Currently, Ukraine has succeeded in defending against Russian aggression with support from the West.
It shows that Ukraine does not necessarily need to join NATO immediately.
Indeed, acceding to NATO is the best way to provide against another invasion. However, NATO has the willingness and ability to secure its members from attacks but does not undertake to defend others from an ongoing dispute unless they do self-mandate. When they did it before, that was subjected to severe criticism.
So, the second-best is needed.
It is to establish an international cooperative relationship, as a legal framework, to support Ukraine's right of individual self-defense when they get incursion again.
This option is relatively easier than acquiring the membership of NATO and enables Russia to achieve the symbolic goal that Ukraine will not join NATO for the time being, and gives a chance to Ukrain to realize the substantive interest of ensuring its security.
That said, Russia should not want to accept any strategic ties that threaten Russia and should like to deny such a relationship between Ukraine and other countries. For instance, if Ukraine participates global security network US-led or sets military bases in their territory for the US, Ukraine is to integrate into US global strategy.
If those happen, Russian paranoia might be unstoppable.
Then, what concessions can Ukraine make? Perhaps, they can remain neutral in the dispute between Russia and the participating countries in the cooperative relationship to support Ukraine's right of individual self-defense unless Russia strikes them first.
In other words, it is a conditional reservation of the right of collective self-defense against Russia.
Meanwhile, from the viewpoint of Russia, unfortunately,
there is no need for such an option for Ukraine. Because if Ukraine accepts all of Russia's demands, Ukraine will not get invaded again. Furthermore, They might say that if Ukraine wants a guarantee for national security, Russia can provide it for Ukraine to secure them from the threat of the western countries.
Of course, these claims are embarrassingly ridiculous. Russia proved Russia itself is the threat by invading Ukraine. But still, for Russia, This brutism is an operation for securing some regions that Russia considers they should stay together with Russia by neutralizing a state that has sovereignty over those regions. Therefore, Russia will continue to press Ukrain to meet Russia's demands by destroying Ukraine cities and hurting civilians.
After all, the question is whether Russia can accept Ukraine to be free from the Russian yoke and whether Ukraine can win liberty.
To put this simply, we are facing a situation where a person is beating up his ex-partner with false accusations to force the ex-partner to agree some precious is no longer belong to the ex-partner and those are his. Many neighbors are disgusted by the lies and violence of such a crafty person.
So, the answer will not depend on talks for conditions. It will depend on a balance between the power of forcing obedience to the other and the power of refusing it. Any possible agreements are always the outcome of such a balance.
Which side would you like to tilt it to?
It shows that Ukraine does not necessarily need to join NATO immediately.
Indeed, acceding to NATO is the best way to provide against another invasion. However, NATO has the willingness and ability to secure its members from attacks but does not undertake to defend others from an ongoing dispute unless they do self-mandate. When they did it before, that was subjected to severe criticism.
So, the second-best is needed.
It is to establish an international cooperative relationship, as a legal framework, to support Ukraine's right of individual self-defense when they get incursion again.
This option is relatively easier than acquiring the membership of NATO and enables Russia to achieve the symbolic goal that Ukraine will not join NATO for the time being, and gives a chance to Ukrain to realize the substantive interest of ensuring its security.
That said, Russia should not want to accept any strategic ties that threaten Russia and should like to deny such a relationship between Ukraine and other countries. For instance, if Ukraine participates global security network US-led or sets military bases in their territory for the US, Ukraine is to integrate into US global strategy.
If those happen, Russian paranoia might be unstoppable.
Then, what concessions can Ukraine make? Perhaps, they can remain neutral in the dispute between Russia and the participating countries in the cooperative relationship to support Ukraine's right of individual self-defense unless Russia strikes them first.
In other words, it is a conditional reservation of the right of collective self-defense against Russia.
Meanwhile, from the viewpoint of Russia, unfortunately,
there is no need for such an option for Ukraine. Because if Ukraine accepts all of Russia's demands, Ukraine will not get invaded again. Furthermore, They might say that if Ukraine wants a guarantee for national security, Russia can provide it for Ukraine to secure them from the threat of the western countries.
Of course, these claims are embarrassingly ridiculous. Russia proved Russia itself is the threat by invading Ukraine. But still, for Russia, This brutism is an operation for securing some regions that Russia considers they should stay together with Russia by neutralizing a state that has sovereignty over those regions. Therefore, Russia will continue to press Ukrain to meet Russia's demands by destroying Ukraine cities and hurting civilians.
After all, the question is whether Russia can accept Ukraine to be free from the Russian yoke and whether Ukraine can win liberty.
To put this simply, we are facing a situation where a person is beating up his ex-partner with false accusations to force the ex-partner to agree some precious is no longer belong to the ex-partner and those are his. Many neighbors are disgusted by the lies and violence of such a crafty person.
So, the answer will not depend on talks for conditions. It will depend on a balance between the power of forcing obedience to the other and the power of refusing it. Any possible agreements are always the outcome of such a balance.
Which side would you like to tilt it to?
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます