Former US Ambassador to Russia Speaks on Causes of Ukraine War

[stuper1]

Below is an excellent podcast with Jack Matlock, US ambassador to Russia from 1987 to 1991, who was heavily involved on the US side as the Cold War wound down. He says we didn't win the Cold War; it was a negotiated peace, and neither side "won". We started to lose the plot when we started believing that we "won". He goes on to detail the additional mistakes that were made after that. He says the current Ukraine war wouldn't have happened if NATO hadn't kept expanding unnecessarily. He also has some interesting insight into the fact that Ukraine is really made up of two separate cultural groups who were mashed together involuntarily (I read the same thing stated about Ukraine in the well known book Clash of Civilizations). Maybe it's better for all parties if those two cultural groups just separate from each other, kind of like Serbia separated from Bosnia. Or they may not get to decide for themselves, because Russia may take the eastern part and Poland the western part.

Losing the peace after the Cold War

[yankees60]

Below is an excellent podcast with Jack Matlock, US ambassador to Russia from 1987 to 1991, who was heavily involved on the US side as the Cold War wound down. He says we didn't win the Cold War; it was a negotiated peace, and neither side "won". We started to lose the plot when we started believing that we "won". He goes on to detail the additional mistakes that were made after that. He says the current Ukraine war wouldn't have happened if NATO hadn't kept expanding unnecessarily. He also has some interesting insight into the fact that Ukraine is really made up of two separate cultural groups who were mashed together involuntarily (I read the same thing stated about Ukraine in the well known book Clash of Civilizations). Maybe it's better for all parties if those two cultural groups just separate from each other, kind of like Serbia separated from Bosnia. Or they may not get to decide for themselves, because Russia may take the eastern part and Poland the western part.

Losing the peace after the Cold War

For an alternative view .... try this one which is from someone who was also a U. S. ambassador (and far more recently than 30+ years ago):

https://www.c-span.org/video/?524883-3/ ... e-conflict

DECEMBER 23, 2022 | PART OF WASHINGTON JOURNAL 12/23/2022
Washington Journal
John Herbst on President Zelensky's U.S. Visit and the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
John Herbst, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, talked about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to the U.S.

[SilentMajority]

Russia may take the eastern part and Poland the western part.

This looks increasingly inevitable. The poles are definitely the most belligerent about NATO going to war with Russia on a Ukrainian battlefield. With Ukraine destroyed (seems inevitable since NATO is saying there is no possibility of negotiation), Poland will more easily be able to move in "peace-keepers" into former Polish territory and hold their own referendum.

That's a lot of speculation right there, we'll see how it plays out.

[Dieter]

Below is an excellent podcast with Jack Matlock, US ambassador to Russia from 1987 to 1991, who was heavily involved on the US side as the Cold War wound down. He says we didn't win the Cold War; it was a negotiated peace, and neither side "won". We started to lose the plot when we started believing that we "won". He goes on to detail the additional mistakes that were made after that. He says the current Ukraine war wouldn't have happened if NATO hadn't kept expanding unnecessarily. He also has some interesting insight into the fact that Ukraine is really made up of two separate cultural groups who were mashed together involuntarily (I read the same thing stated about Ukraine in the well known book Clash of Civilizations). Maybe it's better for all parties if those two cultural groups just separate from each other, kind of like Serbia separated from Bosnia. Or they may not get to decide for themselves, because Russia may take the eastern part and Poland the western part.

Losing the peace after the Cold War

For an alternative view .... try this one which is from someone who was also a U. S. ambassador (and far more recently than 30+ years ago):

https://www.c-span.org/video/?524883-3/ ... e-conflict

DECEMBER 23, 2022 | PART OF WASHINGTON JOURNAL 12/23/2022
Washington Journal
John Herbst on President Zelensky's U.S. Visit and the Russia-Ukraine Conflict
John Herbst, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, talked about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to the U.S.

Thanks — definitely a good listen

While I would like NATO to provide tanks, IFVs, and fighters, I don’t remember where I read one take on why not: agreement between US and China

China doesn’t support Russia as long as certain limits on NATI support to Ukraine

[Dieter]

Russia may take the eastern part and Poland the western part.

This looks increasingly inevitable. The poles are definitely the most belligerent about NATO going to war with Russia on a Ukrainian battlefield. With Ukraine destroyed (seems inevitable since NATO is saying there is no possibility of negotiation), Poland will more easily be able to move in "peace-keepers" into former Polish territory and hold their own referendum.

That's a lot of speculation right there, we'll see how it plays out.

Russia is saying no negotiation until Ukraine surrenders

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 022-12-23/

Technically, before negotiations, Russia wants agreement that they get everything they’ve annexed since 2014 and no external support for Ukraine, but, same thing

[SilentMajority]

Russia may take the eastern part and Poland the western part.

This looks increasingly inevitable. The poles are definitely the most belligerent about NATO going to war with Russia on a Ukrainian battlefield. With Ukraine destroyed (seems inevitable since NATO is saying there is no possibility of negotiation), Poland will more easily be able to move in "peace-keepers" into former Polish territory and hold their own referendum.

That's a lot of speculation right there, we'll see how it plays out.

Russia is saying no negotiation until Ukraine surrenders

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 022-12-23/

Technically, before negotiations, Russia wants agreement that they get everything they’ve annexed since 2014 and no external support for Ukraine, but, same thing

Do you think Crimea and the Donbass should be under Kievs control? What do you think the people there want? Does that matter?

[yankees60]

More discussion among people who know more and have far more experience than any of us ...

https://www.c-span.org/video/?525027-1/ ... s-us-visit

DECEMBER 22, 2022
Ukrainian Parliament Member on President's U.S. Visit
A Ukrainian Parliament member joined former U.S. government officials to discuss the significance of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to the United States. They also addressed war topics including the current state of affairs in Ukraine, a potential Russian attack through Belarus, and military and geopolitical options for the future. This virtual discussion was hosted by the Atlantic Council.

[Dieter]

Russia may take the eastern part and Poland the western part.

This looks increasingly inevitable. The poles are definitely the most belligerent about NATO going to war with Russia on a Ukrainian battlefield. With Ukraine destroyed (seems inevitable since NATO is saying there is no possibility of negotiation), Poland will more easily be able to move in "peace-keepers" into former Polish territory and hold their own referendum.

That's a lot of speculation right there, we'll see how it plays out.

Russia is saying no negotiation until Ukraine surrenders

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 022-12-23/

Technically, before negotiations, Russia wants agreement that they get everything they’ve annexed since 2014 and no external support for Ukraine, but, same thing

Do you think Crimea and the Donbass should be under Kievs control? What do you think the people there want? Does that matter?

The point I made regarded unrealistic negotiation preconditions on the Russian side

I don’t consider any of the recent votes under Russian occupation legitimate

Default is that they are Ukraine — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukra ... referendum

How they end up long term, who knows — Might they be neutral for 20 years and then a referendum? Ukraine, as per Budapest memorandum?

But I’m not letting Russia off the hook for saying no negotiation until NATI/US agrees that all of Ukraine is Russia.

[Dieter]

More discussion among people who know more and have far more experience than any of us ...

https://www.c-span.org/video/?525027-1/ ... s-us-visit

DECEMBER 22, 2022
Ukrainian Parliament Member on President's U.S. Visit
A Ukrainian Parliament member joined former U.S. government officials to discuss the significance of President Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit to the United States. They also addressed war topics including the current state of affairs in Ukraine, a potential Russian attack through Belarus, and military and geopolitical options for the future. This virtual discussion was hosted by the Atlantic Council.

A lot of “Send more weapons” (tanks and fighters) — I really do wonder why we aren’t

[SilentMajority]

But I’m not letting Russia off the hook for saying no negotiation until NATI/US agrees that all of Ukraine is Russia.

Where have you seen this demand? I haven't seen it. I read a lot of diverse sources including RT and listen to the official statements from Maria Zacharova and I've never heard this.

As far as I knew the conditions were still Kiev relinquishing claim on the Donbass and Crimea, and neutrality (meaning no NATO membership or NATO armies in Ukraine). Kiev rejected this and said they will reconquer the Russians in the Donbass and Crimea. Zelinsky said they've already been reconquered in their minds or something. He said he'll tell us when it happens for real.

Obviously if that is the position of Kiev, the Russians will now fight until Kiev surrenders so they can't attack and invade the Crimea or Donbass region.

If they have changed and are now saying they will absorb all of the Ukraine into the Russian federation, that is a massive change. Please share if you can. I'll look also as time permits.

[Dieter]

But I’m not letting Russia off the hook for saying no negotiation until NATI/US agrees that all of Ukraine is Russia.

Where have you seen this demand? I haven't seen it. I read a lot of diverse sources including RT and listen to the official statements from Maria Zacharova and I've never heard this.

As far as I knew the conditions were still Kiev relinquishing claim on the Donbass and Crimea, and neutrality (meaning no NATO membership or NATO armies in Ukraine). Kiev rejected this and said they will reconquer the Russians in the Donbass and Crimea. Zelinsky said they've already been reconquered in their minds or something. He said he'll tell us when it happens for real.

Obviously if that is the position of Kiev, the Russians will now fight until Kiev surrenders so they can't attack and invade the Crimea or Donbass region.

If they have changed and are now saying they will absorb all of the Ukraine into the Russian federation, that is a massive change. Please share if you can. I'll look also as time permits.

Reuters

In my earlier comment that you replied to, asking if I think pre-2014 Ukraine territory should be controlled by Kiev

Saying that won’t talk until all annexed lands are agreed as Russian and no external support for Ukraine is basically leaving Ukraine defenseless, so Russia goes back to plan A — Take Kiev and take over Ukraine

[stuper1]

Russia may take the eastern part and Poland the western part.

This looks increasingly inevitable. The poles are definitely the most belligerent about NATO going to war with Russia on a Ukrainian battlefield. With Ukraine destroyed (seems inevitable since NATO is saying there is no possibility of negotiation), Poland will more easily be able to move in "peace-keepers" into former Polish territory and hold their own referendum.

That's a lot of speculation right there, we'll see how it plays out.

Russia is saying no negotiation until Ukraine surrenders

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 022-12-23/

Technically, before negotiations, Russia wants agreement that they get everything they’ve annexed since 2014 and no external support for Ukraine, but, same thing

Do you think Crimea and the Donbass should be under Kievs control? What do you think the people there want? Does that matter?

The point I made regarded unrealistic negotiation preconditions on the Russian side

I don’t consider any of the recent votes under Russian occupation legitimate

Default is that they are Ukraine — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Ukra ... referendum

How they end up long term, who knows — Might they be neutral for 20 years and then a referendum? Ukraine, as per Budapest memorandum?

But I’m not letting Russia off the hook for saying no negotiation until NATI/US agrees that all of Ukraine is Russia.

I don't see anything in the Reuters piece that says anything like Russia said no negotiation until NATO/US agree that all of Ukraine is Russia. Where in the piece does it say that?

[Dieter]

I was editing my message while you were replying

[stuper1]

But I’m not letting Russia off the hook for saying no negotiation until NATI/US agrees that all of Ukraine is Russia.

Where have you seen this demand? I haven't seen it. I read a lot of diverse sources including RT and listen to the official statements from Maria Zacharova and I've never heard this.

As far as I knew the conditions were still Kiev relinquishing claim on the Donbass and Crimea, and neutrality (meaning no NATO membership or NATO armies in Ukraine). Kiev rejected this and said they will reconquer the Russians in the Donbass and Crimea. Zelinsky said they've already been reconquered in their minds or something. He said he'll tell us when it happens for real.

Obviously if that is the position of Kiev, the Russians will now fight until Kiev surrenders so they can't attack and invade the Crimea or Donbass region.

If they have changed and are now saying they will absorb all of the Ukraine into the Russian federation, that is a massive change. Please share if you can. I'll look also as time permits.

Reuters

In my earlier comment that you replied to, asking if I think pre-2014 Ukraine territory should be controlled by Kiev

Saying that won’t talk until all annexed lands are agreed as Russian and no external support for Ukraine is basically leaving Ukraine defenseless, so Russia goes back to plan A — Take Kiev and take over Ukraine

No, that's not what it says at all. It says Russia takes eastern and southern Ukraine. It doesn't say anything about taking Kiev. No external support means that Ukraine stays out of NATO; it doesn't mean that Russia takes over Ukraine. I'm just talking about what the article says. What Russia's actual plans are I have no idea.

[SilentMajority]

But I’m not letting Russia off the hook for saying no negotiation until NATI/US agrees that all of Ukraine is Russia.

Where have you seen this demand? I haven't seen it. I read a lot of diverse sources including RT and listen to the official statements from Maria Zacharova and I've never heard this.

As far as I knew the conditions were still Kiev relinquishing claim on the Donbass and Crimea, and neutrality (meaning no NATO membership or NATO armies in Ukraine). Kiev rejected this and said they will reconquer the Russians in the Donbass and Crimea. Zelinsky said they've already been reconquered in their minds or something. He said he'll tell us when it happens for real.

Obviously if that is the position of Kiev, the Russians will now fight until Kiev surrenders so they can't attack and invade the Crimea or Donbass region.

If they have changed and are now saying they will absorb all of the Ukraine into the Russian federation, that is a massive change. Please share if you can. I'll look also as time permits.

Reuters

In my earlier comment that you replied to, asking if I think pre-2014 Ukraine territory should be controlled by Kiev

Saying that won’t talk until all annexed lands are agreed as Russian and no external support for Ukraine is basically leaving Ukraine defenseless, so Russia goes back to plan A — Take Kiev and take over Ukraine

No, that's not what it says at all. It says Russia takes eastern and southern Ukraine. It doesn't say anything about taking Kiev. No external support means that Ukraine stays out of NATO; it doesn't mean that Russia takes over Ukraine. I'm just talking about what the article says. What Russia's actual plans are I have no idea.

I wouldn't characterize the Donbass or Crimea as part of the Ukraine. These are Russian populations that were technically under Kiev when the Ukraine was a Soviet state, and remained so after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the chaos that followed. They aren't Ukrainian populations.

The people there and Russia had no need to act on this situation while the Ukraine was governed by a pro Russia or at least neutral leader/party.

With the 2014 cia involved coup that installed an aspiring NATO government, these regions completely broke with Kiev. The coup government in kiev shelled and killed something like 15,000 in the Donbass in the last 8 years among other things.

I think Putin and Russia's goals here are quite clear. The regions that are Russian should be in the Russian federation and what remains of Ukraine cannot join the anti Russian military alliance nor have NATO armies or batteries (including nukes) in the Ukraine.

Those goals seem like they're in the best interests of practically all human kind.