↪ssu
I don't think there's anything essentially wrong with Mearsheimer's analysis as it paints the one-sided viewpoint of Russia, which is a view we have to contend with - either as actual arguments, motivator or even as an excuse. It's accurate insofar it reflects Russian arguments and thinking and you can think about it what you want but it has been raised repeatedly as a reason. — Benkei

It would be more interesting to assess Mearsheimer’s analysis wrt his real politik theory than wrt Russia’s arguments for two reasons: 1. Mearsheimer’s analysis wouldn’t contribute much into understanding the conflict in Ukraine if it limited itself to report Russia’s arguments, we can access them way more easily than Russians can access Western arguments 2. It is very much possible that Mearsheimer is picking only the Russian arguments that better support his claims ignoring, omitting, downplaying others which do not add up with his general views, in other words his theory may bias his views . DO YOU AGREE? IF NOT, WHY NOT?

Objectively, there definitely is an argument to be made from a Russian security perspective that having a large military alliance on your doorstep has clear ramifications with respect to their military capabilities vis-a-vis your own country. The argument NATO is purely defensive is merely theoretical as Kosovo and Libya have shown but even the treaty changes with respect to, for instance, space warfare. It's not merely benign. But even granting what is defensive today, we do not know what it is tomorrow. So this worry of Russia, from a real politik perspective is entirely logical. — Benkei

IF that argument can be made FOR RUSSIA, THEN the EXACT same argument can be made AGAINST RUSSIA and its military alliance (CSTO) by NATO countries. And if Kosovo is a case against NATO, Russia’s interventions in Chechnya, Georgia, Moldava and Ukraine are a case against Russia.
The difference is that you and Mearsheimer are supposedly Westerners not Russians. And while I do not find surprising that Russians promote Russian views on national security , I find rather baffling that Westerners promote Russian views on Russian national security, instead of promoting Western views on Western national security.

Some of the responses to Harris' video reflect a moral view of international relations, which simply doesn't mean much in a world where international relations are preponderantly governed by real politk considerations. — Benkei

The issue I’m having with such claims is that even moral views require POWER if moral rules are expected to be collectively ENFORCED through powerful means, ideally DISPROPORTIONATELY more powerful than those means available to people who oppose/violate such moral rules. DO YOU AGREE? IF NOT, WHY NOT?

That has nothing to do with ignoring agency of Eastern European countries, which is a moral cliam they should have freedom to chose, but simply that stark political realities say otherwise. — Benkei

When I accuse pro-Russian supporters of ignoring agency I’m referring to the fact that they put ALL/MOST/PRIMARY/ULTIMATE responsibility on the US for anything that happens on the ground:
1. Euromaidan (coup d’etat) => blame the Great Satan of course
2. Zelensky president => blame the Great Satan of course
3. The War in Ukraine => blame the Great Satan of course
4. Nord Stream blown up => blame the Great Satan of course
5. Peace talks interrupted => blame the Great Satan of course
6. Israel devastating Palestine => blame the Great Satan of course
7. The EU incapable of being of any relevance in the international arena => blame the Great Satan of course
8. The Middle East is a mess => blame the Great Satan of course
9. North Africa is a mess => blame the Great Satan of course
Etc. etc.

The problem with the moral argument is also that it only works if you adhere to moral principles yourself; otherwise it's just another real politik tool "Do as I say (but don't do as I do)”. And while I agree Eastern European countries have the moral high ground; they are simply not the most relevant players between the proxy wars. There's no fundamental difference between the regional influence the US has (tried to) build through wars in various regions. The Russians simply are more ruthless. And it works - the EU is afraid to escalate - and opinions differ on how justified that fear is. — "Benkei

I find your first claim sloppy and the second shallow.
If I myself was very very very bad at keeping promises and yet I made the following moral argument: “violating promises is immoral and the US has violated the promise made to the Russians that they would NOT expand NATO eastward, after the reunification of Germany, therefore the US acted immorally by expanding NATO eastward”, this argument would be roughly sound and valid (if the premises are held to be true). In that sense the moral argument “works” INDEPENDENTLY from the moral qualities of myself making the argument. Maybe what you wanted to say is that people’s moral authority doesn’t come from the soundness/validity of the moral arguments they make, but by their proven moral dispositions. But then my question to you is: why do we need moral authority? What is the relation between moral authority and political authority?
Concerning real politik, what people often do not realise is that moral rules are not inherently dictated by the laws of physics, so powerful agents may be needed to enforce them over a collectivity. Besides powerful agents can not enforce moral rules beyond their reach (power has limits) nor can abide by moral rules if that would empower competitors who oppose/violate such moral rules, this would go against the goal of being moral rules enforcers.
This is true also for powerful agents in the geopolitical arena. And the weight of the infamous “Western hypocrisy” or “exporting democracy” to me is more grounded on a misunderstanding of the role or purpose of Western propaganda by the Westerners themselves.

This is a wildly inaccurate statement. — boethius

Political power, be it democratic or autocratic, is dependent on domestic political support, be that needed support of the voters or the security apparatus. Foreign policy is to serve those goals, just like defense policy or energy police etc.

for example that US foreign policy remains extremely consistent throughout wildly different administrations. — boethius

So does every policy in the US that enjoys the support of both political parties. For example, just where the US spends it's government income has been extremely stable without not much differences between administrations: wealth transfers (welfare and pensions), health care, defense and education (and then the interest on debt). In fact, there isn't anything for politicians to decide as the usually these spending has been announced to be mandatory. What has approval of both parties, doesn't create much debate, as foreign policy does, especially when it's usually the last refuge that US Presidents then try to mingle after their domestic campaign promises have withered away.

This is such a strange line of argument to assert that what people explicitly say, such as "Ukraine will join NATO" — boethius

Just look at the Charter of NATO itself: every country has to be ratified by each member state. For example Hungary has said that it doesn't want Ukraine in NATO. And prior the invasion, member states like Germany opposed this. This is why NATO has often irritates American Presidents as the organization won't go the way as they plan. The really ignorant and naive idea is that the US can push anything through NATO. It cannot. It couldn't do that either in CENTO and SEATO, as these are organizations made up of member states.

Yes, the members can say that Ukraine will be in the future a NATO member, just as the European Union can say that the door is open for Turkey to join the EU.

and there is a bunch of proximate causes, such as there already being a war in the Donbas regularly killing ethnic Russians that ethnic Russians in Russia want and expect something to be done about it. — boethius

This was a war started by the Russian Intelligence services with and controlled by the Kremlin. Even the annexation of Crimea, which The real goal for Russia is to get Ukraine back into Russia as it sees the country as a natural part of Russia, Novorossiya. And with Ukraine it has the what it considers much needed resources. The main objectives are pure imperialism, because Russia is an empire.

But isn't the whole argument that the war is irrational for Russia premised on Russia being weak and the war therefore too damaging? — boethius

Just ask yourself, what if Russia wouldn't have annexed Crimea, which doesn't bring enormous riches to Russia, but more problematic backward economy. If it hadn't done this, the European countries would have continued to dismantle their defenses, Russia would enjoy large support in Ukraine (and hence have a say) and Ukrainian NATO membership would be one silly thing that some US presidents would have said. Ukraine would seem quite dubious candidate with it's frequent revolutions etc.

Just look at what happened in Central Asia. After 9/11, American had several military bases all around Central Asia, even with Tajikistan holding both an American and a Russian military base. Now...NOTHING. Russia had just to wait for the neocon dream to implode, which it did. Now Russia has a firm grasp on the area, even with countries needing Russia help to put down their demonstrations... without invading anybody.

in defending the idea that NATO in Ukraine is not a threat to Russia your methodology is that nothing anyone explicitly says matter, but then when it comes to Russia threatening Europe you beseech us to take every little word as seriously as possible and also "know what they mean" even if they didn't say anything. — boethius

Russia has nuclear deterrence. Without that nuclear deterrence, it's likely that NATO would have created a "no fly zone" over Ukraine and been one actor in the war, just like it was for example in the Libyan Civil War.

And isn't then also the European Union is also a "threat to Russia"? As we can see from Ukraine and where the revolution of dignity started and now are seeing in Georgia, where the Georgian dream as backtracked it's election promises.

But isn't the whole argument that the war is irrational for Russia premised on Russia being weak and the war therefore too damaging? How does that square with symultaniously presenting Russia as this unstoppable force that would roll over all of Eastern Europe, and maybe even Western Europe, if not for NATO and also stopping this unstoppable Russian army with the unmovable might of NATO in Ukraine? — boethius

I'm really confused what you are aiming here for. First, NATO is a security arrangement for Europe and an obvious issue is actually Article 1, that it keeps member states in not having conflicts themselves. NATO membership has at least for now made Turkey and Greece to avoid a war. Then NATO was wholeheartedly seeking for a mission and thus concentrated on "new threats", but Russia's actions has made it to focus in it's original mission, which in the 1990's and 2000's was a relic of the past for many.

For, you will not actually find any of this threatening language before NATO escalated with Russia in pushing into Ukraine ... — boethius

That simply is a lie.

Just against my country, Russia made threats far before this, basically starting from the 1990's, first by Russian generals and Russian politicians. First hybrid attacks of sending migrants of the border into Finland and Norway happened in 2015-2016. The real breach already happened during the Kosovo war. There Russian forces faced British NATO forces and the rhetoric from Yeltsin was already very aggressive. That was before Putin. And of course there's the famous Putin at Munich in 2007 well before the Russo-Georgian war.

2. It is very much possible that Mearsheimer is picking only the Russian arguments that better support its claims ignoring, omitting, downplaying others which do not add up with his general views, in other words its theory may bias his views . — neomac

Actually, he has stated himself that he only looks at the issue from his own theoretical perspective, which doesn't take into account Russian domestic politics. Hence such things that Russia has annexed Ukrainian territory and Putin has repeatedly made it clear what an integral part Ukraine itself is of Russia is not relevant for Mearsheimer. Which makes it so biased.

And the rest of your comments, spot on! :100: :up:

We should really compare the CSTO to NATO. And CSTO seems really to operate quite in a similar fashion like the Warsaw Pact did. Did Russia come to the aid of Armenia when Azerbaijan attacked it? Of course not, Armenia had made openings towards the West, why would it have? Yet if a country like Kazakhstan has internal protests, does Russia help it. Certainly, root out the "color revolutions" where ever they emerge! CSTO, just like the Warsaw Pact, is a tool for Russian control. NATO on the other seems like a huge pain in the ass with it's "free riders" for the US. I've not yet heard of NATO countries invading a member state to put down internal strife. This of course would go against NATO's article 1.

Why oppose having morality in international relations? Aren't there morals that we all should adhere to? Or is everything just realpolitik, shit just happens? Well, what Israel is doing in Gaza is realpolitik too, so why do you anything to complain about that? Or is it that we pick what is realpolitik and what is morally wrong just because of our own likings? I think that's close to the argument that BitconnectCarlos hurls at others on a constant basis. — ssu

I don't consider the Gaza war to be Israel engaging in realpolitik. Any other country would respond similarly. It is deeply personal to many Israelis and likely even for Netanyahu given his vivid language unless you think that's entirely performative.

Anyway, it's fine to condemn countries for their foreign policy. But when someone describes the deliberate murder of that country's civilians as "resistance" and makes absurd demands of a country (like ceding a huge chunk of its territory to an enemy) I see the accuser as a nasty sort of bigot making outlandish demands.

I don't consider the Gaza war to be Israel engaging in realpolitik. — BitconnectCarlos

So you consider the Gaza war to be more an ideological and moral fight than a practical undertaking, like taking out a threat. :chin:

Well, many of those that criticize Israel agree with you as they see ultra-nationalism and religious extremism behind the objectives of the war, which the Hamas terrorist attack has given an opportunity to carry out.

So you consider the Gaza war to be more an ideological and moral fight than a practical undertaking, like taking out a threat. :chin:

Well, many of those that criticize Israel agree with you as they see ultra-nationalism and religious extremism behind the objectives of the war, which the Hamas terrorist attack has given an opportunity to carry out. — ssu

It's not ultra-nationalism. It's not religious extremism. When ~6000 armed monsters breach your border and murder, rape, and torture your civilians (including children) it's simply human to set out to destroy the perpetrator. Israel's hand is forced in this.

There's certainly religious and ideological forces at work in the making of the conflict, but the fact that Israel must respond and destroy the perpetrator -- that's just human. I suspect if Russia were the victim the response would be much harsher.

Perhaps e.g. the Jains wouldn't respond violently given their religion, but I don't think such a philosophy would survive in the near east.

Then it's realpolitik. Learn the definitions of the terms you use.

Realpolitik: — BitconnectCarlos

A system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations.

Like it's simply human to set out to destroy the perpetrator isn't actually what we call humane, but an emotional response. Yet the real question here is just what you after you have destroyed Hamas, the famous "Then what" question. Just to repeat the same line isn't an answer, it's simply a denial to answer the question.

Because now, it is people like former Israeli defense minister, making the obvious question and commentary:

A former Israeli defense minister has accused his country of committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip, in a rare criticism from Israel’s own security community about military operations in the Palestinian enclave.

Moshe Yaalon said the Israeli government was putting the lives of Israel Defense Forces soldiers in danger and exposing them to lawsuits at the International Criminal Court, in an interview with the Reshet Bet radio station Sunday.

“I speak on behalf of commanders who serve in northern Gaza,” he said. “War crimes are being committed here.”

In a separate interview with Democrat TV on Saturday, he said that the Israeli government was seeking “to conquer, to annex, to carry out ethnic cleansing.”

Hard-liners want to re-establish Jewish settlements in Gaza, he said, including in northern areas where civilians have been urged to leave indefinitely as the Israeli military prepares to move against Hamas fighters who have regrouped.

“What is going on there? There is no Beit Lahiya, no Beit Hanoun, they are operating now in Jabalia and basically cleaning the area of Arabs,” Yaalon said.

But you can continue just to repeat the line of the horrible attack October 7th 2023 and say that Hamas has to be destroyed and disregard criticism just like Yaalon gave here (as if he would be opposing the action against Hamas).

That is simply blind support of every move that the current administration makes.

(And btw @BitconnectCarlos, this ought to be in the Israel thread, not the Ukraine thread)

Like it's simply human to set out to destroy the perpetrator isn't actually what we call humane, but an emotional response. Yet the real question here is just what you after you have destroyed Hamas, the famous "Then what" question. Just to repeat the same line isn't an answer, it's simply a denial to answer the question. — ssu

Then call it justice. If an armed band of foreigner insurgents breach your border and murder even a handful, is a military response an emotional reaction? I wouldn't say so. It's expected unless the victim is committed to pacifism. And then there are the people who were stolen.

Regarding afterwards: We don't not go to war because of post-war uncertainty. Defeat Hamas and go from there.

But you can continue just to repeat the line of the horrible attack October 7th 2023 and say that Hamas has to be destroyed and disregard criticism just like Yaalon gave here (as if he would be opposing the action against Hamas).

That is simply blind support of every move that the current administration makes.

I don't disregard it. We should absolutely protect IDF soldiers. If there are war crimes being committed those responsible ought to be brought to justice. Israel still must win. If there are war crimes trials then do them after the war is won. Israel will likely have a presence in Gaza after the war, but that is not unprecedented nor is it a war crime. Neither is population displacement a war crime but is rather a natural result of warfare itself.

(And btw BitconnectCarlos, this ought to be in the Israel thread, not the Ukraine thread) — ssu

Someone can move it.

This says everything about you:

Neither is population displacement a war crime but is rather a natural result of warfare itself. — BitconnectCarlos

What Geneva conventions say about warcrimes:

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

and also:

the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits the transfer of the population of an occupying power into the territory it occupies.

But for you warcrimes aren't actually those warcrimes defined in the Geneva conventions, which 196 countries are party to, including Israel and Russia. For you it's a rhetorical term like everything else, it seems.

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Yes, forcible transfers are a crime. Yet if a place is about to be bombed people will typically leave. Israel will typically inform the population. Population transfer occurs naturally in wartime as people flee to safety. If Israel were to e.g. forcibly load them onto trucks or trains and send them somewhere that would be a war crime. But yes, Israel will assist in evacuation efforts if an area is about to be subject to bombardment -- that's humanitarian. That would be making an effort to protect civilian lives.

Did we commit war crimes in World War 2?

Who we? And you do know that the Geneva Conventions we refer to the agreements of 1949, the current legislation, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War.

The first convention was done in 1864, then in 1906 and later in 1929 before the current agreement. Hence the idea of legislation that has effect on both sides in war is quite new.

(The last war where both sides followed the Geneva conventions was actually the Falklands war. So that's how effective the legislation of war is.)

Yet if a place is about to be bombed people will typically leave. Israel will typically inform the population. — BitconnectCarlos

Up to a point, when they don't anymore.

Population transfer occurs naturally in wartime as people flee to safety. If Israel were to e.g. forcibly load them onto trucks or trains and send them somewhere that would be a war crime. But yes, Israel will assist in evacuation efforts if an area is about to be subject to bombardment -- that's humanitarian. — BitconnectCarlos

So what is your view then about Israel simply declaring every living person being a terrorist or their supporters and a valid target after a certain time? There is still 400 000 people in Northern Gaza.

(23rd Oct.2023) The Israeli army declared Saturday that anyone choosing to stay in the northern Gaza Strip and not go to the south under a previous evacuation order will be considered a partner of "terrorists.” The Israeli aircraft dropped "urgent warning" flyers into the besieged enclave, urging Palestinians in northern Gaza to move south.

"To the residents of the Gaza Strip," the Israeli army wrote. "Being in the north of the Gaza Valley puts your lives in danger," it said, adding that "anyone who does not go to the south of the Gaza Valley and chooses not to stay in the northern area" will be considered "as an associate of the terrorist organization."

Israeli army spokesperson Avichay Adraee confirmed that the statements written on the flyers belonged to the Israeli army. Earlier on Saturday, the Israeli military ordered the immediate evacuation of the Al-Quds Hospital, "in preparation for bombing."

Twenty hospitals in northern Gaza were also ordered to evacuate on Saturday.

I understand the urge for you to defend the Jewish nation, but the simple fact that it has now truly turned and ugly page in it's history.

But as this is the Ukraine thread, that ugly page has been turned already by Russia. That has had an effect even on Finns too: in exercises medical reservists opt not to wear the red cross in their arms anymore and any tents or ambulances having that red cross is not preferred. Russia has been targeting these crucial people in Ukraine deliberately.

We = the Allies. Israel's crime then is not following the 1949 conventions that nobody else follows either, except for the Falklands?

Except UK and Argentina on remote islands on the South Atlantic where there likely is more sheep than people. But yes, we have gone back very much from the times of 19th Century in many ways.

And when it came to WW2, people like "Bomber" Harris well knew that he would be facing war crimes tribunal if the allies lost.

I would draw the line at when commanders order warcrimes to be done, when it's the planned strategy, not when at the heat of the battle a soldier kills an enemy soldier that is wounded or would surrender. Far too often I hear these arguments "we weren't innocent either" and just framing the argument of both sideism. Yet there is a huge difference on just how armed forces behave, or if they even are willing to think about war crimes, human rights. Just look at the huge difference in civilian casualties when Soviet Union fought the few years in Afghanistan and how few compared to that were killed in the longest war the US has ever fought. In the 21 year war roughly 70 000 Afghan civilians were killed. In the Soviet war about 1 to 2 million civilians died in the nine years of fighting and 5 million were made refugees outside Afghanistan. 70 000 to two million is a big difference.

And this continues even to this day. The massacres in Bucha in 2022 are quite similar to the scenes in the first and second Chechen wars. The fact was that Ukraine rapidly took over the areas and could see the evidence of war crimes.

Bucha 2022:


Chechnya 2000, during the first war:

More than a quarter of the Chechen population was killed, including 40,000 children who were maimed or injured. Every single family, aside from the collaborators, was devastated. Torture and repressions continue to this day. Under the leadership of Ramzan Kadyrov, Putin’s sycophant and head of the Russian occupying regime, torture, and repression continue to this day.

Checnya makes it clear why you have to oppose Russia, why for Ukraine it's not an option to give up and live under Putin's control.

And when it came to WW2, people like "Bomber" Harris well knew that he would be facing war crimes tribunal if the allies lost. — ssu

If the Axis had won, Churchill and Roosevelt would have been hanged for war crimes, so what the Axis would have done to Allied leaders is neither here nor there.

Did Harris go overboard? Maybe. I like this quote from him, though:

"The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody else and nobody was going to bomb them.

At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put that rather naive theory into operation.

They sowed the wind and now they are going to reap the whirlwind."

He's absolutely right. War is not fought by Queensbury rules. If your opponent is gleefully committing war crimes, like raping women to death, they're going to reap the whirlwind.

I hope the operation goes as humanely as possible. Nor am I under any delusions when it comes to what Israel/Jews are capable of. The Irgun were terrifying. Jews are just as capable of terror as anyone else.

Here's the thing though- Just as the Russians could kill and rape their way to Berlin and remain the "good guys", so the IDF can engage in questionable practices (clearly far more civil than the Russians) and still remain the "good guys." It's one of those funny things about war. We could imagine e.g. a Red Army battalion where every one of its soldiers had engaged in war crimes and deserves a hanging at Nuremberg, yet as long as they are pushing towards Berlin and wearing that uniform they are "good."

Back to the N Gaza operation; obviously those who stay in Gaza should be handled carefully. Fighting-age males are especially suspect. We'll see how it goes. I have no problem putting IDF soldiers on trial in Israel if necessary.

BTW I'm sure you've come across this study which found that the Gaza death count has been exaggerated to vilify Israel.

If the Axis had won, Churchill and Roosevelt would have been hanged for war crimes, so what the Axis would have done to Allied leaders is neither here nor there. — RogueAI

Likely the time that the UK came to the nearest to peace terms with Germany would have meant that Churchill wouldn't have become prime minister. By the way, Edouard Daladier and Paul Reynard, the politicians that lead France against Germany were prisoned, but not hanged. Both survived German prison camps and could later oppose later de Gaulle in French politics. Hence it's not so certain that this would have happened. Yet Soviet Union did put Finnish leadership on trial, but even they were not hanged.

If your opponent is gleefully committing war crimes, like raping women to death, they're going to reap the whirlwind. — RogueAI

Or hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings. Yes, 19 terrorists whom none were from Afghanistan lead the US to have it's longest war that it in the end humiliatingly lost. This is result of when war isn't politics by other means or with a goal, but an emotional response needed to serve the craving for revenge by the masses. And this emotional response is abused so well at the present. Even Putin had his obscure Moscow neighborhood bombings to ramp up support for restarting a war.

Yet the western allies and especially the US put aside these emotional responses after Germany and Japan surrendered. And the US won the peace.

I'll reply on the other thread on this, as this is more about Israel than Ukraine.

Political power, be it democratic or autocratic, is dependent on domestic political support, be that needed support of the voters or the security apparatus. Foreign policy is to serve those goals, just like defense policy or energy police etc. — ssu

Well you seem to have just disproven your own point then since if Russia foreign policy depends on domestic political support, which you claim the Russian state doesn't have, then obviously the foreign policy of waging war in Ukraine would have collapsed by now due to depending on domestic political support which is insufficient to support the policy.

Russia is continuing to wage war in Ukraine so therefore has sufficient domestic political support to continue to do so. Case closed.

As for Mearsheimer's basic foundational point, the current international system, parties, in particular the great powers can't trust each other, which breeds paranoia, and so seek to maximize their power to ensure their survival.

Not that the small powers can trust each other or then the great powers, just that their only option is usually to cut a deal with a great power (or more) to be of some functional utility ("ally" / vassal, buffer, military base substrate, source of raw materials, or what have you) in great power politics.

In this framework, Mearsheimer answer to your rebuttal is that the states people of the great power will both argue and more importantly actually act on the premise that state security dominates all other "domestic political concerns" in that there is no domestic politics at all if the state is destroyed.

The situation is NATO is threatening Russia (literally writing documents hundreds of pages long detailing how to impose costs on Russia to both weaken Russia and coerce Russian foreign policy positions) and therefore it is rational for Russian state decision makers to react to those threats. The political structure is setup in Russia, as in the United States, so that state decision makers can react to threats without bothering much with the opinion of normal people anyways.

Now, also importantly, Mearsheimer is not saying that state decision makers, in this tense and paranoid sauce they find themselves in, make therefore optimal decisions, but rather the exact opposite that miscalculations occur all the time (precisely because things are so tense and paranoid). Likewise importantly, these global in scale hegemonic power struggles are a zero-sum game and therefore miscalculations are exploited by opposing powers.

So does every policy in the US that enjoys the support of both political parties. For example, just where the US spends it's government income has been extremely stable without not much differences between administrations: wealth transfers (welfare and pensions), health care, defense and education (and then the interest on debt). In fact, there isn't anything for politicians to decide as the usually these spending has been announced to be mandatory. What has approval of both parties, doesn't create much debate, as foreign policy does, especially when it's usually the last refuge that US Presidents then try to mingle after their domestic campaign promises have withered away. — ssu

You go from claiming that foreign policy (even in autocratic regimes) depends on domestic political support (so democracy is superfluous anyways as all state policies by definition require domestic political support) to seamlessly transitioning to claiming both major political parties in the US essentially by definition represent accurately the US population ... and not special interests or anything like that.

"What has approval of both parties" ... "doesn't create much debate"

... So you're saying the US health care policy hasn't created much debate?

But foreign policy (... which my understanding is we both agree is nearly 100% consistent throughout all recent US administrations; presumably how we know they have genuine support from the general population) does create debate?

Just look at the Charter of NATO itself: every country has to be ratified by each member state. For example Hungary has said that it doesn't want Ukraine in NATO. And prior the invasion, member states like Germany opposed this. This is why NATO has often irritates American Presidents as the organization won't go the way as they plan. The really ignorant and naive idea is that the US can push anything through NATO. It cannot. It couldn't do that either in CENTO and SEATO, as these are organizations made up of member states.

Yes, the members can say that Ukraine will be in the future a NATO member, just as the European Union can say that the door is open for Turkey to join the EU. — ssu

I don't have the time to fully unpack how absurd this line of reasoning is, but to make short of it: when you make statements like "Hungary has said" that's something that is only true for now, if it's true at all (i.e. if Hungary really could oppose the will of the US even now). So, even if what you said was true right now, obviously it could be the opposite tomorrow with a change in leadership in Hungary, of which the US is pretty experienced in bringing about (why this whole war started in the first place).

The idea that Russia is irrational for basing their foreign policy on the mighty Hungarian position in NATO, is just laughably absurd.

Just ask yourself, what if Russia wouldn't have annexed Crimea, which doesn't bring enormous riches to Russia, but more problematic backward economy. If it hadn't done this, the European countries would have continued to dismantle their defenses, Russia would enjoy large support in Ukraine (and hence have a say) and Ukrainian NATO membership would be one silly thing that some US presidents would have said. Ukraine would seem quite dubious candidate with it's frequent revolutions etc. — ssu

The annexation of Crimea was in response to a literal coup in Ukraine orchestrated by the CIA with Victoria Nulled literally handing out coup-victory cookies in the Maidan square.

The CIA had already built 12 forward operating bases that we find out about later (but certainly Russia would have already had at least some intelligence about).

You're whole argument is basically "don't worry, the most powerful nation on earth can't accomplish it's explicitly stated objectives, can't do shit about a single tiny country in it's main alliance disagreeing, can make a coup happen but couldn't substantially follow through on that coup to do anything; and therefore, due to these mostly paperwork issues, Russia is just totally overreacting to billions of dollars of financing to anti-Russian parties, including literal Nazis; it was all basically 'fun money' and didn't threaten a single Russian fly".

Just look at what happened in Central Asia. After 9/11, American had several military bases all around Central Asia, even with Tajikistan holding both an American and a Russian military base. Now...NOTHING. Russia had just to wait for the neocon dream to implode, which it did. Now Russia has a firm grasp on the area, even with countries needing Russia help to put down their demonstrations... without invading anybody. — ssu

Really? Russia has a firm grasp on the area?

That obviously false statement aside, the difference between events in Ukraine and Iraq and Afghanistan, is that both Iraq and Afghanistan were US client regimes. The US made Saddam Hussein and also the Taliban (to fight Russians).

The US was not actually attacking any Russian interest, and in fact Russia helped with both logistics and intelligence in those wars as both a gesture of good will towards the Americans but also since they don't like Islamic terrorism either (which, to be clear, I have seen zero actual credible proof 9/11 was orchestrated or abetted by anyone actually in Iraq or Afghanistan, and even less so anyone in the Iraqi or Afghani state; and the US investigation into 9/11 is filled with wholes, contradictions and insane claims like the source of finance is irrelevant to the investigation of the crime).

However, for our purposes here, what's important is that the US response to 9/11 did not harm Russian interests, so your whole premise makes zero sense in that the US was somehow acting against Russia in Iraq and Afghanistan to begin with.

Where things started to change is in Libya where Russia approved the no-fly zone as Russian interest were not threatened, but interpreted "no fly zone" as to mean "you cannot fly aircraft in the zone without the UN Security Council permission" and not "everything that could potentially help something to fly, which is literally anyone and any object whatsoever, can therefore be bombed" which is how NATO interpreted "no fly zone". Where Russia had issue is that was just a retarded use of language and bombing a country into a failed state (that now has literal slave markets) doesn't benefit anyone, including Russia, and obviously radically increases the power of international Islamic terrorism by creating an essentially Islamic Mad Max scenario.

But, again, to differentiate with Ukraine, NATO was not directly harming Russian interests, which is why Russia supported the no-fly-zone (which had it been an actual no-fly-zone in the common sense understanding of "what do words mean" then that would have helped some reasonable negotiated political process).

Where Russia actually intervened to directly oppose US intelligence activity, is in Syria, and the reason being Syria does represent Russian interest.

You're argument here is basically because Russia didn't need to intervene to stop the US from essentially cannibalizing it's own vassals to have a "as long as we can war", then it doesn't need intervene when it's own interests are directly attacked.

That's just foolish.

Russia has nuclear deterrence. Without that nuclear deterrence, it's likely that NATO would have created a "no fly zone" over Ukraine and been one actor in the war, just like it was for example in the Libyan Civil War. — ssu

As I've stated many times, without nuclear weapons, we would already be in World War III, and if we were discussing geopolitics at all it would only be because we happened to be in the same trench.

Since there is nuclear weapons, the great powers can't simply launch all-in warfare against each other, and instead we are in a process of America attempting to maximize its coercive power just short of triggering a nuclear war (or then full scale nuclear war; likely they are trying to ease the world into normalizing limited use of nuclear weapons).

Is Russia counter strategy optimal?

Well obviously not optimal as nothing is, but it is a rational response of basically a good defence is a good offence.

The situation for Russia is that it simply doesn't know what the CIA could eventually cook-up in Ukraine (especially with things like AI coming online) so best resolve the tension while things are still somewhat predictable (including decouple from the West technologically speaking).

Of course you can make counter-factuals that what the CIA was doing in Ukraine would have amounted to a nothing burger had left to continue.

You can also for sure add Russian imperial ambition that many Russians, and certainly Russian elites, very much would like Crimea back, as there was not really a good reason for the Soviet Union to "gift it" to Ukraine in the first place.

And isn't then also the European Union is also a "threat to Russia"? As we can see from Ukraine and where the revolution of dignity started and now are seeing in Georgia, where the Georgian dream as backtracked it's election promises. — ssu

Obviously the European Union is also a threat to Russia, it's just superfluous to mention as all the key militaries are also a part of NATO.

I'm really confused what you are aiming here for. First, NATO is a security arrangement for Europe and an obvious issue is actually Article 1, that it keeps member states in not having conflicts themselves. NATO membership has at least for now made Turkey and Greece to avoid a war. Then NATO was wholeheartedly seeking for a mission and thus concentrated on "new threats", but Russia's actions has made it to focus in it's original mission, which in the 1990's and 2000's was a relic of the past for many. — ssu

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with the point you're responding to, but to clarify what NATO says on paper doesn't matter much to counter-parties.

NATO has embarked on plenty of offensive actions in which no NATO country was under attack and in addition to that there's a little something called a false flag that solves the problem of launching an offensive action under a defensive requirement.

You speak as if Russian generals should just print out NATO's charter and go through that when they sit down to evaluate their own force posture ... rather than print out maps of military assets.

Obviously nowhere do generals base their recommendations on what opposing forces have written about their own intentions publicly ... well it happened once (maybe) and it was called the Trojan Horse and, notably, only needed to happen exactly once (and even then it maybe didn't actually happen) for the entire world to learn the lesson of not blindly trusting the word of opposing parties that may wish you harm.

It's just amazing that you expect people which the US literally categorizes as enemies (usually with a bunch of euphemisms like "rival" and the like, though also sometimes just outright say that Russia is an enemy that needs to be defeated), should take the US and NATO at it's word (with the odd exception of when the US and NATO are directly threatening them, in which case they should be assumed to be bluffing or impotent to cary out those direct threats), when not a single chance you'd just take Russia, or Iran, or Hezbollah, or anyone you had issue with at their word about their own intentions.

Not sure you're aware of this, but Sadam Husseine and the Taliban both gave their word they weren't helping islamic terrorists strike the US, on 9/11 or otherwise (and turns out they were actually right about that), and yet I'm pretty sure you don't view the US actions as irrational due to the word of Sadam Husseine and the Taliban.

That simply is a lie.

Just against my country, Russia made threats far before this, basically starting from the 1990's, first by Russian generals and Russian politicians. First hybrid attacks of sending migrants of the border into Finland and Norway happened in 2015-2016. The real breach already happened during the Kosovo war. There Russian forces faced British NATO forces and the rhetoric from Yeltsin was already very aggressive. That was before Putin. And of course there's the famous Putin at Munich in 2007 well before the Russo-Georgian war. — ssu

Well feel free to produce this evidence.

Mearsheimer makes the challenge essentially every time he speaks on the subject for people to present any evidence that Russia was threatening Ukraine, Georgia, much less NATO, and expressed any intention whatsoever to expand into Ukraine, Georgia, or then Finland in your example, prior to 2008 which is the start of the escalation in Mearsheimer's view.

Notably, your example of "hybrid action" against Finland is in 2015 which is after the Ukraine coup, annexation of Crimea, Donbas civil war, and escalation goes hot.

Just seems to my your entire position is hopelessly confused.

You argue that Russia had zero reason to invade Ukraine as the US (and also NATO) declaring it's intention that Ukraine would join NATO doesn't matter ... but also that it is in fact Russia that was threatening Ukraine (and also Finland) all along and therefore Ukraine joining NATO (which you also argue can't actually happen because of Hungary) was a reasonable response to Russian aggressive language.

It's simply a series of mutually incompatible positions.

If it was right for Ukraine to join NATO to be protected from Russia ... then it's absolutely fucking retarded to try to do that if you know it can't happen because Hungary disapproves ... which isn't fixed by then trying to argue NATO doesn't matter and everything the US does fails so Russia should just not react to anything and assume US will anyways fail ... it's just a hodgepodge of nonsense at this point.

What is real however is the immense harm that has come to Ukraine in this bid to join NATO ... which apparently could never have happened anyways ... how is that possibly fair to Ukraine ... but also Finland can join NATO and so Russia is severely damaged by that and so waging war in Ukraine was a big mistake because ... Finland ... makes zero sense.

Well you seem to have just disproven your own point then since if Russia foreign policy depends on domestic political support, which you claim the Russian state doesn't have, then obviously the foreign policy of waging war in Ukraine would have collapsed by now due to depending on domestic political support which is insufficient to support the policy. — boethius

Never said such thing. In the end even the most ruthless dictatorship has to have a "domestic support", namely of the security apparatus. Putin has his followers, just as Trump has his followers. But likely not everybody is in Russia happy about Putin's adventures, but who are they to say it, when you can be sent to jail for speaking out.

Well feel free to produce this evidence. — boethius

We've actually discussed this a year ago, I put the evidence there, starting from the information given by the migrants themselves. And now when Russia did the same, authorities in Finland weren't so clueless what to do as in 2016. So look it up.

Not sure you're aware of this — boethius

In the older PF I was saying this before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, that there seem to be no WMD in Iraq. Naturally everybody understanding the situation then understood there's no link between Saddam and OBL.

You argue that Russia had zero reason to invade Ukraine as the US (and also NATO) declaring it's intention that Ukraine would join NATO doesn't matter ... but also that it is in fact Russia that was threatening Ukraine (and also Finland) all along and therefore Ukraine joining NATO (which you also argue can't actually happen because of Hungary) was a reasonable response to Russian aggressive language. — boethius

Again wrong. It's really difficult to explain in more simple terms:

For Russia to keep Ukraine out of NATO it wasn't necessary to invade Ukraine. A show of force on the border would have done that.

Yet for Russia to gain the territories of Novorossiya, to annex Crimea and the Donbas, it was necessary to attack Ukraine.

That's it. That's the line that you should understand. But for you it's The US/NATO made Russia to do it, as "offence is the best defence", and thus legitimizing imperialism.

It's you who aren't making any sense:

Is Russia counter strategy optimal?

Well obviously not optimal as nothing is, but it is a rational response of basically a good defence is a good offence. — boethius

So a good defence is to invade and annex parts of neighboring states that Russia has first recognized to be independent sovereign states and recognized their borders. That's the "good defence"? It's this idea that makes your argumentation a crazy. Yet understandable when you want fo defend Putin.

Luckily Putin's gambling has made huge mistakes. The Syrian campaign which looked to be so brilliant few years ago has ended up in a humiliating defeat. And just how murderous the Assad regimes is now shown to have been, perhaps we should look at your remarks about Syria.

What you wrote three years ago:

Completely familiar ... but even more familiar is the exact same script in Syria:

1. Russian army is incompetent, hahahahah
2. "Resistance" is winning the information war, so many videos of "resistance" victories online!
3. Gains Russian army are making mean nothing
4. The people Russia are fighting are freedom fighters, not a single fanatical extremist among them
5. We need to pour arms into the situation to give Russia their Afghanistan! Hurrah!!!
6. Russia is winning ... but playing unfair!!! Boohoohooo
7. Chemical attack is going to happen
8. Anyday now, chemical attack since Russia is winning on the ground, but Putin and Assad are so evil they'll use chemical warfare when their wining! (obviously if they were actually losing we'd just let that play out into a failed state).
9. Chemical attack is coming ... it's coming ... Assad and Putin are just that crazy, and they know we'll be upset about a surprise chemical attack!!! And they know we'll easily find out!! And it will isolate Russia on the world stage and totally backfire!! But nothing can stop their evil machinations!!!
10. Chemical attack! Chemical attack!

We're on step 9 of this play. — boethius

So how much is Russia winning now and which step are we on?

For Russia to keep Ukraine out of NATO it wasn't necessary to invade Ukraine. A show of force on the border would have done that.

Yet for Russia to gain the territories of Novorossiya, to annex Crimea and the Donbas, it was necessary to attack Ukraine.

That's it. That's the line that you should understand. But for you it's The US/NATO made Russia to do it, as "offence is the best defence", and thus legitimizing imperialism. — ssu

:up:

If their rationale was just NATOphobia, then what would the land grabbing accomplish anyway?

Bring alerts to the world (including NATO) with aggression/warring? Cause Russophobic reactions in Europe like another application of Putin's own NATOphobic argument/logic? Extend right up to NATO members instead of keeping (the dangerous) NATO at a distance? ...?

Something's not quite right, or something's missing.

Either way, annexations, invasion, destruction, killing, Russification, remain facts in action.

The Ukrainians asserting their sovereignty, independence, self-governance, going their own way (accompanying Kremlin loss of control) was the background-factor in the first place, perhaps going back to 1991 in certain heads. Hence annexations, expansion, Russification, etc, as if Russia somehow wasn't large enough already.

If their rationale was just NATOphobia, then what would the land grabbing accomplish anyway? — jorndoe

Exactly, this shows the hypocrisy of those who promote the Pro-Russian stance.

If it would be just about NATO enlargement, there would be no annexations of territory. And this is what many simply don't understand from Russia: it is an empire and it is fixated on it's territories that it owns. It is simply classical imperialism. And again, I'm not saying that NATO enlargement wouldn't be a reason, it surely is one reason. Yet to understand Russia and to understand how it operates, you simply cannot ignore the actions it does and how it operates: territorial annexations, Russification of areas it has conquered, establishing frozen conflicts. This is basically a Russian reconquista.

Those leading Russia see Russian imperialism as the sole idea of Russia. Russia cannot be anything else. For them Russia cannot be a post-imperial multiethnic country, like let's say the UK is. Hence the fixation on Ukraine and it's near abroad and the attempt to influence other countries, as we see today.

That it's all going wrong should be obvious to anybody. The collapse of Syria was the last humiliating failure, but that the Ukraine war wasn't a successful "special military operation" as was the annexation of Crimea is also such a failure.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/explosion-kills-russian-general-sanctioned-chemical-weapons-ukraine-rcna184475