flobaba Full transcript here.
It's pretty much the "foreign policy realist" worldview in fact he also mentions Mearsheimer by name.
One interesting point made is that the US has in recent decades developed a habit of deciding how other powers will respond to changing events based on game theory rather than dialogue or prior declarations.
the stupdity of the EU is that Trump is presenting them with the political out to break out of the US hegemony but instead they insist on being the cheese eating surrender monkeys.
Burnwinter I don't really know who this guy is but skimming through the post cold war observations are not unreasonable that the US just presumed everything is going to be great and didn't take time to help Russia navigate that difficult moment. But I don't really believe this idea of just saying Ukraine won't join NATO changes Putin's views who published his own paper explaining why Ukraine was not a legitimate country and was created by the Soviet union and had no right to be autonomous.
awooga83 Yep this standpoint has become a particular lens on the conflict. It is a relatively conservative, right wing, "hard-nosed" view that sets aside right and wrong in its analysis of great power motives.
There are high stakes for Russia in the demand that Ukraine be protected by NATO's Article 5. The war has made these stakes even clearer. As we've seen and every Russian can see, Ukraine is struggling to sustain its campaign exactly because NATO military forces can't and won't directly join its lines.
The question "did NATO expansion cause the war?" belongs to 2022 now, what's relevant is understanding Ukraine will be forced into long term neutrality.
The war has been disastrous for Ukraine and humiliated Europe. It should have been avoided if there were any way to avoid it. It's killed hundreds of thousands, consolidated Putin's control of Russia, and it has achieved the United States' and not Europe's objectives by alienating Russia from the EU.
The only way to achieve any sort of autonomy is under and within imperial constraints. The question of whether its better to serve this or that empire is the wrong one, in my opinion. The question is how to best secure that modicum of autonomy, which should be evaluated on the level of community rather than nation, and certainly not that of state.
Ukraine should have immediately abandoned the US and Europe when it was clear they were only going to be made a battlefield, that so many would die, that so much would be lost. It was never going to be worth it, but everybody's gotta be a hero instead of do the real brave thing - lose power to preserve the chance for people to live long enough to build it again.
The many faces of Boris Johnson, knows exactly when it is time to pivot and change his position....
Coombs such a dumb country with dumb leadership. They were out there posing for pictures when the first soldiers got killed, instead of suing for peace. Folks clapping them on during sporting events. The humble pie they'd have had to munch on then would have tasted much better than this dish of blood, death and destruction they've been served in the aftermath. Now they're being used for drone target practice.
jones I have a gym friend that works for Potra's team-they work for/under Wagner, they managed to get back home by some UN protected corridor a few weeks ago from Congo. The stories he has from Africa man....they did not do god's work there, I'll tell you that much. A few other Romanian politicians have made millions in Africa...by some not very nice means.
Poor people in Africa always get the worst treatment, no matter who goes there, steals.
Coombs What was the right thing to do?
flobaba Suing for peace? What lol
100%. I'm on record as advocating for Taiwan to go do the same and preemptively beg China. How foolish to do otherwise.
HomeSteak What was the right thing to do?
In this particular circumstance? Negotiated surrender. When NATO didn't line up on the border in equal or greater measure to the assembled Russian forces, it was either years of death and destruction or surrender.
It's about clarity of purpose in responding to the world as it is rather than as you wish it would be, even as it should be.
Putin is an evil bastard. Say it a thousand times, doesn't change a thing. Just because something should be different, because someone shouldn't murder hundreds of thousands of people, because someone should respect a people's autonomy...it makes no difference. Dying on principle is foolish enough, let alone asking others to do so.
Would there have been a purge? Surely. Would there have been thousands detained, imprisoned, tortured, killed? Likely, yes. Could that have been mitigated through diplomacy and exile? I believe, yes. Would it have been the scale of destruction and suffering seen over the last few years? Unequivocally, no.
Even "victory" at this point is a massive failure. There is no outcome that can justify this.
EDIT: I meant to say that I said all this in the days leading up to the current invasion, and continue to maintain my stance ever since. I get a lot of grief, from my close Romanian friends in particular. We had an argument about it with no resolution. It remains, to this day, a position that baffles them, and I don't expect that to change.
HomeSteak wasn't trying to say they did, they're mercenaries after all. Just saying that looking at what they've done while ignoring 100+ years of murder, environmental destruction and pillage in the region.
France has sent troops and bombers to Cote d'ivoire Mali or Chad regularly whenever people complained to loudly that their people saw nothing from the resources extracted from their soil. The entire country Niger is literally run by a French company called Orano, people there get sick and die from working uranium mines with no protection gear.
The whole region has become a hotbed for human traffickers in both directions - people taking money from Africans from the South trying to get to Europe and people taking money from Europe to prevent Africans from reaching its borders, in some cases it's the same smugglers even. The EU pays them millions to catch people on the way to the African North coast, bag them and to release them in the middle of the Sahara to die. So yea Russian mercenaries are no saints but they're not even 1% of the death machine that is Western interests in the region.
Coombs but that is not how the real world works at all. Even if the Ukrainian government would have run, there would have been fractions of the army, militias groups that would have fought, a lot of them. i mean, look at Crimea, where they did leave, and got no help from the west, there was still a war, a shit load of people died. And, what you said did not work out(never will work), as they invaded again. Come on man, in your view the USA or China can just go and set up camp where ever they want, and people should be fine with it?this is chamberlain on steroids, idiotic
And there is still an expected outcome that they have in mind that they would be fine with, hence why they fight. Each side has a number in mind in terms of loss of life and resources. War very rarely end with total victory. They end when one party feels they can't get close to the expected outcome, or when one side gets to that, and they end up signing a deal with probably a little less gain, but with savings in terms of money and life.
Beginning of the end for NATO? I don't think Putin in his wildest dreams could have imagined this.
