6 ms·

I know this will get flagged and I'll get called a Russian despite being an American from flyover country: Yes, one definitely can tenably make that argument.

I know this will get flagged and I'll get called a Russian despite being an American from flyover country: Yes, one definitely can tenably make that argument. The Monroe Doctrine, ironically, was precipitated by negotiations with Russia[1] and is almost identical in its aims for the Western Hemisphere as Putin's nominal arguments against NATO expansion eastward, namely the assertion that the Western Hemisphere was closed to European colonization and settlement. Is this Putin talking about NATO expansion? 'Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences.' No, it's Dwight Eisenhower talking about communism in Indochina in 1954. The maxims "Principiis obsta" and "Finem respice" apply universally. The Monroe Doctrine and Domino Theory were both framed as defensive policies that were then used for protectionist and geopolitical justifications for foreign wars of aggression against neighbors and neutral independent countries. Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya didn't even have the protection of these broader geopolitical aims, just naked warmongering and profiteering (Osama Bin Laden was Saudi). The necessity for narratives of moral exceptionalism to maintain a permanently jingoist state is to be expected, but it'd be healthier for the intelligentsia to privately admit that fact rather than hiding behind moral exceptionalism even in their personal lives. The West wants to permanently de-fang and colonize Russia for obvious reasons--geopoltical hegemony and market intrusion. These reasons create a perennial playbook everyone else has played by for thousands of years. And I'm sure when NATO does inevitably fail to a novel power, the remnants will play by the same rules Monroe and Putin played by, sed Carthago delenda est.[3] [1] https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/monroe-doctrine https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/monroe-doctrine [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est

EasyMark 2y ago
I think we have to look at the intentions of NATO. Has it ever been to take over and enslave another nation like Putin’s? I’m not talking about colonial Europe or America, I’m talking about the last 70-80 years, roughly the average lifetime of a human. Now look at the history of Russia in that time frame, aggression after aggression, belligerence the whole time with its neighbors.
aguaviva 2y ago
The fact that you need to dial back to 1823 to make some kind of moral equivalence argument between the two powers should be telling you something. And then we have this: The West wants to permanently de-fang and colonize Russia for obvious reasons -- geopolitical hegemony and market intrusion. Which in your view is the basic reason we have the war in Ukraine right now, is what I'm hearing.
- nataliste 2y ago
  >The fact that you need to dial back to 1823 to make some kind of moral equivalence argument between the two powers should be telling you something. Libya was in 2011. Iraq was in 2003. Afghanistan in 2001. I can go backwards to 1823, solely for the United States (and accordingly NATO). >Which is what you reason to be the basic reason we have the war in Ukraine right now, is what I'm hearing. The basic reason are fundamental realities of IR, which you somehow take to be a unique aspect of Western-Russian relations.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    "The US did something bad, therefore if Russia also does something bad (even if not really comparable) then it's just the fundamental realities of IR, and in fact the US basically made them do it" is how your thesis currently reads.
    - nataliste 2y ago
      This is more of a you problem than a me problem. Perhaps you should try not to reduce arguments to less than 200 characters, but I suspect it's uncontrollable due to longterm Twitter usage given your particular patois.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        As long as I am summarizing your thesis accurately, I see no problem at all. As it happens, I haven't intentionally read anything on Twitter for well over a decade. But if it is helpful for you to simply assume that, should anyone care to question your deep, penetrating analysis of recent human history and its impact on current events today; and even worse, fail to appreciate your enthusiasm for run-on paragraphs full of ungrounded abstractions and broken analogies, peppered with fancy latin idioms (for style I guess); and all in the service of watering down, and therewith attempting to "explain" actual, real and incredibly blatant neocolonial aggression happening today -- why gosh, it must be because they're an analphabetic, Twitter-addled idiot, that's all -- then I suppose that this is a "valid" strategy for you.
michaelmrose 2y ago
Russia's nuclear arsenal made and makes the idea of conquering Russia by force absolutely impossible to contemplate. The US and others pursued the objectives of military strength, normalized relations with Russia, and decreasing its influence with its neighbors and proxies. The goals are obvious, open, and benign. Everyone wants a Russia that is stable, economically entwined with limited influence on their neighbors beyond economic ties. No tendrils of malevolent influence or proxies. The only way this devolves into actual force is Russia making war on its neighbors which gives others permission and reason to wage proxy war with Russia and reason to cut its economic ties. Only Russia could possibly have destabilized this situation. Only Russia could have been stupid enough to believe this would be a profitable adventure and only Russia can solve this by fucking off to their own country after which they can negotiate a return to stability. Once this misadventure is over once again nobody will invade Russia because nobody wants to initiate nuclear Armageddon. The only real risk to this return to stability is again Russia. It's possible that should it continue long enough its impoverishment, diminishment of internal perception of strength and military power, and anger at at the regime responsible for sending so many Russians to die should cause internal splintering. If you want to talk about "Domino theory" let us imagine a three foot tall domino surrounded by normal size dominos with Putin standing next to it kicking the giant domino for no reason. Russia was always safe from everyone but Russia.
- nataliste 2y ago
  Your argument that Russia is solely responsible for destabilizing the region mirrors a familiar rhetorical pattern seen throughout history, where weaker powers are trapped in a Kafka trap[1]. Any resistance or reaction by the weaker side justifies further aggression from the stronger power, leading to their gradual erosion and disappearance through salami slicing tactics[2]. Whether through territorial encroachment or strategic isolation, the larger power frames its actions as purely defensive while the weaker party’s responses are cast as irrational or self-destructive. For historical examples, you can look at Carthage under the Romans prior to the Third Punic War, the Saxons under the Normans after Hastings, or the Native Americans under the United States. There are others. For contemporary examples, you can look at the Palestinians under the Israelis (or the Israelis not-quite-under the Arab world) or even the Ukrainians themselves under the Russians! In each of these struggles, the dominant hegemon and its allies want a dominated rival that is "stable, economically entwined with limited influence on their neighbors beyond economic ties. No tendrils of malevolent influence or proxies." Which is to say, totally compliant with their controller and inert as a geopolitical force as they are salami sliced at will. Russia's response to NATO's expansion is a contemporary example of this. Much like other weaker states in history facing incremental encroachment, Russia is blamed for destabilizing the region, while the more powerful actors continue policies that provoke and escalate the situation. The expectation that the weaker side alone should de-escalate or withdraw ignores the external pressures that limit their autonomy and drive their actions. These narratives are almost always self-serving and oversimplify the situation by placing full responsibility on the weaker party, masking the larger power dynamics at play. Throughout history, dominant states have used this framing to justify the gradual weakening and containment of their adversaries, presenting their own expansionist or aggressive strategies as benign or defensive while shifting the blame onto those they are dismantling. All I'm saying is these narratives of "I'm purely defensively containing you so I can eliminate you" are ubiquitous throughout history, but the best of those in the dominant position still understood that it was an ignoble lie even as they struggled against and were dragged along by them. The world would likely be healthier if we emulated them rather than those that always claim that their enemies are historically unlrecedented and uniquely Very Bad Persons[3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_salami_slicing_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_salami_slicing_strateg... [2] https://dangerousintersection.org/2020/06/25/recognizing-and-escaping-from-kafka-traps/ https://dangerousintersection.org/2020/06/25/recognizing-and... [3] https://youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4 https://youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4

EasyMark 2y ago

I think we have to look at the intentions of NATO. Has it ever been to take over and enslave another nation like Putin’s? I’m not talking about colonial Europe or America, I’m talking about the last 70-80 years, roughly the average lifetime of a human. Now look at the history of Russia in that time frame, aggression after aggression, belligerence the whole time with its neighbors.

aguaviva 2y ago

The fact that you need to dial back to 1823 to make some kind of moral equivalence argument between the two powers should be telling you something. And then we have this: The West wants to permanently de-fang and colonize Russia for obvious reasons -- geopolitical hegemony and market intrusion. Which in your view is the basic reason we have the war in Ukraine right now, is what I'm hearing.

nataliste 2y ago
>The fact that you need to dial back to 1823 to make some kind of moral equivalence argument between the two powers should be telling you something. Libya was in 2011. Iraq was in 2003. Afghanistan in 2001. I can go backwards to 1823, solely for the United States (and accordingly NATO). >Which is what you reason to be the basic reason we have the war in Ukraine right now, is what I'm hearing. The basic reason are fundamental realities of IR, which you somehow take to be a unique aspect of Western-Russian relations.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  "The US did something bad, therefore if Russia also does something bad (even if not really comparable) then it's just the fundamental realities of IR, and in fact the US basically made them do it" is how your thesis currently reads.
  - nataliste 2y ago
    This is more of a you problem than a me problem. Perhaps you should try not to reduce arguments to less than 200 characters, but I suspect it's uncontrollable due to longterm Twitter usage given your particular patois.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      As long as I am summarizing your thesis accurately, I see no problem at all. As it happens, I haven't intentionally read anything on Twitter for well over a decade. But if it is helpful for you to simply assume that, should anyone care to question your deep, penetrating analysis of recent human history and its impact on current events today; and even worse, fail to appreciate your enthusiasm for run-on paragraphs full of ungrounded abstractions and broken analogies, peppered with fancy latin idioms (for style I guess); and all in the service of watering down, and therewith attempting to "explain" actual, real and incredibly blatant neocolonial aggression happening today -- why gosh, it must be because they're an analphabetic, Twitter-addled idiot, that's all -- then I suppose that this is a "valid" strategy for you.

michaelmrose 2y ago

Russia's nuclear arsenal made and makes the idea of conquering Russia by force absolutely impossible to contemplate. The US and others pursued the objectives of military strength, normalized relations with Russia, and decreasing its influence with its neighbors and proxies. The goals are obvious, open, and benign. Everyone wants a Russia that is stable, economically entwined with limited influence on their neighbors beyond economic ties. No tendrils of malevolent influence or proxies. The only way this devolves into actual force is Russia making war on its neighbors which gives others permission and reason to wage proxy war with Russia and reason to cut its economic ties. Only Russia could possibly have destabilized this situation. Only Russia could have been stupid enough to believe this would be a profitable adventure and only Russia can solve this by fucking off to their own country after which they can negotiate a return to stability. Once this misadventure is over once again nobody will invade Russia because nobody wants to initiate nuclear Armageddon. The only real risk to this return to stability is again Russia. It's possible that should it continue long enough its impoverishment, diminishment of internal perception of strength and military power, and anger at at the regime responsible for sending so many Russians to die should cause internal splintering. If you want to talk about "Domino theory" let us imagine a three foot tall domino surrounded by normal size dominos with Putin standing next to it kicking the giant domino for no reason. Russia was always safe from everyone but Russia.

nataliste 2y ago
Your argument that Russia is solely responsible for destabilizing the region mirrors a familiar rhetorical pattern seen throughout history, where weaker powers are trapped in a Kafka trap[1]. Any resistance or reaction by the weaker side justifies further aggression from the stronger power, leading to their gradual erosion and disappearance through salami slicing tactics[2]. Whether through territorial encroachment or strategic isolation, the larger power frames its actions as purely defensive while the weaker party’s responses are cast as irrational or self-destructive. For historical examples, you can look at Carthage under the Romans prior to the Third Punic War, the Saxons under the Normans after Hastings, or the Native Americans under the United States. There are others. For contemporary examples, you can look at the Palestinians under the Israelis (or the Israelis not-quite-under the Arab world) or even the Ukrainians themselves under the Russians! In each of these struggles, the dominant hegemon and its allies want a dominated rival that is "stable, economically entwined with limited influence on their neighbors beyond economic ties. No tendrils of malevolent influence or proxies." Which is to say, totally compliant with their controller and inert as a geopolitical force as they are salami sliced at will. Russia's response to NATO's expansion is a contemporary example of this. Much like other weaker states in history facing incremental encroachment, Russia is blamed for destabilizing the region, while the more powerful actors continue policies that provoke and escalate the situation. The expectation that the weaker side alone should de-escalate or withdraw ignores the external pressures that limit their autonomy and drive their actions. These narratives are almost always self-serving and oversimplify the situation by placing full responsibility on the weaker party, masking the larger power dynamics at play. Throughout history, dominant states have used this framing to justify the gradual weakening and containment of their adversaries, presenting their own expansionist or aggressive strategies as benign or defensive while shifting the blame onto those they are dismantling. All I'm saying is these narratives of "I'm purely defensively containing you so I can eliminate you" are ubiquitous throughout history, but the best of those in the dominant position still understood that it was an ignoble lie even as they struggled against and were dragged along by them. The world would likely be healthier if we emulated them rather than those that always claim that their enemies are historically unlrecedented and uniquely Very Bad Persons[3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_salami_slicing_strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_salami_slicing_strateg... [2] https://dangerousintersection.org/2020/06/25/recognizing-and-escaping-from-kafka-traps/ https://dangerousintersection.org/2020/06/25/recognizing-and... [3] https://youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4 https://youtube.com/watch?v=HLNhPMQnWu4