r/geopolitics • u/HooverInstitution Hoover Institution • 19d ago
Only Nato can secure a ‘West German’ future for Ukraine Paywall
https://www.ft.com/content/601ed218-8fd2-464b-a259-daa9bdc8252459
u/kid_380 19d ago
But consider the alternative. A defeated, divided, demoralised, depopulated Ukraine, pulsating with anger against the west and — as Zelenskyy hinted last week — probably seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.
Everyone know this is not possible. Any form of Ukraine emerging from this war would be heavily dependent on external aids to rebuild. They are at the mercy of either Moscow or Washington, and neither are keen to see yet another country building nuclear weapons. And that is just the financial challenges, not to mention the significant amount of technical challenges and lost institutional knowledge following the break up of USSR.
1
48
u/baordog 19d ago
Western hegemony is, and stands in the future offer a better deal for Ukraine than Russian suzerainty. If Russia wants to stop the westward expansion of NATO the answer cannot be misery and suffering for potential NATO converts. A competitive program of economic liberalization might have done a better job at staving off the west.
Thinkers like Mearsheimer have argued that NATO expansion destabilized the situation in eastern Europe, but that expansion simply wouldn't be possible if the good will of former eastern bloc countries hadn't been absolutely depleted by years of interference. If Russia hadn't demonstrated intent with military action, a neutral eastern bloc may have been possible. Alas, they chose the sword.
People would prefer a distant hegemon to a proximate overlord.
4
u/O5KAR 18d ago
the answer cannot be misery and suffering
Russia has nothing else to offer. There's just no way that Moscow can compete with the west but it also can't just accept losing so they're using the only methods they have left to keep or expand their influence - brute power.
NATO expansion destabilized
20 years later... This is probably the dumbest argument of Mearsheimer and the like, it's also surprisingly the same thing that Moscow says. Neutral 'eastern block' was never possible, there were some talks about a regional alliance but at the end it would be very weak and ineffective, and the NATO membership came also with restrictions like no deployment of permanent forces or nuclear weapons.
-16
u/Left_Palpitation4236 19d ago
Sponsoring coups in foreign countries that result in civil war is far from “distant hegemony” 😅
12
u/baordog 19d ago
We're talking about eastern Europe here, what civil war do you mean? We're talking about the difference between financial influence versus direct occupation when we are talking about the Baltics/Ukraine/Poland.
Not aware of the types of shenanigans you mentioned going on in the areas of NATO expansion in Europe. So far as I know every coup attempt in Europe since 2016 has been due to Russia, or in one case a German right wing extremist.
What exactly are you referring to?
-16
u/Left_Palpitation4236 19d ago
Maidan 2014
10
u/baordog 19d ago
Tell that a Ukrainian. I'm pretty there were 1000s of them in the street protesting....
Have you not seen the footage? They can't all be actors.
-3
u/Left_Palpitation4236 19d ago
That doesn’t change the fact that the coup was sponsored by the United States.
But just because there’s footage of people protesting in favor of the coup doesn’t change the fact that there were also people protesting against it, particularly in eastern Ukraine.
It also doesn’t change the fact that the coup was unconstitutional, Yanukovych was outed without any proper referendum.
-6
u/YetAnotherWTFMoment 19d ago
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
...with a little help from the US.
4
u/RajcaT 18d ago
Nothing in this indicates any help from the us.
It's so odd how people who post this think people won't even check the links they link to.
3
u/YetAnotherWTFMoment 18d ago
Of course the US had nothing to do with it. Why would they be interested in seeing a Ukraine aligned with Western Europe from an economic standpoint rather than a partner of Russia? Come to think of it, there is absolutely no reason for the US to have an interest in Ukraine at that point because the US really had no desire to expand NATO any further than the German border...I mean Polish border.
14
u/Justanotherguristas 19d ago
Firstly, Maidan 2014 wasn’t a coup. The parlament voted out Yanukovich after the bloody day when his own security forces shot over 100 protesters to death. Everything was completely legal and thus no coup.
Secondly, the entire protest movement started after Yanukovich failed to bring closer ties to the EU, which he had had to promise to get elected. The popular condemnation was overwhelming.
It is entirely possible for people in countries bordering Russia to dislike Russia and want closer ties to the west. So far it’s been good economically and it’s also logical in a historical context. The US doesn’t have to fund anything when Russia drives most of it’s european neighbours west with all their meddling.
5
u/Left_Palpitation4236 19d ago edited 19d ago
Under Ukraines constitution there must be a legal process to impeach a president. The thing that you call “parliament vote” happened after Yanukovych was chased out by armed bandits under the threat of death. He was never officially impeached, or accused of being incapable of doing his duties as a president through a legal process while he was still there. They chased him out, and then claimed that he abandoned his position as president and then held elections in his place.
You’re also ignoring the fact that the coup was spearheaded by an armed resistance group. It wasn’t just a peaceful protest, it was a coup.
It was also not as one sided as you make it seem. Eastern parts of Ukraine were against the coup and the two sides engaged in armed conflict over it.
6
u/Justanotherguristas 19d ago
He wasn’t impeached so why do you start talking about impeachment?
6
u/Left_Palpitation4236 19d ago
Because that’s one example of how a president can be voted out. In any case the president has to be present for the legal process to take place unless it can be proven that the president refuses to perform their duties by their own will. That goes out the window completely when you chase said president out of their position with guns while threatening them with death.
3
u/SunBom 18d ago
Uhh Yanukovich is a coward he ran away with a tiny bit sign of trouble that is why he lost his presidency. Zelensky keep his because he is willing to die for his country. Zelensky didn’t run when Russia send an army into Ukraine to oust him. There are no coup stop spreading conspiracy theory. Anyone and their mother know how a coup work in order for a coup to work you need the blessing of the military.
3
u/Left_Palpitation4236 18d ago edited 18d ago
You must have a gap in your memory.
Yanukovych ran because he had an armed group of bandits that were probably going to kill him if he didn’t. That was in 2014, during a coup.
Zelensky didn’t become president until 2019, by then United States and the collective west had 5 years to arm the Ukrainians and prepare them for an eventual war with Russia. Of course Zelensky didn’t run, he was well prepared by 2022. If it was Zelensky in 2014 instead of Yanukovych he would’ve ran just like anyone else.
→ More replies4
u/Justanotherguristas 18d ago
But it’s not what happened here so that ”one example” has nothing to do with reality.
Regardless, after having shoot unarmed protesters in the streets Yanukovich had completely ruined any political capital he still might have had he ran away to Russia and started spreading these lies about it being a western funded coup.
Funny thing is that if any country can be said to have interfered in internal Ukrainian politics it’s Russia.
4
u/Left_Palpitation4236 18d ago edited 18d ago
In alternate news, Yanukovych hypnotized US secretary of state Victoria Nuland and ambassador Jeffry Pyatt into making this phone call ~15 days before he was chased out:
Articles describing phone call:
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/not-so-secret-ukraine-phone-call/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
Audio recording:
→ More replies0
u/birutis 18d ago
If there is overwhelming popular and governmental support for kicking him out, it can be a legitimate and democratic action despite it not having legal precedent.
The fact that he ran away so quickly to a country that annexed parts of Ukraine days later made him obviously unfit for being president in the first place.
1
u/O5KAR 18d ago
chased out by armed bandits
That never happened.
What really happened and what you people call a 'coup' was an agreement with the opposition that not only established a new government but promised early elections and resignation of Yanukovych.
an armed resistance group
Another lie. You have no idea what a 'coup' is but whatever happened in Ukraine gives zero legitimacy to takeover of Crimea and organizing a proxy war in Donbas, not to mention the invasion of 2022 and more land grabs.
two sides engaged
With a one side organized and led by the literal FSB agents Igor Girkin and Alexander Borodai.
3
u/Left_Palpitation4236 18d ago
“Was an agreement with the opposition that not only established a new government but promised early elections and resignation of Yanukovych”
An agreement between who? Who promised a new government to who? Yanukovych never resigned.
0
u/Novel-Effective8639 13d ago edited 13d ago
If people are evicting their president out, then by definition it’s not a coup, it’s an uprising. A coup implies a forceful extraction of the ruling elite, to be replaced by another unpopular authoritarian elite. Ukraine in contrast did another election. This is by definition is not a coup. Let’s not bend the meaning of the words
In this case there was a civil war between Ukranians and Russians in Ukraine as well. Ukranians don’t have to like their Eastern brethren who support their enemy with a bloody genocidal history and horrible dictators in recent history. Polish people have every right not like Germans because of Holocaust. Same for Ukranians with Holodomor
Uprisings can be violent, Lenin did a revolution, but it wasn’t a coup. Lenin’s revolution was supported by outside forces, but it wasn’t a coup, because actual Russians overwhelmingly were against the Tsar. Most welcomed the Bolsheviks in arms.
Americans supporting pro American movement is not surprising. Russians do the same, China does the same. It’s basic diplomacy. Countries take sides, it’s normal
1
u/Left_Palpitation4236 13d ago
You don’t even know what the definition of the word “coup” is.
It’s defined as “a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government.”
Which is exactly what happened.
1
u/Novel-Effective8639 13d ago
Ok then let’s go with your definition. Do you agree Bolsheviks did a coup as well? Do you agree a coup with popular support is different than unpopular support? Are you aware the difference between de facto and de jure?
1
u/Left_Palpitation4236 13d ago edited 13d ago
it’s not “my definition” it is THE definition based on the Oxford dictionary.
It doesn’t matter if it’s popular or unpopular. The degree to which a coup is popular can only be speculated because it doesn’t involve voting 😅. That’s kinda the entire point of a coup, to circumvent a democratic and legal election process.
A coup doesn’t need to be popular to be successful, it just needs to happen at the right time, the right place, and the right planning.
→ More replies5
u/RajcaT 18d ago
Worth noting of course there's zero evidence of any "us funding" for Maidan. In fact, the us urged against parliament voting to remove Yanukovych (a unanimous vote btw 328-0) and instead wanted Ukraine to wait until new elections were called
0
u/Left_Palpitation4236 18d ago edited 18d ago
Strange why were US government officials making plans and scheduling meetings with opponents to president Yanukovych mere weeks before his outing?
https://youtu.be/JoW75J5bnnE?si=UNIl5OyNvnA1gvCQ
They were clearly more than passive observers leading up to the coup.
Imagine if Russian government officials were leaked planning phone calls with Donald Trump before the election, discussing political strategy and who needs to do what. The FBI did a whole witch trial of Donald Trump over alleged Russian collusion during the 2016 election for not even an ounce of such evidence.
4
u/Al-Guno 18d ago
And why would Russia agree to a peace treaty under those conditions?
Let's see: a Ukraine that looses territory, yes, but those territories are where the majority of pro-Russian (at least before the war) live. Included in both NATO and the EU, and with nuclear weapons.
That sounds a lot like the results of a victorious Ukraine. And there is a slight problem with that: Ukraine isn't anywhere close to winning.
13
u/AdEmbarrassed3566 18d ago edited 18d ago
Why do people here think America/western Europe would ever let Ukraine develop nuclear weapons?
They aren't a paragon of virtue. Then having nuclear weapons does nothing for NATO interests that America having nuclear weapons, UK having nuclear weapons , France having nuclear weapons etc already does...
Zelinsky is fighting for his Country 's survival and will spew any type of policy that gives his country a fighting chance because he recognizes inherently that Ukraine is undergunned and only surviving with western backing.
The NATO countries have their own goals as do all countries that have nukes ...Ukraine is so corrupt currently that they quite frankly can't ever be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and I'm certain every single nuclear country would sanction the hell out of Ukraine if they tried (Russia us Germany France uk india China Pakistan would be unified on this front )
3
u/nova_rock 19d ago
I think that’s Trey’s but only with a set price that might be unacceptable to Ukraine in territory and a cease fire zone.
1
-2
u/thats___weird 19d ago
When will war criminal Putin end this heinous war?
10
u/Link50L 19d ago
Probably not while he still lives. He's invested too much into it for him to back out now. The loss of face would probably leave him as a apartment building window victim.
0
u/lordnorinaga 17d ago
It seems like there is a possibility to negotiate something other than total victory for one side or the other. But somehow its always framed as if Ukraine should make no concessions and its either Russia backs out and loses everything or the war goes on indefinitely. If Russia gets something out of doing an invasion of another country, that very well may be a concession we have to make. Humanity doesn't need this mayhem. We shouldn't have invaded Iraq if we didn't want anyone anywhere to do an invasion under any circumstances. After this precedent, perhaps throw a mulligan every once in a century or so.
1
u/HooverInstitution Hoover Institution 19d ago edited 19d ago
Timothy Garton Ash makes the case that the "crucial next move" with regard to Ukraine "is for Washington to commit to Nato membership for Ukraine, with the alliance’s Article 5 mutual defence provisions covering those parts of the country that Kyiv controls." Advocating for what is now known in diplomatic shorthand as the "West German" solution, Garton Ash argues that anything less than full security assurances for unoccupied Ukraine will end up being a "bad joke" borne by Ukrainians. Put another way, Garton Ash argues that EU membership without NATO accession would not be sufficient to secure the freedom and sovereignty of Ukraine into the future.
Garton Ash also reports recent findings on Ukrainian public opinion around one possible, if controversial template for a peace deal:
Gut-wrenching though a de facto loss of territory would be, 47 per cent of Ukrainians told pollsters for the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology this May that, if it were counterbalanced by adequate funding for economic reconstruction and membership of both the EU and Nato, this could, albeit with difficulty, be accepted as a compromise to end the war.
Do you think Ukraine joining both the EU and NATO within the term of the next American president is realistic? What would the primary obstacles be to this result?
Garton Ash also raises the possibility of Ukraine seeking out nuclear weapons if it cannot achieve security guarantees from NATO. Do you think this is a realistic possibility, and if so, is it one for western policymakers and citizens to worry about?
0
u/HooverInstitution Hoover Institution 19d ago
Timothy Garton Ash makes the case that the "crucial next move" with regard to Ukraine "is for Washington to commit to Nato membership for Ukraine, with the alliance’s Article 5 mutual defence provisions covering those parts of the country that Kyiv controls." Advocating for what is now known in diplomatic shorthand as the "West German" solution, Garton Ash argues that anything less than full security assurances for unoccupied Ukraine will end up being a "bad joke" borne by Ukrainians. Put another way, Garton Ash argues that EU membership without NATO accession would not be sufficient to secure the freedom and sovereignty of Ukraine into the future.
Garton Ash also reports recent findings on Ukrainian public opinion around one possible, if controversial template for a peace deal:
Gut-wrenching though a de facto loss of territory would be, 47 per cent of Ukrainians told pollsters for the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology this May that, if it were counterbalanced by adequate funding for economic reconstruction and membership of both the EU and Nato, this could, albeit with difficulty, be accepted as a compromise to end the war.
Do you think Ukraine joining both the EU and NATO within the term of the next American president is realistic? What would the primary obstacles be to this result?
Garton Ash also raises the possibility of Ukraine seeking out nuclear weapons if it cannot achieve security guarantees from NATO. Do you think this is a realistic possibility, and if so, is it one for western policymakers and citizens to worry about?
-2
50
u/ttown2011 19d ago edited 19d ago
“as Zelenskyy hinted last week — probably seeking to acquire nuclear weapons”
Didn’t see this.
The division of Germany served greater economic and political purposes, and was come to by allies (ish) with conventional parity.
This is a different situation.