Why the West’s Diplomacy with Russia Keeps Failing
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
Reading between the lines of the article the answer is clear...kayfabe or pretend incompetence.
The author portrays Western diplomats as well intentioned but happless paragons of virtue while portraying Russia diplomats as venial automatons captured by shadowy corrupt interests.
Here are the facts, politicians on all sides have diverse interests that drive them. They are rarely simple or pure.
Specifically the American interest in keeping Europe in its economic orbit and even purchasing LNG underlies British and American motivations.
The Russian interest is also economic, Eurasian integration, and even more so, nationalistic, wounded pride.
Talking about supporting regime change in Russia would be received as well as it would be if Russia supported in in the USA. Both Russia and the USA are proud nations and think themselves exceptional. So is the UK.
The way out of this is for everybody to recognise other nations have legitimate interest and to recognise nobody is exceptional.
Thus the west wants failed diplomacy with Russia because it wants to limit Russia's competition in the European market for things like fuel.
I'd be fine with this except that Russia is ruled by a unscrupulous dictator who assassinates his political opponents, as well as his oligarch cronies.
The Russian government's interests don't represent the Russian people's interests, and that makes them less legitimate.
Always interesting when someone's story of a situation omits basic facts which are quite obviously the most important to any reasonable observer.
As I recall, Hitler also had very understandable wounded nationalistic pride, and only needed to be "appeased" for Europe to remain peaceful.
Thus there is a strong case to be made that the conflict, particularly in eastern Ukraine, is more like a civil war or intervention in a civil war following a coup of the legitimate government than an unprovoked act of aggression.
If the January 6 protests seized the capitol in 2020 and declared themselves the new government would that be seen as legitimate? If Canada assisted northern states in opposition to the January 6 movement would it be considered an aggressive foreign invasion?
It is true Hitler was also a nationalist. However the comparison of every subsequent conflict to 1930s Germany is trite and tired. It doesn't make sense when you look at the facts. For one thing Putin's Russia is not motivated by a theory of ethnic superiority. Many peoples divided by artificial or arbitrary political boundaries have sought to be re-united or established as an independent nation at various times. The partition of India, the Kosovo conflict, and the re-unification of Germany after the fall of the Berlin wall all come to mind.
It is unclear why nationalism in Western Ukraine is portrayed as legitimate but nationalism in Eastern Ukraine is not.
And there was another legitimate government formed immediately afterwards, based on the results of the subsequent 2014 election, and then again in 2019. Or were those governments not legitimate, because Russia stopped people in Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk from taking part in the election process? Hopefully you can see why that is a very self-serving definition of "legitimate".
> is more like a civil war or intervention in a civil war
Without wanting to introduce any whataboutist tangents, I will agree that foreign nations picking a side in a civil war is a very ethically and legally dubious form of military policy, but Russia hasn't said it wants the side it's backing to invade Kyiv and reinstate the "legitimate" government. This is more like the American South deciding to secede over "states' rights" and Russia giving military support to the Confederacy.
> It is unclear why nationalism in Western Ukraine is portrayed as legitimate but nationalism in Eastern Ukraine is not.
Ukraine is an independent sovereign nation, and even Putin used to accept that fact. What you call "nationalism in Western Ukraine" is just a sovereign nation wishing to maintain its sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is almost the defining characteristic of what a sovereign nation is.
By contrast, the separatists in the eastern part of Ukraine are not, and have never been sovereign, so their "nationalism" is only legitimate up to the internationally accepted right of "self-determination", which specifically does not include independent sovereignty, and certainly doesn't include a right to wage a civil war against the sovereign government whose territory they want to claim.
"Imagine if Putin, absent any proof, declared “Canada is going to invade the U.S”.
Then Canada said “no we aren’t”, and U.S agencies agreed “no they aren’t”—but Putin moved his troops into our region to “help” anyway.
That is exactly what Biden is doing in Ukraine right now."
Yes, maybe the world would distrust Canada and think of them as filthy lying warmongering scumbags who need to be dealt with the hard way, if all of this was the case.
Putin is evil. There is no question that obstructing his evil plans is a desirable goal. The only question is tactics and cost benefit analysis.
Imagine if Putin, absent any proof, declared "Canada is going to invade the U.S.".
Then Canada said "no we aren't" and the US agencies said "Yes, we are seeing a significant build up of troops and materiel along our northern borders with Canada plus we have caught several Canadian intelligence operatives, some with weapons and explosives, operating in the disputed regions, plus Canada invaded and still holds significant border regions including both regions claimed as parts of Canada, and other regions which are being held by US Separatist groups." - and then the US requested assistance and Putin moved his troops to "help" by working with neighbouring countries who have offered to house Russian troops.
This is exactly what Biden is doing in Ukraine right now.