We would do better to discuss the problems in the psychology of The City of London.
Russia has never been "secure" in any sense. The vast Siberian wilderness is hardly the best habitable land, and the mountains to the south have been notoriously where Empires go to die. But then, Ghengis Khan and others have swept across Russia from there, anyway. The West is hardly a defensible frontier, mostly plains . Ukraine has probably had the worst of all that. Britain and the Ottoman Empire united against Russia to push territorial gains. Kiev, Odessa, even Mariupol and many other Ukrainian city centers were actually founded as Russian outposts across an area very similar in some basics with Russia, but highly tribalistic or perhaps, better said, wanting local autonomy, Slavic nature, really. No settled agreements on who's the boss of whom. For a thousand years.
Britain could hardly be called "secure" either. Lots of highly localized populations.
One thing both have in common is the Vikings. Moscow was settled by Vikings as a portage location between rivers flowing to both the Baltic and the Black seas.
Of course any good Brit will call any nuisance fact "poppycock".
18 Mar 2022
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has blamed NATO for the war in Ukraine and said he would resist calls to condemn Russia, in comments that cast doubt over whether he would be accepted by Ukraine or the West as a mediator.
Ramaphosa, who was speaking on Thursday in parliament, said: “The war could have been avoided if NATO had heeded the warnings from amongst its own leaders and officials over the years that its eastward expansion would lead to greater, not less, instability in the region.”
Ramaphosa had previously said he had been approached to mediate in the Russia-Ukraine crisis.
www.aljazeera.com
The Donbas region was settled Russian, with control challenged by the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) in alliance with Britain in the 1800s. Russia has a better territorial claim there than China has over Formosa (Taiwan). Joe Biden knew that when he said, ala Madelaine Albright re Kuwait, that it would be alright if Russia took a "little piece" of "Ukraine".
I think that during the breakup of the USSR, it would have been better to have made Luhansk and Donbas separate countries then. It was Khrushchev who in 1954 moved those Oblasts into Ukraine administration. Even so, there are huge ethnic populations of "Ukrainians" who went into Russia for work or other reasons, and it's a huge disappointment to me to see a war like this between people who do share so much in common. It might be painted like the USA and Britain, where even after two hundred years there's more in common than different. They would be natural allies in many cases if attacked from outside.
But in the present time, foreign interests have bought off and partitioned the region through corrupt deals. I don't know if Trump can really read faces when he's talking to people, but lets just say it was a good idea to negotiate the problems then. Zelensky owes his place in history to his corruption in the service of Ukranian billionaires with ties to the West.
People used to say it was the Devil who divides humanity and causes wars. Maybe we can now start bringing it more into reality, and say it's money. Maybe money with names on it like Zuckerberg, Soros, Biden, Clinton, a bunch of Brits. Well, sure. Putin too.
Putin rose in Russian politics precisely because he loved the USSR and considered it a catastrophe that it broke up. Humpty Dumpty and all that. Without a Federal notion like our "sovereign" States, I don't think it can ever really be pieced back together. A "Mother Russia" with vassal states is not anything people could love. Local governance is the best way to address most issues in life.
But a UN governance is no better.