This is an opinionated piece by Peter Pomerantsev, senior fellow at SNF Agora Institute, Johns Hopkins University.–
It’s also in Ukraine that one realises that “freedom” and “sovereignty” exist in a collaborative relationship with others. Ukraine is now defending its neighbours’ freedom from an advancing Russia. Kyiv’s resistance is benefiting Taiwan’s freedom, too.
[…]
As Ukraine prepares for possible negotiations, its leadership is asking what “guarantees” its partners can give. If “international order”, “Europe” and even “Nato” are flaky concepts, how can guarantees be secured into something real? Ukrainians remember the Budapest memorandum of 1994, when Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons in return for promises from Russia, the US and Britain to respect its borders. Everyone fears a repeat of those empty words. Even if Russia agrees to a ceasefire next year, what’s to stop it rearming and attacking again?
[…]
The idea that freedoms and military production are so interdependent may jar with the pacifist instincts of some progressives. But here Ukraine can offer a pointed lesson. Ever since she won the Nobel peace prize, the Ukrainian human rights lawyer Oleksanda Matviichuk has been gracefully explaining to the world that even though, indeed because, she is a human rights activist, she also advocates for Ukraine’s right to self-defence and to return fire inside Russia at the military bases that are being used to murder Ukrainian civilians. “International law” is also an empty term if it can’t be defended literally.
The solution is very simple: NATO or NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Ukraine needs one or the other or both
Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapon in exchange for “security guarantees” and look what happened?
No profit in peace, champ
@zante@slrpnk.net
No profit in peace, champ
This seems indeed be the main theme of Putin and ‘war economist’ Andrei Belousov, who has pushed for aggressive state spending to boost arms production even before he was appointed Russia’s ‘defense minister.’
Russia’s military spending might officially reach ~7 percent of GDP in 2024, many economist say it may even be higher.
In 2025, Russia plans to spend 40 oercent of its state budget for the military, up from 30 percent in 2024.
And that’s just 50% of the belligerents in this conflict.
Im curious who you believe are the other 50% of the aggressors, and why?
While I do think that zante is just trying to both sides a situation that is very much not both sides, “belligerent” does not mean “aggressor”. Everyone fighting a war is a belligerent in it
Defending yourself is not being belligerent.
No, but it is being a belligerent in a war. To be completely clear I am pro-Ukraine and think that we in Europe and North America should be doing far more to help Ukraine. I’m just also wanting to make sure we can call zante for the actual wrong stuff they said rather than misunderstandings
Everyone fighting a war is a belligerent in it
And this war has just one aggressor. No aggressor, no war.
I agree completely
Putin started this war, the aggressor is Russia, they could easily end the war by just leaving Ukraine.