7 ms·

Deveraux explicitly endorses (1) in the article: > If anything, I think cultural values have lagged, resulting in countries launching counter-productive wars o

by bradrn 3y ago

Deveraux explicitly endorses (1) in the article: > If anything, I think cultural values have lagged, resulting in countries launching counter-productive wars out of cultural inertia (because it’s ‘the doing thing’ or valued in the culture) long after such wars became maladaptive. Indeed, I’d argue that’s exactly what Russia is doing right now.

epicureanideal 3y ago
[flagged]
- Benjammer 3y ago
  "If you would just do what I told you, you wouldn't get hit!" Big yikes here...
  - epicureanideal 3y ago
    That's not at all what I said. What do you think about the video I linked? Also, analogies to dysfunctional interpersonal relationships don't represent the dynamics of many-party international competition very well.
    - alvarezbjm-hn 3y ago
      "If the USA had not continued to expand NATO eastward (especially the discussion of making Georgia and Ukraine part of NATO in 2008), a few hundred thousand Ukrainians and Russians would still be alive and Crimea would still be part of Ukraine." Yes, you did say that. Russian response was overkill, but you didn't mention Putin there. Clever.
    - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
      > What do you think about the video I linked? I rarely take political speech on its face value. I only watched half a minute but Putin was stating what he stated for a particular audience, to get a particular reaction.
    - Benjammer 3y ago
      "We must respond to defensive fortifications that put missile batteries up outside our sovereign borders with extremely violent, extremely aggressive, expansionary excursions to conquer territory and move our border CLOSER to said missiles" The logic makes zero sense, I'm sorry. It's still a "well, I wouldn't have to do X if you didn't do Y" mentality that completely and utterly shirks any sense of responsibility for one's or one's country's own actions. It's hogwash doublespeak used by BOTH abusers in messy interpersonal relationships, AND by international politicians playing realpolitik.
- Animats 3y ago
  No, it's mostly Putin. He wants to be Tsar of All the Russias, like Peter the Great, whom he greatly admires. ‘All his (Putin's) ideas... come from the past. He wants to move the country to the 19th century, to a time when empires were possible.’ — Marat Gelman, former Putin adviser.[1] [1] https://archive.is/ddazo https://archive.is/ddazo
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  This doesn't explain the Chechen conquest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Russia#Russian_Federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Russi... Russia had nukes, they had no existential reason to worry about NATO. The key element in all of this is Putin. Not NATO.
- dotnet00 3y ago
  I wonder what it says about a country's intentions if they feel threatened enough to kill tens of thousands of innocent people over them shifting towards joining a defensive alliance.
  - epicureanideal 3y ago
    > defensive alliance I almost spit out my coffee I laughed so hard. That's how the alliance markets itself, but that's not how everyone in the world, especially their potential adversaries, perceives it. And its potential adversaries have been saying so, publicly, for decades. As I'm sure you understand, all military alliances, even if they start out defensive in nature, can easily become offensive in nature. > if they feel threatened enough Exactly, they felt threatened, because they did not and do not perceive NATO as a defensive alliance. I highly recommend watching the videos I linked in my earlier comment.
    - dotnet00 3y ago
      The only ones pretending that it isn't a defensive alliance are the ones who have some territorial claim they're hoping to take military action against. For whom it is very inconvenient that there's this group of countries who would very much rather they didn't. Everyone else sees very clearly that an alliance which only invokes when attacked and requires the resolution of territorial disputes prior to gaining membership is not going to just invade them first. Half of the members were literally dependent on Russia for their energy needs, many of them thinking that the US was the warmongerer for being constantly paranoid about Russia's intentions, with defense budgets trending downwards and the former American president having openly questioned the need for NATO. There is no reasonable way to argue that they were at all going to be attacking Russia as an alliance in that state.
      - eropple 3y ago
        This is a Good Post, and honestly your last point includes one of the things that I (as an American, and generally critical of our own foreign adventurism) am most astonished by. We have culturally never expected much of NATO to stand up to Russia; the saber-rattling felt like it was frequently working against Europe. That Russia could push too far and stiffen European resolve so sharply seemed off the table. The cynic in me sometimes thinks that part of it, and the American response as well, is perhaps as much that it's a European country being bullied and not somewhere far away (read: brown), but that it's happening at all is any port in the storm.
- ProjectArcturis 3y ago
  You posted a lecture in which Mearsheimer says Russia will never try to conquer Ukraine, because "Putin is much too smart for that" -- and ask us to accept him as an expert?
  - hackandthink 3y ago
    Mearsheimer saw it coming and got it basically right. He predicted "Putin will wreck Ukraine" and this is happening now.
    - ProjectArcturis 3y ago
      That is some pretzel logic right there.
      - hackandthink 3y ago
        Just plain and simple facts.
    - hackandthink 3y ago
      I've been thinking about why Mearsheimer is so unpopular and why he loses every public debate (e.g., Munk Debate). My guess: Cognitive dissonance hurts. Injustice is not supposed to win, people don't want to compromise even if the alternative is much worse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhgWLmd7mCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhgWLmd7mCo
  - mecsred 3y ago
    Not that I agree with the content of the lecture, but you have to read between the lines for that. "Putin is much too smart for that" is a stand in for "it would be very stupid for Putin to do this please don't" that looks like a compliment at surface level.
    - ProjectArcturis 3y ago
      Here he is in February 2022 again saying they won't invade: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE&t=4731s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE&t=4731s At a certain point it sure looks like Russian apologism.
- alejohausner 3y ago
  This is the point that Robert Kennedy Jr has been making, very eloquently. Regardless of how heinous Putin may be, how nasty the Russian invasion has been, it was not unprovoked. The USA put missiles in Turkey in 1961, and the Soviets responded by puting missiles in Cuba. The Soviets felt threatened by missiles that could hit Moscow in 30 minutes, and they responded in kind. What did the USA do? They blockaded Cuba, and the Soviets backed down, seemingly cowed. But secretly JFK had made a pact with Krushschev, and withdrew missiles from Turkey shortly after. In other words, the USA acknowledged that they had provoked the Soviets. But somehow bringing NATO to Russia's doorstep should not be seen as provocation? It's very tempting to paint your military enemies as cartoon villains. In fact, painting Putin as a cleptocratic thug is easy. It gets you reelected at home. But openly humiliating him is bad foreign policy. RFK Jr's message is that Ukraine did not benefit from this war. Their young men are being sacrificed to an American plan to wear down the Russian army. Why provoke the war when realpolitik says it's better to compromise? Cui bono? Who benefits from this conflict? American military contractors, and American exporters of natural gas.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    If Russia had been consistent in their reasons for expansion this would be believable. But they've said too many things to believe that they are primarily motivated by NATO expansion on its lonesome. > Who benefits from this conflict? Minority populations in a variety of countries (Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus) who nostalgically yearn for Russian confederation again.
  - chrysler 3y ago
    Comparisons with Cuba ignore the fact that the balance of military power in Europe is heavily in Russia's favor. For example, Russia hosts nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad enclave, in the middle of Europe. Map: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-4.jpg https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1... And now it's placing further nuclear missiles in Belarus. And yet, when countries directly threatened by these weapons seek mutual defense pacts and cooperation with other countries in Europe and North America, you call this a provocation. Russia can place nukes in Europe and that's fine, but Poland can't even hold joint military exercises with France. Can you tell me why?
- adzm 3y ago
  NATO expansion is a scapegoat for Russia's imperial conquests. They will latch on to any reason to justify the invasion of Ukraine. If I recall correctly, it was to take care of "Nazis" in Ukraine, right? But then they kind of stopped promoting that angle. Also they took Crimea, which understandably made a lot of Ukrainians very nervous. Russia should have just not invaded Ukraine. I find it incredible that people try to justify that action on increasingly flimsy grounds.
- marketerinland 3y ago
  Your analysis is accurate in one sense but inaccurate in another. Correct; Putin had an issue with NATO expansion. But the reason this was an issue for him is completely missed (or deliberately ignored) by people like yourself. The fact that NATO is a defensive pact IS the problem. Because if a country joins NATO, that means Russia can’t invade it. Putin’s wet dreams all revolve around restoring Russian glory and territory. He’s also said this publicly, too. And that is why NATO expansion is such an issue for him. Any other narrative is absolute hogwash
- llamaLord 3y ago
  For context for anyone reading this, Mearsheimer is one of the most hardcore anti-nato theorist's in the International Relationship world. He IS credible, don't get me wrong. But he does also represent the extreme end of the "Realist" school of thought so definitely isn't what you'd call "balanced". Just make sure you balance his theories out with some other options, don't take him as gospel.
  - CRConrad 3y ago
    He's so much of a “realist” that his talks all sound pretty much exactly like Putler’s speech-writer wrote them.
krunck 3y ago
It's what the US has been doing since WWII.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  In the past 30+ years the US wars (minus Afghanistan) have probably been reactive responses to the OPEC oil shock of the 70s and a bit of the US Embassy hostage situation in Iran. I wonder how much a gallon of gas costs if you factor in all of the money (not including the cost of lost lives) from those wars.

by bradrn 3y ago

epicureanideal 3y ago

[flagged]

Benjammer 3y ago
"If you would just do what I told you, you wouldn't get hit!" Big yikes here...
- epicureanideal 3y ago
  That's not at all what I said. What do you think about the video I linked? Also, analogies to dysfunctional interpersonal relationships don't represent the dynamics of many-party international competition very well.
  - alvarezbjm-hn 3y ago
    "If the USA had not continued to expand NATO eastward (especially the discussion of making Georgia and Ukraine part of NATO in 2008), a few hundred thousand Ukrainians and Russians would still be alive and Crimea would still be part of Ukraine." Yes, you did say that. Russian response was overkill, but you didn't mention Putin there. Clever.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    > What do you think about the video I linked? I rarely take political speech on its face value. I only watched half a minute but Putin was stating what he stated for a particular audience, to get a particular reaction.
  - Benjammer 3y ago
    "We must respond to defensive fortifications that put missile batteries up outside our sovereign borders with extremely violent, extremely aggressive, expansionary excursions to conquer territory and move our border CLOSER to said missiles" The logic makes zero sense, I'm sorry. It's still a "well, I wouldn't have to do X if you didn't do Y" mentality that completely and utterly shirks any sense of responsibility for one's or one's country's own actions. It's hogwash doublespeak used by BOTH abusers in messy interpersonal relationships, AND by international politicians playing realpolitik.
Animats 3y ago
No, it's mostly Putin. He wants to be Tsar of All the Russias, like Peter the Great, whom he greatly admires. ‘All his (Putin's) ideas... come from the past. He wants to move the country to the 19th century, to a time when empires were possible.’ — Marat Gelman, former Putin adviser.[1] [1] https://archive.is/ddazo https://archive.is/ddazo
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
This doesn't explain the Chechen conquest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Russia#Russian_Federation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Russi... Russia had nukes, they had no existential reason to worry about NATO. The key element in all of this is Putin. Not NATO.
dotnet00 3y ago
I wonder what it says about a country's intentions if they feel threatened enough to kill tens of thousands of innocent people over them shifting towards joining a defensive alliance.
- epicureanideal 3y ago
  > defensive alliance I almost spit out my coffee I laughed so hard. That's how the alliance markets itself, but that's not how everyone in the world, especially their potential adversaries, perceives it. And its potential adversaries have been saying so, publicly, for decades. As I'm sure you understand, all military alliances, even if they start out defensive in nature, can easily become offensive in nature. > if they feel threatened enough Exactly, they felt threatened, because they did not and do not perceive NATO as a defensive alliance. I highly recommend watching the videos I linked in my earlier comment.
  - dotnet00 3y ago
    The only ones pretending that it isn't a defensive alliance are the ones who have some territorial claim they're hoping to take military action against. For whom it is very inconvenient that there's this group of countries who would very much rather they didn't. Everyone else sees very clearly that an alliance which only invokes when attacked and requires the resolution of territorial disputes prior to gaining membership is not going to just invade them first. Half of the members were literally dependent on Russia for their energy needs, many of them thinking that the US was the warmongerer for being constantly paranoid about Russia's intentions, with defense budgets trending downwards and the former American president having openly questioned the need for NATO. There is no reasonable way to argue that they were at all going to be attacking Russia as an alliance in that state.
    - eropple 3y ago
      This is a Good Post, and honestly your last point includes one of the things that I (as an American, and generally critical of our own foreign adventurism) am most astonished by. We have culturally never expected much of NATO to stand up to Russia; the saber-rattling felt like it was frequently working against Europe. That Russia could push too far and stiffen European resolve so sharply seemed off the table. The cynic in me sometimes thinks that part of it, and the American response as well, is perhaps as much that it's a European country being bullied and not somewhere far away (read: brown), but that it's happening at all is any port in the storm.
ProjectArcturis 3y ago
You posted a lecture in which Mearsheimer says Russia will never try to conquer Ukraine, because "Putin is much too smart for that" -- and ask us to accept him as an expert?
- hackandthink 3y ago
  Mearsheimer saw it coming and got it basically right. He predicted "Putin will wreck Ukraine" and this is happening now.
  - ProjectArcturis 3y ago
    That is some pretzel logic right there.
    - hackandthink 3y ago
      Just plain and simple facts.
  - hackandthink 3y ago
    I've been thinking about why Mearsheimer is so unpopular and why he loses every public debate (e.g., Munk Debate). My guess: Cognitive dissonance hurts. Injustice is not supposed to win, people don't want to compromise even if the alternative is much worse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhgWLmd7mCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhgWLmd7mCo
- mecsred 3y ago
  Not that I agree with the content of the lecture, but you have to read between the lines for that. "Putin is much too smart for that" is a stand in for "it would be very stupid for Putin to do this please don't" that looks like a compliment at surface level.
  - ProjectArcturis 3y ago
    Here he is in February 2022 again saying they won't invade: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE&t=4731s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE&t=4731s At a certain point it sure looks like Russian apologism.
alejohausner 3y ago
This is the point that Robert Kennedy Jr has been making, very eloquently. Regardless of how heinous Putin may be, how nasty the Russian invasion has been, it was not unprovoked. The USA put missiles in Turkey in 1961, and the Soviets responded by puting missiles in Cuba. The Soviets felt threatened by missiles that could hit Moscow in 30 minutes, and they responded in kind. What did the USA do? They blockaded Cuba, and the Soviets backed down, seemingly cowed. But secretly JFK had made a pact with Krushschev, and withdrew missiles from Turkey shortly after. In other words, the USA acknowledged that they had provoked the Soviets. But somehow bringing NATO to Russia's doorstep should not be seen as provocation? It's very tempting to paint your military enemies as cartoon villains. In fact, painting Putin as a cleptocratic thug is easy. It gets you reelected at home. But openly humiliating him is bad foreign policy. RFK Jr's message is that Ukraine did not benefit from this war. Their young men are being sacrificed to an American plan to wear down the Russian army. Why provoke the war when realpolitik says it's better to compromise? Cui bono? Who benefits from this conflict? American military contractors, and American exporters of natural gas.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  If Russia had been consistent in their reasons for expansion this would be believable. But they've said too many things to believe that they are primarily motivated by NATO expansion on its lonesome. > Who benefits from this conflict? Minority populations in a variety of countries (Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus) who nostalgically yearn for Russian confederation again.
- chrysler 3y ago
  Comparisons with Cuba ignore the fact that the balance of military power in Europe is heavily in Russia's favor. For example, Russia hosts nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad enclave, in the middle of Europe. Map: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-4.jpg https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1... And now it's placing further nuclear missiles in Belarus. And yet, when countries directly threatened by these weapons seek mutual defense pacts and cooperation with other countries in Europe and North America, you call this a provocation. Russia can place nukes in Europe and that's fine, but Poland can't even hold joint military exercises with France. Can you tell me why?
adzm 3y ago
NATO expansion is a scapegoat for Russia's imperial conquests. They will latch on to any reason to justify the invasion of Ukraine. If I recall correctly, it was to take care of "Nazis" in Ukraine, right? But then they kind of stopped promoting that angle. Also they took Crimea, which understandably made a lot of Ukrainians very nervous. Russia should have just not invaded Ukraine. I find it incredible that people try to justify that action on increasingly flimsy grounds.
marketerinland 3y ago
Your analysis is accurate in one sense but inaccurate in another. Correct; Putin had an issue with NATO expansion. But the reason this was an issue for him is completely missed (or deliberately ignored) by people like yourself. The fact that NATO is a defensive pact IS the problem. Because if a country joins NATO, that means Russia can’t invade it. Putin’s wet dreams all revolve around restoring Russian glory and territory. He’s also said this publicly, too. And that is why NATO expansion is such an issue for him. Any other narrative is absolute hogwash
llamaLord 3y ago
For context for anyone reading this, Mearsheimer is one of the most hardcore anti-nato theorist's in the International Relationship world. He IS credible, don't get me wrong. But he does also represent the extreme end of the "Realist" school of thought so definitely isn't what you'd call "balanced". Just make sure you balance his theories out with some other options, don't take him as gospel.
- CRConrad 3y ago
  He's so much of a “realist” that his talks all sound pretty much exactly like Putler’s speech-writer wrote them.

krunck 3y ago

It's what the US has been doing since WWII.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
In the past 30+ years the US wars (minus Afghanistan) have probably been reactive responses to the OPEC oil shock of the 70s and a bit of the US Embassy hostage situation in Iran. I wonder how much a gallon of gas costs if you factor in all of the money (not including the cost of lost lives) from those wars.