tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post2000946204861666078..comments2024-03-28T18:32:05.933-04:00Comments on bensozia: Is Russia a Special Problem?Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01037215533094998996noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-77685941899142489882022-03-14T18:44:13.653-04:002022-03-14T18:44:13.653-04:00An d why makes the insult public? So we would loo...An d why makes the insult public? So we would look tough?Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05353532874773316117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-60815735908035909182022-03-14T10:14:16.760-04:002022-03-14T10:14:16.760-04:00Yesterday I saw a report that Putin had asked Xi f...Yesterday I saw a report that Putin had asked Xi for military aid. The United States responded by threatening the Chinese with sanctions.<br /><br />It strikes me that this is an example of a classic blunder of US diplomacy. Why insult the Chinese with threats instead of using this as an opportunity to make nice with them? I would think this would be a good time for a "you're one of the adults in the room, help us curb this raging child" approach to Xi.<br /><br />Overall, I would favor the Kotkin-Zakaria suggestion of leaning toward China over either opposing both on moral grounds or Mearscheimer's philo-Russian approach.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14456987412710878404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-83282869234786584982022-03-14T08:48:11.223-04:002022-03-14T08:48:11.223-04:00In America, people hate Putin, in Russia Putin hat...In America, people hate Putin, in Russia Putin hates people! What a country!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-41351029974197894132022-03-14T08:47:33.302-04:002022-03-14T08:47:33.302-04:00Ah, the Russian agents have arrived.
AKA a prote...Ah, the Russian agents have arrived. <br /><br />AKA a protection racket. AKA, the last thing the world needs.<br />LOL, good one, comrade. Have vodka on us!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-12830354113770519862022-03-12T20:08:02.438-05:002022-03-12T20:08:02.438-05:00@pithom
Goodness, you live in a rather special ve...@pithom<br /><br />Goodness, you live in a rather special version of reality, huh?<br /><br />There's no point is talking to people who insist that black is white and up is down, so good day to you.G. Verlorennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-21674485392556302052022-03-12T19:15:55.515-05:002022-03-12T19:15:55.515-05:00"Appeasement ~does not~ work. It has never wo..."Appeasement ~does not~ work. It has never worked, and it never will."<br /><br />Exactly. And that is why Putin invaded. If there is anything he has learned over the past two decades, it is that appeasing the West carries no good outcomes for Russia, and many bad ones.<br /><br />"NATO is a mutual defense agreement."<br /><br />AKA a protection racket. AKA, the last thing the world needs.<br /><br />"it is perhaps the most up-front admission possible that Putin is an insane warmonger who wants to murderously invade and conquer all his neighbors"<br /><br />Mongolia, China, North Korea, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Finland, Japan, the United States, Azerbaijan, etc.pithomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13997094225496018110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-72950557909610264452022-03-12T15:59:33.588-05:002022-03-12T15:59:33.588-05:00Every time I hear people seriously ascribe the pro...Every time I hear people seriously ascribe the problem to "the expansion of NATO", I am flabbergasted. I can understand it existing as one of Putin's talking points, a fundamentally illogical but convenient excuse to justify his own actions - but I am amazed that other people respond to it as if it is in any way legitimate.<br /><br />NATO is a <i>mutual defense agreement</i>. The fact that Putin feels threatened by people agreeing to come to each other's aid if they are attacked is laughable - it is perhaps the most up-front admission possible that Putin is an insane warmonger who wants to murderously invade and conquer all his neighbors, and that he resents the world not just sitting back and letting him do so.<br /><br />Putin decrying the expansion of NATO is like a serial killing decrying the expansion of community policing into unpoliced territories - the people who are banding together to prevent themselves being killed off one by one are not the problem!<br /><br />I seriously cannot fathom how anyone can entertain the idea that Russia is "just lashing out from fear" or similar. But it's a clear historical trend that some people will always do exactly that in the modern world - the number of people who historically tripped over themselves to argue that the Third Reich was only so belligerent because they were fearful and felt rejected by the world is obscene.<br /><br />Appeasement <i>~does not~</i> work. It has never worked, and it never will. And it is utter lunacy to look at someone who has clearly demonstrated themselves to be a selfish victimizer, and then turn around and defend them as simply being a victim.G. Verlorennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-86639250614573194772022-03-12T11:59:31.056-05:002022-03-12T11:59:31.056-05:00@Shadow
I think the question is, can one say that...@Shadow<br /><br />I think the question is, can one say that China, Russia, and the US are different, without making this a moral argument? Mearsheimer would say they are alike (but signally without the moral judgment you're bringing to the argument). Kotkin would say the three are different culturally, and hence psychologically.<br /><br />Perhaps another way of looking at it is that Mearsheimer shows some signs of advocating, in a world with three great powers, that the US lean toward Russia. Perhaps Kotkin thinks China is a safer way for us to lean, because of their cultural differences. Certainly the least smart thing would be for us to bring them closer together by antagonizing both (which is what we've been doing for a while now). The one option the US doesn't have is moral spotlessness, partly because it's too late, as you say. I think Kotkin would probably agree on the last point.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14456987412710878404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-532997805004284232022-03-12T11:21:41.075-05:002022-03-12T11:21:41.075-05:00Is he accusing Russia of being too much of a bully...Is he accusing Russia of being too much of a bully or of not being a good enough one?<br /><br />This sounds imaginatively pat, perfect for the moment, for those predisposed to thinking something is terribly different and wrong with Russia (rather than with Putin). How was the Monroe doctrine different from Russian projection of power? The U.S. does not annex countries, but it certainly bullies some, and tries to rebuild others, into its image. (And it's not very good at it. Just like Russia isn't. And it doesn't stop either of them.) But isn't this true of almost every large country?<br /><br />It's almost like there's an unwritten rule that countries with the largest land masses and biggest populations will exert influence and power over those countries around it. Next up, China. Look at how China, now with its huge economy and modern military, has started bullying those around it, with Xi in charge. Is it really that different?Shadowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05353532874773316117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8304928500646903522.post-15269633365548949602022-03-12T10:36:17.272-05:002022-03-12T10:36:17.272-05:00I like your image of people debating around counci...I like your image of people debating around council fires about how to relate to the tribe in the next valley. I agree this debate has probably being going on since those days. Are players essentially interchangeable, or is part of realism also assessing the particular culture/psychology of each player? (Incidentally, I would say this is *not* really a realism vs. idealism debate; it's a debate between two kinds of realism.)<br /><br />I would lean to the Kotkin side, but I'm skeptical of his lumping Russia, Iran, and China together. Iran isn't in the running as a great power, and in terms of psychology/culture I think its most important interlocutors are other Muslims, not the West. And I think China *may* be different from Russia. Russia seems to always operate from a kind of wounded, resentful position. I'm not sure China is quite as wounded and angry. Mao was, but the current leadership doesn't seem to be too much like him (and I get the impression that part of his paranoia and resentment was that there always seemed to be a faction of Chinese leadership that didn't share his paranoia and resentment, and he hated it that they seemed to be his inevitable-eventual heirs once he was gone).<br /><br />Lately we do hear voices out of China, both in the government (the "wolf-warriors") and online, who are much more angry. I simply have no idea how profoundly they represent China as a whole. They may simply be a tool for Xi, or they may represent a deeply- and widely-held feeling. (And yes, there are some historical grounds for such resentment; but that's not the same as that *actually* being a major, war-risking component of Chinese culture.)Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14456987412710878404noreply@blogger.com