Posts
Niall Ferguson in a recent tweet, “If you want to take back territory and try Putin, you have to win the war … realistically, Ukraine has never been in a position to defeat Russia.”
I don't much trust him as a historian but I presume he got these astonishing figures right.
Glenn Diesen on October 6: Arestovych, former top advisor to Zelensky, outlines what he would do as president: 'Go to Moscow, promise that Ukraine will never again become a threat to Russia, restore language and religious rights, and accept territorial concessions.'
Glenn Diesen on October 6: Arestovych, former top advisor to Zelensky, outlines what he would do as president: 'Go to Moscow, promise that Ukraine will never again become a threat to Russia, restore language and religious rights, and accept territorial concessions.'
Two days ago:
Glenn Diesen: But how do you make sense of the Europeans though? Because they always perplex me a bit even though I'm one of them. How can they oppose this so fiercely when there is no no plan B?
Chas Freeman: Well, it's an absence of imagination, an absence of statecraft, an absence of leadership. Virtually every European country of of great consequence in this war has fractious politics, very weak government and no consensus. and in this context, I think we we have seen several forces at play. First of all, the conditioning of the cold war to regard the Russians as monsters to be kept at bay is very much alive and well in European psychology. It's being exploited for the usual reasons which are if you have no program, you try to inflame nationalists support by identifying an enemy and pointing yourself at that enemy.
And there's also the issue of European anxiety about the relationship with the United States and whether the American protection that Europe has enjoyed for 80 years is not now coming to an end, which means - 'Good God we have to confront the Russians on our own!' Well, you would think in that context that people would start thinking and a few have started thinking about um how to live with Russia and perhaps live with it in a Eurasian rather than purely European context. I note that some thinkers in France in particular seem to be moving in that direction, but at the moment the Europeans have no idea. It has nothing to offer.
Glenn Diesen: But how do you make sense of the Europeans though? Because they always perplex me a bit even though I'm one of them. How can they oppose this so fiercely when there is no no plan B?
Chas Freeman: Well, it's an absence of imagination, an absence of statecraft, an absence of leadership. Virtually every European country of of great consequence in this war has fractious politics, very weak government and no consensus. and in this context, I think we we have seen several forces at play. First of all, the conditioning of the cold war to regard the Russians as monsters to be kept at bay is very much alive and well in European psychology. It's being exploited for the usual reasons which are if you have no program, you try to inflame nationalists support by identifying an enemy and pointing yourself at that enemy.
And there's also the issue of European anxiety about the relationship with the United States and whether the American protection that Europe has enjoyed for 80 years is not now coming to an end, which means - 'Good God we have to confront the Russians on our own!' Well, you would think in that context that people would start thinking and a few have started thinking about um how to live with Russia and perhaps live with it in a Eurasian rather than purely European context. I note that some thinkers in France in particular seem to be moving in that direction, but at the moment the Europeans have no idea. It has nothing to offer.
No comments:
Post a Comment