I think a lot of the first part hinges on the assumption that the US could (should!) have taken a different course though, specifically towards peace talks. Or at least, for myself, when I was reading the first few paragraphs, I was constantly thinking 'so what would you propose' - and the only thing of that kind came in that bit you quoted here. I know it stands alone in the article, but I felt it's what he had been working towards (or: on the basis of) all the time until that point.
Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
Yeah, to be expected. Same thing as Covid. Problem, though, is that Covid was a matter of objective scientific fact. This is a matter of objective historical context which moves subjectively, and so the same strict zero-tolerance attitude toward dissent is actually borderline fascist because there is no "objectively correct" answer, just nuanced positions and less nuanced positions. Also why censorship is particularly damning in this case.
On the issue of being removed from the crisis. That's true, except the West has taken Ukraine to be its proxy in way you don't usually see in proxy wars (the Ukrainian flag now serves as proxy for the US/NATO, essentially).
But even leaving aside what the US should have done... it's what they're not now doing that also matters. Where are the calls for peace? One reporter asked the press secretary at the Oval meeting about movements toward peaceful resolution and he was noticeable only because everyone else was trying their hardest to prove they could outbid the last guy in their calls of "Death to Russia" (their questions all being a version of "How do we give even more weapons to Ukraine?"). You can condemn Russia and call for a peaceful resolution, even now, without that being somehow bad.
Shouldn’t that be up to Russia and Ukraine?
Sure, but is it not also the US's responsibility to call for a peaceful settlement (even though it supports Ukraine)? It has been calling for an immediate ceasefire/peace in Yemen for years despite supporting Saudi Arabia. The same is true in Israel/Palestine, that whenever conflict breaks out the US calls for an immediate peace even though it actively supports Israel. And you can go around the world and find example after example. What the US is doing here is setting a precedent of sorts. When was the last time the US didn't call for an immediate peace/ceasefire in a comparable situation in which the US itself was not at war?
No clue, and honestly, I don’t think it is pertinent.
As it stands, Putin has said peace talks are at a dead end and Zalensky has said this…
So you tell me what side we should fall on…
The side of peace would be my go-to. Zelensky says a lot of things. He's talking about the successful peace negotiations one minute, talking about how NATO are spineless the next, and then talking about how weapons are the only thing that will bring peace. I don't mind giving Zelensky weapons, for what it's worth. There's obvious truth to the idea that Ukraine needs to be able to defend itself. But that should not be without an overall plan for post-War settlement, which is how it seems right now.
This will end in peace, whether it's in ten years or ten weeks. Only beneficiaries to protracted war are parties external to Ukraine (don't care if someone tells me this denies Ukraine of agency: an Afghanistan-style insurrgency, the Democrats preferred option from the beginning of war, will deny them of a lot more). And the same situation will present itself: the Donbas and Crimea being de facto/de jure Russian territory. That isn't changing no matter how many weapons you give Ukraine.
On the original point. I do think it's pertinent. The US should be calling for deescalation, not its opposite. I can't remember any time when, as bad as the US has been historically, it has treated a foreign conflict with as much disregard for peace.
Would you have supported calls for peace when Hitler offered it to the UK in 1940? Or what about the Munich Agreement, peace in our time?
Putin is not Hitler.
Putin has committed war crimes. Hitler murdered millions of people because they were Jewish (which had nothing to do with why we went to war, incidentally, but is always presumed by/within the question whenever Hitler is raised). Would you have called for peace when the US invaded Iraq? is a more appropriate question, and the answer is yes (millions did at the time and continued to do so). Or when Indonesia invaded East Timor. Etc.
Putin has committed war crimes. Hitler murdered millions of people because they were Jewish (which had nothing to do with why we went to war, incidentally, but is always presumed by/within the question whenever Hitler is raised). Would you have called for peace when the US invaded Iraq? is a more appropriate question, and the answer is yes (millions did at the time and continued to do so). Or when Indonesia invaded East Timor. Etc.
Last edited:
Don’t kid yourself. He would murder millions for conquest if he thought he could get away with it. The only thing balancing him right now is NATO and the will of Ukrainian resistance.
"If he could get away with it" is a pretty big part of that equation. There are many who would do the same, but they can't, so the question becomes irrelevant.
Also, international condemnation and his idea of Ukraine as part of Russia (apparently) also add to prevent such things. He could have bombed Kyiv to the ground, as it was/is entirely within his means, but he didn't and that has been noted by experts in the American military commentariat. It isn't because he's a nice guy, or benign, but because he seems to want whatever hearts/minds he can get in Ukraine (even now). The Donbas has to be controlled once this is done and East/West Ukraine are divided but not so much that the East won't resent Putin for bombing the West into oblivion.
The US had agreed to a de-escalation conference with the NATO-Russia Council and OSCE the week Russia invaded. We were on the side of peace. The Russians were not. We did call for de-escalation. The Russians refused.
The ship has sailed on that.
Well, yeah… he’s being an ambassador and advocate for his country and it’s people. He’s trying to win a war… a war he did not start against an opponent that doesn’t think his country should exist and that has committed what is tantamount to genocide in areas it has controlled.
But, judging by the article you posted, you feel that it is, what? Glorifying or fetishizing war, the arms industry, Western media propaganda, etc. to actually report on the effects of those weapons so that people see that the shipments of arms are helping preserve their sovereignty..?
Good thing it isn’t up to you.
So a Ukrainian victory, then.
Hitler didn’t have a nuclear deterrent to hide behind.
How many of these others are sitting atop the world’s biggest stockpile of nukes?
I side with Katchovski in that I don't view it as genocide, but will leave semantics behind as it is a war crime. How was the US on the side of peace when it was arming Ukraine before the war? And is a large part of Russia's justification of said war? Will go off into already explored tangents.
Judge the article yourself. The media is absolutely fetishizing war, the arms industry, and so on.
Ukrainian victory will be a poor one if it resembles the Afghanistan model. They will have lost some territory and have had thousands and thousands killed and scores of millions displaced. Hardly something to aspire to.
Aside from the Americans, no one. But with China/India/Pakistan/Israel/North Korea/France/UK all possessing nuclear weapons, having the largest stockpile may mean something quantitatively but qualitatively it isn't what it was from 1945-1960. I mean "if the Americans could get away with it" is an entirely reasonable argument to juxtapose going by this rhetoric. When they could get away with it, before modern media technology and exposure of the public to war and rising anti-war sentiment, they did get away with it. No one can get away with that in today's world ("that" being the kind of bombing campaign levied against Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos).
Russia's nuclear capacity is cancelled out by America's. Everyone's is more or less cancelled out by everyone else's (China's favourite line being that America can destroy us many times over, but we only need to be able to destroy them once: that's how MAD works, as you know).
The Putin=Hitler thing only works insofar as it makes people lose sight of reason and context. Putin is what he is, but he is not invading the European continent (en masse), moving into North Africa, and aiming for the British Isles and surrounding Empire. He doesn't have the capacity to move beyond Eastern Ukraine, and even that remains to be seen, let alone Poland or wherever else. People only raise it to quash ideas of peace (would you make peace with Hitler?). Obviously not, but then, again, Putin is not Hitler.
Do you doubt that Putin would use a WMD in Ukraine if he thought he would get away with it ?
Cool. I guess time will tell.
Deterrence exists. I figured you’d be aware of that concept.
See, you say stuff like that and then get upset when folks say you’ve swallowed a Russian line.
I have. I think it’s shit dressed up in a veneer of academic verbosity.
And what will the outcome be if the war ended now? If they just gave up? With less territory than they had in February, cities leveled, tens of thousands of civilians killed and raped? That’s something to aspire to?
Make no mistake, if Russia ends this war with a shattered military, isolated economy, and in possession of only the land it had on February 23rd, that will be a Ukrainian victory. It will not be a full Ukrainian victory, but it will be one… and the only reason I’m not discussion a more complete victory is because you in your previous post stated that you feel one is impossible.
This may be because there's a clear belligerent and a clear victim in this war, and people who coyly play the fence are tacitly playing into the desired narrative of the belligerent.
I think he already has (white phospherous?). Nukes? That's an endgame scenario. In a hypothetical world where only Russia has nuclear weapons, maybe, but then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Ukraine doesn't have nukes though, so what's stopping him from using a tactical nuke to gain control over all of the east. Ukraine doesn't have collective security insurance to retaliate.
I think you mistake Ukrainian victory for American victory (many American media pundits do the same).
I'd say the article is a pretty clear summation of corporate media reporting on this war (and maybe touched a nerve or two [Russian propagandist being thrown about again?
]). NATO expansion played a role, by the way, which I'm glad folks at CFR can recognize, belatedly, even if others can't. Difference between factors for war and justification of war.What was stopping him from doing it in Syria? It isn't just Ukraine. Use of a nuclear weapon has implications beyond NATO (it will be a worldwide problem, and no one wants it, the Asians included).
I think you mistake Ukrainian victory for American victory (many American media pundits do the same).
I'd say the article is a pretty clear summation of corporate media reporting on this war (and maybe touched a nerve or two [Russian propagandist being thrown about again?
What was stopping him from doing it in Syria? It isn't just Ukraine. Use of a nuclear weapon has implications beyond NATO (it will be a worldwide problem, and no one wants it, the Asians included).
Nothing. They were simply in a situation where they could cosplay the role of good cop by taking control of Assad's chemical weapons as a guarantor that he couldn't use them again. If Putin was desperate (as in, he looks like he's about to lose in Ukraine) he would definitely use them. Losing the war and coming home with nothing to show for it amidst tens thousands of his troops are dead or maimed, is not an option for him since he knows it would lead to his own demise.
I don't think that's true at all. Every reasonable analysis I've seen has come from people who condemn Russia and Putin (neocons, among many others). Also, there's a clear belligerent and victim in many wars right now and none of this same animus is to be found, so one has to account for that, too.
If you're comdemning Russian and Putin, and by logic on the Ukrainian side, then what's the debate ?
Comes down to what does desperation look like? I think if NATO really ramped up their involvement, then the chances of Putin using those weapons becomes higher. For the reasons you state (Biden's "regime change" moment was the closest thing to a "this might mean nukes" scenario I've seen so far, but it was pulled back). As it stands, in a long, drawn out, scenario, I don't see it. I think Russia will take control of the East within a few months and then deal with insurrgency thereafter and Putin won't be long in his role regardless of whatever happens beyond that.
The idea that you have to take sides, beyond the obvious "Russia is wrong to invade Ukraine and has done terrible things", is part of the problem. Where's this partisanship in every other conflict currently under way? Do you take sides in the Israeli situation? But beyond side-taking, which is easy, the debate has to do with historiography and causality. The reasonable analyses are macrological, again, as you already know, and factor in many issues which you won't find on your nightly newscast.
When America was at war with Iraq, I don't remember thinking "it would be great if the Iraqis slaughtered Americans", despite America clearly being in the wrong. Debates were more about how/why America should get out and how/why they got there in the first place. It was far more nuanced and reasonable. The bloodthirst (not here, by the way) you see expressed around this conflict is insane.
I'll answer my own point (above). I think it has to do with the Twitterization of news. Maybe, if the Iraq War happened today, we'd see the same thing (people rooting for the Iraqis and compiling lists of the dead and battlezone statistics). The discourse has changed, and I would say largely for the worse. As an example. The American soldiers who came home during the Vietnam War were routinely subject to all kinds of abuse (spat on, beaten, and more). I always thought that was sick. Directing blame/anger where it didn't belong (go to Washington, which they eventually did, and do it there). In this war, social media seems to have amplified the worst aspects of discourse surrounding an already shitty situation and made things exponentially worse.
Last edited:
I don’t even know what that means, bud.
Well, yeah… of course you do.
Fair enough
The reasonable analyses are meaningless verbosity?
Military strategists with degrees in history.... you be the judge on the use of macrological frames of reference.
Macrology means “meaninglessly verbose”
What would you replace it with? In economics, or linguistics, or social science, or political studies? Even natural sciences use it, but alter the terminology (linear/nonlinear is the basic essence of the thing, taken from the perspectival idea associated with it in the arts). It's hard to think of structure without the micro/macro distinction.
I don’t care. I’m just making sure that what you’re saying is that “the reasonable analyses [of the Russo-Ukrainian War] are meaninglessly verbose”
Oh, in that case no. I think the meaningful analyses of the war take the macrological into account. You know, charts, maps, trends, economics, supply lines, and all sorts of things. The useless analyses tend to give you an image of a single person (tend to be propaganda) and so aren't really analyses by their very nature, except inasmuch as they can be contrasted with a broader picture which... yup, implies the macrological. I don't think that's meaninglessly verbose. Seems almost essential to critical thinking in terms beyond the individual level.
Unless "meaninglessly verbose" means "words I don't agree with or understand", which is fair enough (though I do think you understand them, so obviously it's the former
)
macrology in British English
(mæˈkrɒlədʒɪ)
NOUN
verbose but meaningless talk
Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers
@GlastonSpur thanks for your posts they are the only good argument I've seen yet about why I should be a loyal Modi supporter. Hope we build a few more nukes too.
macrology in British English
(mæˈkrɒlədʒɪ)
NOUN
verbose but meaningless talk
Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers
Maybe start here (if you're serious, which I now doubt
).So your response to the dictionary definition of macrology is to link me to a wiki page about macrosociology?Maybe start here (if you're serious, which I now doubt
The comedic irony is that you saying “reasonable analyses are macrological” makes your backing of the article you posted make sense. Because it is meaninglessly verbose and you do find it reasonable.
I didn't realise you were doing a "gotcha" (a poor one, too).
But.... Whenever I use micro-/macro-, I am using it in connection with the below, which dates from the 17th century.
With "macro-logic" merely the inverse of micro-logic (large instead of small; as in, the logic [logos] of large-scale social processes, hence the link to "macrosociology", but the distinction holds in economics, linguistics, and many, many more disciplines, if you want more evidence that I have, in fact, used the term correct). Late for etymological disputes but this one isn't controversial
I'm amazed you've chosen this hill to die on (I think there are economists here who can tell you how and why the term is used in their field and if/where/when I've misapplied it).
For context, the above is consistent with my usage. Can cite many sources in many disciplines where this is also consistent but I really don't see the point. This is now just petty.
Last edited:
I am truly amazed that you’re quadrupling down against the English Dictionary here… and your take on the etymology is wrong.I didn't realise you were doing a "gotcha" (a poor one, too).
But.... Whenever I use micro-/macro-, I am using it in connection with the below, which dates from the 17th century.
With "macro-logic" is merely the inverse of micro-logic (large instead of small; as in, the logic [logos] of large-scale social processes, hence the link to "macrosociology", but the distinction holds in economics, linguistics, and many, many more disciplines, if you want more evidence that I have, in fact, used the term correct). Late for etymological disputes but this one isn't controversial
Webster Dictionary
- Macrology noun
long and tedious talk without much substance; superfluity of words
Etymology: [L. macrologia, Gr. ; long + lo`gos discourse: cf. F. macrologie.]
- Macrology
mak-rol′o-ji, n. much talk with little to say. [Gr. makros, long, logos, a word.]