Exasperated cultuire is a beyotch, ain't it?
[QUOTE=PedroMorales;2698333]Russia has a deep and wide culture. The USA has none, nada.
Venezuela's problems are exasperated by the USA stealing (freezing etc) its financial and other resources.
The rouble is strong, the German economy is in the toilet, all for obeying the USA and its puppets.[/QUOTE]Or did you mean to say "exacerbated" and "culture" instead?
Oh well, your illiteracy aside, both Venezuela and Russia are experiencing the consequences of their own actions. And anyone looking for a foreshadowing of likely future effects on Russia would do well to study the toll sanctions have taken on Venezuela's economy. They've both made their geopolitical beds and now are being compelled to sleep in them. If they have problems with that, they should start by taking a look in the mirror.
As far as Russian culture is concerned, it's actually at the root of their current troubles. Russia's hubris and narcissistic world view has its foundation in a delusional self-image. They have disdain for anything non-Russian and a belief they have a God-given right to rule over other nations, especially those with populations predominantly of Slavic origin.
Actually, when it comes to culture, Kyiv has priority over Moscow as it's the older capital by far and it's where "Kievan Rus" originated, not Moscow. So, by any standard of cultural primacy, Moscow should be paying tribute to Kyiv, not the other way around.
As far as the US is concerned, being a young country, built by immigrants from every corner of the world, we're happy to be an amalgamation of many cultures. One of the benefits of that unique history is that it tends to ameliorate, minimize, and eliminate the worst ideas and tendencies of any single culture. Is it perfect? Absolutely not! But there's a reason why there's a waiting line to get in, and it's because many still see it as the quintessential Land of Opportunity.
What opportunity is there in Russia? You're either a member of the St. Petersburg-Moscow elite or you're a peasant who exists for the sole purpose of being used and exploited by that elite. Russia's problem is that, while past leaders (Tsars and USSR dictators) had an ample supply of cannon fodder, that demographic reality no longer exists. Not only are they running short of exploitable military-age men, but they're dealing with a huge exodus of their best and brightest.
Russia, like Putin himself, is sick and getting sicker.
P.S. As far as Germany is concerned, they've been joined at the hip with Russia for years. Serves them right if their economy is suffering as a result. The sooner Europe cuts any lines that tie them to the sinking Russian ship, the better.
The problem with that argument
[QUOTE=Kozerog;2698445]This is a recent short video clip where Mearsheimer clearly explains the extreme danger of current USA policy. To summarize, there are 2 conditions under which Russia will use nukes: (1) someone uses nukes against Russia first; (2) Russia faces threat to its existence. "Threat to existence" is a fuzzy concept, but that is exactly what the USA cheerleaders seems to be hinting at. In particular, humiliating external military defeat that might lead to internal political disintegration sounds like "threat to existence". If you care about Ukraine, then you cannot be hoping for humiliating Russian defeat because of the possibility this causes escalation to nukes. Painful as it will be to the Ukrainians, they need to accept any reasonable settlement with Russia. Which probably means more of south and east Ukraine under Russian control that before..[/QUOTE]Is that it relies on at least one dubious (if not provably false) assumption. And that is that there is any settlement that will satisfy Russia in the long run. They started this war with the aim of taking ALL of Ukraine. They failed mostly because their "intel" that a sizeable portion of the population would greet them as liberators was dead (pun intended) wrong. So what basis is there for a school of thought that Russia will ever be fully satisfied by taking (only) Donetsk, Luhansk, and other such areas? Such a view is naive in the extreme, IMO, or willfully ignorant.
Based on multiple statements by Putin, and others, a better reality-based assessment is that Russian ambition is to reclaim territory they feel is theirs by historical and divine right. Which means that any agreement or armistice that falls short of that goal is likely doomed to failure.
But, but, they have NUKES! Yes, that's absolutely true. And they'll still have nukes if they decide to "denazify" Poland, Finland, or the Baltics. Or maybe start with non-NATO countries like Moldova? The problem with the nuke argument is that it gives the aggressor carte blanche, and Putin knows this and doesn't hesitate to rattle his nuclear saber.
So where does it stop? Mearsheimer seems to believe it's all the fault of NATO and the West and that Russia would play nice if they weren't provoked. I don't think history and evidence back up that position. For one thing, it denies or minimizes Russia's agency over, and responsibility for, its own decisions and actions. The rivalry between the US and the USSR (and now Russia) is such that each has been provoking the other for decades. I'm not defending any specific action by NATO or the West, merely observing that Russia AFFIRMATIVELY chose to invade, and they CHOSE to launch shells and missiles at targets they knew were civilian. Putin and Russia will go down in history as war criminals, and not just because NATO or the US says so. There will be an innumerable number of voices that will join in a chorus of condemnation.
All the above means that Mearsheimer's proposed solution doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of happening. And one ironclad piece of evidence to that effect is that Ukraine will never accept it, and there's no political will to pressure them to do so. And, even if there was, Ukraine would destroy any such pressure in the court of public opinion as they're hugely winning the information warfare battle.
As to how things will actually play out, I'd be foolish to predict since there are so many variables still in play. But I will share an insight that I thought was a good one. And by good I mean that it's based on what's actually happening rather than someone's idea of what "should" happen.
[URL]https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/the-ingenious-strategy-that-could-win-the-war-for-ukraine-20220517-p5alz4.html[/URL]
The article, authored by a retired Australian general, points out that Ukraine's strategy so far has been one of "corrosion" with respect to Russia's ability to fight. Rather than pushing for overt victories, which they'd probably find difficult to achieve, they're wearing down the enemy while undermining that enemy's ability and will to fight. Will that prove successful over the long haul? Who knows? But it's the kind of low-key strategy that robs Putin of escalation opportunities. His army is grinding to a halt due to its own logistical and leadership failures, and even everyday Russians are starting to recognize that fact. Russian military bloggers, as just one example, have recently savaged the army's botched river crossing, in which they reportedly lost hundreds of vehicles and troops. Nobody's buying the "NATO did that" BS excuse. And at the same time, many conscription offices are being firebombed across Russia.
I think Putin knows he has a weak hand and that's one reason he passed up a prime opportunity to mobilize and escalate, during the recent Victory Day celebration. Instead, he delivered a nothingburger of a speech that left analysts, inside and outside Russia, scratching their heads.
I can't predict the future, and neither can Mearsheimer, but I'm not buying what he's selling.
I wish I could share your optimism
[QUOTE=WyattEarp;2698469]This is all very likely, but I'm a bit more optimistic.[/QUOTE]I didn't include the rest of your post in the quote above because, no matter how rational and hopeful it may sound, I fear it's largely irrelevant.
That's because I believe this war involves issues that far predate Putin, and go back much further than even the USSR period. Here's a thread that, while a bit of a long read, delves deeply into the cultural and historical underpinnings of the conflict:
[URL]https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1516162437455654913.html[/URL]
After reading this it became clear to me that Russia is not what it is because of Putin. Rather Putin is what he is because of Russia, and is the product of all the cultural, literary, and religious traditions that form the Russian consciousness. Putin is merely the current instrument of that consciousness and, when he's gone, Russia will choose another. Whatever the solution is, if one even exists, it won't be one that only touches the surface and addresses only the current state of affairs. I can't fathom what would be required to change the entire soul, and deep-seated world view, of an entire nation. Yet that might be exactly what's required. That realization, unfortunately, is why I can't share your optimism.
Reality isn't a matter of opinion
[QUOTE=Kozerog;2698709]You write about realism but you don't understand what it is and in fact you are another idealist.
Humans are territorial animals. Territorial borders are set largely by assessment of comparative strength of competitors for territory. To take territory from an existing possessor requires being considerably stronger, because no one gives up territory if they can avoid it. These rules about territory apply everywhere in nature. Open conflict occurs when there is uncertainty as to comparative fighting strength (both bodily and mental strength aka willpower or determination). Animals always understand the rules, so senseless fighting (outcome obvious but neither side relents and thus both sides suffer) is rare in nature. Senseless fighting is more common among humans, because mental strength is such a big factor, and far more difficult to assess mental than physical strength of the opponents. In particular, fighting to death over ideologies (like Ukrainian versus Russian language) is unheard of with animals but common with humans...[/QUOTE]I define reality as things that are actually happening, not how I think things "should be," but the facts and evidence on the ground. You make repeated reference to Mearsheimer's world view, which you obviously share. But confusing a world view with reality is exactly the same fatal error that Russia made when they invaded. In their mistaken world view, Ukraine is just a subset of Greater Russia, and of course Ukrainians "should" recognize that fact and welcome the "liberators" benevolently sent by the Kremlin. But reality always has the final say, as tens of thousands of dead Russian soldiers can attest.
I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I'm proposing greater US involvement. I propose nothing, I merely observe, comment on those observations, and suggest possible extrapolations from what's currently happening. And I do my best to focus on the tides rather than the waves. And right now the tide is almost entirely moving against Russia. If or when that changes, I'll do my best to make accurate observations of that new reality. I don't see that happening any time soon, if ever, but that's simply an opinion.
Likewise, your and Mearsheimer's world view about humans as territorial animals, which seems to me to be essentially a "Law of the Jungle" view, is an opinion, nothing more. You're certainly entitled to it and I simply have no inclination to debate it because, as I stated above, my focus is on the current, observable, reality of facts on the ground.
Right now, those facts include a vast amount of money and equipment being funneled into Ukraine from NATO and Western countries. Could that change at some point? Yes, certainly. But that tide hasn't changed and is flowing decisively in Ukraine's direction. And it's worth considering that much of what's happening may not stem from any great love or affinity for Ukraine, but perhaps be driven by fear (or hate) of Russia and a desire to see Russian aggression defeated and Russia itself crippled. But that latter point is simply one theory as to why some countries are helping. The "why" of things is always open to debate, whereas the "what" is objectively observable.
Mearsheimer, IMO, superimposes his view of the "why" on the "what" and conflates the two. All his (and your) claims that his theories and world view constitute objective reality simply fall flat except, of course, to those that share them.
As with any theory, Mearsheimer's might prove to be correct. I don't personally think so, but I could be wrong. It's reality that always wins out in the end, and separates the wheat from the chaff. That's where my primary focus is, and any theory that doesn't account for, or contradicts, observable facts and evidence isn't worth my time.
