科学家和前政治家在《纽约时报》上对顿巴斯战争的估计(2015年2月12日- 2018年4月30日)

Yuriy Ofitsynskyy
{"title":"科学家和前政治家在《纽约时报》上对顿巴斯战争的估计(2015年2月12日- 2018年4月30日)","authors":"Yuriy Ofitsynskyy","doi":"10.24144/2523-4498.1(46).2022.258573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The views of scientists and former high-ranking politicians on the war in Donbass in the period between February 12, 2015 and April 30, 2018 are analyzed in the article. On that basis the best ways to end the war are shown. The scientific novelty of the study is that for the first time in historiography, the opinions of scientists and ex-politicians on the war in eastern Ukraine in the period between February 12, 2015 and April 30, 2018 were studied on the basis of the newspaper The New York Times. The following conclusions were made. Firstly, some analysts predicted that Russia would not try to seize Ukraine, but would fight in the Donbas to keep the country destabilized and prevent it from getting closer to the EU and NATO. Other experts predicted that Russia might not stop at Ukraine and use the Russians from the Baltic states to create frozen conflicts there. Secondly, the use of different terms to denote the war in Donbas and the enemies of Ukrainian troops was ambiguous. They were called mostly “insurgents”, less often “separatists”, and occasionally “militants” and “terrorists”. The war itself was most often referred to as “uprising” or “conflict”, less often as “invasion” and in isolated cases – “war”. Thirdly, after approving the first and second Minsk agreements, almost all experts immediately doubted their viability. In Minsk-2 agreement, Donbas was recognized as an integral part of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin periodically resorted to military escalation here, and instead of a political settlement he sought a frozen conflict so that Ukraine would abandon its strategic European and Euro-Atlantic course. Russia has done everything to make Ukraine look like an internally unstable, failed state in the eyes of the world, in order to take advantage of its weakness in the future. Fourthly, in the debate whether the West should provide weapons to Ukraine, two camps crystallized. Some advised the West to properly arm Ukraine, which would prevent Russian aggression against other states. Others believed that arming Ukraine would not deplete Russia. On the contrary, it could lead to the catastrophic defeat of Ukraine and the humiliation of the West. Fifthly, Western sanctions against Russia have prompted it to relinquish its claims to Donbas and warned against an aggressive course toward other countries. At the same time, the establishment of lasting peace in Ukraine, thus ending the war in Donbas, was associated exclusively with diplomatic efforts such as searching for and approval of a compromise option of autonomy or expanded local self-government.","PeriodicalId":390649,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Herald of Uzhhorod University. Series: History","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE ESTIMATION OF THE WAR IN DONBAS BY SCIENTISTS AND FORMER POLITICIANS ON THE PAGES OF THE NEWSPAPER THE NEW YORK TIMES (FEBRUARY 12, 2015 – APRIL 30, 2018)\",\"authors\":\"Yuriy Ofitsynskyy\",\"doi\":\"10.24144/2523-4498.1(46).2022.258573\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The views of scientists and former high-ranking politicians on the war in Donbass in the period between February 12, 2015 and April 30, 2018 are analyzed in the article. On that basis the best ways to end the war are shown. The scientific novelty of the study is that for the first time in historiography, the opinions of scientists and ex-politicians on the war in eastern Ukraine in the period between February 12, 2015 and April 30, 2018 were studied on the basis of the newspaper The New York Times. The following conclusions were made. Firstly, some analysts predicted that Russia would not try to seize Ukraine, but would fight in the Donbas to keep the country destabilized and prevent it from getting closer to the EU and NATO. Other experts predicted that Russia might not stop at Ukraine and use the Russians from the Baltic states to create frozen conflicts there. Secondly, the use of different terms to denote the war in Donbas and the enemies of Ukrainian troops was ambiguous. They were called mostly “insurgents”, less often “separatists”, and occasionally “militants” and “terrorists”. The war itself was most often referred to as “uprising” or “conflict”, less often as “invasion” and in isolated cases – “war”. Thirdly, after approving the first and second Minsk agreements, almost all experts immediately doubted their viability. In Minsk-2 agreement, Donbas was recognized as an integral part of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin periodically resorted to military escalation here, and instead of a political settlement he sought a frozen conflict so that Ukraine would abandon its strategic European and Euro-Atlantic course. Russia has done everything to make Ukraine look like an internally unstable, failed state in the eyes of the world, in order to take advantage of its weakness in the future. Fourthly, in the debate whether the West should provide weapons to Ukraine, two camps crystallized. Some advised the West to properly arm Ukraine, which would prevent Russian aggression against other states. Others believed that arming Ukraine would not deplete Russia. On the contrary, it could lead to the catastrophic defeat of Ukraine and the humiliation of the West. Fifthly, Western sanctions against Russia have prompted it to relinquish its claims to Donbas and warned against an aggressive course toward other countries. At the same time, the establishment of lasting peace in Ukraine, thus ending the war in Donbas, was associated exclusively with diplomatic efforts such as searching for and approval of a compromise option of autonomy or expanded local self-government.\",\"PeriodicalId\":390649,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scientific Herald of Uzhhorod University. Series: History\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scientific Herald of Uzhhorod University. Series: History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24144/2523-4498.1(46).2022.258573\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Herald of Uzhhorod University. Series: History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24144/2523-4498.1(46).2022.258573","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

文章分析了2015年2月12日至2018年4月30日期间科学家和前高级政治家对顿巴斯战争的看法。在此基础上,展示了结束战争的最佳途径。这项研究的科学新颖之处在于,在史学上首次以《纽约时报》为基础,研究了2015年2月12日至2018年4月30日期间科学家和前政治家对乌克兰东部战争的看法。得出了以下结论。首先,一些分析人士预测,俄罗斯不会试图占领乌克兰,但会在顿巴斯地区作战,以保持乌克兰的不稳定,并阻止它与欧盟和北约走得更近。其他专家预测,俄罗斯可能不会止步于乌克兰,并利用波罗的海国家的俄罗斯人在那里制造冰冻冲突。其次,使用不同的术语来表示顿巴斯战争和乌克兰军队的敌人是模棱两可的。他们大多被称为“叛乱分子”,很少被称为“分裂分子”,偶尔也被称为“武装分子”和“恐怖分子”。战争本身通常被称为“起义”或“冲突”,很少被称为“入侵”,在个别情况下被称为“战争”。第三,在批准第一和第二份明斯克协议后,几乎所有专家都立即怀疑其可行性。在明斯克-2协议中,顿巴斯被认为是乌克兰不可分割的一部分,弗拉基米尔·普京(Vladimir Putin)定期在这里采取军事升级的手段,他没有寻求政治解决方案,而是寻求冻结冲突,这样乌克兰就会放弃其在欧洲和欧洲-大西洋的战略路线。俄罗斯竭尽所能让乌克兰在世界眼中看起来像一个内部不稳定的失败国家,以便在未来利用它的弱点。第四,在西方是否应该向乌克兰提供武器的辩论中,两大阵营出现了。一些人建议西方适当地武装乌克兰,这将阻止俄罗斯对其他国家的侵略。其他人则认为,武装乌克兰不会耗尽俄罗斯的力量。相反,它可能导致乌克兰的灾难性失败,让西方蒙羞。第五,西方对俄罗斯的制裁促使它放弃了对顿巴斯的主权主张,并警告不要对其他国家采取咄咄逼人的行动。与此同时,在乌克兰建立持久和平,从而结束顿巴斯的战争,完全与外交努力有关,例如寻求和批准自治或扩大地方自治的妥协选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
THE ESTIMATION OF THE WAR IN DONBAS BY SCIENTISTS AND FORMER POLITICIANS ON THE PAGES OF THE NEWSPAPER THE NEW YORK TIMES (FEBRUARY 12, 2015 – APRIL 30, 2018)
The views of scientists and former high-ranking politicians on the war in Donbass in the period between February 12, 2015 and April 30, 2018 are analyzed in the article. On that basis the best ways to end the war are shown. The scientific novelty of the study is that for the first time in historiography, the opinions of scientists and ex-politicians on the war in eastern Ukraine in the period between February 12, 2015 and April 30, 2018 were studied on the basis of the newspaper The New York Times. The following conclusions were made. Firstly, some analysts predicted that Russia would not try to seize Ukraine, but would fight in the Donbas to keep the country destabilized and prevent it from getting closer to the EU and NATO. Other experts predicted that Russia might not stop at Ukraine and use the Russians from the Baltic states to create frozen conflicts there. Secondly, the use of different terms to denote the war in Donbas and the enemies of Ukrainian troops was ambiguous. They were called mostly “insurgents”, less often “separatists”, and occasionally “militants” and “terrorists”. The war itself was most often referred to as “uprising” or “conflict”, less often as “invasion” and in isolated cases – “war”. Thirdly, after approving the first and second Minsk agreements, almost all experts immediately doubted their viability. In Minsk-2 agreement, Donbas was recognized as an integral part of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin periodically resorted to military escalation here, and instead of a political settlement he sought a frozen conflict so that Ukraine would abandon its strategic European and Euro-Atlantic course. Russia has done everything to make Ukraine look like an internally unstable, failed state in the eyes of the world, in order to take advantage of its weakness in the future. Fourthly, in the debate whether the West should provide weapons to Ukraine, two camps crystallized. Some advised the West to properly arm Ukraine, which would prevent Russian aggression against other states. Others believed that arming Ukraine would not deplete Russia. On the contrary, it could lead to the catastrophic defeat of Ukraine and the humiliation of the West. Fifthly, Western sanctions against Russia have prompted it to relinquish its claims to Donbas and warned against an aggressive course toward other countries. At the same time, the establishment of lasting peace in Ukraine, thus ending the war in Donbas, was associated exclusively with diplomatic efforts such as searching for and approval of a compromise option of autonomy or expanded local self-government.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信