I’m sorry, but I no longer care about the two days in 365 (Remembrance & Anzac Days) where Australia cries crocodile tears for the people who gave their lives, or suffered physical or mentally) in WW1 and subsequent wars, and by doing so, I mean no disrespect to them. I made this decision around 15 yrs ago.
My reasoning is I’m tired of listening to the faux sorrow over past events when in the present we have service personal who have either lost their lives in combat, suffered mentally or physically, such that we have lost more to suicide than actual combat operations. 4 Corners has produced two programs on this and we’ve had the RC and is this situation an election issue? NO, it isn’t, doesn’t even rate a mention, so I’ll not be told by people I’m unAustralian or any other Americanised phrases.
I had a great uncle who enlisted from NZ after leaving home as a young man and working in NZ. He fought at Gallipoli, was wounded, recovered then fought in Belgium, was captured by the Germans and escaped twice from the German concentration camp. He was taken in by Belgiums, hidden from the Germans and luckily made his way back to London. From there he travelled back to Greta South, Victoria and married his childhood sweetheart. However after being mustard gassed in the trenches his health was never the best, he died before he reached 65. He was my maternal grandfather’s older brother.
My paternal grandfather was gassed in France and never really recovered. A huge disaster for Australia, losing so much of our youth in a pointless war on the other side of the world
My grandfather served at Gallipoli too, and later in the trenches at Ypres. He never talked about his war experiences, though he lived to 92, but I do remember him mentioning a place he called 'Wipers'.
I concur with your sentiments, but your closing thought is connected to my deepest fear.
The defeat of the genuinely evil forces of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan would not have been possible without the commitment of the USA. An isolationist USA would have led to decades of suffering for millions all over the world.
If we are indeed watching the resurgence of similar forces, then the election of Trump is even more tragic than it seems right now.
If the world is going to be policed, America shouldn't do it alone, as Vietnam & Iraq went to show. Keeping the world safe is a multilateral effort, including but not limited to agencies like the World Court, the ICC, and various peacekeeping forces.
And there remains the possibility of America not just turning inward, but turning on itself.
But let’s not kid ourselves: the most successful peace and prosperity projects since WW2 (NATO/reconstruction in western Europe to face down the Soviet threat; rebuilding Japan and fostering prosperity and democracy in Asia-Pacific) have had the USA as their main driver.
Indeed. It seems ironic that Japan & Germany seem to have more stable democratic guardrails than the nation that gave it to them in the 1st place. Right now, NATO’s partners need to prepare for the worst if Trump doesn’t want to be part of the “free world” anymore.
Agreed - However, I found the exchange illuminating. I would be interested in a post (an economic issue) giving your views on the impact of sanctions on the world economy, and looking towards Trump's mooted policies (which may get "softened), BRICS and the proposed new settlement systems.
I share your sentiments but worry when we take sides as indicated by a statement such as "The Russian claim to Ukraine is being brutally asserted once again.".
This may have some historical echoes, but reflects a view from Soviet times (PS Stalin was Georgian, Khrushchev was Ukrainian) and is at odds with Russia as it now is, and also with many other scholars - Jeffrey Sachs, John Mearsheimer, Nicolai Petro and Glen Diesen come to mind. My own view changed after a trip to Crimea in 2018 which you can find here: https://johnmenadue.com/cognitive-dissonance-in-crimea/
There are a lot of links to source materials that I researched after my trip when I realised that the perspective I had needed updating.
We have to be careful imputing motives and repeating neo-con narratives. Whilst Putin may be brutal, we need to understand what his real motivations are - and also acknowledge that Putin is a realist.
I'm taking sides against aggression, just as I would if Ukraine had invaded Russia to reclaim allegedly lost territory.
I can't see any definition of "realist" which Putin could satisfy. His stated motivations are a mix of romantic Russian ethnonationalism and the bitterness typical of a declining Great Power. A realist would have made a serious, or at least, plausible, offer of a truce years ago. Instead, he has thrown away close to a million Russian soldiers killed or wounded, seen the Black Sea Fleet driven from the seas, lost the European gas market and much more, to make minuscule advance on front lines that have barely shifted in the past two years. If Hindenburg and Haig could have been reincarnated, Putin would fit well in their company.
I doubt you read any of my sources, or even my article. Most of the sources I used are pre-war. I appreciate that you are a good economist - but your views on geo-politics are just that. One para from my article: "My short “analysis” of the Ukraine issue is very simple – the war should not have started. I believe that the war will end with diplomacy and negotiation - the alternative will lead to WW3 and our extinction."
"the war should not have started" Unsatisfactory use of passive voice. Correct is "Putin should not have started the war". That's true whatever his real or imagined grievances (I'm familiar with most of them). Having started it, he should end it by withdrawing his army. If that's too much to ask, a unilateral cease-fire would be an obvious place to start.
Minsk One and Two were ceasefires.... You do not have to agree, and you may be familiar with "grievances" but please spend the time to be more than familiar, or maybe accept, that there are other views and maybe these are not propaganda. I did a deep dive when the facts on the ground did not match what was currently "understood" by the west. Your views are not the issue but the question I would ask is "should not definitive pronouncements be based on an analysis of facts" PS: I assume you are aware of the Minsk agreements?
The sooner we have a negotiated settlement the death and destruction will end. However, are our leaders capable of the cognitive empathy necessary to achieve a lasting settlement?
I fear that there are too many “stakeholders” who have different agendas and fail to see the danger - the doomsday clock is close to midnight. I hope that realisation strikes, and negotiations happen before it is too late.
This could have happened before the war, the longer the war continues the more people will be killed or maimed, and the survivors will have their lives destroyed – the Russians will fight until they achieve their aims, the West/NATO/USA seem ready to “fight until the last Ukrainian”.
The dead will not cheer when “we” win, many more will die, lose limbs, have lives destroyed each day that “we” continue to fight. Even those that survive will have their lives ruined, they will never recover from this experience. I despair of the “experts” pontificating on Eastern Europe, reducing discussion to pop-psychology in place of analysis.
The dead lose, those with their towns destroyed lose, those with industries destroyed, and livelihoods destroyed, lose - not to mention those from other war zones that will “benefit” from the “excess” arms traded on the black market, or those millions no longer able to afford to live, even when they sell their daughters… But “we” are OK, the war is over there…
There is no good outcome for anyone from this war, it has already increased the toll on the poor, whose food and fuel prices are now out of reach – it will only exacerbate the impact of droughts and food insecurity, let alone accelerate global realignment and cause further instability and economic recession.
Thanks John for the reply, there is a history to this dispute, and a lot of decision points where the death and destruction could have been avoided. The Maiden coup, then Minsk 1 and then 2 etc - and there is good evidence of a putative agreement was reached in April 2022 and then "sunk" by the UK and USA.
Ukraine is culturally divided and there are great differences in east and south Ukraine and this can be shown on an electoral map looking at voting patterns. Zelenski was elected on a platform of reproachment with Russia, a policy he quickly abandoned.
In terms of the economy Russia is doing surprisingly well. This conflict has accelerated the development of BRICS which now exceeds the GDP of the G7, as well as developing alternative payments systems.
You are correct that over 1m are dead (not all Russian), a country destroyed and depopulated. But the dead are dead - Russian or Ukranian, and it need not have happened.
Even if you take the blackest view, I doubt having Ukranian or Russian oligarchs rule the country matters - but I contest that Russia has learnt the occupying a country where you are not welcome does not work, restricting them to Russian speaking areas.
The locals in Crimea that I met (including the Tatars) were happier under Russia than Ukraine.
I can provide you with multiple references - starting with a Rand Corporation report in 2019 that discussed the US strategy.
There's a history to every war, and to every murder for that matter. You can read the propaganda statements from all the participants in the Great War, and they're exactly like what you've served up here. Same for murderers explaining their motives.
I am surprised that you seem to place your beliefs as absolutely correct and anything from me you characterise as propaganda. You are using a rhetorical device used to respond to arguments. Typicaly this is used when unable to deal with arguments with any intellectual rigour.
Medhi Hasan gives a quick run-down on Putin and his intellectual hero, the Nazi collaborator and Hitler loving intellectual, the late Ivan Ilyin, in the video below. It is sad that the Left keeps producing a tiny yet noisy gaggle of intellectuals who will side with any tyrant- whether they be Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin or Vladimir Putin- so long as the tyrant hates the west. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfVYiHY7lok
PS: How do we know this? "His stated motivations are a mix of romantic Russian ethnonationalism and the bitterness typical of a declining Great Power."
Any geopolitical student worth their salt would know that Putin’s mystical ethno-nationalism is simply the grotesque ideological window-dressing for longstanding strategic imperatives dating back to 1721 when Imperial Russia was formalised. Vulnerable in their Muscovite-St Petersburg bubble in the far west, Russia’s elites and oligarchs have always concerned themselves with the strategic choke points that they regard as essential to maintaining the integrity of their vast internal empire to subjugate and exploit. Russia has fought nine (hot) wars since the end of the Soviet regime, all with the goal of reestablishing control over these strategic access points, from the Carpathians to the Caucasus. The North European Plain is most likely next. Like many, Putin’s understanding of history is simplistic self-referential and frequently romanticised, but he clearly understands this concept well.
Related to the main subject of the article and also on the theme of romanticisation. Like JQ and another commentator, I also abhor the Disneyfication of Australian war memorialism, especially ANAZAC Day. I am from a long line who either volunteered or were conscripted from the factory or mine to the frontline and to see their sacrifices co-opted for the Culture Wars and the corporate sponsorships installed at the AWM is grotesque.
Hilarious. How is it that a self-described expert such as yourself is unaware of Putin's embrace of fascist Ilyinism? I mean, it ain't like there isn't reams of data on this, including innumerable speeches by Putin as well as Putin's insistence that every Russian official above the rank of pencil sharpener have a copy of Ilyin's version of Mein Kampf. Here is some more detail from an academic source https://theconversation.com/russian-fascism-the-six-principles-of-putins-nationalist-ideology-218182
Nicolai Petro spent time in Ukraine and is very interested in the cultural aspects of conflict "Nicolai N. Petro is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Rhode Island, in the United States. He also served as the US State Department's special assistant for policy on the Soviet Union under President George HW Bush. He is currently a senior Washington Fellow at the Institute for Peace & Diplomacy, a North American foreign affairs think tank"
I’m sorry, but I no longer care about the two days in 365 (Remembrance & Anzac Days) where Australia cries crocodile tears for the people who gave their lives, or suffered physical or mentally) in WW1 and subsequent wars, and by doing so, I mean no disrespect to them. I made this decision around 15 yrs ago.
My reasoning is I’m tired of listening to the faux sorrow over past events when in the present we have service personal who have either lost their lives in combat, suffered mentally or physically, such that we have lost more to suicide than actual combat operations. 4 Corners has produced two programs on this and we’ve had the RC and is this situation an election issue? NO, it isn’t, doesn’t even rate a mention, so I’ll not be told by people I’m unAustralian or any other Americanised phrases.
I had a great uncle who enlisted from NZ after leaving home as a young man and working in NZ. He fought at Gallipoli, was wounded, recovered then fought in Belgium, was captured by the Germans and escaped twice from the German concentration camp. He was taken in by Belgiums, hidden from the Germans and luckily made his way back to London. From there he travelled back to Greta South, Victoria and married his childhood sweetheart. However after being mustard gassed in the trenches his health was never the best, he died before he reached 65. He was my maternal grandfather’s older brother.
My paternal grandfather was gassed in France and never really recovered. A huge disaster for Australia, losing so much of our youth in a pointless war on the other side of the world
My grandfather served at Gallipoli too, and later in the trenches at Ypres. He never talked about his war experiences, though he lived to 92, but I do remember him mentioning a place he called 'Wipers'.
I concur with your sentiments, but your closing thought is connected to my deepest fear.
The defeat of the genuinely evil forces of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan would not have been possible without the commitment of the USA. An isolationist USA would have led to decades of suffering for millions all over the world.
If we are indeed watching the resurgence of similar forces, then the election of Trump is even more tragic than it seems right now.
If the world is going to be policed, America shouldn't do it alone, as Vietnam & Iraq went to show. Keeping the world safe is a multilateral effort, including but not limited to agencies like the World Court, the ICC, and various peacekeeping forces.
And there remains the possibility of America not just turning inward, but turning on itself.
I agree that the USA shouldn’t do it alone.
But let’s not kid ourselves: the most successful peace and prosperity projects since WW2 (NATO/reconstruction in western Europe to face down the Soviet threat; rebuilding Japan and fostering prosperity and democracy in Asia-Pacific) have had the USA as their main driver.
Indeed. It seems ironic that Japan & Germany seem to have more stable democratic guardrails than the nation that gave it to them in the 1st place. Right now, NATO’s partners need to prepare for the worst if Trump doesn’t want to be part of the “free world” anymore.
June 2015, “Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?” Prof John Mearsheimer, Co-director of International Security Policy, University of Chicago
https://youtu.be/JrMiSQAGOS4
Invoking Mearsheimer is not going to help. Let's leave it there
Agreed - However, I found the exchange illuminating. I would be interested in a post (an economic issue) giving your views on the impact of sanctions on the world economy, and looking towards Trump's mooted policies (which may get "softened), BRICS and the proposed new settlement systems.
There’s nothing we can do John, these cycles are beyond our comprehension or control
I share your sentiments but worry when we take sides as indicated by a statement such as "The Russian claim to Ukraine is being brutally asserted once again.".
This may have some historical echoes, but reflects a view from Soviet times (PS Stalin was Georgian, Khrushchev was Ukrainian) and is at odds with Russia as it now is, and also with many other scholars - Jeffrey Sachs, John Mearsheimer, Nicolai Petro and Glen Diesen come to mind. My own view changed after a trip to Crimea in 2018 which you can find here: https://johnmenadue.com/cognitive-dissonance-in-crimea/
There are a lot of links to source materials that I researched after my trip when I realised that the perspective I had needed updating.
We have to be careful imputing motives and repeating neo-con narratives. Whilst Putin may be brutal, we need to understand what his real motivations are - and also acknowledge that Putin is a realist.
PS My favourite saying is "Grow Up or Blow Up"
I'm taking sides against aggression, just as I would if Ukraine had invaded Russia to reclaim allegedly lost territory.
I can't see any definition of "realist" which Putin could satisfy. His stated motivations are a mix of romantic Russian ethnonationalism and the bitterness typical of a declining Great Power. A realist would have made a serious, or at least, plausible, offer of a truce years ago. Instead, he has thrown away close to a million Russian soldiers killed or wounded, seen the Black Sea Fleet driven from the seas, lost the European gas market and much more, to make minuscule advance on front lines that have barely shifted in the past two years. If Hindenburg and Haig could have been reincarnated, Putin would fit well in their company.
I doubt you read any of my sources, or even my article. Most of the sources I used are pre-war. I appreciate that you are a good economist - but your views on geo-politics are just that. One para from my article: "My short “analysis” of the Ukraine issue is very simple – the war should not have started. I believe that the war will end with diplomacy and negotiation - the alternative will lead to WW3 and our extinction."
"the war should not have started" Unsatisfactory use of passive voice. Correct is "Putin should not have started the war". That's true whatever his real or imagined grievances (I'm familiar with most of them). Having started it, he should end it by withdrawing his army. If that's too much to ask, a unilateral cease-fire would be an obvious place to start.
Minsk One and Two were ceasefires.... You do not have to agree, and you may be familiar with "grievances" but please spend the time to be more than familiar, or maybe accept, that there are other views and maybe these are not propaganda. I did a deep dive when the facts on the ground did not match what was currently "understood" by the west. Your views are not the issue but the question I would ask is "should not definitive pronouncements be based on an analysis of facts" PS: I assume you are aware of the Minsk agreements?
This continues - please read:
The sooner we have a negotiated settlement the death and destruction will end. However, are our leaders capable of the cognitive empathy necessary to achieve a lasting settlement?
I fear that there are too many “stakeholders” who have different agendas and fail to see the danger - the doomsday clock is close to midnight. I hope that realisation strikes, and negotiations happen before it is too late.
This could have happened before the war, the longer the war continues the more people will be killed or maimed, and the survivors will have their lives destroyed – the Russians will fight until they achieve their aims, the West/NATO/USA seem ready to “fight until the last Ukrainian”.
The dead will not cheer when “we” win, many more will die, lose limbs, have lives destroyed each day that “we” continue to fight. Even those that survive will have their lives ruined, they will never recover from this experience. I despair of the “experts” pontificating on Eastern Europe, reducing discussion to pop-psychology in place of analysis.
The dead lose, those with their towns destroyed lose, those with industries destroyed, and livelihoods destroyed, lose - not to mention those from other war zones that will “benefit” from the “excess” arms traded on the black market, or those millions no longer able to afford to live, even when they sell their daughters… But “we” are OK, the war is over there…
There is no good outcome for anyone from this war, it has already increased the toll on the poor, whose food and fuel prices are now out of reach – it will only exacerbate the impact of droughts and food insecurity, let alone accelerate global realignment and cause further instability and economic recession.
Thanks John for the reply, there is a history to this dispute, and a lot of decision points where the death and destruction could have been avoided. The Maiden coup, then Minsk 1 and then 2 etc - and there is good evidence of a putative agreement was reached in April 2022 and then "sunk" by the UK and USA.
Ukraine is culturally divided and there are great differences in east and south Ukraine and this can be shown on an electoral map looking at voting patterns. Zelenski was elected on a platform of reproachment with Russia, a policy he quickly abandoned.
In terms of the economy Russia is doing surprisingly well. This conflict has accelerated the development of BRICS which now exceeds the GDP of the G7, as well as developing alternative payments systems.
You are correct that over 1m are dead (not all Russian), a country destroyed and depopulated. But the dead are dead - Russian or Ukranian, and it need not have happened.
Even if you take the blackest view, I doubt having Ukranian or Russian oligarchs rule the country matters - but I contest that Russia has learnt the occupying a country where you are not welcome does not work, restricting them to Russian speaking areas.
The locals in Crimea that I met (including the Tatars) were happier under Russia than Ukraine.
I can provide you with multiple references - starting with a Rand Corporation report in 2019 that discussed the US strategy.
There's a history to every war, and to every murder for that matter. You can read the propaganda statements from all the participants in the Great War, and they're exactly like what you've served up here. Same for murderers explaining their motives.
I am surprised that you seem to place your beliefs as absolutely correct and anything from me you characterise as propaganda. You are using a rhetorical device used to respond to arguments. Typicaly this is used when unable to deal with arguments with any intellectual rigour.
Medhi Hasan gives a quick run-down on Putin and his intellectual hero, the Nazi collaborator and Hitler loving intellectual, the late Ivan Ilyin, in the video below. It is sad that the Left keeps producing a tiny yet noisy gaggle of intellectuals who will side with any tyrant- whether they be Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin or Vladimir Putin- so long as the tyrant hates the west. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfVYiHY7lok
PS: How do we know this? "His stated motivations are a mix of romantic Russian ethnonationalism and the bitterness typical of a declining Great Power."
Any geopolitical student worth their salt would know that Putin’s mystical ethno-nationalism is simply the grotesque ideological window-dressing for longstanding strategic imperatives dating back to 1721 when Imperial Russia was formalised. Vulnerable in their Muscovite-St Petersburg bubble in the far west, Russia’s elites and oligarchs have always concerned themselves with the strategic choke points that they regard as essential to maintaining the integrity of their vast internal empire to subjugate and exploit. Russia has fought nine (hot) wars since the end of the Soviet regime, all with the goal of reestablishing control over these strategic access points, from the Carpathians to the Caucasus. The North European Plain is most likely next. Like many, Putin’s understanding of history is simplistic self-referential and frequently romanticised, but he clearly understands this concept well.
Related to the main subject of the article and also on the theme of romanticisation. Like JQ and another commentator, I also abhor the Disneyfication of Australian war memorialism, especially ANAZAC Day. I am from a long line who either volunteered or were conscripted from the factory or mine to the frontline and to see their sacrifices co-opted for the Culture Wars and the corporate sponsorships installed at the AWM is grotesque.
Hilarious. How is it that a self-described expert such as yourself is unaware of Putin's embrace of fascist Ilyinism? I mean, it ain't like there isn't reams of data on this, including innumerable speeches by Putin as well as Putin's insistence that every Russian official above the rank of pencil sharpener have a copy of Ilyin's version of Mein Kampf. Here is some more detail from an academic source https://theconversation.com/russian-fascism-the-six-principles-of-putins-nationalist-ideology-218182
This gives an overview of my views - I wrote most of this in 2022 and updated occasionally
https://higgy.substack.com/p/ukraine-updated-10-feb-2023
https://higgy.substack.com/p/ukraine-reflections-april-2023-pt/comments
Nicolai Petro spent time in Ukraine and is very interested in the cultural aspects of conflict "Nicolai N. Petro is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Rhode Island, in the United States. He also served as the US State Department's special assistant for policy on the Soviet Union under President George HW Bush. He is currently a senior Washington Fellow at the Institute for Peace & Diplomacy, a North American foreign affairs think tank"