Clear story and stance Malaparte. The more different (qualified) voices on this forum the better. I disagree with you about the 'ability' of the US to stay an outsider in this conflict.
Thank you for the kind words. I am not arguing that the US should stay outside of the conflict. It's too late for that. It has been arming the Ukraine for quite some time now, at least since 2017, most likely dating back to 2008. Therefore, the US cannot wash its hands of the situation. What it can do is serve as a constructive voice for resolution rather than fan the flames of conflict.
My position, again, is that we need a fundamental re-think of our policy toward Russia and the wider region. At this point, I think the best solution is a partition of Ukraine, with the Russian-speaking areas in the south and east joining Russia, and the west and north left as an independent Ukraine. I leave it to the Russians and the Ukrainians to determine the precise boundaries. However, what remains of Ukraine will have to be a neutral & completely demilitarized state. Otherwise, the simple reality is that Russia will park its army and missiles right up to the border of Poland, Slovakia, Hungary & Romania.
That is, the alternative is this: (1) a renewed & very tense cold war with Russian position advanced to the western edge of Ukraine & Belarus; or (2) the creation of "buffer zones" between Russia and Western Europe, with Ukraine, Belarus, and the ex-Warsaw Pact (now eastern NATO) states demilitarized. All NATO troops drawn back to Germany. That's the alternative that Russia has forced upon us. We should choose wisely.
Secondly since WW2 the West of Europe lives under a Pax Americana. That was liberal in politics and economics. It brought us peace, prosperity and a prolongation (and sometimes introduce like in Spain) of democracy. The NATO was the defender of this all. After the fall of the wall this all loosened up. Some former communist countries became part of it. And (now naive of course) it was thought that through trade etc even Russia would be part of the liberal world. The Ukrainians have self chosen to be a part of Europe, the West and are even longing for NATO.
The historical record shows that Russia wanted to join both EU and NATO in the early 2000s. The West told Russia absolutely "no." We rejected Russia, we excluded Russia, and we pushed NATO ever eastward in violation of Russia's legitimate security concerns. The Russia was no longer the Soviet Union, and yet we punished it regardless, with the seeming expectation that it would never rise again.
We created a Russia that is, at best, deeply distrustful of the West, and, at worst, hostile
Nevertheless the last thing we in Europe and especially in this crisis imo need is an USA who isolates itself from Europe or even more thinks Ukraine not of our interest or 'give it to' Putin....thanks for choosing for the West and goodbye.
First, I am not advocating that US become isolationist, even if I think this desirable over the (very) long term. What I believe must now happen, however, is that the US *pivot* to East Asia. Indeed, such a pivot is imperative because China is by far the greatest threat to the US.
I have yet to see a single person on this forum even attempt to face this fact. Instead, people here seem to imagine that it's 1945 and that the Soviet Union is the primary opponent. But we live in 2022, and it is China that poses the greatest threat.
If the US does what it ought to do, which is shift the great preponderance of its military capability to East Asia, then Europe *must come to a new security arrangement* with Russia. Whether this means (1) recasting the purpose of NATO, such that it is no longer a de facto anti-Russia alliance, and allowing Russia membership or some kind of affiliation or partnership, or (2) dissolving NATO and forging entirely new terms, I leave to the Europeans, primarily France & Germany, to decide. At least in the near term, Europe cannot afford to get into an arms race with Russia, for it is too far behind Russia to ever catch up. Europe should therefore have modest ambitions for its military, but certainly more of a military capacity that it has now, in its condition of utter dependence on the US.
This is all a roundabout way of saying that we need to create a *multipolar* world. Right now we are racing heedlessly toward a renewed bipolar conflict, with Russia & China on one side, and the US and its allies on the other. Russia + China taken as a block is a far more formidable adversary, and has far more resources at its disposal, than the Soviet Union ever did. The US is unlikely to prevail against it. People who think otherwise are delusional. They might talk the noble talk, but they will lead us only to ruin.
The picture changes, however, if we can create a multipolar world. Russia & China are allies now, but they will inevitably fall into competition over Siberia and other matters. They are not natural allies. They are allies of convenience only, mainly because US & NATO have driven Russia toward China.
If the US exits the security picture of Europe, then Europe will have no choice other than to develop closer ties with Russia. Europe will then have the potential to again pull Russia westward from China. The world that will emerge is China in the Far East, the US in the Americas with a strong East Asian presence with its allies Japan & Australia, and then a third pole will consist of Russia plus Carolingian Europe plus the former Warsaw Pact. Iran will likely emerge as a regional hegemon in the Middle East, and India as a fifth pole.
