Geopolitics

[Kostov]

The US (among other things) used depleted uranium in their battle to re-take Fallujah. Fallujah consequently has very high infant mortality, cancer, and birth defects.
https://merip.org/2020/09/birth-defects-and-the-toxic-legacy-of-war-in-iraq
Not sure where this falls into your targeting system - did they intentionally target the civilians or only knowingly poison their city for generations?

We also have clear evidence of the US president personally ordering civilian casualties in earlier wars, so it makes sense to restrict this comparison to Iraq - since I'm jumping into this conversation midway, not sure what the full context is.

They used depleted uranium when bombing Serbia also.

 

[Raoul]

 

[berbatrick]

I read the article but I can't quite get what the author's point was? That Mearsheimer realism is still not sufficient to explain events?

same author explains more here: https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-95-is-ukraine-the-wests?s=r

On the distinction between explanation and justification, Eric Levitz at New York Magazine is predictably lucid.

to argue that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was a predictable response to American policy choices is not to say that it was a justified response to those choices. Too often in recent days, people trying to make the former argument have been denounced for making the latter one. … Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was a free choice. And whatever role U.S. policy played in determining Putin’s decision, it did not force his hand. Critics of NATO expansion would be wise to stipulate this point, since doing otherwise only renders their causal analysis easier to stigmatize.

This from Jon Schwarz @Schwarz at the Intercept is also good on the broader intellectual context of the debate of foreign policy in the US:

To comprehend Applebaum’s glee here, her tweet should be seen as not just about Ukraine, but as part of a decades-long battle between realists and neoconservatives. And her rhetorical gambit is a favorite of neoconservatives, one they’ve used many times before and will surely use many times again. Neither the realists or neoconservatives are any great shakes from a progressive perspective, but you have to understand them to understand U.S. foreign policy.

But, is the distinction between explanation and justification really what is at stake here?

In an essay in New Statesman that just appeared, I argue that it is not.

In my view Mearsheimer’s analysis also falls short at the level of explanation. Famously “free choices” resist causal explanation. But we cannot simply waive our hands. Indeed, if we merely waive our hands, or assume an automaticity from structural conditions to action, as Mearsheimer seems to do, we void the domain in which the responsibility of statecraft is actually enacted. We void too the domain in which a sophisticated understanding of realism would have to prove its worth. If we take Mearsheimer’s account seriously, Russia, rather than being a sentient strategic actor, is reduced to something akin to a resentful robot.

roughly what @do.ob said i think

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

same author explains more here: https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-95-is-ukraine-the-wests?s=r



roughly what @do.ob said i think

I read that essay, and some around it, and don't think it's a sufficient refutation of Mearsheimer's overall argument. If they charge Mearsheimer with being too structural and strangling agency, the reverse is true in their case: they treat interstate leviathans as if you can reduce their actions to one individual (the point about the state is that it is anti-individualist; prioritizing agency as they do is giving it far too much weight). There are valid critiques of Mearsheimer but these critiques (of late) don't comprehend structuralism (even as a concept beyond geopolitics) well enough insofar as they posit agency as its undoing.

 

[Mastadon]

I don't believe we should judge the innocent party's actions based on the aggressor's paranoid and illegal response.

There is nothing innocent about insisting to expand an anti Russian alliance up to Russias doorstep.If Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War they would have been wrecked too. The Cold War obviously never ended because nato is significantly larger than it was pre 91.

 

[MTF]

There is nothing innocent about insisting to expand an anti Russian alliance up to Russias doorstep.If Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War they would have been wrecked too. The Cold War obviously never ended because nato is significantly larger than it was pre 91.

Yawn. You're about 8 weeks late to this debate.

 

[Mastadon]

Yawn. You're about 8 weeks late to this debate.

Has the cause of the war changed since then?

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

There is nothing innocent about insisting to expand an anti Russian alliance up to Russias doorstep.If Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War they would have been wrecked too. The Cold War obviously never ended because nato is significantly larger than it was pre 91.

Boring.

One thing that did not come up to my mind until yesterday is the fact that NATO expansion came AFTER the wars in Yugoslavia. I don't know if you remember, but Russia was the main player supporting Milosevic's genocidal regime while NATO were the only organization that actively did what had to be done to stop both the Bosnian War and the Kosovo War albeit some critics say it took too long. When that drunkard Boris Yeltsin supported Milosevic, what kind of message do you think Eastern European countries - especially those who suffered under Soviet rule saw from Moscow then? If you want to lay blame somewhere, lay it to the Kremlin because of geopolitical decisions of their own.

 

[Mastadon]

Boring.

One thing that did not come up to my mind until yesterday is the fact that NATO expansion came AFTER the wars in Yugoslavia. I don't know if you remember, but Russia was the main player supporting Milosevic's genocidal regime while NATO were the only organization that actively did what had to be done to stop both the Bosnian War and the Kosovo War albeit some critics say it took too long. When that drunkard Boris Yeltsin supported Milosevic, what kind of message do you think Eastern European countries - especially those who suffered under Soviet rule saw from Moscow then? If you want to lay blame somewhere, lay it to the Kremlin because of geopolitical decisions of their own.

Russia was a threat to nobody during that era the whole country was a complete mess. NATO expansion was aimed at taking advantage of this weakness nothing less. The west kept pushing Russia because it couldn’t push back. That wasn’t going to last forever.

 

[Mastadon]

Let me guess, the cause is the US 'expanding'?

I guess the Sun narrative about mad dictators who invade other countries for no reason is easier to stomach.

 

[MTF]

Has the cause of the war changed since then?

It's all NATO's fault, they're so seductive with their big juicy AWACS rotodomes and long hard Paladin howitzers. How could any country resist?

 

[MTF]

Russia was a threat to nobody during that era the whole country was a complete mess. NATO expansion was aimed at taking advantage of this weakness nothing less. The west kept pushing Russia because it couldn’t push back. That wasn’t going to last forever.

What is Russian for lebensraum?

 

[Mastadon]

What is Russian for lebensraum?

The Cubans could probably tell you.

 

[FireballXL5]

Russia was a threat to nobody during that era the whole country was a complete mess. NATO expansion was aimed at taking advantage of this weakness nothing less. The west kept pushing Russia because it couldn’t push back. That wasn’t going to last forever.

So, a democratic sovereign state can't decide it's own future because a mad wanker like Putin doesn't like it? Gotcha.

 

[Raoul]

There is nothing innocent about insisting to expand an anti Russian alliance up to Russias doorstep.If Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War they would have been wrecked too. The Cold War obviously never ended because nato is significantly larger than it was pre 91.

Putin has proved that NATO sticking around and expanding was the correct thing to do, given that a corrupt, totalitarian dictatorship sitting atop the world's largest stockpile of nukes is now invading its neighbors for lebensraum, which has in the process legitimized every act of expansion NATO has undertaken and will undertake in the future.

 

[Mastadon]

Putin has proved that NATO sticking around and expanding was the correct thing to do, given that a corrupt, totalitarian dictatorship sitting atop the world's largest stockpile of nukes is now invading its neighbors for lebensraum, which has in the process legitimized every act of expansion NATO has undertaken and will undertake in the future.

I am of the opinion that the world would be a safer place if people would just quit expanding military alliances up to the gates of nuclear armed countries. After all what does the Monroe doctrine say about acts like this?

 

[nimic]

I am of the opinion that the world would be a safer place if people would just quit expanding military alliances up to the gates of nuclear armed countries. After all what does the Monroe doctrine say about acts like this?

If the Baltic countries hadn't joined NATO, they would have been invaded. Probably Poland too.

 

[Raoul]

I am of the opinion that the world would be a safer place if people would just quit expanding military alliances up to the gates of nuclear armed countries. After all what does the Monroe doctrine say about acts like this?

Its fine to hold such an opinion, but it is antithetical to the way the international system is set up. In the absence of a world government (which we're nowhere near having right now), powerful states will continue to do as they please and international organizations like NATO will continue to provide collective security against rogue dictatorships with nukes, such as Vladimir Putin's Russia. When his regime collapses and Russia goes democratic, the need for collective security in Europe will diminish and the need for NATO will gradually dissipate.

 

[Withnail]

There is nothing innocent about insisting to expand an anti Russian alliance up to Russias doorstep.If Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War they would have been wrecked too. The Cold War obviously never ended because nato is significantly larger than it was pre 91.

Jaysus lad. Abramovich is just a business man and Ukraine's right to self-determination, and to join any group/alliance they are legally free to do so, is some sinister anti-Russian plot.

You realise Putin is a maniac? You can't blame anyone else for his actions. He's the aggressor here but you'll probably tell me I'm just lapping the '"West's propaganda"

 

[Rightnr]

The Americans turned up in my country trying to get us to fight the Chinese over the SCS dispute. We politely told them to fk off we would deal with it by negotiation. It’s not easy being on the border of a super power you need to be smart and staying neutral is better than getting wrecked.

Assuming staying neutral is enough to satisfy Putin. It's clearly not or at least to me.

 

[Mastadon]

Its fine to hold such an opinion, but it is antithetical to the way the international system is set up. In the absence of a world government (which we're nowhere near having right now), powerful states will continue to do as they please and international organizations like NATO will continue to provide collective security against rogue dictatorships with nukes, such as Vladimir Putin's Russia. When his regime collapses and Russia goes democratic, the need for collective security in Europe will diminish and the need for NATO will gradually dissipate.

Russia is not a rogue dictatorship it is a super power and needs to be treated as such. The US has destroyed many countries in the Middle East on false pretenses and there have been 0 consequences. It is sheer arrogance to assume that only the US is capable of wrecking other states in the name of national security.

 

[Raoul]

Russia is not a rogue dictatorship it is a super power and needs to be treated as such. The US has destroyed many countries in the Middle East on false pretenses and there have been 0 consequences. It is sheer arrogance to assume that only the US is capable of wrecking other states in the name of national security.

Being a super power requires military, economic, and technological superiority. When you have an economy the size of Spain (soon to be the size of Holland's), you are now basically little more than a totalitarian regional power.

 

[The Firestarter]

Russia is not a rogue dictatorship it is a super power and needs to be treated as such. The US has destroyed many countries in the Middle East on false pretenses and there have been 0 consequences. It is sheer arrogance to assume that only the US is capable of wrecking other states in the name of national security.

Its only super in its ability to kill defenseless women and children. Bunch of war criminals.

 

[MTF]

Russia is not a rogue dictatorship it is a super power and needs to be treated as such. The US has destroyed many countries in the Middle East on false pretenses and there have been 0 consequences. It is sheer arrogance to assume that only the US is capable of wrecking other states in the name of national security.

I'm going to be generous and assume that this isn't actually a call for all countries to have the perceived "right" to wreck others.

What's with the absolutely terrible hot takes the last page?

Periodically someone new pops in to re-litigate what has already been done to death in the weeks ahead of the invasion. Unless you're calling my hot takes terrible, in which case I denounce your imperialist language!

 

[11101]

I am of the opinion that the world would be a safer place if people would just quit expanding military alliances up to the gates of nuclear armed countries. After all what does the Monroe doctrine say about acts like this?

You've got this the wrong way round. Nato expanded because all the small countries along Russia's borders wanted to join an alliance to protect themselves from Russian aggression. It was a reaction to Russia's aggression, not an act of aggression itself.

 

[Mastadon]

Jaysus lad. Abramovich is just a business man and Ukraine's right to self-determination, and to join any group/alliance they are legally free to do so, is some sinister anti-Russian plot.

You realise Putin is a maniac? You can't blame anyone else for his actions. He's the aggressor here but you'll probably tell me I'm just lapping the '"West's propaganda"

I would advise you to actually listen to what Putin has been saying for the last 10 years or so he’s far from being a maniac.The Ukraine war was a big miscalculation and he is the aggressor here but NATO expansion has been seen as aggressive by the Russians for a long time now and red lines were set and crossed. Do you think for example the US would accept Chinese missles and troops in Canada or Mexico?

 

[Redlambs]

The Americans turned up in my country trying to get us to fight the Chinese over the SCS dispute. We politely told them to fk off we would deal with it by negotiation. It’s not easy being on the border of a super power you need to be smart and staying neutral is better than getting wrecked.

So Ukraine aren't smart and they should just do what they are told by Putin.

Victim blaming aside, you do understand Nato membership is by application right?

 

[GlastonSpur]

Has the cause of the war changed since then?

The cause of the war is Russia invading Ukraine. And the reason they've done so is crush a free and democratic Slavic nation lest it sets an example for the Russian people - which is what Putin fears above else. It's about freedom and democracy vs control and oppression. Everything else is just smokescreen lies.

 

[MTF]

I would advise you to actually listen to what Putin has been saying for the last 10 years or so he’s far from being a maniac.The Ukraine war was a big miscalculation and he is the aggressor here but NATO expansion has been seen as aggressive by the Russians for a long time now and red lines were set and crossed. Do you think for example the US would accept Chinese missles and troops in Canada or Mexico?

Do you think Canada or Mexico are looking to accept Chinese missiles or troops? That's what's always missing from this analysis. Canada and Mexico benefit from their ties with the US and don't maintain them simply due to coercion.

 

[Raoul]

I would advise you to actually listen to what Putin has been saying for the last 10 years or so he’s far from being a maniac.The Ukraine war was a big miscalculation and he is the aggressor here but NATO expansion has been seen as aggressive by the Russians for a long time now and red lines were set and crossed. Do you think for example the US would accept Chinese missles and troops in Canada or Mexico?

If we've learned anything about Putin, its that he's a highly accomplished liar who often says the opposite of what he does. Most rational observers don't seem to have any problem acknowledging this.

 

[Mastadon]

Being a super power requires military, economic, and technological superiority. When you have an economy the size of Spain (soon to be the size of Holland's), you are now basically little more than a totalitarian regional power.

So why was it necessary to keep expanding NATO and treating them as enemies? Would you not expect them to be threatened by it?

 

[GlastonSpur]

Russia is not a rogue dictatorship it is a super power and needs to be treated as such. The US has destroyed many countries in the Middle East on false pretenses and there have been 0 consequences. It is sheer arrogance to assume that only the US is capable of wrecking other states in the name of national security.

It's dictatorship under Putin - that's undeniable. And it's rogue because it has just invaded an free and democratic nation.

Nor has Russia invaded Ukraine in the name of state security - because no one, including Putin - even remotely believes that NATO would ever invade a vast and nuclear-armed nation like Russia. The 'state security' angle is just a BS lie/excuse from Putin. The war is about crushing freedom and democracy in Ukraine.

 

[TMDaines]

I would advise you to actually listen to what Putin has been saying for the last 10 years or so he’s far from being a maniac.The Ukraine war was a big miscalculation and he is the aggressor here but NATO expansion has been seen as aggressive by the Russians for a long time now and red lines were set and crossed. Do you think for example the US would accept Chinese missles and troops in Canada or Mexico?

We'd all be very confused if Canada or Mexico had any interest in Chinese missiles being stationed in their land. Why would Canada or Mexico want to enter a defensive pact against the US that meant stationing Chinese missiles in their territory?

Ukraine joining NATO or the EU anytime in the future had been a complete non-starter until Russia decided to invade.

What's with the absolutely terrible hot takes the last page?

I think we have a daily quota of new entrants to the thread that are designed to throw a few hand grenades in.

 

[Raoul]

So why was it necessary to keep expanding NATO and treating them as enemies? Would you not expect them to be threatened by it?

Because the hyper corrupt version of Russia in the 90s and subsequent authoritarian dictatorship it spawned between the late 90s and the present, created a security problem incentivizing eastern block nations to join NATO as a means to protect themselves. A wise choice given what a corrupt and vicious monster Putin turned out to be.

 

[Mastadon]

Do you think Canada or Mexico are looking to accept Chinese missiles or troops? That's what's always missing from this analysis. Canada and Mexico benefit from their ties with the US and don't maintain them simply due to coercion.

Lack of coercion? Don’t they prop up crackpot dictatorships all over the world on the grounds that they are pro US? Don’t they invade countries like Panama and Nicaragua who don’t?

 

[sebsheep]

Lack of coercion? Don’t they prop up crackpot dictatorships all over the world on the grounds that they are pro US? Don’t they invade countries like Panama and Nicaragua who don’t?

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/geopolitics-too-whataboutery-for-other-threads.469141/

Think this is the thread you were looking for.

 

[MTF]

Lack of coercion? Don’t they prop up crackpot dictatorships all over the world on the grounds that they are pro US? Don’t they invade countries like Panama and Nicaragua who don’t?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had a PhD in whataboutism.

 

[JuveGER]

So why was it necessary to keep expanding NATO and treating them as enemies? Would you not expect them to be threatened by it?

The expansion happened, because countries applied to join NATO. So, you have to ask Poland, the Baltics, the Czech Republic etc. why they wanted to join NATO. And they will tell you that it was necessary to protect them from Russian aggression. These countries have ample of experience what it is like to exist next to Russia without NATO protection. And they will feel validated by Russia's invasion of Ukraine (as well as their previous wars in Transnistria and Abkhazia). Because without NATO, they would be at Putin's mercy.

Countries want to join NATO, because it aligns them with (largely) free, democratic and prosperous countries and offers them protection from Russia. That protection is invaluable as we can see. Ukraine's problem is not NATO, it's that they weren't in NATO yet.

 

[Mastadon]

I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had a PhD in whataboutism.

Better than being a hypocrite.

 

[Withnail]

I would advise you to actually listen to what Putin has been saying for the last 10 years or so he’s far from being a maniac.The Ukraine war was a big miscalculation and he is the aggressor here but NATO expansion has been seen as aggressive by the Russians for a long time now and red lines were set and crossed. Do you think for example the US would accept Chinese missles and troops in Canada or Mexico?

Yes, of course, the problem with the last 10 years was that people didn't listen to a despot and Putin is a maniac. It's not even up for debate.