4 ms·

Why do people keep treating Russia as if it is some force of nature that is merely reacting to external stimuli instead of what it actually is: an actor with ag

Why do people keep treating Russia as if it is some force of nature that is merely reacting to external stimuli instead of what it actually is: an actor with agency that can.. just not invade?

psyc 5y ago
Because we can’t exercise their agency for them. Strategically it’s more useful to ask what would they do if we did such. Asking why can’t they just be peaceful isn’t that useful at this stage.
- SinParadise 5y ago
  But here is the thing, typically we consider their agency when formulating a response. We would response more harshly to an agent willingly and knowingly commits acts that we deem inappropriate, and we would be less harsh against one that has no other recourse. By ascribing Russia as this entity with no agency, one gives pretext to the softening and appeasement that they do not deserve. In this case, Russia deserves none.
  - dundarious 5y ago
    Not trying to hijack this thread, but I think that logic doesn't hold, because the US Monroe doctrine is backed up by a lot of "inappropriate" actions. There are no angels here, except in each side's propaganda. And regardless, I'm not convinced Russia can even carry out its current program in Ukraine. Those suggesting "appeasement" will "embolden" Putin to go on a wider campaign of war through Europe haven't justified the rationale for how that would even happen. And if it came to that (basically another World War), those making that claim have to justify how a World War later is worse than a World War now, which is often, though not always, the implied anti-"appeasement" approach.
    - SinParadise 5y ago
      > There are no angels here, except in each side's propaganda. Sure, pick your poison. This time I'll have a shot of NATO. I may be in the mood for something different next time. > And regardless, I'm not convinced Russia can even carry out its current program in Ukraine. Those suggesting "appeasement" will "embolden" Putin to go on a wider campaign of war through Europe haven't justified the rationale for how that would even happen. Just brinksmanship with nukes I guess? I don't even necessarily care about emboldening. I just believe that they should walk out of this limping. Harder the better.
      - dundarious 5y ago
        It's hard to militarily inflict a limp on an opponent who may use nukes, without creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. And NATO policy has always been that first-strike on nuclear-armed opponents is always an option. Election debates in the UK have hinged on whether the candidate will commit to first-strike, with staunch establishment criticism if the answer is not a clear "yes". China officially forecloses the idea of any first-strike, and the SU did too in the 80s, but that was reneged on by Russia when it broke up in the 90s. Just in the last 4 years, the US head of state referred to using them, relatively transparently. The point is that it is shockingly common to reserve the nuclear option, and even to highlight it. I am absolutely not saying "therefore it's not that bad" -- quite the opposite, I'm saying that we should be glad that nations seem don't have a knee-jerk reaction to such psychotic statements from their opponents, and we should follow suit. Let cooler heads prevail. And economic sanctions can be just a slow version of carpet bombing. The figures are disputed, but some claim hundreds of thousands of children alone died under the Iraq sanctions. I haven't read enough to judge the issue, but the official position was that even if true, it "is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it." I wouldn't support that kind of logic in trying to inflict a limp either. So my main point is that it's hard to come up with any "harder the better" approach that isn't suicidal or pure cruelty for ordinary Ukrainians and Russians, and bad for NATO member citizens too. I think the invasion is evil too, but the punishment talk is just empty talk -- everyone's getting punished pretty hard right now as it is.
dundarious 5y ago
The same treatment should apply to the US or any other great/middle power. You’re responsible for predictable consequences. Especially when nuclear weapons enter the equation. There is no sense or satisfaction in ascribing the “blame” to Putin when the ICBMs are in the air. Some even explicitly extend your logic to those ludicrous ends, though I don’t presume to know your own thoughts. Moral considerations of course matter, but there is no such thing as “morally” doing something that leads to an innocent people being invaded for “just” reasons, when perfectly reasonable alternatives exist. Never mind that no major power reaches the level of minimal moral integrity. And to be clear, NATO is not guilty of war crimes (for Ukraine), but the Russian government is — not that Ukrainians will feel the difference of my moral ranking either way. It’s clear who deserves more moral consternation. But I have zero influence over Putin. I have almost, but not exactly zero influence over NATO. I have no responsibility for Russian actions, and some for NATO’s. And the comment I was replying to was advocating for what I think is the diametric opposite of what NATO should do. Those policy choices are the kinds of actions that will have a material effect on peace or war in Ukraine.
- sverhagen 5y ago
  If you felt compelled to acknowledge the exceedingly small influence you have on NATO, why not acknowledge the exceedingly small chance you would cause a Russian revolution by leaving a five star review on the website of an eatery in Moscow?
  - dundarious 5y ago
    I mean this as a genuine question, but is your comment just to say that I was technically wrong to say I have “exactly zero” influence over Russian government policy, given unlikely butterfly effects exist? Would you dispute that I have a tiny influence on all government policy, but I have orders of magnitude less over Russia compared to the US where I live? I covered responsibility also: do you agree that I am not responsible for Russian government actions (here I think exactly zero would be correct) but I have some responsibility for NATO actions, which are notionally done for my benefit?
pastacacioepepe 5y ago
If you back a scared animal in a corner, they will attack you, even if in a minority. You don't understand how the west is seen outside the west. Spoiler: we have lots of blood on our hands. We are not seen as the good ones, like our propaganda would sell to us.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  How is Russia in a corner? They're expanding into the second largest country in Europe. Unless one accepts the argument that because there were different historical borders in the past Russia is now entitled to demand Ukraine either remain a buffer state (with no guarantee except Russia's boyscout promise) or join the Russian federation--by force if necessary.
  - dundarious 5y ago
    I think the point of the analogy is not that it generally maps to the Ukraine war, it's just that you can't really reason with a scared animal, and it's pointless to make moralistic arguments if it causes harm, so you can still be responsible even if the "other" is behaving poorly. If you insist on walking your own dog extremely close to a scared and aggressive dog, when there is ample space for you to walk with a minor diversion, then there is no sense in saying "I have a right to walk my dog here" or "it is unjust for this other dog to threaten my dog" as an excuse if your actions lead to your own dog being attacked. You are meaningfully responsible because you failed to account for very predictable consequences. Of course, others have responsibility for the situation too, but on the immediate question of whether you can justify walking your own dog extremely close, you would be hugely culpable. Please don't take what I've said as a claim that this is a perfect analogy for the Ukraine war -- it fails to be a good analogy on so many levels. It's a suitable analogy only on the question of responsibility for predictable consequences, regardless of the just/unjust behavior of the thing/being that directly causes the harm. I can easily be the case that you are not the proximate cause, but are still meaningfully responsible.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    > How is Russia in a corner? They're expanding into the second largest country in Europe. Haven't you heard the news? This isn't Russia's war. This is Putin's war. Putin is in a corner. A resource endowed democracy with Russian roots next to his border with oil, gas and coal is the worst thing that can happen to an oligarch. Europe's dependence on Russian fossil fuels makes Putin untouchable. Anything that competes with him erodes his shield against the EU.
imtringued 5y ago
Putin is an oligarch. He is doing what keeps himself in power. The risk he is taking on with this war can easily wipe him out. If you just want to stay a regional oligarch you simply wouldn't take this risk unless you had to.

Why do people keep treating Russia as if it is some force of nature that is merely reacting to external stimuli instead of what it actually is: an actor with agency that can.. just not invade?

psyc 5y ago

Because we can’t exercise their agency for them. Strategically it’s more useful to ask what would they do if we did such. Asking why can’t they just be peaceful isn’t that useful at this stage.

SinParadise 5y ago
But here is the thing, typically we consider their agency when formulating a response. We would response more harshly to an agent willingly and knowingly commits acts that we deem inappropriate, and we would be less harsh against one that has no other recourse. By ascribing Russia as this entity with no agency, one gives pretext to the softening and appeasement that they do not deserve. In this case, Russia deserves none.
- dundarious 5y ago
  Not trying to hijack this thread, but I think that logic doesn't hold, because the US Monroe doctrine is backed up by a lot of "inappropriate" actions. There are no angels here, except in each side's propaganda. And regardless, I'm not convinced Russia can even carry out its current program in Ukraine. Those suggesting "appeasement" will "embolden" Putin to go on a wider campaign of war through Europe haven't justified the rationale for how that would even happen. And if it came to that (basically another World War), those making that claim have to justify how a World War later is worse than a World War now, which is often, though not always, the implied anti-"appeasement" approach.
  - SinParadise 5y ago
    > There are no angels here, except in each side's propaganda. Sure, pick your poison. This time I'll have a shot of NATO. I may be in the mood for something different next time. > And regardless, I'm not convinced Russia can even carry out its current program in Ukraine. Those suggesting "appeasement" will "embolden" Putin to go on a wider campaign of war through Europe haven't justified the rationale for how that would even happen. Just brinksmanship with nukes I guess? I don't even necessarily care about emboldening. I just believe that they should walk out of this limping. Harder the better.
    - dundarious 5y ago
      It's hard to militarily inflict a limp on an opponent who may use nukes, without creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. And NATO policy has always been that first-strike on nuclear-armed opponents is always an option. Election debates in the UK have hinged on whether the candidate will commit to first-strike, with staunch establishment criticism if the answer is not a clear "yes". China officially forecloses the idea of any first-strike, and the SU did too in the 80s, but that was reneged on by Russia when it broke up in the 90s. Just in the last 4 years, the US head of state referred to using them, relatively transparently. The point is that it is shockingly common to reserve the nuclear option, and even to highlight it. I am absolutely not saying "therefore it's not that bad" -- quite the opposite, I'm saying that we should be glad that nations seem don't have a knee-jerk reaction to such psychotic statements from their opponents, and we should follow suit. Let cooler heads prevail. And economic sanctions can be just a slow version of carpet bombing. The figures are disputed, but some claim hundreds of thousands of children alone died under the Iraq sanctions. I haven't read enough to judge the issue, but the official position was that even if true, it "is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it." I wouldn't support that kind of logic in trying to inflict a limp either. So my main point is that it's hard to come up with any "harder the better" approach that isn't suicidal or pure cruelty for ordinary Ukrainians and Russians, and bad for NATO member citizens too. I think the invasion is evil too, but the punishment talk is just empty talk -- everyone's getting punished pretty hard right now as it is.

dundarious 5y ago

The same treatment should apply to the US or any other great/middle power. You’re responsible for predictable consequences. Especially when nuclear weapons enter the equation. There is no sense or satisfaction in ascribing the “blame” to Putin when the ICBMs are in the air. Some even explicitly extend your logic to those ludicrous ends, though I don’t presume to know your own thoughts. Moral considerations of course matter, but there is no such thing as “morally” doing something that leads to an innocent people being invaded for “just” reasons, when perfectly reasonable alternatives exist. Never mind that no major power reaches the level of minimal moral integrity. And to be clear, NATO is not guilty of war crimes (for Ukraine), but the Russian government is — not that Ukrainians will feel the difference of my moral ranking either way. It’s clear who deserves more moral consternation. But I have zero influence over Putin. I have almost, but not exactly zero influence over NATO. I have no responsibility for Russian actions, and some for NATO’s. And the comment I was replying to was advocating for what I think is the diametric opposite of what NATO should do. Those policy choices are the kinds of actions that will have a material effect on peace or war in Ukraine.

sverhagen 5y ago
If you felt compelled to acknowledge the exceedingly small influence you have on NATO, why not acknowledge the exceedingly small chance you would cause a Russian revolution by leaving a five star review on the website of an eatery in Moscow?
- dundarious 5y ago
  I mean this as a genuine question, but is your comment just to say that I was technically wrong to say I have “exactly zero” influence over Russian government policy, given unlikely butterfly effects exist? Would you dispute that I have a tiny influence on all government policy, but I have orders of magnitude less over Russia compared to the US where I live? I covered responsibility also: do you agree that I am not responsible for Russian government actions (here I think exactly zero would be correct) but I have some responsibility for NATO actions, which are notionally done for my benefit?

pastacacioepepe 5y ago

If you back a scared animal in a corner, they will attack you, even if in a minority. You don't understand how the west is seen outside the west. Spoiler: we have lots of blood on our hands. We are not seen as the good ones, like our propaganda would sell to us.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
How is Russia in a corner? They're expanding into the second largest country in Europe. Unless one accepts the argument that because there were different historical borders in the past Russia is now entitled to demand Ukraine either remain a buffer state (with no guarantee except Russia's boyscout promise) or join the Russian federation--by force if necessary.
- dundarious 5y ago
  I think the point of the analogy is not that it generally maps to the Ukraine war, it's just that you can't really reason with a scared animal, and it's pointless to make moralistic arguments if it causes harm, so you can still be responsible even if the "other" is behaving poorly. If you insist on walking your own dog extremely close to a scared and aggressive dog, when there is ample space for you to walk with a minor diversion, then there is no sense in saying "I have a right to walk my dog here" or "it is unjust for this other dog to threaten my dog" as an excuse if your actions lead to your own dog being attacked. You are meaningfully responsible because you failed to account for very predictable consequences. Of course, others have responsibility for the situation too, but on the immediate question of whether you can justify walking your own dog extremely close, you would be hugely culpable. Please don't take what I've said as a claim that this is a perfect analogy for the Ukraine war -- it fails to be a good analogy on so many levels. It's a suitable analogy only on the question of responsibility for predictable consequences, regardless of the just/unjust behavior of the thing/being that directly causes the harm. I can easily be the case that you are not the proximate cause, but are still meaningfully responsible.
- imtringued 5y ago
  > How is Russia in a corner? They're expanding into the second largest country in Europe. Haven't you heard the news? This isn't Russia's war. This is Putin's war. Putin is in a corner. A resource endowed democracy with Russian roots next to his border with oil, gas and coal is the worst thing that can happen to an oligarch. Europe's dependence on Russian fossil fuels makes Putin untouchable. Anything that competes with him erodes his shield against the EU.

imtringued 5y ago

Putin is an oligarch. He is doing what keeps himself in power. The risk he is taking on with this war can easily wipe him out. If you just want to stay a regional oligarch you simply wouldn't take this risk unless you had to.