• redtea
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good points. Soft power seems to have been starting to work in Ukraine, too, until Maidan in 2014. For me, the key thing is ‘approaching Russia’s rivals’.

    On the one hand, Russia’s not going to like that. On the other hand, if we accept that Russia exercising soft power in e.g. Belarus and Kazakhstan means hard power isn’t necessary – they’re already within its orbit/under it’s wing – then when e.g. Ukraine approaches the US and turns away from Russia, the US has already effectively taken control of Ukraine before Russia invades. Albeit through soft power.

    And that throws a different light on the civil war in which Ukrainian militias are shelling ethnic Russian Ukrainians for being ‘separatists’. Because it means it’s being supported by Russia’s arch-rival, the US, a country well known for such destabilising and provocative antics, as the recent history of West Asia attests.

    • Project_Straylight@lemmy.villa-straylight.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Donbas separatists were already well supplied, and the Crimea was already well invaded, by RU, well before the West really started pouring support. I hope this sheds a different light on things for you

      • redtea
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have no idea what timeline you’re working with. The US was meddling in Ukraine since at least 1994. This ramped up in 2005. It supported a coup in 2014. Then the civil war started. The US was involved from before and throughout.

          • redtea
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            No idea what you think I’ve been trying to say, here, I’m afraid.

              • redtea
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                This seems to be a poorly framed question. A big portion of the Ukrainian population is Russian. What does it mean for Russia to meddle in that context?

                  • redtea
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Those Ukrainians don’t just ‘feel’ Russian they are Russian. They are ethically Russian and Russia issued hundreds of thousands of passports in the region a while back. The idea that someone can only be one ‘nationality’, etc, is a rather US way of looking at things. Loads of countries accept dual citizenship. I also reject the framing that insists or implies that Ukrainians must be of one ethnicity. That concept of an ethno-state is aligned with fascism.

                    FWIW I do not think that Russia should decide what happens in Ukraine. That’s for Ukrainians to decide. Unfortunately, it’s hard to parse what Ukrainians would want because the US is and has been heavily involved in manipulating politics, the press, and popular opinion. In that case, I kinda reject the question of whether Russia should have a say: the only two current options are who should decide between Russia and NATO. Ukraine deciding on it’s own isn’t really an option.

                    It’s also tricky now because the separatist regions appear to have not only separated but also joined Russia. This could’ve been avoided if Ukraine had granted those regions more autonomy, as they agreed in Minsk II. As it is, the question now might be ‘Should Russia decide what happens in Russia?’ The lawyers will have fun working whether the law supports that. The answer isn’t clear.

                    My view would still be no, not in Donetsk and Luhansk; that should be for the people of Donetsk and Luhansk to decide—if they’re part of Russia and Russia was concerned with their autonomy, Russia can still grant it where Ukraine wouldn’t.

                    This is all rather idealist, though. Only in communist countries do the ‘people’ decide what happens.

                    It’s also still a warzone dominated by Russia; there will be an internal struggle between Russian factions. I’m not overly optimistic, considering Spain and Catalan, Britain and Wales, Scotland, and NI, and Kurdistan to Turkey, Syria, Iran, and Iraq, the US to Hawaii and Puerto Rico, to name a few similar situations.

                    Do you think the US should decide what Ukraine does because it’s decided that it’s okay to sacrifice Ukrainians to achieve its geopolitical goals?