[quote Ijsbear]@AngelsForever I think you got a bit of a rough ride here.
These threads are up to number 17 now and the same questions came up over and over again early on and it feels a bit like going back over the same ground again. But your questions were reasonable and you were very clear that Putin's aggression is not ok.
It's a disconcerting realisation when you grow into adulthood that the unquestioning faith you have when you're small that the Government is good and right and this is how things are and should be - well, that faith isn't justified. Questioning and applying a bit of skepticism is good.
In the early threads there were a number of suspiciously recently registered posters posting anti-Ukraine stuff, which Mumsnet tackled. People have become suspicious.[/quote]
I went on a long journey over the idea of whether my government was good over NI. 29 years down the line.
I could not process IRA bombings without looking at the reasons why the IRA did it and I couldn't get away from the injustice and oppression that the British government caused as part of that.
The one thing that was very clear was who paid the price of that most. Once you see it, I don't think you can unsee it for any situation. On 9/11 I found it hard to hear Americans talking about terrorism as if it was something they hadn't been party to elsewhere in the world given their support of the IRA. Going to Serbia and seeing first hand how NATO bombing had affected the mentality of ordinary citizens was eye opening. When seeing whats happening in Ukraine, I can't help but think about how other parts of the world affected by Western Wars are reacting to the rhetoric of Western governments.
Breaking the cycle of conflict and mistrust takes a huge amount of time and effort. Its possible but difficult and leaves long lasting tensions on the psychologically of nations.
War is the ultimate failure of diplomacy. However as part of that you have to examine where ideology has overrun rationale and the point at which one party decides it no longer desires diplomacy. Cos until they regain that they won't desire peace. We also have to recognise that some individuals do not see war as bad, just a means to extend their lust for power because they have a disregard for other people's lives.
I think one of the big questions which has to be asked over Ukraine - Russia is whether Putin is capable and willing to abandon the ideology which has driven this war. Can someone be deradicalised because the reality of being unable to achieve a military goal gets in the way? I think its hard to avoid this question.
Because the answer has huge implications.
I think too many people in the West look for peace without examining the rationale for the war in the first place because they are good faith players who can't comprehend others having such a total lack of regard for human life. They assume that all people think war is bad rather than realising some think its an opportunity for self gain.
We have the paradox of one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and examples which have highlighted how positive change is possible. Mandela is the classic example. We look to this perhaps too often.
Putin doesn't fit this model because he is exploitative and abuse towards even of his own and I think thats also massively overlooked in western thinking in terms of any peace. How many people are Ukraine prepared to abandon to their fate with Putin? Zelensky has impossible choices to make at some point.
Its not for the West to answer questions about terms of peace for this reason, but we certainly should be asking questions about them.
I saw an article yesterday which talked about two different concepts: Saving Ukraine v Defeating Putin. They are aims we think are the same thing. The argument, correctly pointed out they are two distinct and separate things. Conflating the two creates problems (Arguably this is where Afghanistan got particularly messed up because it was initially about neutralising a threat to the west and then morphed into this idea of saving the people of Afghanistan and then managed to fuck up both in the process). They need to addressed separately and defined as distinct goals. The argument went on, that this is why Biden's outburst was problematic. Not because what he said was wrong - Putin does need to go. But because we also need to make sure we keep the two ideas in our heads as separate. Linked but separate.
Hope this makes sense. I've spent a long long time thinking about this stuff and still haven't got it all into a completely coherent way of thinking. Largely because there are no wholly good players. I do think there are wholly bad players though who actively weaponise grievance for their own power though.