@vimothy Try this for a TLDR The essential idea is that Mearshiemer et al have it wrong trying to weigh up Russian interests in a kind of balance of power equation. It might've worked with the Soviet Union but doesn't really work with the modern Russia state which is essentially a throwback to the age of Empires and might makes right. They're not a modern state - they're an imperialist expansion Empire riddled with corruption (thus the need to expand to acquire wealth 'cos it won't be generated at home via a functional modern economy). The balance of power concerns & claims to threatened by NATO are simply used as hedging devices to this expansion with zero commitment to the underlying values.
Russia Surrounded
- Thread starter Woebot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- craner boobs disco dasha nekrasova good old obsessive antiamericanism gullfire over leningrad j. h. prynne jamaican voodoo gang from predator 2 my indian mate in year 11 with downs syndrome oliver ukrainer sanctuary of apollo shaka's secret mission snake island the black sea the good old party spirit of desert storm the russo-ucranerian war wagner man falling out of the sky we're all neocons now whatabouastic whataboutery whataboutish whataboutism whataboutistic who controls the serpent
Part of the reason this is worth listening to is because he's very very critical of those who still understand Russia in these terms, the academics and others who've made careers out of it, the columnists who talk in these terms, people who're hoping for "normalisation", a negotiated settlement (one that lasts) etc.
vimothy
yurp
Watched the first ten mins. As a critique of realism, I don't think it's very effective, bc I'm not persuaded by the distinction they attempt to draw between Western states, operating in a "rules based international order", who can be analysed rationally, and Russia, who operates according to an empire building rationale we abandoned centuries ago, and therefore can't be analysed rationally.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Nevertheless, the Russian intention is clearly to annex Ukraine (or as much of it as they can), while Iraq has not become the 51st state, has it?
It's more the outcomes - the position which most realists operate from seems to suggest you can arrive at a sensible set of compromises with Russia, that they behave and think something like "us". I don't think that's at all the case, as the evidence since Feb 2022 shows.
droid
Well-known member
'The way Russia behaves is something from a far older and far more brutal age... ...to try to pretend that they would be rational... like western liberal democracies...'
droid
Well-known member
As late as the fall of 1966… a certain aura of optimism surrounded this strategy. Some were ready to believe that, in its unprecedented mobility and massive firepower, American forces had discovered the military answer to endless Asian manpower and Oriental indifference to death. For a few weeks there hung in the expectant Washington air the exhilarating possibility that the most modern, mobile, professional American field force in the nation’s history was going to lay to rest the time-honoured superstition, the gnawing unease of military planners, that a major land war against Asian hordes is by definition a disastrous plunge into quicksand for any Western army...
...We believe the enemy can be forced to be ‘reasonable’, i.e. to compromise or even capitulate, because we assume he wants to avoid pain, death, and material destruction. We assume that if these are inflicted on him with increasing severity, then at some point in the process he will want to stop the suffering. Ours is a plausible strategy – for those who are rich, who love life and fear pain. But happiness, wealth, and power are expectations that constitute a dimension far beyond the experience, and probably beyond the emotional comprehension, of the Asian poor.
Townsend Hoopes - 1968
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Nonetheless, the Americans didn't abduct tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan children, did they? The Abu Ghraib torture scandal produced an outcry and at least some of the perpetrators were convicted and punished. The US didn't have a general mobilization, or conscript prisoners into a PMC that punished deserters by smashing their skulls with sledgehammers, or threaten to use nuclear weapons when things weren't going their way.'The way Russia behaves is something from a far older and far more brutal age... ...to try to pretend that they would be rational... like western liberal democracies...'
droid
Well-known member
To address just one point.
Nuclear blackmail is a form of nuclear strategy in which an aggressor uses the threat of use of nuclear weapons to force an adversary to perform some action or make some concessions. It is a type of extortion that is related to brinkmanship.
In 1953, US president Dwight D. Eisenhower threatened the use of nuclear weapons to end the Korean War if the Chinese refused to negotiate.[5][6][7]
In order to support the continued existence of the Republic of China government, the United States issued several nuclear threats against the People's Republic of China in the 1950s to force the evacuation of outlying islands and the cessation of attacks against Quemoy and Matsu.[8][9][10][11][12]
Declassified documents from the UK National Archives indicate that the United Kingdom considered threatening China with nuclear retaliation in 1961 in the event of a military reclamation of Hong Kong by China.[13]
In 1991, Israel threatened Iraq with a "nuclear counter-response" if there was an attack using chemical weapons during the Gulf War.[15]
In 2002, the George W. Bush administration declared that it was prepared to strike with nuclear missiles against Iraq if biological or chemical weapons were used against American troops or their allies during the Iraq War.[16]
On January 2, 2018, US president Donald Trump threatened North Korea that the US has much more nuclear firepower than North Korea in response to a press release stating that a "nuclear button is on Kim Jong-un's desk at all times."[18]
Nuclear blackmail is a form of nuclear strategy in which an aggressor uses the threat of use of nuclear weapons to force an adversary to perform some action or make some concessions. It is a type of extortion that is related to brinkmanship.
History
In 1950, US president Harry S. Truman publicly stated that the use of nuclear weapons was under "active consideration" against Chinese targets during the Korean War. [1][2][3][4]In 1953, US president Dwight D. Eisenhower threatened the use of nuclear weapons to end the Korean War if the Chinese refused to negotiate.[5][6][7]
In order to support the continued existence of the Republic of China government, the United States issued several nuclear threats against the People's Republic of China in the 1950s to force the evacuation of outlying islands and the cessation of attacks against Quemoy and Matsu.[8][9][10][11][12]
Declassified documents from the UK National Archives indicate that the United Kingdom considered threatening China with nuclear retaliation in 1961 in the event of a military reclamation of Hong Kong by China.[13]
In 1991, Israel threatened Iraq with a "nuclear counter-response" if there was an attack using chemical weapons during the Gulf War.[15]
In 2002, the George W. Bush administration declared that it was prepared to strike with nuclear missiles against Iraq if biological or chemical weapons were used against American troops or their allies during the Iraq War.[16]
On January 2, 2018, US president Donald Trump threatened North Korea that the US has much more nuclear firepower than North Korea in response to a press release stating that a "nuclear button is on Kim Jong-un's desk at all times."[18]
Attempted assassination-by-drone on Putin, Kremlin reports.
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Most of those are ancient history - I did use the word 'recently' - and the last three are all in the context of a threatened retaliation if Saddam/Kim used WMDs first.
Leo
Well-known member
far be it for me to be skeptical of Kremlin news sources, but is it even possible to fly a mini-drone 600 miles from Ukraine to Moscow? Or that it could fly 600 miles all the way though Russia without getting shot down before it approached the Kremlin? Or that citizens just happened to be shooting video of the sky on their phones when the drone flew by? and wouldn't the only way this would assassinate Putin is if he were standing on the roof? and wouldn't this be an incredibly dumb and counterproductive action for Ukraine to take?
but hey, the Kremlin reported it, so.
I recall seeing a paper on passive staged en route induction-charging of drones from electricity transmission infrastructure, but maybe that was just a beautiful dream I had.
wild greens
Well-known member
Thing is though, the massive failure in Iraq unleashed huge consequences domestically. Huge reduction of majority for Blair, ongoing hatred, and most importantly, it put a curb on interventionism as a policy of Western governments. It's one of the reason the West was so hands off in Syria. Russia has suffered no such doubts as yet anyway, and the war remains hugely popular domestically in a way that Iraq wasn't.'The way Russia behaves is something from a far older and far more brutal age... ...to try to pretend that they would be rational... like western liberal democracies...'
droid
Well-known member
Fucking hell Danny. That war killed a million people displaced millions more, severely damaged the remaining threads of international law, legitimised torture, led to the rise of Isis, the destruction of Libya, the destabilisation of an entire region and the war in Syria with millions dead as an indirect result. The fact that it is now seen as a 'failure' rather than the supreme war crime should tell us a lot about the higher moral values of western liberal democracies.
I'm not trying to downplay any of that. We know about these absolute failures and how fucked up things got there and that's the major and significant part of the discourse around it. It garnered the biggest protests in my memory - biggest ever in UK? - and It's shaped Western policy every since, with a major avoidance of interventionism.
My point is that Russia has not yet experienced such a huge failure and the political culture there is such that the consequences wouldn't be felt in the same way anyway. That's one reason they can continue to prosecute the war, despite the losses and huge casualty rate.