Rysslands legitima intressen

Jag läste med intresse Carola Sandbackas debattartikel ”Om fredsförhandlingar i Ukraina” i senaste nummer av Ny Tid.
Det är lätt att hålla med henne om att krig är förfärligt och att ju längre kriget i Ukraina pågår, desto fler offer krävs på bägge sidorna. Och orsaken till att kriget fortfarande pågår är all den hjälp vi på den västra sidan skickar till Ukraina. Vi borde naturligtvis ha låtit Ryssland ta Ukraina och fortsatt våra liv i lugn och ro. Till nästa gång.

Sandbacka skriver. ”Ryssland är en stormakt och Ryssland kommer att försvara sina legitima intressen.” Legitima? Vad ingår i legitima intressen?
Är det ett legitimt intresse för Ukraina att försvara sitt land?
Var det för 80 år sen ett legitimt intresse för Finland att försvarade sin självständighet?
Borde Finland för 80 år sen ha tackat nej till hjälp från Hitlertyskland och låtit sig ockuperas av Sovjet? Måtte vi aldrig glömma vidrigheterna under Hitlertiden. Men ändå. För egen del skulle jag ogärna bo i ett land styrt av Putin. Det säger jag sett ur dagens perspektiv. Om Finland hade blivit en del av Sovjetunionen ungefär samma år som jag föddes, hade jag då reflekterat över saken? Jag hade kanske inte haft så mycket att jämföra med.

Sandbacka vet vad som är bäst för Ukraina. Det är fred. Den sanningen gäller över hela världen. Hon säger också att Ryssland har legitima intressen att bevaka och att Ukraina har en regering som inte eftersträvar landets bästa. Det Carola Sandbacka inte avslöjar är vilka de legitima ryska intressena är och vad ukrainarna egentligen vill – annat än fred naturligtvis. Men under vilken regim?

Vart har alla de som demonstrerade för fred försvunnit, undrar Sandbacka. Här i Mariehamn finns vi, kom och titta. Utanför ryska konsulatet kl 17 varje kväll. Men var finns de som i Ryssland demonstrerar för fred? I Putins fängelser?

3 kommentarer på “Rysslands legitima intressen

  1. Also I was a bit surprised about Carola Sandbacka’s piece, which, I think, may need a somewhat deeper-going analysis of some terms. But well, one can, after all, try such an analysis: For a start I should recommend a reading of my contribution of 10 mars, 2023 kl. 23:25 (which was my second contribution on that day) to that long discussion about Christian Blom’s piece ”Hur har ni det med den Nya Världsordningen (NWO)”, and in special I should recommend a reading of the two sources which I give there, as some illustration of what I intend to say about the term ”legitim”.

    There is (as one can look up in any larger English dictionary) some difference between the terms ”legal” and ”legitimate”. And of course it was quite ”legal” for Ukraine to declare its independence, and it is also ”legal” for Ukraine to choose its allies. And if in the USA the Republicans should manage to get those about 400 suggested state laws accepted by the usual legislative procedures which will make it more difficult for poor and/or colored people to vote, then also that will be ”legal”, because ”legal” is ANYTHING which is permitted according to the formulations in the written law. And when in 1961 the USA tried to invade Cuba because they did not like Castro’s rather newly established rule, it was by definition ”illegal”.

    But what about the fact that the USA DID try to invade Cuba? And there the USA will claim that their action was ”legitimate” (because, say, Castro’s regime was one which was threatening the established order and the peace in all Central and South America, and perhaps even in the USA, to such a degree that even ”illegal” action against it was justified – and never mind that the USA are really rather big and strong while Cuba is rather small …). Thus, according to American (and meanwhile also Russian) logic there are situations where there are ”higher goods” so far threatened that ”illegal” action is justified. The USA used this reasoning for the invasion of Iraq, perhaps also of Libya, and anyway we know that the USA are, somehow, ”in the habit” of invading other countries (or at least intervening in them) every now and then – which the Western media also tend to applaud (eagerly so) while these exciting activities are going on.

    And now Russia saw reasons (which it saw/still sees as ”legitimate”) for action which is certainly ”illegal”, while it is a point to be discussed whether it was ”illegitimate”. And there we have the FACTS (!) that the USA ARE in the habit of invading (with NATO showing a very clear tendency to ”follow the American lead”), that NATO was expanding ever closer to Russia against all earlier Western promises (in the case of Ukraine against VERY clear Russian objections), that the USA and NATO DO cultivate the idea that Russia is ”THE ENEMY”, so that, altogether, the expansion of NATO into Ukraine looks like a clear step in preparation of a future attack on Russia itself. FURTHER: According to one of the sources which I (above) was recommending to read, it was so that less than a month after the Russian invasion there HAD already been negotiations (which had been organized by Turkey) in which, in principle, an agreement had been reached that Ukraine would abstain from joining NATO and that the fate of Eastern Ukraine should be decided by the people who live there (altogether, about, what Henry Kissinger had recommended earlier and what would, about, correspond to the conditions which Finland, at that time, agreed to with the Soviet Union – establishing conditions under which Finland had occasion to become the world’s happiest nation). BUT: before the details of this could be hammered out and and be signed, there came ”representatives of the Free World” (such as Boris Johnson plus various American politicians, among them Kamala Harris) to the Ukrainian government and persuaded it NOT to accept the settlement but, instead, to fight – as was done. And now the Russians are dying, the Ukrainians are dying, the Ukrainian infrastructure is smashed up, the market prices for what were Ukraine’s agricultural products went up (with horrible consequences for the countries who would need that food), the market prices for fossil fuels went up, the order books of the US armament industry are filling up, International money (mostly American) is buying up Ukrainian (so bravely defended) farm land, and the Western media are eagerly and faithfully providing their contribution to the ”just cause against evil Russia” (and woe to the politician who would publicly come up with some doubt). – My daily paper is Hufvudstadsbladet, and what I see is West-oriented Finlandisering …

    And what now? The way the Russian troops behave in Ukraine, we do not wish for a Ukrainian ”crushing defeat”. The ”leading power of the Free World” will not agree to a settlement which it was already once sabotaging (see above), which also means that NATO will not agree. The Ukrainian government is regularly pleading for more help from the West (which the West is not even able to provide very fast – it was not prepared for a war with a consumption of ammunition as big as in World War I). Altogether, much hangs on the Ukrainian government. And SOME help could come from China (!). Because: the way the US government has recently been warning China against helping Russia, the Chinese may very well have understood the simple fact that, if Russia should be beaten into something like a full submission to Western demands, China will be next to be exposed to Western expansionism (see the recent agreements of the USA with Australia and the US demands that NATO should pay more attention to East Asia …). Thus: IF the very Xi Jinping could explain to Zelenskyi that, unluckily, China cannot afford a Russian defeat, thus HAS TO help Russia, which creates a situation in which the huge and very productive Chinese industry could/would supply Russia with all it needs for a VERY LONG war, Zelenskyi might arrive at the conclusion that negotiations might indeed be better than going on with the war, even if it should mean SOME loss of territory, and even explain this to his Western supporters (who would hopefully NOT remove him for this).

    And if one should see this as an acceptable way out, how would one demonstrate for it? Should one demonstrate for less excitement, less lies, more information, more analysis, altogether MORE REASON? So that one could perhaps also direct more attention (and ACTION) to, e. g., the problems of the climate, the environment, and the people in the poorer countries who are hit really HARD by not only the climate change but also by the effects of the Ukraine war on food and other prices … .

  2. Ofta förklaras Finlands krig med Sovjet att Finland kämpade för sin självständighet. Det betyder då att vi skall tro att Finland kämpade för sin självständighet i Petroskoj tex. Jag har inte sett några uppgifter om att Finlands självständighet hotades ens av Josef Stalin. Faktum är att i erkännandet av Finlands självständighet från Folkkommissariernas råd så finns Stalins namn med. De vita ryssarna kunde inte lova något säkert utan ärendet skulle avgöras efter valet till nytt parlament. Före vinterkriget förhandlade ryssarna flera gånger med Finland om landbyte. Ryssarna fodrade 2700 kvadratkilometer utanför Leningrad, men var villiga att ersätta det med 5500 kvadrat kilometer i Karelen. Och så ville ryssarna ha några holmar i Finska viken och en ankarplats. Men finnarna sa nej och ansåg att Finland skulle inte vara suverän stat mera om de gav bort något. Ryssarna erbjöd sig då att köpa holmarna och hänvisade till att ryssarna hade i tiden sålt Alaska. Men Enligt JK Paasikivi sa finnarna nej och bröt förhandlingarna. Då anföll ryssarna och hur det gick vet vi.

    • My thanks for a VERY interesting piece of historical information. HOW far it is the FULL truth is difficult to know, considering what is known about he attitude of at least Hitler (who thought that the mere existence of a Polish state was just a symptom of the weakness/cowardice of the German politicians at the end of World War I) and also considering the fact that the Polish-Russian border which was agreed in 1939 by Ribbentrop and Molotov roughly was the same as the Russian border of 1914. I. e. SOME idea of restoring some previous state of affairs MAY have been in many heads.

      But it is also a very nice illustration of the mental mechanisms in classical patriotism: the patriotic tradition is satisfied with ”identifying” an ”enemy” and formulating a tradition in which the relation with this ”enemy” is then presented in the terms of either ”victory” (to be celebrated and justified as ”just”) or ”defeat” (to be blamed on weakness of the own side and/or treason, and the ”aggression” of the evil victors – and anyway to be ”repaired” by some future victory over those aggressors). And when looking at the rhetoric of the present Ukrainian government one gets the impression that the classical patriotic way of thinking is still very much alive there: not a square meter of the fatherland’s soil should be given up to the enemy (and this, while reportedly a bit more than 28% of the Ukraine’s farmland is meanwhile foreign – mostly American – property …). In the language of patriotism: While the Ukrainian soldiers are heroically defending the soil of the fatherland, an increasing share of it is surreptitiously sold to foreign money. And let’s see when ”Jewish bankers” will be blamed for it by some propagandists who have found some ”local traditions” which they think are in need of being brushed up … . And which good patriot would ever object to the brushing up of old traditions (which can, after all, be considered as some basis of the national identity …)? – Should we call it a rather mixed and not altogether pleasant picture?

Lämna ett svar

Din e-postadress kommer inte publiceras. Obligatoriska fält är märkta *