Nobody Is Entitled to Their Own Facts on Ukraine
Michael Gfoeller and David H. Rundell
On 8/1/23 at 7:22 AM EDT
In his essay "On Liberty," John Stuart Mill explained the importance of listening to opposing views with an open mind. He emphasized how, despite our own deep convictions, we may be mistaken. More likely, we are
partially correct and partially mistaken. Then, by making incremental adjustments we can advance toward a better understanding. Finally, Mill pointed out that even if we are completely correct, our opinions will deteriorate into stale dogma unless we are compelled to defend them.
So, we welcome comments from those who disagree with us about the
situation in Ukraine. Our conclusions may be wrong or only partially correct, and even if fully correct we should be prepared to defend them. However, as former New York Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted, "You are entitled to your opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts."
Here they are:
1. Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
2. Ukraine is not a NATO member, and the United States has no legal obligation to defend it.
3. Ukraine's current borders were established in 1954, when the government in Moscow transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
4. The current Ukrainian government has passed laws restricting the use of the Russian language even in areas, such as Crimea, where most of the population are Russian speakers.
5. Since 1999, NATO has added 15 new members, advanced 1,000 miles
eastward and placed nuclear-capable missiles on the border of the Russian Federation.
6. Russia has a significantly larger population and a much larger economy than Ukraine.
7. Western sanctions have failed to cripple the Russian economy, but
Ukraine has grown increasingly dependent on Western financial aid.
8. Russia has a large domestic defense industry, but Ukraine relies
heavily on Western military equipment.
9. Although the United States has significant global security concerns, it has substantially drawn down its own reserves to supply Ukraine with arms and ammunition.
10. Although Russia will not surrender Crimea before suffering a decisive military defeat, the current Ukrainian offensive has made no noteworthy gains.
11. The Russian Federation possesses a stockpile of nuclear weapons at
least as large as that of the United States and these weapons are far more powerful than those used in the Second World War.
12. Both President Biden and former President Donald Trump have cautioned that the war in Ukraine has already raised the risk of nuclear war.
Based on these observations, we have drawn the following conclusions.
1. Russia's invasion may well have been illegal, but it was not
unprovoked.
2. Ukraine is not likely to retake Crimea without the active participation of NATO military forces.
3. Such intervention would further increase the risk of miscalculation and
a catastrophic nuclear war.
4. In the absence of such direct NATO intervention, the most likely
outcomes to this war are either Ukrainian defeat or a negotiated
settlement that addresses Russian security concerns.
Like the war in Iraq, this is war of choice for the United States. No one
is attacking a NATO member. As we were once told that Saddam Hussein was busy building an nuclear bomb, we are now warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin plans to invade Poland. Neither claim ever had any basis in reality. Like the war in Afghanistan, this is another "forever war" with taxpayers being asked to spend ever-growing sums for "as long as it
takes."
Yet just how long that might be or what we are hoping to achieve is never clearly stated.
Instead, those endorsing this war seem to posses a geopolitical vision
that is inconsistent with the facts and does not consider the high costs
or grave risks the Western alliance is assuming in return for little or no gain. Moreover, they appear to accept the dubious proposition that
American and Ukrainian interests are identical and that the United States should have no say in how a war it has enabled ends.
In a deeply divided nation, Newsweek remains one of the few publications that has not polarized its opinion page. Instead, it continues to promote
a respectful, free exchange of differing views. We, too, welcome comments from those who do not share our conclusion on the war in Ukraine, so long
as their analysis includes the 12 objective facts we have presented.
David H. Rundell is a former chief of mission at the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia and the author of Vision or Mirage, Saudi Arabia at the Crossroads. Ambassador Michael Gfoeller is a former political advisor to
the U.S. Central Command and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He served in diplomatic postings for 15 years in the Soviet Union, former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
https://www.newsweek.com/nobody-entitled-their-own-facts-ukraine-opinion-1816504
Онзи дали има да каже нещо по-различно за фактите, споменати в статията?
Мнението му е отдавна известно.
--
«地 球 誕 生 在 牛 市 的 小 時 — Earth is born in the Bull's hour»
On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 10:12:05 -0700 (PDT), Ivaylo Ivanov wrote:
Будапещенския монорандум с който Украйна
(глупаво) предаде ядрените си оръжия на Русия.
Не ги предаде, а ги продаде. Като нямаш пари почваш да продаваш
имуществата си.
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-4, Nick wrote:
Nobody Is Entitled to Their Own Facts on Ukraine
Michael Gfoeller and David H. Rundell
On 8/1/23 at 7:22 AM EDT
In his essay "On Liberty," John Stuart Mill explained the importance of
listening to opposing views with an open mind. He emphasized how,
despite our own deep convictions, we may be mistaken. More likely, we
are partially correct and partially mistaken. Then, by making
incremental adjustments we can advance toward a better understanding.
Finally, Mill pointed out that even if we are completely correct, our
opinions will deteriorate into stale dogma unless we are compelled to
defend them.
So, we welcome comments from those who disagree with us about the
situation in Ukraine. Our conclusions may be wrong or only partially
correct, and even if fully correct we should be prepared to defend
them.
However, as former New York Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan
noted,
"You are entitled to your opinions. But you are not entitled to your
own facts."
Here they are:
1. Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
2. Ukraine is not a NATO member, and the United States has no legal
obligation to defend it.
3. Ukraine's current borders were established in 1954, when the
government in Moscow transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet
Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
4. The current Ukrainian government has passed laws restricting the use
of the Russian language even in areas, such as Crimea, where most of
the population are Russian speakers.
5. Since 1999, NATO has added 15 new members, advanced 1,000 miles
eastward and placed nuclear-capable missiles on the border of the
Russian Federation.
6. Russia has a significantly larger population and a much larger
economy than Ukraine.
7. Western sanctions have failed to cripple the Russian economy, but
Ukraine has grown increasingly dependent on Western financial aid.
8. Russia has a large domestic defense industry, but Ukraine relies
heavily on Western military equipment.
9. Although the United States has significant global security concerns,
it has substantially drawn down its own reserves to supply Ukraine with
arms and ammunition.
10. Although Russia will not surrender Crimea before suffering a
decisive military defeat, the current Ukrainian offensive has made no
noteworthy gains.
11. The Russian Federation possesses a stockpile of nuclear weapons at
least as large as that of the United States and these weapons are far
more powerful than those used in the Second World War.
12. Both President Biden and former President Donald Trump have
cautioned that the war in Ukraine has already raised the risk of
nuclear war.
Based on these observations, we have drawn the following conclusions.
1. Russia's invasion may well have been illegal, but it was not
unprovoked.
2. Ukraine is not likely to retake Crimea without the active
participation of NATO military forces.
3. Such intervention would further increase the risk of miscalculation
and a catastrophic nuclear war.
4. In the absence of such direct NATO intervention, the most likely
outcomes to this war are either Ukrainian defeat or a negotiated
settlement that addresses Russian security concerns.
Like the war in Iraq, this is war of choice for the United States. No
one is attacking a NATO member. As we were once told that Saddam
Hussein was busy building an nuclear bomb, we are now warned that
Russian President Vladimir Putin plans to invade Poland. Neither claim
ever had any basis in reality. Like the war in Afghanistan, this is
another "forever war" with taxpayers being asked to spend ever-growing
sums for "as long as it takes."
Yet just how long that might be or what we are hoping to achieve is
never clearly stated.
Instead, those endorsing this war seem to posses a geopolitical vision
that is inconsistent with the facts and does not consider the high
costs or grave risks the Western alliance is assuming in return for
little or no gain. Moreover, they appear to accept the dubious
proposition that American and Ukrainian interests are identical and
that the United States should have no say in how a war it has enabled
ends.
In a deeply divided nation, Newsweek remains one of the few
publications that has not polarized its opinion page. Instead, it
continues to promote a respectful, free exchange of differing views.
We, too, welcome comments from those who do not share our conclusion on
the war in Ukraine, so long as their analysis includes the 12 objective
facts we have presented.
David H. Rundell is a former chief of mission at the American Embassy
in Saudi Arabia and the author of Vision or Mirage, Saudi Arabia at the
Crossroads. Ambassador Michael Gfoeller is a former political advisor
to the U.S. Central Command and a member of the Council on Foreign
Relations.
He served in diplomatic postings for 15 years in the Soviet Union,
former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
https://www.newsweek.com/nobody-entitled-their-own-facts-ukraine- opinion-1816504
Онзи дали има да каже нещо по-различно за фактите, споменати в
статията?
Мнението му е отдавна известно.
Ще ги разпознаете по фактите.
"NATO has ... placed nuclear-capable missiles on the border of the
Russian Federation"
Хъх?
"Ukraine's current borders were established in 1954, when the government
in Moscow transferred Crimea from the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic
to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic."
Хъх? Същестуващите граници на Украйна са международно признати,
включително _МНОГОКРАТНО_ от самата Русия, и са _ГАРАНТИРАНИ_
(на хартия) от нея като част от Будапещенския монорандум с който Украйна
(глупаво) предаде ядрените си оръжия на Русия.
"Изводите им" не си струва да се коментират (защото това _със сигурност_
не са единствените възможни изходи от войната).
Будапещенския монорандум с който Украйна (глупаво) предаде ядрените си оръжия на Русия.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 12:00:29 |
| Calls: | 9,783 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,748 |
| Messages: | 6,187,343 |