But sure, let's entertain this. Wouldn't that mean that Russia would be open to a peace that does make Ukraine militarily neutral like Switzerland if Russia retreat back to the internationally recognized border ? Wouldn't that also mean that one or more of the many attempts of third party hosted negotiation (China, Turkey, India) would have lead somewhere ?
Russia was open to more or less that, complicated by their naval base in Sevastopol being surrounded by the rest of Crimea (which doesn't particularly want to be part of Ukraine anyway and has its own right to self-determination irrespective of the wishes of revanchists in Lviv). That is what they were pursuing before 2022. One of those third party hosted negotiations (the one in Turkey) did in fact lead somewhere: to an agreement that was derailed by Boris Johnson telling Kiev that they had better not. I'm not sure precisely what leverage he used to make Kiev obey, but it is not difficult to imagine that he (along with the US) had such leverage.
Pft, I bet if Ukraine decided to ally with Russia due to being threatened by Western Europe, Seanchaidh would be the first cheering on a NATO invading for its own security.
Weird thought, as I have not cheered on anyone regarding this except to the extent that I think Russia too badly losing on the battlefield is a scenario that is more likely to lead to nuclear war, so I am thankful that they do not appear to be losing. I want peace and the world not to be an irradiated wasteland as well as to shatter the illusions crafted by Western propaganda that enable it to create situations that result in things like the war in Ukraine.
Russia has never had its own territory encroached upon by Ukraine or NATO. It has attempted to recast other sovereign countries pursuing their own voluntary associations as an encroachment on Russian territory, under the imperial premise that Russia has the right to dictate nearby countries' policies. It has then seized territory from others repeatedly. So no, the 'self defence' line is not credible-- a flimsy justification for imperial seizure and regime change, just as American national security was weaponised to invade others.
Do you think the US response to the stationing of nuclear missiles in Cuba was a weaponisation of American national security? Or indeed that the Soviet response to the deployment of missiles in Italy and Turkey was a weaponisation of Soviet security concerns? How many times during the cold war did an American proxy shoot missiles into the Soviet Union? How many times during the cold war did a Soviet proxy shoot missiles into the United States or United Kingdom or France? NATO is being reckless in the extreme.
When you believe all media commentators, academics, nonprofits etc are automatically shills for the government of the country they live in, then I can see how you'd come to this conclusion.
I think an academic who generally supports US national interest like Mearsheimer, or someone who worked at a high level in US government like Jeffrey Sachs or George Kennan or Chas Freeman are more likely to have a point when they criticize a US action, especially one related to their field of expertise, than the legion of 'experts' who will advocate the current policy. I think that then ambassador and later CIA director William Burns offering cautions about the policy of adding Ukraine to NATO in a diplomatic cable is indeed more credible than the triumphalist smarm of those who advocate the current policy even if they may be outnumbered on MSNBC or CNN or the BBC.
In truth, quite a lot of these people do benefit from parroting the Russian line. Certainly you've noticed that a high proportion of the commentators you cite-- most of them Westerners-- are nonetheless bankrolled by Russian state companies.
I have noticed that this is a calumny often employed against opponents of US policy regardless of accuracy or as if the ones parroting the US line are not "bankrolled" in the same way or more gratuitously by pro-US think tanks, CIA cutout foundations, and so forth.
Here is an example from another theater that you should be able to understand. This guy is a lot more credible than any IDF spokesperson or Zionist politician or israeli news anchor who says that the IDF is not committing war crimes, even if he is outnumbered:
It helps that he's absolutely correct, of course. But in any case it is remarkable that he is saying what he is saying because it is a repudiation of the actions of an organization that he once led. It does indeed carry more weight than if he himself said the opposite. And it is more credible than other statements he has made about other topics or that he made prior e.g. regime-supporting statements made while he was defense minister. And I think you should agree with that analysis whether or not he subsequently appears on RT or Al-Jazeera to say it again.
There is a professional risk that people like Sachs and Mearsheimer and Katchanovski and so on have taken by speaking out and it's silly to think that possibly being paid for their time to appear on RT America occasionally is the reason they hold their views, especially when they could be paid far more to appear on other channels to say the opposite (or by a well-funded pro-US think tank or business 'consultancy').
