1-15
Though I appreciate this FT "long read" took a lot of work and multiple sources, parts of it leave a bitter aftertaste of disinformation. The FT seems to take some of its Russian sources at face value.
That is not serious.
2-15
Despite everything the Russian state has done in recent years, it appears the FT continues to pursue ordinary Western-style journalism, based on talking with sources in the elites. That model is not serious when dealing with a regime that lies all the time.
3-15
The whole part about Lavrov, the states of knowledge and the words attributed to him, frankly does not stand up to scrutiny if one steps back just a few metres and applies some critical thinking.
Powerful footage from 1949: the Prime Minister of Belgium explains why he is about to sign, with confidence and with pride, the North Atlantic Treaty. His words, uttered just 4 years after WW2, resonate today, in 2023.
2-11
In Spaak's view, the creation of NATO was "the most important international event since the creation of the United Nations" in San Francisco in 1945.
He predicted, rightly, that the formation of NATO as a great defensive alliance would consolidate peace.
3-11
The NATO Treaty, Spaak noted, "is in conformity with the letter & the spirit of the UN Charter. Inspired by a defensive motivation, and given the forces it gathers, it will discourage any potential aggressor, and because it gives to Article 51 of the UN Charter -
Keir Giles absolutely spot on as always:
"There are not just moral but also strictly practical arguments for bringing the war to a conclusion as rapidly as possible. But that means stepping away from the current [Western] approach of delivering too little, just in time..."
"...to keep Ukraine afloat. It means providing what's needed to actually win the war, in order to risk the cost in lives, in order to reduce the risk that Putin will be able to outlast Ukraine and the West."
3-22
"And in order, most of all to make sure that fighting Russia off reaches a successful conclusion, instead of Ukraine being dragged, exhausted, into a stalemate and then a new frozen conflict."
Fully agree with @kvolker's views, as expressed in this @TimesRadio interview.
Journalist: "We still feel that we've not quite gone all in [in helping Ukraine] why is that? (...) it seems we're trying to be half pregnant here."
2-5 Volker: "There is a deliberate policy of incrementalism, of not doing everything we can, and it is as I understand it to avoid risking Russian escalation (...) our leaders are thinking that they are somehow managing this escalation risk. I personally don't agree with that."
3-5 "I think that that is overestimating the importance of what we're doing. Russia is already throwing everything it can at this war, they can't do much more than what they're doing right now, and they already assume that we are already in the war ourselves."
"whether something is historical can always only be answered afterwards. Yet [after my] visit to Kyiv, I could not but conclude that a new page in the book of world history was opened on February 24, 2022. And on that page we read this: democracy is not free."
1-24
"For many outside the west, Russia is not important enough to hate"
A thought-provoking take by Ivan Krastev, a master at short opinion pieces that are interesting and provocative - but often sweeping and sometimes tendentious, as is the case here.
2-24
Krastev's two central arguments is that the Global South disputes Europe's "centrality" in world affairs and also consider that Russia is now a regional power whose wars cannot qualify as a global concern.
3-24
While Krastev documents views he says he encountered, notably in India and in South America, I struggle with the piece because it is entirely uncritical of the views in question and does not put them into any kind of objective perspective.