The State of Affairs in Russia

[crazy canuck]

The west really is doomed if this is what the *defenders* of the western liberal ideal think is rational argument in the context of opposing Russian aggression into sovereign states. Shelf and Zoupa basically coming to the defense of Putin.

If Western Liberal Democracy has become so weak as to not be able to withstand a more nuanced view than the one you espouse then yes, it is truly compromised.

[Berkut]

This is why the West is likely to fail. This goes right back to the previou argument about why liberalism will fail - the willingness of people within our own societies to engage in this kind of sophistry *against* ourselves.

The context of the debate is the claim that Russia should be worried about NATO fucking invading Russia, and you trot out the example of NATO trying to keep Libya from turning into an even larger shitshow then it was to counter the claim that NATO is not looking to INVADE RUSSIA????

Are you freaking kidding me Shelf?

The point we made was in response to your claim that NATO doesn't use force against other countries to resolve issues.

NOT what I said. What I said was that if Russia wanted to join NATO, they would have to give up the idea of using force against another NATO country to resolve a dispute. This was very clear in the context of the discussion.

I did not claim that no NATO member ever used force against anyone ever.

This is exactly what I mean.

Gaijan equated Poland ASKING to join NATO as being the same thing as NATO invading another country and conquering it. You didn't remark on THAT at all, just accepted it as a fair point.

But Berkut says something very specific, and you immediately jump in with the "Well, actually, you know, NATO does use force..." in a debate where the argument is over whether Russia has a legitimate reason to feel threatened that NATO might actually invade Russia some day.

There is this tolerance of utter sophistry from the authoritarian defenders, and this willingness to pick apart our own arguments that makes no damn sense. You know what I meant, and you know perfectly well (as did Zoupa) that I was not arguing that no NATO member has ever once used force against another country.

We are competitors with Russia - and with China for that matter. Of course they are concerned with our presence in bordering states - as we're concerned with missiles they places in their own territory in Kaliningrad, near the Baltics or in Belarus or Ukraine. Or, for example, if China starts posting military vessels on the Atlantic through the development in Equatorial Guinea.

I never argued that they should not be concerned. Not once.

My argument is that they should not (and in fact are not) concern themselves with this fiction of NATO troops invading Russia. It is utter bullshit.

They should most definitely be concerened with where Ukraine leans, and obviously they would rather it lean their way.

That has nothing to do with their claim that they are justified in using military force if that concern does not go the way they want. The only valid justification for invading Ukraine if Ukraine leans more to the West then they would like is if in fact there was a credible threat that a NATO aligned Ukraine could be used as a jumping off point for an actual invasion of Russia.

Them not playing the "Lets influence the Ukraine" game as well as they would like does not justify them attacking Ukraine otherwise. Yet that is exactly what they have done, and what they are not threating to do.

And you and people like you are their happy little allies.

[Berkut]

The west really is doomed if this is what the *defenders* of the western liberal ideal think is rational argument in the context of opposing Russian aggression into sovereign states. Shelf and Zoupa basically coming to the defense of Putin.

If Western Liberal Democracy has become so weak as to not be able to withstand a more nuanced view than the one you espouse then yes, it is truly compromised.

There is nothing nuanced about your views here. It is childishly assinine to compare invading the USSR or Russia with dropping some bombs on Libya in a desperate attempt to stop a civil war.

Not to mention just letting someone claim that Lithuania joining NATO of their own free will is the same as NATO just invading Lithuania and conquering them. That passes without comment, of course. Because you are just so concerned with nuance.

[Tamas]

Somewhat ironic that some are complaining about Ukraine being treated as an annex to Russia, typing about it within the 'State of affairs in Russia' thread, when we have a dedicated thread for the conflict here:

http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,11775.1750.html

The Belo-Russian military exercise starts in February, that thread will become quite lively then I am afraid.

[Valmy]

I feel like Belarus is a different deal than Ukraine. Belarus doesn't seem to mind being in the Russian camp but what do I know? I have never even met somebody from Belarus.

[Tamas]

I feel like Belarus is a different deal than Ukraine. Belarus doesn't seem to mind being in the Russian camp but what do I know? I have never even met somebody from Belarus.

Belarus is a Russian vassal. I meant they may very well use the pretext of the maneuvers to descend down on Kiev from Belarus.

[Sheilbh]

NOT what I said. What I said was that if Russia wanted to join NATO, they would have to give up the idea of using force against another NATO country to resolve a dispute. This was very clear in the context of the discussion.

I did not claim that no NATO member ever used force against anyone ever.

This is exactly what I mean.

Gaijan equated Poland ASKING to join NATO as being the same thing as NATO invading another country and conquering it. You didn't remark on THAT at all, just accepted it as a fair point.

Me not commenting on a post is not the same as silently assenting

I was responding to Valmy's comment because I think there's an overly cuddly take on Western defence spending and military action here. We absolutely did use NATO for those purposes.

But Berkut says something very specific, and you immediately jump in with the "Well, actually, you know, NATO does use force..." in a debate where the argument is over whether Russia has a legitimate reason to feel threatened that NATO might actually invade Russia some day.

There is this tolerance of utter sophistry from the authoritarian defenders, and this willingness to pick apart our own arguments that makes no damn sense. You know what I meant, and you know perfectly well (as did Zoupa) that I was not arguing that no NATO member has ever once used force against another country.

I don't think it matters whether or not Russia has a "legitimate reason" to feel threatened - I don't even know what that means.

All of Russian history is marked by a fear of invasion and insecurity of borders - which is where it comes from: fear and insecurity. There's examples all through Russian history of the choice being understood as "invade or be invaded". I think that still shapes - and probably will shape forever - Russian thinking. That, to me, is the context in which Putin is operating - more specifically I think there is also the broken promises the West made to Russia about NATO not expanding eastward that's driving all the stuff around "legal guarantees". Everything that Putin is saying now on this seems to broadly be what multiple Russian leaders across the last thirty years have said about NATO - the only difference is that Russia's now in a position to use force.

At the same time I think we are self-deluding. Russia's a competitor of course they're going to feel threatened, because we're not care bears. Similarly the international rules based order is not neutral - it was crafted by Western policy makers, particularly in the US over decades. Treating it like some neutral normative good that anyone can and should want to join is just not connected to reality. Russia and China in different ways and for different reasons point out the hypocrisies of that order (which is often a fair point because there are hypocrisies: it's human-made and about power - I've said before that it's interesting how popular Schmitt is in China) and want to dismantle it - or they want a seat at the rule-makers table equal to the US.

That's fine. I think it's broadly worth defending but I think we should be clear eyed about it - it is what we made it, we can change it and it isn't neutral. And, bluntly, there is no space for China or Russia to sit in the rules based order because - especially with China - they'd have to be a rule maker given their size and importance and I don't think we should or are able to support that (this is partly the challenge of finding a way of working together where we need to cooperate - like climate).

I never argued that they should not be concerned. Not once.

My argument is that they should not (and in fact are not) concern themselves with this fiction of NATO troops invading Russia. It is utter bullshit.

They should most definitely be concerened with where Ukraine leans, and obviously they would rather it lean their way.

That has nothing to do with their claim that they are justified in using military force if that concern does not go the way they want. The only valid justification for invading Ukraine if Ukraine leans more to the West then they would like is if in fact there was a credible threat that a NATO aligned Ukraine could be used as a jumping off point for an actual invasion of Russia.

Them not playing the "Lets influence the Ukraine" game as well as they would like does not justify them attacking Ukraine otherwise. Yet that is exactly what they have done, and what they are not threating to do.

And you and people like you are their happy little allies.

I've never said they are justified in using military force.

And I've set out above what I think we should be doing in terms of policy. The issues seems to be not that we disagree with whether Russia would be justified in invading, or what we should do (though I'm not sure what you've said on that ) but I'm saying that for the wrong reasons or with insufficient gusto.

[Sheilbh]

Foreign Office and MoD officials have been told to be ready to move into "crisis mode" at short notice. Which is a worrying sign.

Edit: Incidentally I think Baerbock in Moscow was admirably clear - again I think that's the right level for talks at the minute. And it's helpful that this message was said contradicting what Lavrov said immediately beforehand and from the German foreign minister:
https://twitter.com/dw_politics/status/1483421928853581828?s=20

[mongers]

.....

And you and people like you are their happy little allies.

That's my response to your cross mis-characterisation of Shelf's opinion.

[Razgovory]

I feel like Belarus is a different deal than Ukraine. Belarus doesn't seem to mind being in the Russian camp but what do I know? I have never even met somebody from Belarus.

That's not a coincidence.

[Gaijin de Moscu]

I feel like Belarus is a different deal than Ukraine. Belarus doesn't seem to mind being in the Russian camp but what do I know? I have never even met somebody from Belarus.

I had a girlfriend from Belarus once. She had no issues with our countries being a Union State. It's convenient.

[Zoupa]

Had a Belarus girlfriend once too. She was the tallest woman I ever dated. It was like that Seinfeld episode where George wants to have sex with a giant. 

[Zoupa]

Also Berkut I'm not gonna answer your heckles, mainly because Sheilbh responds much more eloquently and I'm 99% in agreement with what he wrote. Especially his description of the non-neutral aspect of western institutions/pacts/whathaveyou.

[Valmy]

Especially his description of the non-neutral aspect of western institutions/pacts/whathaveyou.

I guess my critique of this claim is you seem to be appealing to some kind of vague non-specific Platonic ideal that has no basis in reality. I don't think any human institutions can be expected to meet those kinds of standards, as they will be different for each person.

[Zoupa]

Especially his description of the non-neutral aspect of western institutions/pacts/whathaveyou.

I guess my critique of this claim is you seem to be appealing to some kind of vague non-specific Platonic ideal that has no basis in reality. I don't think any human institutions can be expected to meet those kinds of standards, as they will be different for each person.

Indeed. You should tell that to Berkut.