13 ต.ค. 2022 เวลา 03:15 • ข่าวรอบโลก
อ้าว! ใครหนอโกหกพกลม Ian Bremmer vs Elon Musk
"Nobody should trust Bremmer." Elon Musk
“Elon Musk told me he had spoken with Putin and the Kremlin directly about Ukraine,” Ian Bremmer said in a tweet after Musk’s tweeted denial. “He also told me what the kremlin’s red lines were.
“I have been writing my weekly newsletter on geopolitics for 24 yrs. I write honestly without fear or favor and this week’s update was no different.”
....
Musk responded to Bremmer's tweet about him learning of the Kremlin's "red lines" in an alleged conversation with Putin by tweeting, "Nobody should trust Bremmer."
Nobody should trust Bremmer
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 11, 2022
Musk's plan to end the war in Ukraine last week, which he proposed in the form of a Twitter poll, was met with condemnation from Ukrainian officials and many Western pundits, while about 60 percent of those who responded to the poll rejected his proposal.
เกี่ยวกับ
Ian Arthur Bremmer is an American political scientist and author with a focus on global political risk. He is the president and founder of Eurasia Group, a political risk research and consulting firm with principal offices in New York City. He is also a founder of the digital media firm GZERO Media. Wikipedia
Born: November 12, 1969 (age 52 years), Baltimore, Maryland, United States
ก่อน 24 กุมภาพันธ์ 2565
How to Protect Ukraine's Sovereignty
Feb 8, 2022
JEFFREY D. SACHS
Rather than trying to pretend that one side is a saint and the other a sinner, everyone involved in the latest NATO-Russia conflict should recognize that they have a mutual interest in long-term security. That implies a diplomatic settlement in which Ukraine secures its sovereignty through neutrality.
2
NEW YORK – Ukraine’s Western friends claim that they are protecting the country by defending its right to join NATO. The opposite is true. In defending a theoretical right, they are jeopardizing Ukraine’s security by raising the likelihood of a Russian invasion.
Ukraine’s independence could be defended far more effectively by reaching a diplomatic agreement with Russia that guarantees Ukraine’s sovereignty as a non-NATO country, akin to Austria, Finland, and Sweden (all members of the European Union but not of NATO).
Specifically, Russia would agree to withdraw its troops from Eastern Ukraine and demobilize near Ukraine’s border; and NATO would foreswear enlargement into Ukraine, provided that Russia respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and that Ukraine respects Russian security interests.
Such an agreement is possible because it is in the interest of both sides.
To be sure, those advocating Ukrainian membership in NATO consider such a deal naive.
They point out that Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014, and that the current crisis arose because Russia has amassed more than 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s border, threatening a new invasion.
The Kremlin has thus violated the terms of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, wherein Russia promised to respect Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty (including over Crimea) in exchange for Ukraine’s surrender of the massive nuclear weapons stockpile that it inherited following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Nonetheless, it is possible that Russia would accept and respect a neutral Ukraine. An offer in which Ukraine acquires that status has never been on the table. In 2008, the United States proposed that Ukraine (and Georgia) be invited to join NATO, and that suggestion has loomed large in the region ever since.
Viewing the US move as a provocation to Russia, the governments of France, Germany, and many other European countries prevented the Alliance from extending an immediate invitation to Ukraine; but in a joint statement with Ukraine, NATO leaders made clear that Ukraine “will become a member of NATO.”
From the Kremlin’s perspective, NATO’s presence in Ukraine would pose a direct threat to Russia’s security. Much of Soviet statecraft was designed to create a geographical buffer between Russia and the Western powers. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has vociferously opposed NATO’s enlargement into the former Soviet bloc. Yes, Putin’s reasoning reflects a continuation of the Cold War mindset; but that mindset remains active on both sides.
The Cold War was marked by a series of local and regional proxy wars to determine whether the US or the Soviet Union would install regimes favorable to its side. While the battleground shifted around the world – from Southeast and Central Asia to Africa, the Western hemisphere, and the Middle East – it was always bloody.
ผลงานเก่าที่เตือน สหรัฐฯ
โฆษณา