@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You have seriously no idea what you are talking about... there were years of diplomacy under the Normandy Format between Germany and Russia (including France and Ukraine). Just because they didn't result in all of Russia's demands being met doesn't mean they didn't try hard to find a diplomatic solution.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

All the experts on the subject, including Chomsky, happen to agree with my position. Obviously, though it's me that has no idea what I'm talking about.

[–] poVoq@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

They agree on the position that the US made matters worse, not that Germany was at fault like the original article does... stop shifting the discussion to something else just because you are clearly wrong.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The way NATO works is that countries have to be invited by a unanimous agreement of its existing members. Russia's core concern has always been the expansion of NATO towards its border. This is what all the experts on the subject agreed would eventually lead to conflict. Germany, as well as any other NATO member, could have vetoed acceptance of Ukraine at any time. I don't know why it's so hard for you to acknowledge this.

[–] poVoq@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

See my original argument at the very beginning of this long thread. Germany vetoing the NATO expansion would have likely meant NATO becoming irrelevant and the US starting a different defensive alliance with the eastern European states (and the UK) in the early 2000. This would have been a worse outcome from the Russian perspective any way you can look at it.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We don't know what would've happened with NATO, but we do know that a war may have been avoided. Your concerns for the fate of NATO feel somewhat hollow in face of real human suffering that unfolded.

In fact, it's very likely that had NATO become irrelevant then Europe could develop much better relations with Russia going forward creating far better stability and security in the region.

[–] poVoq@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

This is exactly what both Germany and France tried hard all these years. Why do you even post on the /c/europe community when you have clearly not followed European politics at all? The problem is that the east European states with support from the US and the UK ran a hard-line anti-Russian defensive policy.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That is literally not what both Germany and France tried all these years. In fact, there is no trying involved here. Both Germany and France could have vetoed Ukraine's membership in NATO at any time. There is literally no trying involved here.

[–] poVoq@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Again, vetoing their membership would have by all likelihood meant that a new NATO without Germany and France, but with Ukraine would have been started. Better to be on the boat and silently block it than leaving it all to the hardliners... you clearly don't understand German Realpolitik at all.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

NATO wouldn't really be an organization worth of note without France and Germany. This is precisely why Germany was in the position to act. You're engaging in speculation about something that may eventually happen as a justification for not taking action to avert a real war in which people are currently dying.

[–] poVoq@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

You are deeply mistaken. Germany has no functional army at all and is a dead weight on NATO, and France has always had a "we would rather not be in NATO at all" stance. Why do you think Trump pushed so hard for Germany to increase military spending instead of relying on US troops stationed there?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 years ago

I'm not mistaken at all. You're arguing against a scenario you literally made up to justify doing nothing to avoid a very real war. There's clearly no point continuing this.