I’m side eyeing that guy a bit. His article is predicated on the “easy answers” he claims to be dedicated to correcting in the interview.
His proposed solutions are identical to Russia’s demands in peace talks, dressed up with with some nice sounding stuff that Russia wouldn’t swallow or that wouldn’t really do much. Many that Ukraine doesn’t want. Crimea and the Donbas are going to vote about which country they belong in? In a country where Russia has already repeatedly undermined and manipulated elections? Ukraine has to dismantle right wing militias, Russia doesn’t?
Then he caps it off with some sort of Russia/NATO deal that’s fundamentally rooted in a “geopolitical freeze” in the nations Russia keeps picking on.
He also makes the sanctions and military support analogous to a no-fly zone in terms of escalation.
Russia has “already lost”, but the only path to peace is to give them their goals. It is “civilized victory” to basically pull out.
It’s very odd.
I’m sure there are more comprehensive responses. But I’ve been seeing this a lot lately and it seems to pop up on r/askhistorians regularly.
Long and the short of it seems to be that Chamberlain genuinely believed, and expressed in private, that Appeasement would solve the problem. And actually argued against rearmament and buildup.
While Britain did rearm in the meantime, they were already in process. On the flip side, the Germans were in no shape to weather an expanded war or defend Germany itself. So any time “bought” mostly allowed Germany to better arm up and position itself.
Which as digressions go.
A lot of what we’re seeing in Ukraine right now is purportedly the result of modernizations of the Russian military run through their involvement in Syria. Hampered by their political corruption, and production and economic problems.
Their invasion has exposed a lot of serious problems and shortcomings. A runner in the analysis is how long they need to re-arm/replace the arms they’re expending.
An even more centrally in control Putin, given a lot of what he was seeking. Doesn’t take that time to address these problems and arm up?
A lot of what the sanctions are meant to do is prevent that sort of thing.
You don’t think it would help keep diplomatic pressure and public interest going in Europe?
And lock Ukraine in to a series of reforms after this is all over, the ones Zelenskyy was elected to pursue. Even if he dies.
You don’t think repeatedly bringing it up sends a pretty effective message, counter to the Russian propaganda that’s floating around and both accepted and promoted by certain parties and news orgs in the US and Europe?
Or maybe people do. But we also know the insanely high, probably higher, hurdles to this level of international sanctions and military aid that have already been cleared.
Something could be done with this. An no it wouldn’t be instant, fully functioning membership. The Ukrainians are looking to create a formal tie to and commitment from Europe. So that interest and support don’t taper off in the long term.
Getting hung up on whether they “deserve” the EU, right in this moment is very much besides the point.
The important thing here is not the “how dare they”.
Might could. The first steps on that are pretty simple and would be something like Ukraine becoming a Guam or US Virgin Islands type territory.
But that is an instant hot war between the US and Russia. And thus between all of NATO and Russia. Because Ukraine would then be our sovereign territory. Also Ukraine has not been seeking closer ties to the US for decades.
Because the US is a nation, the EU isn’t.
The EU has military commitments. But association with the EU is seen as less escalatory than membership with NATO, true or not. It’s the better angle for messaging and trying to lock down some sort of long term commitment. Both inside Ukraine and internationally.
It’s like their calls for a no fly zone. In other contexts the Ukrainians are pretty explicit about not wanting this to spill out into other nations, especially NATO nations. We can assume an entire country are fucking idiots. Or we can listen for the very next sentence. If you can’t do that, send us planes, send us weapons.
Russia is still on the security council and can veto any peace keeping operation.
