6 ms·

russia is one of our geopolitical adversaries. they are a "big threat" in the sense that we play opposite them in the game of global chess. put differently: al

russia is one of our geopolitical adversaries. they are a "big threat" in the sense that we play opposite them in the game of global chess. put differently: all of the international relations theorism that has been dominant in the last 70 years says that for every inch they gain, we must lose an inch, and vice versa. you could substitute in several other parties like china and say the same thing. this is a good situation for everyone to be in. the thing to remember is that there are many of these inches trading hands at all times. no major player is about to risk trying to grab a mile or inflicting any kind of serious blow that could be overtly attributed to them as an act warranting retribution. remember, for every effort the players make, it opens them up to opportunism by the others who aren't affected by that effort. so, russia is, almost by definition, a threat. but that's business as usual, not cause for alarm. the threat is not an existential one, at present. i'm also of the mind that romney's interpretation of russia being a threat was primarily military in nature rather than political. that interpretation -- implying russia could invade europe or something similar -- was ridiculous at the time, and has been proven false given the difficulty that russia has had in ukraine.

tcbawo 8y ago
I'm not sure I would consider human prosperity a zero-sum game. Rather than military conquest, it seems the world powers are vying to own the technological walled garden we build for ourselves.
- presscast 8y ago
  >I'm not sure I would consider human prosperity a zero-sum game. You're assuming that "human prosperity" is the game being played, as opposed to "national power", which very much is zero-sum.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > You're assuming that "human prosperity" is the game being played, as opposed to "national power", which very much is zero-sum. Nationalism is a choice, one embraced by the current U.S. administration (and others), but it's not the norm: Since WWII the U.S. has been the leading supporter of internationalism.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
dragonwriter 8y ago
> russia is one of our geopolitical adversaries. “One of” is a key phrase here, because... > all of the international relations theorism that has been dominant in the last 70 years says that for every inch they gain, we must lose an inch, and vice versa. ...this is not true in a situation where Russia is one of our geopolitical rivals, only where they are sole meaningful rival. That arguably was the model of the early Cold War (prior to the significant split between China and Russia), but bilateral relations with Russia are not zero-sum when we have other geopolitical rivalries. > no major player is about to risk trying to grab a mile or inflicting any kind of serious blow that could be overtly attributed to them as an act warranting retribution. That's manifestly false; Russia has fairly brazenly conducted several such acts recently against members of the Western Alliance. (Particularly Brittain of a new objective and 8.) > implying russia could invade europe or something similar In what continent does one find Ukraine? > was ridiculous at the time, and has been proven false given the difficulty that russia has had in ukraine. You mean, was correct at the time and has been proven true by Russia's invasion of the Ukraine and conquest of significant portions thereof.
- freeflight 8y ago
  > In what continent does one find Ukraine? Earlier you accused Russia of meddling everywhere, just to pull Ukraine out of the hat. Completely omitting that Ukraine didn't start with Crimea, it started on Euromaidan [0], with heavy involvement of "Yat's our man" [1] and even that was only the ultimate result of decades, and millions of US$, in "regime change" efforts [2]. That's the actual context of Ukraine and not "Russia having ambitions to invade all of Europe". The annexation of Crimea wasn't an offensive play, it was a desperate defensive play trying to hold to as much ground and, and military industrial infrastructure [3], as possible. The way all of this is constantly omitted, in favor of the "Russia just went into aggressive expansionist mode" narrative, is pretty good evidence for how one-sided this whole topic has become in the public discourse. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 [1] http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners (Originally he was the face of the org, they later replaced him with his wife) [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa [3] https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-military-equipment/25312911.html https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-military-equipment/25...
pjc50 8y ago
Cold War was supposed to be over in 1991? The Russian invasion of Ukraine should be counted as a success for Russia, rather than a failure; they wanted a buffer zone and have got it. They're operating under the logic that every inch they destroy is an inch the "West" has lost, the same logic that led to Napoleon's defeat. Same goes for Syria. The goal is to keep the fire burning and refugees fleeing, to prevent the Middle East from stablising in a West-friendly state. Keeping Assad in power is beneficial but not critical to the overall pro-chaos project.
- mladenkovacevic 8y ago
  Your world-view is wrong. Russia wants to be a stabilizing force in Syria. US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE have thrown literal billions at arming and training jihadist militias to take towns and terrorize the Syrian population. Compare stability and the rule of law in areas retaken by government forces vs those still being held by militants.. Night and day. Some articles about refugees returning to Syria and who is even interested in that or rebuilding Syria. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-syria-refugees/russian-envoy-urges-syrian-refugee-return-idUSKBN1KG2C8 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-syr... https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-seeks-u-s-help-in-returning-syria-refugees-1533149072 https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-seeks-u-s-help-in-return... https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/return-of-syrian-refugees-accelerates-to-steady-flow-1.3601227 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/return-of-...
  - codedokode 8y ago
    > US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE have thrown literal billions at arming and training jihadist militias to take towns and terrorize the Syrian population. The article [1] estimates the number of members of anti-governments on order of tens or hundreds thousands people. You cannot just hire 100 000 people out of nowhere and send then to Syria. Most of them are local people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War
- konart 8y ago
  >Middle East from stablising in a West-friendly state Surely all those countries were just one step from becoming best uncle Sam's friends before Russia came. Right.
forapurpose 8y ago
> all of the international relations theorism that has been dominant in the last 70 years says that for every inch they gain, we must lose an inch, and vice versa I'm almost certain that the above is false, but perhaps you can cite something? Trade, as an easy example, is believed to benefit all participants. A rules-based international order and sufficient international institutions to support it, is believed to benefit all, just as the rule of law is necessary domestically. Specific rules such as human rights, including liberty, the outlawing of war (with exceptions), sovereignty, and others also are believed to benefit all. Those things are not only theory, but they have produced outstanding results: An era of peace and prosperity that is orders of magnitude beyond anything in human history. There still are zero-sum situations, but that is what the rule of law is for, both domestically and internationally.
- cryoshon 8y ago
  here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relatio... your point regarding trade is interesting, but it still falls within the zero-sum selfishness paradigm. trade implies a need which one party helps another to address, so it implies a reduction of autonomy, however small. i agree that the formation of international institutions and a semblance of world order has allowed states to ease up on pushing every interaction to the limit as a result of the interactions being zero-sum. i also agree that human rights etc benefit the people of the world. i think we should have more systems like these, and we should force states to buy into them even more. but these things are theoretically inconveniences for governments because they restrict their range of actions. their ability to preserve the power of the state may be threatened in some cases. like i said, thankfully, governments are starting to recognize that these tiny concessions of power can smooth over a lot of relationships with other states without causing any larger problems. yet they are still making concessions of their power. to be clear, i do not enjoy the idea that international relations are zero sum or that realism is the only way for interstate relationships to be regulated. it's just the model that most states run on when push comes to shove and their power is deeply threatened. but when conditions are very favorable, they can cover up the unsightly edges of the zero sum game.

tcbawo 8y ago

I'm not sure I would consider human prosperity a zero-sum game. Rather than military conquest, it seems the world powers are vying to own the technological walled garden we build for ourselves.

presscast 8y ago
>I'm not sure I would consider human prosperity a zero-sum game. You're assuming that "human prosperity" is the game being played, as opposed to "national power", which very much is zero-sum.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > You're assuming that "human prosperity" is the game being played, as opposed to "national power", which very much is zero-sum. Nationalism is a choice, one embraced by the current U.S. administration (and others), but it's not the norm: Since WWII the U.S. has been the leading supporter of internationalism.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

dragonwriter 8y ago

> russia is one of our geopolitical adversaries. “One of” is a key phrase here, because... > all of the international relations theorism that has been dominant in the last 70 years says that for every inch they gain, we must lose an inch, and vice versa. ...this is not true in a situation where Russia is one of our geopolitical rivals, only where they are sole meaningful rival. That arguably was the model of the early Cold War (prior to the significant split between China and Russia), but bilateral relations with Russia are not zero-sum when we have other geopolitical rivalries. > no major player is about to risk trying to grab a mile or inflicting any kind of serious blow that could be overtly attributed to them as an act warranting retribution. That's manifestly false; Russia has fairly brazenly conducted several such acts recently against members of the Western Alliance. (Particularly Brittain of a new objective and 8.) > implying russia could invade europe or something similar In what continent does one find Ukraine? > was ridiculous at the time, and has been proven false given the difficulty that russia has had in ukraine. You mean, was correct at the time and has been proven true by Russia's invasion of the Ukraine and conquest of significant portions thereof.

freeflight 8y ago
> In what continent does one find Ukraine? Earlier you accused Russia of meddling everywhere, just to pull Ukraine out of the hat. Completely omitting that Ukraine didn't start with Crimea, it started on Euromaidan [0], with heavy involvement of "Yat's our man" [1] and even that was only the ultimate result of decades, and millions of US$, in "regime change" efforts [2]. That's the actual context of Ukraine and not "Russia having ambitions to invade all of Europe". The annexation of Crimea wasn't an offensive play, it was a desperate defensive play trying to hold to as much ground and, and military industrial infrastructure [3], as possible. The way all of this is constantly omitted, in favor of the "Russia just went into aggressive expansionist mode" narrative, is pretty good evidence for how one-sided this whole topic has become in the public discourse. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 [1] http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners http://openukraine.org/en/about/partners (Originally he was the face of the org, they later replaced him with his wife) [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa [3] https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-military-equipment/25312911.html https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ukraine-military-equipment/25...

pjc50 8y ago

Cold War was supposed to be over in 1991? The Russian invasion of Ukraine should be counted as a success for Russia, rather than a failure; they wanted a buffer zone and have got it. They're operating under the logic that every inch they destroy is an inch the "West" has lost, the same logic that led to Napoleon's defeat. Same goes for Syria. The goal is to keep the fire burning and refugees fleeing, to prevent the Middle East from stablising in a West-friendly state. Keeping Assad in power is beneficial but not critical to the overall pro-chaos project.

mladenkovacevic 8y ago
Your world-view is wrong. Russia wants to be a stabilizing force in Syria. US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE have thrown literal billions at arming and training jihadist militias to take towns and terrorize the Syrian population. Compare stability and the rule of law in areas retaken by government forces vs those still being held by militants.. Night and day. Some articles about refugees returning to Syria and who is even interested in that or rebuilding Syria. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-syria-refugees/russian-envoy-urges-syrian-refugee-return-idUSKBN1KG2C8 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-russia-syr... https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-seeks-u-s-help-in-returning-syria-refugees-1533149072 https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-seeks-u-s-help-in-return... https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/return-of-syrian-refugees-accelerates-to-steady-flow-1.3601227 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/return-of-...
- codedokode 8y ago
  > US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE have thrown literal billions at arming and training jihadist militias to take towns and terrorize the Syrian population. The article [1] estimates the number of members of anti-governments on order of tens or hundreds thousands people. You cannot just hire 100 000 people out of nowhere and send then to Syria. Most of them are local people. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War
konart 8y ago
>Middle East from stablising in a West-friendly state Surely all those countries were just one step from becoming best uncle Sam's friends before Russia came. Right.

forapurpose 8y ago

> all of the international relations theorism that has been dominant in the last 70 years says that for every inch they gain, we must lose an inch, and vice versa I'm almost certain that the above is false, but perhaps you can cite something? Trade, as an easy example, is believed to benefit all participants. A rules-based international order and sufficient international institutions to support it, is believed to benefit all, just as the rule of law is necessary domestically. Specific rules such as human rights, including liberty, the outlawing of war (with exceptions), sovereignty, and others also are believed to benefit all. Those things are not only theory, but they have produced outstanding results: An era of peace and prosperity that is orders of magnitude beyond anything in human history. There still are zero-sum situations, but that is what the rule of law is for, both domestically and internationally.

cryoshon 8y ago
here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_(international_relatio... your point regarding trade is interesting, but it still falls within the zero-sum selfishness paradigm. trade implies a need which one party helps another to address, so it implies a reduction of autonomy, however small. i agree that the formation of international institutions and a semblance of world order has allowed states to ease up on pushing every interaction to the limit as a result of the interactions being zero-sum. i also agree that human rights etc benefit the people of the world. i think we should have more systems like these, and we should force states to buy into them even more. but these things are theoretically inconveniences for governments because they restrict their range of actions. their ability to preserve the power of the state may be threatened in some cases. like i said, thankfully, governments are starting to recognize that these tiny concessions of power can smooth over a lot of relationships with other states without causing any larger problems. yet they are still making concessions of their power. to be clear, i do not enjoy the idea that international relations are zero sum or that realism is the only way for interstate relationships to be regulated. it's just the model that most states run on when push comes to shove and their power is deeply threatened. but when conditions are very favorable, they can cover up the unsightly edges of the zero sum game.