The State of Affairs in Russia

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

Concretely, it means that if you mass over a hundred thousand troops on an international border, is it because you genuinely have a reasonable fear that if you don't, a foreign country or alliance is likely to invade your country.  And it matters quite a bit, because if a large troop deployment like that is not motivated for defensive reasons, then people will naturally consider the alternative explanation.

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.

Please don't take this the wrong way, as I appreciate the thoughtfulness you put into your contributions here.  But in my opinion, this is 100% bullshit.  American history is marked by British invasions - the soldiers of the King were burning our capital around the time Nappy took his Moscow tour. Do Americans carry an atavistic hostility to QE2?  No.  France and Poland I am told had some rather difficult history with Germany in the past. I guess that means that a European wide treaty is out of the question . . .

Russian citizens do not spring from the womb with an innate and genetic sense of geopolitical insecurity and paranoia.  To paraphrase Rogers and Hammerstein, you have to be carefully taught.  Decades of life under a state propaganda regime that deploys history as tool to reinforce the message of fear and insecurity creates that mentality, one that is very convenient for whatever power that might be in charge in the given moment.

Russia's a competitor of course they're going to feel threatened, because we're not care bears.

But threatened in what way?  The details matter because it determines the appropriateness and proportionality of the response.

[HVC]

The us had a contingency plan to invade Canada to protect itself from the uk up until the 30s. So yeah I think America's history might have clouded its view of the uk after that you got nukes and world power status o less of an issue

[Syt]

Speaking of Canada:



From: https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassyC

[The Minsky Moment]

Sure the US was so paranoid of a British invasion that up to 1898 (except for the Civil War era) it essentially had no regular army to speak of, other than a skeleton force.

[Berkut]

The us had a contingency plan to invade Canada to protect itself from the uk up until the 30s. So yeah I think America's history might have clouded its view of the uk after that you got nukes and world power status o less of an issue

Russia has 100,000 troops on Ukraines border RIGHT NOW. They invaded Crimea just a couple years ago, and have been sending actual troops and weapons into Ukraine in a shadow war for the last several years.

Countering that reality with "The US has contingency plans for invading the UK"....what's the fucking point here? Are you really trying to argue that we should consider the threat of Russia in some way or fashion to being no more worrisome then the idea of the US invading Canada?

[HVC]

The us had a contingency plan to invade Canada to protect itself from the uk up until the 30s. So yeah I think America's history might have clouded its view of the uk after that you got nukes and world power status o less of an issue

Russia has 100,000 troops on Ukraines border RIGHT NOW. They invaded Crimea just a couple years ago, and have been sending actual troops and weapons into Ukraine in a shadow war for the last several years.

Countering that reality with "The US has contingency plans for invading the UK"....what's the fucking point here? Are you really trying to argue that we should consider the threat of Russia in some way or fashion to being no more worrisome then the idea of the US invading Canada?

My point was that America's history did cloud their view of the uk and they carried a " atavistic hostility" towards the uk a century and a half after their last conflict, counter to minsky's characterization. I didn't mention the Ukraine at all so unbunch your parties.

[Berkut]

The us had a contingency plan to invade Canada to protect itself from the uk up until the 30s. So yeah I think America's history might have clouded its view of the uk after that you got nukes and world power status o less of an issue

Russia has 100,000 troops on Ukraines border RIGHT NOW. They invaded Crimea just a couple years ago, and have been sending actual troops and weapons into Ukraine in a shadow war for the last several years.

Countering that reality with "The US has contingency plans for invading the UK"....what's the fucking point here? Are you really trying to argue that we should consider the threat of Russia in some way or fashion to being no more worrisome then the idea of the US invading Canada?

My point was that America's history did cloud their view of the uk and they carried a " atavistic hostility" towards the uk centuries after their last conflict, counter to minsky's characterization. I didn't mention the Ukraine at all so unbundling your parties.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Russia is the only country in the world with history that clouds their views. Hell, understanding your history doesn't cloud anything necessarily.

But the US does not have a contingency plan to invade Canada because of our history with the UK. We have one because there are people whose job it is to have a contingency plan for every possible contingency. Hence the name.

Minsky's point is that every country has history, but they don't all respond in the same way. And the claim being made is that Russia is somehow different and special and should be given exceptional consideration when it comes to their claims about how they feel so threatened they have no choice but to act like belligerent assholes are, well, bullshit.

Lots of countries have similar histories and seem to have gotten over their own clouds in a manner that allows them to play reasonable nicely with others. I bet Poland has a contingency plan to invade Germany....but they don't actually do it, or even threaten to do it.

[Threviel]

War plan red, which was the name (IIRC) of the plan for war against Canada (and IIRC the UK) was a thought experiment, that's all.

War plan orange, the one for war with Japan was the one that was fleshed out properly.

[Sheilbh]

Concretely, it means that if you mass over a hundred thousand troops on an international border, is it because you genuinely have a reasonable fear that if you don't, a foreign country or alliance is likely to invade your country.  And it matters quite a bit, because if a large troop deployment like that is not motivated for defensive reasons, then people will naturally consider the alternative explanation.

I don't think there's any doubt the force is there as a threat - either just to force events, for an invasion or for coercive diplomacy.

But even if it wasn't I don't know that it would necessarily matter - Ukraine's a country the western alliance has a growing relationship with. So I can't imagine the circumstances where we'd be willing to throw that away and let them be pulled into a Russian sphere.

Please don't take this the wrong way, as I appreciate the thoughtfulness you put into your contributions here.  But in my opinion, this is 100% bullshit.  American history is marked by British invasions - the soldiers of the King were burning our capital around the time Nappy took his Moscow tour. Do Americans carry an atavistic hostility to QE2?  No.  France and Poland I am told had some rather difficult history with Germany in the past. I guess that means that a European wide treaty is out of the question . . .

No worries at all.

I think Russian fear and insecurity of invasions (rather than actual invasions) is a really important part of how Russian policy makers think and respond to things. In much the same way as I think it matters that the UK is an island, that the US has two very benign borders and the deep blue sea, that Germany is at the centre of the continent - I think geography matters, in shaping how you perceive the world and respond to it. I also think history matters in that - I think the century of humiliation is key and will continue to be fundamental to China's behaviour, similarly the colonial experience and other rising post-colonial powers like India and Nigeria. You mention Poland -  I think it's impossible to look at Polish fears of Germany not taking their concerns seriously and prioritising the relationship with Russia and think that isn't at least partially driven by historical myths and fears of partition, as much as actual objection to NordStream II.

We might want to wish this stuff away and emerge into a brave Beneluxian reality - but I think you'll be going through the world blind, because I think this stuff is really important. And of course the European treaties happened in the context of a year zero in Europe and were a conscious leap for Europe to escape the gravitational pull of its geography and history. I don't think that's the norm, even if it is admirable especially from that first generation of leaders.

Russian citizens do not spring from the womb with an innate and genetic sense of geopolitical insecurity and paranoia.  To paraphrase Rogers and Hammerstein, you have to be carefully taught.  Decades of life under a state propaganda regime that deploys history as tool to reinforce the message of fear and insecurity creates that mentality, one that is very convenient for whatever power that might be in charge in the given moment.

Absolutely. But that goes for lots of cultural or social understandings of the world, it's no different than them.

But threatened in what way?  The details matter because it determines the appropriateness and proportionality of the response.

The threat of losing UKraine (which I think they already have through the invasion - so the threat of Ukraine beginning to work) and the threat of Ukraine being supplied with, or developing technology, especially missiles, that means Russia can't meddle anymore because the risk is too high.

[Jacob]

Great minds think alike?

We might even be reacting with insufficient resolve. We might - collectively - be less coherent than we'd prefer. We might, at some point in the future, lose; and at that point we may be able to trace the origins of that potential future loss to certain actions or conditions in this moment.

Certainly, there are things I'd like for us to do differently but... our populations are not dying in massive numbers from this conflict, our economies are not collapsing, our civil societies are not collapsing, our states are not subjected to unequal and humiliating treaties reshaping our societies. This is not what losing looks like.

To claim that we are losing is a massive overstatement, to put it mildly, and lacks perspective.

Are we at a critical juncture? Yeah, looks like it.

Is the outcome in doubt? The future is always uncertain, yes. We still hold most of the cards, however.

Are we losing? No.

[The Brain]

We are winning. Cause we have tiger blood.

[Sheilbh]

We might even be reacting with insufficient resolve. We might - collectively - be less coherent than we'd prefer. We might, at some point in the future, lose; and at that point we may be able to trace the origins of that potential future loss to certain actions or conditions in this moment.

I think the Western response to this has actually been pretty impressive, united and a huge amount of the credit for that goes to Biden and Washington who have coordinated, worked with and briefed allies to craft this response. I think it's possibly a little more coherent and united than Putin expected.

[DGuller]

Great minds think alike?

We might even be reacting with insufficient resolve. We might - collectively - be less coherent than we'd prefer. We might, at some point in the future, lose; and at that point we may be able to trace the origins of that potential future loss to certain actions or conditions in this moment.

Certainly, there are things I'd like for us to do differently but... our populations are not dying in massive numbers from this conflict, our economies are not collapsing, our civil societies are not collapsing, our states are not subjected to unequal and humiliating treaties reshaping our societies. This is not what losing looks like.

To claim that we are losing is a massive overstatement, to put it mildly, and lacks perspective.

Are we at a critical juncture? Yeah, looks like it.

Is the outcome in doubt? The future is always uncertain, yes. We still hold most of the cards, however.

Are we losing? No.

I'm coming from the point of view that US is essentially in a state of cold civil war, and that cold civil war can lead to some pretty catastrophic developments.  If US falls to Trump again, or someone of his ilk, what is the West going to do in the face of Russian/Chinese aggression?  I don't think that 150 Swedes without any tank destroyers are going to hold the line for the western civilization.  Maybe we're not losing yet, but IMO we're in a very precarious situation with no clear path out of it.

[Berkut]

The threat of losing UKraine (which I think they already have through the invasion - so the threat of Ukraine beginning to work) and the threat of Ukraine being supplied with, or developing technology, especially missiles, that means Russia can't meddle anymore because the risk is too high.

But that is my point from the start!

They claim that the they are motivated not be the threat of not being allowed to meddle anymore, but rather by the threat that someone is going to actually invade Russia.

THAT is what I call bullshit on. They do not actually believe that there is ANY real threat that anyone is going to invade Russia.

There is objectively no such threat, and they know that there is no such threat.

What they are actually reacting to is just what you just said - that if they do not do something, their ability to "meddle" will be removed.

But it's hard to sell invading another country in response to a presumably sovereign nation deciding to align itself with someone else. So they craft this story that they are actually under a specific military threat, so a specific military response is justified. And it is utter bullshit.

And us sagely nodding and saying "Yes, yes, those poor Russians! Did you see what the Grand Army did back in 1812? You can certainly understand why they would need to invade Georgia and get nervous about NATO in Lithuania!" Bollocks.

I am not saying they should look on the West as their buddies and friends by any means. But the idea that they actually have real concerns about being invaded are bullshit. They do not, and what is more important - *they know they do not*.

Just like the GOP knows that the election was not actually stolen.

[Jacob]

I'm coming from the point of view that US is essentially in a state of cold civil war, and that cold civil war can lead to some pretty catastrophic developments.  If US falls to Trump again, or someone of his ilk, what is the West going to do in the face of Russian/Chinese aggression?  I don't think that 150 Swedes without any tank destroyers are going to hold the line for the western civilization.  Maybe we're not losing yet, but IMO we're in a very precarious situation with no clear path out of it.

Yeah that I can agree with. A Trump victory could be catastrophic in many ways, including here. And I agree the West, as a whole, is not in top trim and things could are precarious. But that's not the same as losing. Not yet. Things can get a lot worse.