There are some fundamental reasons why Ukraine is being used as a shield against Russia and not treated as an ally by the US and Europe. These reasons are deeply ingrained in culture and psyche, and aren't a product of everyday politics.

A 🧵
The first reason is Europe outsourcing its security to the US during the Cold War era and up to the present. The US is culturally, mentally and physically far away. This distance makes it pay attention only to the big players on the board - it sees Russia, it misses Ukraine.
Solving this fundamental issue is not as easy as changing the spelling of Kiev to Kyiv. Changing symbols is important and it can be done quickly. What can't be changed in a heartbeat is decades of educating American strategists on Russia, the rest are Russia's satellites.
Europe simply gave away European security to the US, while it invested in social security. Among many problems that arise from such a trade is the fact that the security structure in Europe isn't sensitive enough to what happens on its periphery.
The second problem is the European collective psyche, which still hasn't processed the fact that Europe doesn't end at Berlin and Vienna. Europe hasn't only dropped its responsibility to effectively defend itself, it hasn't completely defined itself.
Once again, giving nice statements on how we're all European, all equal, how it's a real treasure to have all these nations together is one thing, changing European societies to not demonstrate their animosity to the "other Europe" in every electoral cycle is another.
Basically, when Russia sees Ukraine it sees something that belongs to it, in a very toxic, domestic violence kind of way. When the US looks at Ukraine, it sees a barrier to Russian expansion into Europe, the part its tasked with defending. It's therefore useful, but risky.
When Europe itself looks at Ukraine, it sees the farthest part of the "other Europe", which creates nothing but trouble for the "real Europe", the one which has already transcended war, racial, ethnic and religious differences, and lives in a utopia (although it doesn't really).
This American and European way of looking at Ukraine, or the Balkans for that matter, produced half-strategies since the 2005 Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Either Ukraine is a part of Europe or it's an object to be used against Russia, until Russia comes to its senses.
The fundamental issue thus being, whether one treats Ukraine as a subject or an object. Even after 2022, Ukraine did not achieve the subject status in the eyes of the US and Europe, although its position in the collective psyche has advanced from where it began.
Ukraine is fighting on two fronts, one is a physical struggle against possessive Russia, the other is a mental struggle to convince the West that it exists outside of the Russian satellite, ex-Soviet paradigm, that it can be an ally, not only an instrument of influence on Russia.
That's why, by the way, Ukrainians get mad when they are being lumped together with Russians in various events, award ceremonies, exhibits and such. They don't want to be an add-on, whether for good or evil Russians. They want to be recognized as a separate, independent entity.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Aleksandar Djokic (Александар Джокич)

Aleksandar Djokic (Александар Джокич) Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @polidemitolog

Sep 29
Whatever you do, don't compare the war against Ukraine with the war in the Middle East. Don't write - why don't you pay attention to this war crime in Ukraine and why do pay attention to this war crime in Palestine/Lebanon/Israel or vice versa.
These are completely different conflicts with different actors and histories behind them. In a globalized world, states are intertwined. That's why we see Iranian drones bombing Ukraine, Russian planes bombing Syria or we see US weapons systems being used by Israel and Ukraine.
There are people who are more knowledgeable about the Mideast than Eastern Europe, there are people personally connected to the Mideast, there are ideologically inclined people who notice the conflict in that region more than the conflict in Ukraine.
Read 8 tweets
Sep 24
Here's a concise overview of the possible endings (some permanent, others not) of the Russo-Ukranian War, as well as the actors involved and their intentions.
The main actors are Russia and Ukraine. The secondary actors, without which the war could not continue in this capacity are: China, North Korea and Iran for Russia and the US and Europe for Ukraine. Not counting the many neutral countries profiting from the war indirectly.
Politically, Ukraine wants to integrate with the West and be a democratic, economically developed country. In terms of war goals, Ukraine wants all of its occupied territory back in its internationally recognized borders (that includes Crimea).
Read 15 tweets
Sep 10
The "great culture" argument is often heard from supporters of Russian imperialism. The point being that Russia is somehow entitled to own the nations neighboring it because its empire has created great works of literature (most often mentioned in discussions).
The German nation has created not only great works of literature, but can boast outstanding achievements in philosophy, music and engineering , to name a few. That however didn't stop it from becoming consumed with imperialism and believing that conquest is the right way to go.
The point is this: there are nations out there which contributed more to the global culture, that doesn't entitle them to annihilate their neighbors. Secondly, being "cultured" never stopped empires from devouring smaller nations and committing "uncultured" atrocities.
Read 7 tweets
Sep 4
Yuliya Navalnaya has touched on the topic of decolonization in her public address. In her speech she equates the decolonization paradigm with "carving up Russia into a dozen small and unthreatening statelets". I would like to touch on this topic as well.
First of all, the most troubling part of her address is the claim that various repressed and conquered ethnicities in Russia, which never democratized and never accepted its colonial nature, share "a common background and cultural context". This is assimilatory rhetoric.
While I do not believe that a scenario where Russia breaks apart into a dozen states of similar size is probable, as much as it isn't probable that Navalnaya will ever be in power in Russia, the principal of the matter is important.
Read 9 tweets
Aug 3
Something that needs to be formulated precisely - no moral person is objecting that Russian dissidents are now free. I don't even believe that they should be criticized for catering to Russian liberal audience, which is their base.
However, there is a certain fear of appeasement in the air, fear that Washington may once again go down the road it took in 2014 when Russia attacked Ukraine for the first time and in 2008 when Russia attacked Georgia.
This is not the fault or responsibility of freed Russian dissidents, all of that rests entirely on Washington. Of course Ukranians feel marginalized, because Washington is yet again playing the game - "how to demonstrate to Russia and Russians that we don't wish them harm".
Read 11 tweets
Jul 11
If Russia has genuine "security concerns", regarding the strategic balance, both conventional and nuclear, then it's not handling the issue very well or successfully, to say the least.

A 🧵
Proposing that Russian expansionist aggression stems primarily from the realist perspective, and an updated version of Cold War calculations, makes Russia look even more unhinged, as it seeks to overthrow the current international order, not find or better its place in it.
Before the invasion, the only thing which could have appeased Russia was for the US and the EU to acknowledge its imperial sphere of influence in East Europe. That's not realism, as Russia's position was insufficiently strong in the region. That's revanchism, pure and simple.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(