Saker: Frankly, I am wondering whether what happened today was some kind of setup to try to provoke Lavrov or whether the folks who asked questions are just simply terminally stupid.The Vineyard of the Saker
Listening to Lavrov in Munich
Saker
Here is the English transcript, provided by Katrina Russ at Fort Russ.
Lavrov's Munich speech (full transcript): "There is a strong irritant in the Euro-Atlantic, which we will have to get rid of"
7 comments:
I would say rather than the Russians and the West have different ideological views that influence the way they view the facts. This is widely recognized in diplomacy and the art of diplomacy is dealing with it. When that cannot be done satisfactorily, the result is war.
Note that he admitted that Ukraine is Russia's doing, otherwise there would be no point in talking of the world order in context of Ukraine. He is saying openly: we oppose you by doing stuff like what is happening in East Ukraine. He also admitted that Eastern Europeans flee Russia's shpere of influence. Too bad he doesn't ask himseld why. There is a ton of disillusionment with America there but still Russian "civilization" stinks so bad there is no question in which culture/civilization they want to be.
Again, there are at least two sides to every disputed question, and in international politics, irreconcilable disputes result in war. I am interested in seeing war prevented, and I don't think that the rush to war is coming chiefly from the Russian side, which has a national security interest in Ukraine, whereas the West does not. Promoting war on the basis of defending principle or because freedom is not a sufficient reason in my view.
Russia is sending a clear message to NATO, back off our borders or suffer the consequences, which won't be pretty for anyone involved. But we aren't rolling over.
Lavrov is speaking strongly to get that across, but it seems to be falling on deaf ears.
As far as the Russian spirit is concerned, the most important matter is that it is neither Western European nor Anglo-American. This manifests as very different cultural and institutional differences based on different points of view. (BTW, other Eastern Europeans are not Western either. They have their own histories that quite different.)
The vast majority of Russians are traditional (conservative), Orthodox (shaped by Orthodoxy rather than Catholicism and Protestantism historically), and patriarchal rather than individualistic like Western liberals. Seeing them through Western and especially American eyes and trying to impose Western and especially American values on them is bound to meet resistance (just as it is among many similar people in the United States who are rising up angry and seeking a return to biblical values).
The West would be making a mistake in evaluating Russia based on Moscow and St. Petersburg liberal elites. And Putin is taking full advantage of what he knows to be the Russian spirit as expressed, for example, by Solovyev, Berdyaev, Ilyin, and Dostoyevsky, whether or not he is committed to it. My sense is that he is rather than using it cynically. "The Russian soul" would see through that, I believe. It's not something that one can put on and take off.
(Incidentally, for Westerners wishing to read some Russian philosophy, I suggest Pitirim Sorokin, The Ways and Power of Love: Types, Factors, and Techniques of Moral Transformation. Sorokin was a White Russian who was Kerensky's secretary. He emigrated to the US and spent most of his life teaching at Harvard. Although he was technically a sociologist, Russian intellectuals are by nature philosophers.)
Unless the Russian, European and Anglo-American points of reference are viewed as complementary rather than oppositional, there will be no peace. Now we are slouching toward was and the Anglo-Americans are alienating the European Continentals.
It's just dumb, especially in the light of the history of the region and the hysteresis and path dependence it gives rise to.
Of course the rush to war is entirely from Russia's side. Nobody tries to steal Russian territory, nobody incites unrest within Russia, nobody sends weapons and army into Russia. Russia wants to have the right to do all the above against populations who want nothing to do with it (see the results of parliamentary and presidential elections in Ukraine, pro Russians got 10% of the vote).
Russia has no business deciding if NATO is at its borders - the relevant nations do. It is called sovereignty. Btw NATO was at its borders since inception (Norway).
The Left is ultimately racist - the deny Eastern Europeans the same inalienable rights that they themselves take for granted.
Like the US let Russia put missiles on the sovereign territory in Cuba. This is the Cuban missile crisis in reverse and the West had better understand that before the missiles start flying.
In fact, a military solution is possible -- only it would be a scenario that both Europeans and Americans have so far considered unspeakable. Theoretically, NATO troops could be a match for the Russian military, and in an all-out war, Russia wouldn't be the indisputably stronger side. If the European leaders want to be able to negotiate on Kiev's uncompromising terms, they need to create a position of strength for Ukraine, which is impossible without direct military intervention.
It is abundantly clear the West isn't interested in this dangerous path, which could lead to a world war and would definitely result in even greater loss of life. Merkel, Hollande and U.S. President Barack Obama are not even using the threat of that scenario as a negotiating tool.
Leonid Bershidsky, Bloomberg View
In other words you give the US the right to decide who rules Cuba? I don't. It just shows what kind of democrat you are.
What are you talking about? I am talking about the Cuban missile crisis, which had nothing to do with who rules Cuba. That was not the issue. This was between the US and Russia wrt respect to sphere of influence and projection of power. Just as the Ukrainian crisis is a proxy war between the US and Russia now. Cuba and Ukraine are pawns in a game and neither of the principals have much interest in either. It's about their own national interest and security.
Post a Comment