So you are suggesting greater Hungary, Azerbaijan, an independent Kurdish state, the end of Iran in effect, smaller Turkey, …and many other big territorial changes..
I am suggesting first a just peace. and yes, Kurdistan would help to bring peace in that region. The Kurds were badly let down after WWI -- and its chequered history is no different than that of Ukraine -- except they are racially non-European.
Ukraine has over the years 1920-90 evolved from Petliura's small state based of Kyev, to the expulsion of Denikin, and the absorption of Lvov and the surrounding lands (by USSR invading Poland in 1939, the Potsdam did not ask USSR to give this back). and then 1954 absorption of Crimea. Today, we defend Ukraine -- why not be just to other ethnic nationalities? To make a universal point -- not just a point agaisnt Russia
Well, I think there was a huge amount of corruption involved in these projects with elites in recipient countries received big payouts to encourage participation. Call them consultancy contracts, whatever.
That is hardly a reason to make a political point about the OBOR.; there is corruption in US, in UK( remember the PPE scandal ?), in Turkey (the recent earthquake revealed housing corruption), in Primark factories in Bangladesh....I think the failure of OBOR is the stupidity of politicians, rather than China. For China, it is hard-nosed geo-politics, but no country had OBOR pressed to them at gunpoint.
I think there is some of that. China does not want a defeated Russia, where there is risk of regime change, and the emergence then of a pro Western regime in
Moscow which would leave China encircled. I actually think it’s a remote scenario that if Putin goes the next regime will be liberal, and pro Western. But it does not matter what I think I think it’s what the Chinese believe that counts. The next regime after Putin in my mind will be something like Putin, but not Putin. Another siloviki who will want to re-engage with the West to try and stabilise Russia, but without caving in to the West. More like a Krushchev than a Stalin, which is what Putin is now.
With or without Putin, Russia would remain a prickly State on the border of the West. Yesterday, in FT or the Times there was an article about the countries who have remained in the sidelines, not taking a stand on this brutal war. I think, ignoring our visceral reactions to Putin's regime, a fair approach could be : (1) to openly discuss if NATO expansion has threatened Russia's security [we should try and see this from their view-point, and not the West's viewpoint]; (2) Ought people living in areas contiguous to that of their own race, have the right to be incorporated within the political system of that race? If we can answer these questions to the satisfaction of all the parties, then more would understand this war as not "an European war" but something to deal internationally. On point (2), Crimea was given to Ukraine in 1954 as a celebration of 300 years of Russian suzerainty with the treaty between Tsar Alexis and Cossack hetman Khelmnnitsky in 1654 -- no plebiscite took place to see if Russians in Crimea wanted to be in Ukraine. Wilsonian principles that guided the plebiscites in 1920-23 are my choice, but that did not always lead to peace.
I hear a lot of China's OBOR at market rates etc -- but this was not forced on any country; the latter through their own volition chose these projects. No one stops USA or the West from taking on these loans. Blaming China for the mistake of politicians seems a bit low.
Thanks again Tim for your rational summary points. A quick question - this is likely an outlier but could Chinas real interest in a ceasefire be part of a bigger plan to keep Russia strong enough long enough to build an alliance when China tries to take Taiwan? If Russia loses then it becomes much more difficult for China to succeed against Taiwan. If we have a ceasefire now, Russia can rebuild and attack again in say 5 years, which helps distract the West while China invaded Taiwan. Both parties will have learned their lessons and we already see a major alliance forming between Russia, China, N Korea and Iran. These geopolitical changes are not going away and they seem to be shaping up in the same way leading to WWII.
China and Taiwan is a completely different issue: there is no legitimacy of any War-Lord to carve out a piece of a country and establish his own type of rule, even it be the "western liberal democracy" (which exists in Taiwan only from 1975). If that is supported, then it logically follows that Sadiq Khan can declare London part of EU, and a Laird in Scottish Highlands can declare his castle separate from Great Britain.
We in London do not want to be part of Brexit Britain [just as Taiwan does not want to be part of Communist China]; is London then allowed to declare independence from the mainland of UK? The memory of 78 years of "western liberalism" in Taiwan is not relevant. The West has been silent on Israel's mythic historical memory of 2000 years ago, that allows it to drive out settled Palestinians, and it must accept the actual not mythic integrity of China that goes back also 2000 years -- that was broken only by Dictator Chiang Kai Shek running away from Mainland China and establishing his own fiefdom in Taiwan, which remained a dictatorship till cerca 1975.
So you are suggesting greater Hungary, Azerbaijan, an independent Kurdish state, the end of Iran in effect, smaller Turkey, …and many other big territorial changes..
I am suggesting first a just peace. and yes, Kurdistan would help to bring peace in that region. The Kurds were badly let down after WWI -- and its chequered history is no different than that of Ukraine -- except they are racially non-European.
Ukraine has over the years 1920-90 evolved from Petliura's small state based of Kyev, to the expulsion of Denikin, and the absorption of Lvov and the surrounding lands (by USSR invading Poland in 1939, the Potsdam did not ask USSR to give this back). and then 1954 absorption of Crimea. Today, we defend Ukraine -- why not be just to other ethnic nationalities? To make a universal point -- not just a point agaisnt Russia
Well, I think there was a huge amount of corruption involved in these projects with elites in recipient countries received big payouts to encourage participation. Call them consultancy contracts, whatever.
That is hardly a reason to make a political point about the OBOR.; there is corruption in US, in UK( remember the PPE scandal ?), in Turkey (the recent earthquake revealed housing corruption), in Primark factories in Bangladesh....I think the failure of OBOR is the stupidity of politicians, rather than China. For China, it is hard-nosed geo-politics, but no country had OBOR pressed to them at gunpoint.
I think there is some of that. China does not want a defeated Russia, where there is risk of regime change, and the emergence then of a pro Western regime in
Moscow which would leave China encircled. I actually think it’s a remote scenario that if Putin goes the next regime will be liberal, and pro Western. But it does not matter what I think I think it’s what the Chinese believe that counts. The next regime after Putin in my mind will be something like Putin, but not Putin. Another siloviki who will want to re-engage with the West to try and stabilise Russia, but without caving in to the West. More like a Krushchev than a Stalin, which is what Putin is now.
With or without Putin, Russia would remain a prickly State on the border of the West. Yesterday, in FT or the Times there was an article about the countries who have remained in the sidelines, not taking a stand on this brutal war. I think, ignoring our visceral reactions to Putin's regime, a fair approach could be : (1) to openly discuss if NATO expansion has threatened Russia's security [we should try and see this from their view-point, and not the West's viewpoint]; (2) Ought people living in areas contiguous to that of their own race, have the right to be incorporated within the political system of that race? If we can answer these questions to the satisfaction of all the parties, then more would understand this war as not "an European war" but something to deal internationally. On point (2), Crimea was given to Ukraine in 1954 as a celebration of 300 years of Russian suzerainty with the treaty between Tsar Alexis and Cossack hetman Khelmnnitsky in 1654 -- no plebiscite took place to see if Russians in Crimea wanted to be in Ukraine. Wilsonian principles that guided the plebiscites in 1920-23 are my choice, but that did not always lead to peace.
I hear a lot of China's OBOR at market rates etc -- but this was not forced on any country; the latter through their own volition chose these projects. No one stops USA or the West from taking on these loans. Blaming China for the mistake of politicians seems a bit low.
Thanks again Tim for your rational summary points. A quick question - this is likely an outlier but could Chinas real interest in a ceasefire be part of a bigger plan to keep Russia strong enough long enough to build an alliance when China tries to take Taiwan? If Russia loses then it becomes much more difficult for China to succeed against Taiwan. If we have a ceasefire now, Russia can rebuild and attack again in say 5 years, which helps distract the West while China invaded Taiwan. Both parties will have learned their lessons and we already see a major alliance forming between Russia, China, N Korea and Iran. These geopolitical changes are not going away and they seem to be shaping up in the same way leading to WWII.
Just my thoughts.
Thanks
China and Taiwan is a completely different issue: there is no legitimacy of any War-Lord to carve out a piece of a country and establish his own type of rule, even it be the "western liberal democracy" (which exists in Taiwan only from 1975). If that is supported, then it logically follows that Sadiq Khan can declare London part of EU, and a Laird in Scottish Highlands can declare his castle separate from Great Britain.
We in London do not want to be part of Brexit Britain [just as Taiwan does not want to be part of Communist China]; is London then allowed to declare independence from the mainland of UK? The memory of 78 years of "western liberalism" in Taiwan is not relevant. The West has been silent on Israel's mythic historical memory of 2000 years ago, that allows it to drive out settled Palestinians, and it must accept the actual not mythic integrity of China that goes back also 2000 years -- that was broken only by Dictator Chiang Kai Shek running away from Mainland China and establishing his own fiefdom in Taiwan, which remained a dictatorship till cerca 1975.