Special Thread: Yanayojiri Mgogoro wa Ukraine na Urusi. Nini chanzo na hatma ya mzozo?

Special Thread: Yanayojiri Mgogoro wa Ukraine na Urusi. Nini chanzo na hatma ya mzozo?

Econometrician said:
Hamna Silaa za Nyuklia zinaweza kumaliza Binadamu wote Duniani,achana na propaganda na western.

Ujue Nchi za western ni wapumbavu sana kwa propaganda, kwa kuwa Vi Nchi vyao ni vidogo vidogo-ni wazi wakishambuliwa na hayo mabomu basi kuna uwezekano mkubwa wa kufutika moja kwa moja.Sasa wamehamisha propaganda hizo kuwa swala la Dunia.
Click to expand...
Shure wanongelea dunia kumbe wanajisema wao
JamiiForums1589008928_554x554.jpg
nyundo kama hizi 4 zikigongwa 1 Uk na pili france na mbili zikashonwa pale us na kanada ....hiyo dunia yao wanayo izungumzia haitakuepo patabakia magofu tu ndo maana wanapiga makelele tuu....yaani wanataka mpaka afrika tuitetee dunia yao .....hawakumbuki libya ...iraki ...afghanista ....yemen ...wana pajnguza na mabomu .....dahh aisee......wao wanaogopa kufa ila kwa wengine safii...
 
FUSO said:
Mwambieni Yerrico huko aliko ni kwamba Putin alivyosema leo eti gesi na mafuta yake yatanunuliwa tu kwa hela yao ya ndani - ni kichekesho. Kwanza hela yenyewe hata mie siijui..afu kuna mikataba wazi kwamba watalipa kwa uro na dola.

Wakuu yaani hela yao haijulikani jamani.. yaani Putin ashaanza kunyooka, tunzeni post hii

G7, US, Nato leo walikuwa na kikao...jamaa hachomoki...

You can not exist in this world on ur own...eti China maweeeee

Sababu kuna mikataba kwamba watalipanlwa kwa uro na dola tu ....labda kama kuna mikataba mipya.

Mwambieni kauli za Rais si sheria..labda kwa hapa Tz.
Click to expand...
Pua pua pua
 
2019 said:
Sio kweli bhana,kama NATO ikiingia mgogoro utakuwa mkubwa zaidi,ndio maana wanatumia hekima kukwepa dunia kutumbukia kwenye vita
Click to expand...
hakuna cha hekima wala nini waoga tuu mbona nchi zingine hawakutumia hekima hao nato wameharibu nchi za watu libya irak ....ila hapo wameona kuna mwamba anaetwa PUT IN ..... kasimamia kucha ndo maana kelel kwa media kila uchwao wanachungulia ....waoga tu
 
for life said:
Na sisi tunakutana wapi kuwatandika waandamanaji waliokosa kazi ilihali nchi yetu ni poor poor kabsaa
Click to expand...
Blaza[emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787][emoji1787] mimi niko mbagala hapa atakae andamana kuipinga moscow ....ntamshushia hata rungu kichwani ......afie huko kakosa kazi ya kufanya.....shabaash ...kabisa...
 
GANGA ZUMBA said:
kwan ukraine iko NATO dogo hebu fanya analysis zako vizuri kabla hajauliza hayo maswali
Click to expand...
Kama haiko nato kwanini hao nato wana kaa vikao kila siku na na vikwazo dailly kwa russia ...na misaada ya silaha ....ambayo inaishia mikononi kwa mwamba putin ....kwanini ukrine wasipambane wenyewe ebu tanua huo ubongo basi bwana zumbu kuku ganga zumba ....
 
bibingi said:
Shure wanongelea dunia kumbe wanajisema wao View attachment 2163483 nyundo kama hizi 4 zikigongwa 1 Uk na pili france na mbili zikashonwa pale us na kanada ....hiyo dunia yao wanayo izungumzia haitakuepo patabakia magofu tu ndo maana wanapiga makelele tuu....yaani wanataka mpaka afrika tuitetee dunia yao .....hawakumbuki libya ...iraki ...afghanista ....yemen ...wana pajnguza na mabomu .....dahh aisee......wao wanaogopa kufa ila kwa wengine safii...
Click to expand...
Sasa ulaya yote ukiondoa urusi ni vinchi kama Rwanda... Watu wanaichulia poa Ukraine ... England inaingia mara 5~6 Kwa Ukraine ... Ukraine ni nchi yenye eneo kubwa baada ya Urusi .... Ulaya nzima.... Ukichukua east n central Africa ulaya yote (ukiondoa urusi na Ukraine) wanajaaaa na wanapwaya.....
 
Michael Andrew Jr said:
Mimi napinga Ukraine kuvamiwa, ila nasema ukweli US na Nato ni wanafiki? Nchi 30 wanashindwa nini kummaliza Putini? Ukraine wanapigika, mji wa mariupol umebaki magofu tu.
Nato ingieni Ukraine kulinda amani, tumechoka vikao vya kila siku.
Click to expand...
Unaujua mziki wa PUT IN au unaangalia bibicii au sieni eni wakuletee habari za russia .....hawawezi ndo maana wanaka kaa vikao visvoisha
 
thuwainize said:
Milipuko ishakuwa zilipendwa mwezi sasa russia anambwelambwela tu na milipuko yake yaan kwa sasa milipuko ni kama sauti nyingine tu. Hiyo milipuko ingekuwa na maana kama russia angekuwa ashamaliza mchezo.
Click to expand...
Umekurupuka em tulia kwanza .....nia sisi warusi ni kuiharibu ukraine na kuifanya magofu ..na majivu ....hata kama itachukua miaka 50
 
myoyambendi said:
Urusi ilikuwa na jeshi bora sana tangu vita kuu ya pili mpaka ilipoanguka Soviet. Sisi Tanzania tulinufaika sana na misaada na mafunzo ya kijeshi miaka ile..Chuo chetu Monduli kilitoa wanajeshi bora sana kwa usaidizi wa Urusi na nchi zilizokuwa Warsaw...
Muda umepita..
Urusi imepungua uwezo wake na askari hawana mori wa vita...
lla ina nyuklia. Nyuklia na silaha za sumu ndo karata yao.
Click to expand...
Vaisi vesa ...ndo maana hata marekani ilivoona mziki wa japani hauchezeki wakadondosha kitu kinaitwa litre boy nagasaki na hiroshima ingia google ........so ukiweka ushabiki pembeni ....hata marekani /uk kama sio nuklia asingemueza mjapani na hata leo anavamia irak ....libya kwa sababu anajua wananyuklia ....ukiondoa nuke hawana kitu waoga .....ndo maana hata iran / kore kaskazin hawaja ivamia mpaka leo sababu ....sababu kubwa wakina kiduku na mwenzie iran ..wana nyuklia .......
 
Endelea na habari kwa kusakinisha kiendelezi cha RT cha Chrome . Usiwahi kukosa hadithi yenye programu hii safi na rahisi ambayo inakuletea vichwa vya habari vipya zaidi.



KUISHI



24 Machi 2022 15:44

NyumbaniUrusi na FSU

Wataalam walionya kwa miongo kadhaa kwamba upanuzi wa NATO ungesababisha vita: Kwa nini hakuna mtu aliyewasikiliza?

Wachambuzi na wanadiplomasia wamekuwa wakisema tangu miaka ya 1990 kwamba upanuzi wa NATO hatimaye utazua mzozo katika Ulaya Mashariki.

[https://cdni]

Askari anaonekana wakati wa mazoezi ya kijeshi ya Upanga Tatu-2021, kwenye uwanja wa mafunzo wa Yavorovsky, katika mkoa wa Lviv, Ukraine. [emoji2398] Sputnik / Stringer

Mashambulizi ya kijeshi ya Urusi nchini Ukraine yamekuwa yakiendelea kwa mwezi mmoja sasa. Tayari imesababisha mzozo wa kiuchumi duniani unaotokana na kukatika kwa minyororo ya ugavi na kupanda kwa bei ya nishati. Na ingawa mwanzo wa uhasama ulikuja kama mshangao kwa ulimwengu wote, hali ya sasa ya mambo haikuwa isiyotabirika - wataalam wa uhusiano wa kimataifa wamekuwa wakionya juu ya hatari ya kuongezeka huku kwa miaka 30 iliyopita.

Kwa nini wanasiasa wa nchi za Magharibi hawakusikiliza ushauri wao, badala ya kuruhusu vita kuzuka Ulaya, na bei ya mafuta na vyakula kupanda nyumbani? RT inaeleza.

Nilikuambia hivyo

"Nataka niweke wazi kwa kila mtu, ndani ya nchi yetu na nje ya nchi, kwa washirika wetu, kwamba hata sio juu ya mstari ambao hatutaki mtu yeyote avuke. Ukweli ni kwamba hatuna pa kurudi. Wametuweka kwenye mstari ambao, samahani kwa tabia mbaya, hatuna pa kurudi,” Rais Vladimir Putin alisema mwishoni mwa Desemba 2021, karibu miezi miwili kabla ya kuamuru kushambuliwa kwa Ukraine.

Wakati huo, Moscow ilikuwa inajaribu kufikia makubaliano na NATO kuhusu usalama wa pande zote, ikitumai kuwa jumuiya hiyo inayoongozwa na Marekani ingekubali kutoa hakikisho la maandishi kwamba haitapanuka zaidi, upande wa mashariki. Sio tu Putin, lakini pia maafisa wengine wa Urusi, walizungumza juu ya 'mistari nyekundu' ambayo ilileta tishio kubwa, na athari mbaya kwa ulimwengu, ikiwa itavuka.

[https://cdni]

SOMA ZAIDI

Jinsi India inavyouona mzozo wa Kiukreni na maana yake kwa uhusiano wake na Urusi na Magharibi

Kuwepo kwa mistari hii nyekundu - haswa dhidi ya upanuzi wa NATO hadi Ukraine - sio dhana fulani inayozaliwa katika akili za uongozi wa sasa wa Urusi. Ajabu ya kutosha, walikuwa wakijadiliwa katika nchi za Magharibi muda mrefu kabla ya kuwa mada ya mazungumzo katika Kremlin.

Mnamo mwaka wa 1998, George Kennan, mwanadiplomasia na mwanahistoria wa Kimarekani anayejulikana kama 'mbunifu wa Vita Baridi', alisema upanuzi wa NATO hautamaanisha chochote kidogo kuliko "mwanzo wa Vita Baridi," akionya kwamba itakuwa "kosa la kutisha. ”

"Kwa kweli, hii itasababisha mwitikio mbaya kutoka kwa Urusi. Na hilo likitokea, [wale waliofanya maamuzi kuhusu upanuzi wa NATO] watasema kwamba siku zote tumewaambia Warusi ni hivyo. Lakini si kweli,” alisema.

Mnamo 1997, wataalam 50 mashuhuri wa sera za kigeni, wakiwemo maseneta wa zamani, viongozi wa kijeshi, na wanadiplomasia, walituma barua ya wazi kwa Rais wa wakati huo Bill Clinton wakielezea upinzani wao kwa upanuzi wa NATO. “Ni makosa ya kisera ya uwiano wa kihistoria,” waliandika .

Mchambuzi wa siasa za kihafidhina Pat Buchanan aliandika katika kitabu chake cha 1999 'A Republic, Not an Empire', "Kwa kuhamisha NATO kwenye ukumbi wa mbele wa Urusi, tumepanga makabiliano ya karne ya ishirini na moja."

Mkurugenzi wa sasa wa CIA, William Burns, alisema mwaka wa 2008 kwamba kwa Urusi, "kujiunga kwa Ukraine kwa NATO ni mstari mkali zaidi wa mistari yote nyekundu."

"Bado sijapata mtu yeyote ambaye angeichukulia Ukraine katika NATO kama kitu kingine isipokuwa changamoto ya moja kwa moja kwa maslahi ya Urusi," alisema .

Hizi ni baadhi tu ya kauli zilizotolewa na watu wakuu wa kisiasa wa Marekani, lakini itawezekana kuandaa kitabu kizima kutokana na utabiri uliofanywa katika miaka ya 1990 pekee. Na baada ya mzozo wa Ukraine kuanza mnamo 2014, na kufyonzwa tena kwa Urusi kwa Crimea, maoni juu ya upumbavu wa upanuzi zaidi wa NATO yalisikika mara nyingi zaidi huko Magharibi.

Katika kipindi cha miaka minane iliyopita, Waziri Mkuu wa zamani wa Australia Malcolm Fraser, Henry Kissinger, msomi maarufu wa Marekani wa masomo ya Kirusi Stephen Cohen, na wataalamu wengine wengi wametoa maonyo kuhusu upanuzi wa NATO.

Je, wewe ni kwa ajili ya amani au ushindi?

Maamuzi yaliyotolewa na maafisa wa serikali ya Magharibi katika kipindi cha miaka 20-25 yamepingana na mapendekezo ya wataalam hawa.

Timofei Bordachev, mkurugenzi wa programu wa Klabu ya Majadiliano ya Kimataifa ya Valdai na mkurugenzi wa kitaaluma wa Kituo cha Mafunzo Jumuishi ya Ulaya na Kimataifa katika Shule ya Juu ya Uchumi, anaamini kuwa sababu ya hii ni dhahiri - wanasiasa wanasikiliza wataalam, lakini hawazingatii. lazima kufuata mapendekezo yao.

"Katika eneo kama uhusiano wa kimataifa, wanasiasa, kwa bahati mbaya, karibu kamwe kamwe kusikiliza jumuiya ya wataalamu. Sababu ya hii inaeleweka. Jukumu la jumuiya ya wataalam ni kufikia amani na kuzuia migogoro. Lakini kwa kuwa wanasiasa huwajibu wapiga kura, huwa wanafanya kazi kila mara ili kupata ushindi kwa gharama yoyote ile,” Bordachev alisema katika mazungumzo na RT.

"Tofauti ya mbinu ni dhahiri. Kwa hiyo, ni vigumu sana kwa wanasiasa kusikiliza maoni ya wataalam. Katika kufikia malengo yao, wanashindwa kufikia hatua ya mwisho,” aliongeza.

[https://cdni]

SOMA ZAIDI

Uchina, India, Amerika na EU: Nani atashinda kutoka kwa vita vya Ukraine, na nani atashindwa?

Dhana hii inathibitishwa kwa uwazi zaidi katika mahojiano na mshauri wa mkuu wa Ofisi ya Rais wa Ukraine, Alexey Arestovich, ambayo ilitolewa kwa kituo cha Apostrophe TV YouTube mwaka wa 2019. Wakati huo, hakutabiri tu mwaka kwa usahihi. vita vingezuka katika nchi yake na sababu zake, lakini pia alisisitiza kwamba mzozo hauepukiki, akionyesha kwamba ilikuwa muhimu kwa Ukraine:

"Kwa uwezekano wa 99.9%, bei yetu ya kujiunga na NATO ni vita kubwa na Urusi... Matokeo bora ni vita kuu na Urusi na mpito kwa NATO kulingana na matokeo ya ushindi dhidi ya Urusi."

Maneno haya yanaonyesha kuwa uongozi wa Ukraine haukuwa na nia ya kuzuia vita hata kidogo. Kinyume chake, nchi ilikuwa ikijiandaa kwa vita, ikiamini kuwa ni njia halali ya kupata 'ushindi' - kujiunga na NATO.

Walakini, hii haielezi kwa nini wanasiasa wa Amerika, au angalau wa Uropa, hawakujaribu kuzuia vita huko Uropa. Kulingana na Bordachev, ukweli ni kwamba viongozi wa Magharibi walitoka kwa dhana kwamba hakuna njia ambayo nchi zao zinaweza kujiunga na vita.

"Kutokana na kuwepo kwa uzuiaji wa nyuklia, kila mtu anaelewa hatari ya vita vya uharibifu kwa ujumla ni kutengwa kwa urahisi na hatari nyingine zote: ni rahisi kuweka na kuzuia. Tunaweza kuona hili sasa kutokana na tabia ya Marekani na washirika wake, ambao wanachukua hatua zote dhidi ya Urusi bila kuingilia moja kwa moja katika mgogoro huo. Hiyo ni, kwa ujasiri hutenganisha kutoka kwa equation hali ambayo inaweza kuwa hatari kwao wenyewe - sio kujiua. Lakini wanasiasa wa nchi za Magharibi hawajali hata kidogo ni raia wangapi wa Ukraine wanapaswa kufa ili wafikie malengo yao,” Bordachev alisema.

Yote ni makosa ya Fukuyama

Dmitry Suslov, naibu mkurugenzi wa utafiti katika Baraza la Sera ya Mambo ya Nje na Ulinzi (CFDP) na naibu mkurugenzi wa Kituo cha Mafunzo ya kina ya Ulaya na Kimataifa ya Kitivo cha Uchumi wa Dunia na Masuala ya Kimataifa ya Chuo Kikuu cha Taifa cha Utafiti - Shule ya Juu ya Uchumi. (NRU HSE), inaamini kuwa kuna sababu tofauti kwa nini vitendo vya wanasiasa vinapotoka sana kutoka kwa kile ambacho jumuiya ya wataalamu inaagiza.

Sio kwamba wanasiasa wa Magharibi wanakataa kuwasikiliza wachambuzi wa sera za kigeni - wanasikiliza wasio sahihi.

[https://cdni]

SOMA ZAIDI

Ivan Timofeev: Urusi sasa ina chaguzi tatu tu zilizosalia kwa Ukraine

"Hakukuwa na umoja kati ya wataalam wa Magharibi, hakuna makubaliano hata kidogo. Ni hasa watetezi wa sera za kigeni kutoka Marekani na Ulaya ambao walikuwa wameonya kuhusu hatari ya kupanua NATO. Tatizo lilikuwa, baada ya kumalizika kwa Vita Baridi, ushawishi wa wanahalisi katika uanzishwaji wa sera ya kigeni ya Magharibi umepungua kwa kiasi kikubwa,” Suslov aliiambia RT.

Kulingana na yeye, mara tu Vita Baridi vilipoisha, mtazamo wa kiliberali ulipata umaarufu haraka kati ya duru za wataalam wa Magharibi na watunga sera. "Wazo lilikuwa, kwanza kabisa, kwamba Urusi ilikuwa katika hali ya kuzorota kwa karibu na isiyoweza kutenduliwa, na kwamba haitathubutu kutoa changamoto kwa nchi za Magharibi kwa sura au sura yoyote. Iliaminika kwamba hatimaye Urusi ingeanguka katika mstari na kujiunga na 'upande wa kulia wa historia' (kutoka kwa mtazamo wa Magharibi), ingefaa katika dhana ya NATO ya Ulaya na kuchukua nafasi ya chini kando ya siasa za kimataifa. . Haya ndiyo maono yaliyopendekezwa na waliberali na wahafidhina mamboleo, na yalitawala kwa uwazi zaidi nafasi ya wanahalisi,” alisema.

This only seemed natural. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many had the feeling that the balance of power and the previous patterns of international relations suddenly became obsolete. Now, they thought, everything would be different – international relations would be guided by a brand-new set of considerations, while those of the realists, along with their notions of geopolitics, would fade away into obscurity.

The ‘end of history’, a concept advocated by Francis Fukuyama in the 1990s, gained a lot of traction during this period. It is well known that Fukuyama’s interpretation of this idea had a powerful influence on George W. Bush and his foreign policy. In his book titled ‘The End of History and the Last Man’, he announced that the age of ideological confrontation, authoritarianism, revolutions, and war was finally over, as all states would eventually embrace liberal democracy modeled after the United States.

Fukuyama is now making predictions about the outcome of the current conflict in Ukraine. He believes that military defeat for Russia in Ukraine is imminent and will result in China not daring to invade Taiwan. This, according to Fukuyama, will revive the spirit of 1989, which will capture people’s hearts and bring the world back to the path towards the ‘end of history’.

The predator senses weakness

Truth be told, Russia gave Western politicians reasons to doubt the assessments of realist experts.

“In the 1990s and even early 2000s, Russia appeared weak. It didn’t stand determinately and clearly enough against expansion of NATO; moreover, it made the expansion even easier to some extent,” Suslov said.

In his opinion, the very existence of the Founding Act signed in 1997 convinced the West that Moscow was ready to turn a blind eye to NATO expansion.

This document determined Russia-NATO relations over the past 25 years, until the start of Russia’s attack on Ukraine. It reaffirmed the commitment of the parties to the inherent right of European nations “to choose the means to ensure their own security.”



READ MORE

Cheerleader of NATO wars spotted in Ukraine

For years, this formula was used by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to explain why Russia did not have a say in Georgia or Ukraine joining the alliance.

“Indeed, Russia had secured several important provisions in that document, but at the same time, it gave a signal that a deal on expansion is possible. In general, the act showed Russia wouldn’t wage war against NATO or acceding states,” Suslov said.

The Founding Act gave the alliance legal grounds for admitting new members, but what really assured Western politicians that Russia was ready to allow expansion was the accession of the former Soviet republics of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

Curiously enough, when this discussion was just beginning in 1997, Joe Biden, then-chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, argued that Russia could go along with NATO accepting Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into the military bloc, but the Baltic states were where it would draw the line.

“I think the one place where the greatest consternation would be caused in the short-term would be to admit the Baltic states now,” the future US president said.

In the end, the Baltic states were admitted into the alliance. They received invitations in 2002, and in 2004 became full members.

“How did Russia react? It did nothing again. It really stood up against expansion only when NATO tried to extend to Georgia and Ukraine. That’s why we ended up where we are now,” Suslov said.

What next?

Reality has clearly changed. The current dynamics of relations between Russia and the West leaves no ambiguity about NATO’s potential advance toward Russia’s borders.

According to Suslov, this, along with other trends observed in contemporary international relations, will strengthen the position of the realists.

“There is no doubt we are now witnessing a resurgence of the realist school. This has to do not only with the conflict in Ukraine, but also with the confrontation between the US and China. Once again, we see that the shifts in the balance of power on the globe are the single most important factor – it is what sets everything in motion and shapes the international system. It is a new shift in the balance of global powers that dictates the state of relations between nations: China has become too strong, and the US is trying to contain it,” he said.



READ MORE

Experts tell RT how Russian offensive in Ukraine will end

Suslov argues that the current patterns in US-China relations “spell doom for the liberals and hold a lot of promise for realists. It is quite likely that, in the near future, Western politicians will start making decisions based on advice from the latter and not the former. If so, then what do the realists propose as their solution to the ongoing conflict in Europe?"

“The realists argue that the US should recognize Ukraine’s geopolitical losses as ‘status quo’, stop supplying Kiev with lethal weapons and even pressure Zelensky into signing a deal with Moscow under which Ukraine would remain independent but neutral.”

Following these recommendations would help the US solve two important problems, Suslov said. First of all, Washington could stop further Russia-China rapprochement unfavorable to the US. Secondly, it would de-escalate US-Russia tensions by preventing direct military confrontation between the nations.

“Realists believe this kind of confrontation is on the table if Washington continues the economic war against Moscow,” he said.

In any case, it’s too early to dismiss negative scenarios as unlikely and trust in the good judgment of politicians. According to Bordachev, “Not once in the history of humankind have politicians listened to experts. And there are no hints this could change today.”

Alexey Gryazev is a Russian journalist, focusing on politics, philosophy and war.

FEATURE

You can share this story on social media:



Trends:RussiaUkraine



Join RT on Telegram

Top stories



Biden refuses to rule out Ukrainian territorial concessions

Leaders warn of ‘unprecedented’ global food crisis risks

Russia claims US tested experimental drugs on Ukrainian soldiers

US goes after Russian gold

NATO explains why it won't send troops to Ukraine

Bulgaria will pay for Russian gas in rubles, ‘whether they like it or not’ – Kremlin

Ruble rockets on gas currency switch

Subscribe to RT newsletter to get news highlights of the day right in your mailbox

We offer you the possibility to receive RT's news highlights every Monday, Wednesday and Friday by email.

Subscribe

RT Features



Jinsi India inavyouona mzozo wa Kiukreni na maana yake kwa uhusiano wake na Urusi na Magharibi FEATURE



Kunusurika kati ya magofu: maisha katika jiji la Donbass Ukraine inasema haipo tena FEATUREKIPEKEE

Podikasti

Podikasti zote

CrossTalk on Ukraine: Info vita

0:00

26:55

Hakuna haki ya kuwa na nguvu? John Bolton, aliyekuwa mshauri wa usalama wa taifa wa Marekani

0:00

30:15

العربيةESPРУСDEFR

Programu ya Habari ya RT

Ishi

Maombi

Mahali pa kutazama

Ratiba

Maudhui yanayofadhiliwa

Masharti ya matumizi

Sera ya faragha

Kuhusu RT

Maelezo ya mawasiliano

Maoni na Malalamiko

Nafasi za kazi



[emoji2398] Shirika Linalojiendesha Lisilo la Faida “TV-Novosti”, 2005–2022. Haki zote zimehifadhiwa.

Add to home screen

Endelea na habari kwa kusakinisha kiendelezi cha RT cha Chrome . Usiwahi kukosa hadithi yenye programu hii safi na rahisi ambayo inakuletea vichwa vya habari vipya zaidi.



KUISHI



24 Machi 2022 15:44

NyumbaniUrusi na FSU

Wataalam walionya kwa miongo kadhaa kwamba upanuzi wa NATO ungesababisha vita: Kwa nini hakuna mtu aliyewasikiliza?

Wachambuzi na wanadiplomasia wamekuwa wakisema tangu miaka ya 1990 kwamba upanuzi wa NATO hatimaye utazua mzozo katika Ulaya Mashariki.



Askari anaonekana wakati wa mazoezi ya kijeshi ya Upanga Tatu-2021, kwenye uwanja wa mafunzo wa Yavorovsky, katika mkoa wa Lviv, Ukraine. [emoji2398] Sputnik / Stringer

Mashambulizi ya kijeshi ya Urusi nchini Ukraine yamekuwa yakiendelea kwa mwezi mmoja sasa. Tayari imesababisha mzozo wa kiuchumi duniani unaotokana na kukatika kwa minyororo ya ugavi na kupanda kwa bei ya nishati. Na ingawa mwanzo wa uhasama ulikuja kama mshangao kwa ulimwengu wote, hali ya sasa ya mambo haikuwa isiyotabirika - wataalam wa uhusiano wa kimataifa wamekuwa wakionya juu ya hatari ya kuongezeka huku kwa miaka 30 iliyopita.

Kwa nini wanasiasa wa nchi za Magharibi hawakusikiliza ushauri wao, badala ya kuruhusu vita kuzuka Ulaya, na bei ya mafuta na vyakula kupanda nyumbani? RT inaeleza.

Nilikuambia hivyo

"Nataka niweke wazi kwa kila mtu, ndani ya nchi yetu na nje ya nchi, kwa washirika wetu, kwamba hata sio juu ya mstari ambao hatutaki mtu yeyote avuke. Ukweli ni kwamba hatuna pa kurudi. Wametuweka kwenye mstari ambao, samahani kwa tabia mbaya, hatuna pa kurudi,” Rais Vladimir Putin alisema mwishoni mwa Desemba 2021, karibu miezi miwili kabla ya kuamuru kushambuliwa kwa Ukraine.

Wakati huo, Moscow ilikuwa inajaribu kufikia makubaliano na NATO kuhusu usalama wa pande zote, ikitumai kuwa jumuiya hiyo inayoongozwa na Marekani ingekubali kutoa hakikisho la maandishi kwamba haitapanuka zaidi, upande wa mashariki. Sio tu Putin, lakini pia maafisa wengine wa Urusi, walizungumza juu ya 'mistari nyekundu' ambayo ilileta tishio kubwa, na athari mbaya kwa ulimwengu, ikiwa itavuka.



SOMA ZAIDI

Jinsi India inavyouona mzozo wa Kiukreni na maana yake kwa uhusiano wake na Urusi na Magharibi

Kuwepo kwa mistari hii nyekundu - haswa dhidi ya upanuzi wa NATO hadi Ukraine - sio dhana fulani inayozaliwa katika akili za uongozi wa sasa wa Urusi. Ajabu ya kutosha, walikuwa wakijadiliwa katika nchi za Magharibi muda mrefu kabla ya kuwa mada ya mazungumzo katika Kremlin.

Mnamo mwaka wa 1998, George Kennan, mwanadiplomasia na mwanahistoria wa Kimarekani anayejulikana kama 'mbunifu wa Vita Baridi', alisema upanuzi wa NATO hautamaanisha chochote kidogo kuliko "mwanzo wa Vita Baridi," akionya kwamba itakuwa "kosa la kutisha. ”

"Kwa kweli, hii itasababisha mwitikio mbaya kutoka kwa Urusi. Na hilo likitokea, [wale waliofanya maamuzi kuhusu upanuzi wa NATO] watasema kwamba siku zote tumewaambia Warusi ni hivyo. Lakini si kweli,” alisema.

Mnamo 1997, wataalam 50 mashuhuri wa sera za kigeni, wakiwemo maseneta wa zamani, viongozi wa kijeshi, na wanadiplomasia, walituma barua ya wazi kwa Rais wa wakati huo Bill Clinton wakielezea upinzani wao kwa upanuzi wa NATO. “Ni makosa ya kisera ya uwiano wa kihistoria,” waliandika .

Mchambuzi wa siasa za kihafidhina Pat Buchanan aliandika katika kitabu chake cha 1999 'A Republic, Not an Empire', "Kwa kuhamisha NATO kwenye ukumbi wa mbele wa Urusi, tumepanga makabiliano ya karne ya ishirini na moja."

Mkurugenzi wa sasa wa CIA, William Burns, alisema mwaka wa 2008 kwamba kwa Urusi, "kujiunga kwa Ukraine kwa NATO ni mstari mkali zaidi wa mistari yote nyekundu."

"Bado sijapata mtu yeyote ambaye angeichukulia Ukraine katika NATO kama kitu kingine isipokuwa changamoto ya moja kwa moja kwa maslahi ya Urusi," alisema .

Hizi ni baadhi tu ya kauli zilizotolewa na watu wakuu wa kisiasa wa Marekani, lakini itawezekana kuandaa kitabu kizima kutokana na utabiri uliofanywa katika miaka ya 1990 pekee. Na baada ya mzozo wa Ukraine kuanza mnamo 2014, na kufyonzwa tena kwa Urusi kwa Crimea, maoni juu ya upumbavu wa upanuzi zaidi wa NATO yalisikika mara nyingi zaidi huko Magharibi.

Katika kipindi cha miaka minane iliyopita, Waziri Mkuu wa zamani wa Australia Malcolm Fraser, Henry Kissinger, msomi maarufu wa Marekani wa masomo ya Kirusi Stephen Cohen, na wataalamu wengine wengi wametoa maonyo kuhusu upanuzi wa NATO.

Je, wewe ni kwa ajili ya amani au ushindi?

Maamuzi yaliyotolewa na maafisa wa serikali ya Magharibi katika kipindi cha miaka 20-25 yamepingana na mapendekezo ya wataalam hawa.

Timofei Bordachev, mkurugenzi wa programu wa Klabu ya Majadiliano ya Kimataifa ya Valdai na mkurugenzi wa kitaaluma wa Kituo cha Mafunzo Jumuishi ya Ulaya na Kimataifa katika Shule ya Juu ya Uchumi, anaamini kuwa sababu ya hii ni dhahiri - wanasiasa wanasikiliza wataalam, lakini hawazingatii. lazima kufuata mapendekezo yao.

"Katika eneo kama uhusiano wa kimataifa, wanasiasa, kwa bahati mbaya, karibu kamwe kamwe kusikiliza jumuiya ya wataalamu. Sababu ya hii inaeleweka. Jukumu la jumuiya ya wataalam ni kufikia amani na kuzuia migogoro. Lakini kwa kuwa wanasiasa huwajibu wapiga kura, huwa wanafanya kazi kila mara ili kupata ushindi kwa gharama yoyote ile,” Bordachev alisema katika mazungumzo na RT.

"Tofauti ya mbinu ni dhahiri. Kwa hiyo, ni vigumu sana kwa wanasiasa kusikiliza maoni ya wataalam. Katika kufikia malengo yao, wanashindwa kufikia hatua ya mwisho,” aliongeza.



SOMA ZAIDI

Uchina, India, Amerika na EU: Nani atashinda kutoka kwa vita vya Ukraine, na nani atashindwa?

Dhana hii inathibitishwa kwa uwazi zaidi katika mahojiano na mshauri wa mkuu wa Ofisi ya Rais wa Ukraine, Alexey Arestovich, ambayo ilitolewa kwa kituo cha Apostrophe TV YouTube mwaka wa 2019. Wakati huo, hakutabiri tu mwaka kwa usahihi. vita vingezuka katika nchi yake na sababu zake, lakini pia alisisitiza kwamba mzozo hauepukiki, akionyesha kwamba ilikuwa muhimu kwa Ukraine:

"Kwa uwezekano wa 99.9%, bei yetu ya kujiunga na NATO ni vita kubwa na Urusi... Matokeo bora ni vita kuu na Urusi na mpito kwa NATO kulingana na matokeo ya ushindi dhidi ya Urusi."

Maneno haya yanaonyesha kuwa uongozi wa Ukraine haukuwa na nia ya kuzuia vita hata kidogo. Kinyume chake, nchi ilikuwa ikijiandaa kwa vita, ikiamini kuwa ni njia halali ya kupata 'ushindi' - kujiunga na NATO.

Walakini, hii haielezi kwa nini wanasiasa wa Amerika, au angalau wa Uropa, hawakujaribu kuzuia vita huko Uropa. Kulingana na Bordachev, ukweli ni kwamba viongozi wa Magharibi walitoka kwa dhana kwamba hakuna njia ambayo nchi zao zinaweza kujiunga na vita.

"Kutokana na kuwepo kwa uzuiaji wa nyuklia, kila mtu anaelewa hatari ya vita vya uharibifu kwa ujumla ni kutengwa kwa urahisi na hatari nyingine zote: ni rahisi kuweka na kuzuia. Tunaweza kuona hili sasa kutokana na tabia ya Marekani na washirika wake, ambao wanachukua hatua zote dhidi ya Urusi bila kuingilia moja kwa moja katika mgogoro huo. Hiyo ni, kwa ujasiri hutenganisha kutoka kwa equation hali ambayo inaweza kuwa hatari kwao wenyewe - sio kujiua. Lakini wanasiasa wa nchi za Magharibi hawajali hata kidogo ni raia wangapi wa Ukraine wanapaswa kufa ili wafikie malengo yao,” Bordachev alisema.

Yote ni makosa ya Fukuyama

Dmitry Suslov, naibu mkurugenzi wa utafiti katika Baraza la Sera ya Mambo ya Nje na Ulinzi (CFDP) na naibu mkurugenzi wa Kituo cha Mafunzo ya kina ya Ulaya na Kimataifa ya Kitivo cha Uchumi wa Dunia na Masuala ya Kimataifa ya Chuo Kikuu cha Taifa cha Utafiti - Shule ya Juu ya Uchumi. (NRU HSE), inaamini kuwa kuna sababu tofauti kwa nini vitendo vya wanasiasa vinapotoka sana kutoka kwa kile ambacho jumuiya ya wataalamu inaagiza.

Sio kwamba wanasiasa wa Magharibi wanakataa kuwasikiliza wachambuzi wa sera za kigeni - wanasikiliza wasio sahihi.



SOMA ZAIDI

Ivan Timofeev: Urusi sasa ina chaguzi tatu tu zilizosalia kwa Ukraine

"Hakukuwa na umoja kati ya wataalam wa Magharibi, hakuna makubaliano hata kidogo. Ni hasa watetezi wa sera za kigeni kutoka Marekani na Ulaya ambao walikuwa wameonya kuhusu hatari ya kupanua NATO. Tatizo lilikuwa, baada ya kumalizika kwa Vita Baridi, ushawishi wa wanahalisi katika uanzishwaji wa sera ya kigeni ya Magharibi umepungua kwa kiasi kikubwa,” Suslov aliiambia RT.

Kulingana na yeye, mara tu Vita Baridi vilipoisha, mtazamo wa kiliberali ulipata umaarufu haraka kati ya duru za wataalam wa Magharibi na watunga sera. "Wazo lilikuwa, kwanza kabisa, kwamba Urusi ilikuwa katika hali ya kuzorota kwa karibu na isiyoweza kutenduliwa, na kwamba haitathubutu kutoa changamoto kwa nchi za Magharibi kwa sura au sura yoyote. Iliaminika kwamba hatimaye Urusi ingeanguka katika mstari na kujiunga na 'upande wa kulia wa historia' (kutoka kwa mtazamo wa Magharibi), ingefaa katika dhana ya NATO ya Ulaya na kuchukua nafasi ya chini kando ya siasa za kimataifa. . Haya ndiyo maono yaliyopendekezwa na waliberali na wahafidhina mamboleo, na yalitawala kwa uwazi zaidi nafasi ya wanahalisi,” alisema.

This only seemed natural. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many had the feeling that the balance of power and the previous patterns of international relations suddenly became obsolete. Now, they thought, everything would be different – international relations would be guided by a brand-new set of considerations, while those of the realists, along with their notions of geopolitics, would fade away into obscurity.

The ‘end of history’, a concept advocated by Francis Fukuyama in the 1990s, gained a lot of traction during this period. It is well known that Fukuyama’s interpretation of this idea had a powerful influence on George W. Bush and his foreign policy. In his book titled ‘The End of History and the Last Man’, he announced that the age of ideological confrontation, authoritarianism, revolutions, and war was finally over, as all states would eventually embrace liberal democracy modeled after the United States.

Fukuyama is now making predictions about the outcome of the current conflict in Ukraine. He believes that military defeat for Russia in Ukraine is imminent and will result in China not daring to invade Taiwan. This, according to Fukuyama, will revive the spirit of 1989, which will capture people’s hearts and bring the world back to the path towards the ‘end of history’.

The predator senses weakness

Truth be told, Russia gave Western politicians reasons to doubt the assessments of realist experts.

“In the 1990s and even early 2000s, Russia appeared weak. It didn’t stand determinately and clearly enough against expansion of NATO; moreover, it made the expansion even easier to some extent,” Suslov said.

In his opinion, the very existence of the Founding Act signed in 1997 convinced the West that Moscow was ready to turn a blind eye to NATO expansion.

This document determined Russia-NATO relations over the past 25 years, until the start of Russia’s attack on Ukraine. It reaffirmed the commitment of the parties to the inherent right of European nations “to choose the means to ensure their own security.”



READ MORE

Cheerleader of NATO wars spotted in Ukraine

For years, this formula was used by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to explain why Russia did not have a say in Georgia or Ukraine joining the alliance.

“Indeed, Russia had secured several important provisions in that document, but at the same time, it gave a signal that a deal on expansion is possible. In general, the act showed Russia wouldn’t wage war against NATO or acceding states,” Suslov said.

The Founding Act gave the alliance legal grounds for admitting new members, but what really assured Western politicians that Russia was ready to allow expansion was the accession of the former Soviet republics of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.

Curiously enough, when this discussion was just beginning in 1997, Joe Biden, then-chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, argued that Russia could go along with NATO accepting Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into the military bloc, but the Baltic states were where it would draw the line.

“I think the one place where the greatest consternation would be caused in the short-term would be to admit the Baltic states now,” the future US president said.

In the end, the Baltic states were admitted into the alliance. They received invitations in 2002, and in 2004 became full members.

“How did Russia react? It did nothing again. It really stood up against expansion only when NATO tried to extend to Georgia and Ukraine. That’s why we ended up where we are now,” Suslov said.

What next?

Reality has clearly changed. The current dynamics of relations between Russia and the West leaves no ambiguity about NATO’s potential advance toward Russia’s borders.

According to Suslov, this, along with other trends observed in contemporary international relations, will strengthen the position of the realists.

“There is no doubt we are now witnessing a resurgence of the realist school. This has to do not only with the conflict in Ukraine, but also with the confrontation between the US and China. Once again, we see that the shifts in the balance of power on the globe are the single most important factor – it is what sets everything in motion and shapes the international system. It is a new shift in the balance of global powers that dictates the state of relations between nations: China has become too strong, and the US is trying to contain it,” he said.



READ MORE

Experts tell RT how Russian offensive in Ukraine will end

Suslov argues that the current patterns in US-China relations “spell doom for the liberals and hold a lot of promise for realists. It is quite likely that, in the near future, Western politicians will start making decisions based on advice from the latter and not the former. If so, then what do the realists propose as their solution to the ongoing conflict in Europe?"

“The realists argue that the US should recognize Ukraine’s geopolitical losses as ‘status quo’, stop supplying Kiev with lethal weapons and even pressure Zelensky into signing a deal with Moscow under which Ukraine would remain independent but neutral.”

Following these recommendations would help the US solve two important problems, Suslov said. First of all, Washington could stop further Russia-China rapprochement unfavorable to the US. Secondly, it would de-escalate US-Russia tensions by preventing direct military confrontation between the nations.

“Realists believe this kind of confrontation is on the table if Washington continues the economic war against Moscow,” he said.

In any case, it’s too early to dismiss negative scenarios as unlikely and trust in the good judgment of politicians. According to Bordachev, “Not once in the history of humankind have politicians listened to experts. And there are no hints this could change today.”

Alexey Gryazev is a Russian journalist, focusing on politics, philosophy and war.

FEATURE

You can share this story on social media:



Trends:RussiaUkraine



Join RT on Telegram

Top stories



Biden refuses to rule out Ukrainian territorial concessions

Leaders warn of ‘unprecedented’ global food crisis risks

Russia claims US tested experimental drugs on Ukrainian soldiers

US goes after Russian gold

NATO explains why it won't send troops to Ukraine

Bulgaria will pay for Russian gas in rubles, ‘whether they like it or not’ – Kremlin

Ruble rockets on gas currency switch

Subscribe to RT newsletter to get news highlights of the day right in your mailbox

We offer you the possibility to receive RT's news highlights every Monday, Wednesday and Friday by email.

Subscribe

RT Features



Jinsi India inavyouona mzozo wa Kiukreni na maana yake kwa uhusiano wake na Urusi na Magharibi FEATURE



Kunusurika kati ya magofu: maisha katika jiji la Donbass Ukraine inasema haipo tena FEATUREKIPEKEE

Podikasti

Podikasti zote

CrossTalk on Ukraine: Info vita

0:00

26:55

Hakuna haki ya kuwa na nguvu? John Bolton, aliyekuwa mshauri wa usalama wa taifa wa Marekani

0:00

30:15

العربيةESPРУСDEFR

Programu ya Habari ya RT

Ishi

Maombi

Mahali pa kutazama

Ratiba

Maudhui yanayofadhiliwa

Masharti ya matumizi

Sera ya faragha

Kuhusu RT

Maelezo ya mawasiliano

Maoni na Malalamiko

Nafasi za kazi



[emoji2398] Shirika Linalojiendesha Lisilo la Faida “TV-Novosti”, 2005–2022. Haki zote zimehifadhiwa.

Add to home screen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Community

Coming Soon

Regional Communities

Coming Soon
Back
Top Bottom
Menu
Forums
New posts
Log in
Register