4 ms·
I agree that Russia is the bully in this case, but there is historical precedent for the bully to be the country that feels threatened. Before WW2 some Germans
by georgeecollins 5y ago
I agree that Russia is the bully in this case, but there is historical precedent for the bully to be the country that feels threatened. Before WW2 some Germans thought the that Germany would have to ally itself-- and become a client state-- to either the USSR or western powers in order to maintain its security. Going to war was insane, but the concern that Germany would become more of a client state than an independent power was not insane with historical hindsight.
A Russian strategist might feel threatened because down the line Russia may have depend on its security from either China or a European alliance. In either case it could have less independence and influence in the world.
It sounds insane to risk the disaster of war because your country may lose influence or small amounts of autonomy. But if you think about things like Brexit or some economically undermining policies of MAGA, it seems possible that people -- even in a democracy-- attach more psychic weight to the idea of their nation and its greatness than they do to changes in material prosperity. Also, the pain of bad economic choices (war being an extreme on that spectrum) may not be felt as much by top leaders as the pain of a loss of prestige, which could cost them their jobs or even lives.
- Kilonzus 5y agoJust wanted to chip in; great explanation. Often as a citizen of one country vs another it is tough to understand the logic behind some decisions but this actually made sense to me. Still think the costs of war is high but the logic behind entertaining such an idea is a little clearer.
- avmich 5y ago> but there is historical precedent for the bully to be the country that feels threatened. Not really. Napoleon invasion was a rather silly directed move for a battle, not a war - too much weight on one individual. Great Patriotic War was fought after failure to prevent Hitler from amassing power and nurturing plans to conquer Europe (by Russians) - USSR needn't to repeat Daladier and Chamberlain mistakes, but Stalin had other plans. And since WWII there weren't aggressions against USSR/RF. > the concern that Germany would become more of a client state than an independent power was not insane with historical hindsight And after badly failing at war, Germany now is a leading European nation, one of the world leaders. Surely Russia should be relieved regarding falling to client state? > A Russian strategist might feel threatened because down the line Russia may have depend on its security from either China or a European alliance. That's a bad strategist, especially if he seeks possibilities only in realm of realpolitik and dismisses long-term trends both in Russia and worldwide. > But if you think about things like Brexit or some economically undermining policies of MAGA, it seems possible that people -- even in a democracy-- attach more psychic weight to the idea of their nation and its greatness than they do to changes in material prosperity. It sounds insane to compare the Brexit or the MAGA disaster to a war in Europe. If people attach more psychic weight - which in Russia they don't - what explanations of the position the Russian powers did to deal with that? How the Great Britain deals with the idea of their nation and its greatness? How come Russian decision makers avoid straightforward approaches which helped so many others in recent and not so recent past - like in Eastern Europe or among the Asian-Pacific nations? Not wanting to understand the consequences of autocracy does hurt badly - maybe not directly to the autocrat, but to the people for sure.
- georgeecollins 5y agoGermany today is an important country but it has no major capability to attack or defend other nations. China, Russia and the US do.