Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 79

Thread: The Russians Are Coming: Lithuania's Operation Lightning Strike

  1. #61
    Gray Hobbyist Wondering Beard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    The Coterie Club
    If you look at a map, Russia and the US are certainly not natural born adversaries as far as I'm concerned (China is more likely to be one in my opinion), more like natural competitors and often allies. I think Russia and the US are more likely to have interests in common than not.

    However, and this is the sticking point, the map is not the terrain as the expression goes.

    The Russian gov't and to a great degree the Russian people do see us as natural enemies. This is where historical political culture becomes important. It is ingrained in Russian culture and history that if I gain an advantage then you have, by definition, lost something important. As far as they are concerned there is a finite pie that is constantly cut and recut and the only way to get a sufficient piece of pie is to have huge one *. I would argue that going back to the original Rus invasions of Eastern Europe, the people, and most certainly the rulers of these lands, have thought that way. Frankly, they had good reasons to do so. From the more or less constant wars between the city states of that area (e.g. Kiev, Vladimir, Moscow and so on), through the Mongol invasions, the deadly internal politics of tsarist courts, the invasions of (in no particular order) Swedes, Poles, Teutonic Knights, Turks, Prussians, French, Germans etc..to today, paranoia has to reign. While some may argue that Lenin was more of an idealist, Stalin and all who followed (included Yeltsin and Putin) absolutely believed that if they don't take, someone will take from them, no exceptions. As a result, if the US is the dominant power it's because they took from Russia. The very internal politics of Russia function this way; anyone who rises in wealth and power must be controlled or eliminated by the state because instead of being a potential boon to the country (like a Steve Jobs and Apple or a Walmart for us in the US) he is a rival to state power, more specifically whoever sits at the center of state power.

    As a result, if we say to Russia "you want a sphere of influence? fine, have at it, it's no skin off our backs, and in the meanwhile let's do business", the people in power in Russia will think "aha! they are weak and we have an opportunity to get a greater piece of the pie for our own security". These different understandings of geopolitical reality, these disconnects, are inherently destabilizing and ultimately very dangerous to us** because if we don't respond firmly (which certainly does not always mean militarily -preferably it means very rarely militarily) then we lose the trust of people and countries who, rightly or wrongly. rely on us which, in turn, tends to empower those who are truly dangerous to us (Iran under the mullahs for example, even though Iran and its people ought to more naturally be an ally than not). Russia's instincts (and to a great degree China's) tends to think about international politics in terms of acquiring more control while American instincts (US gov't instincts being somewhat different) tend to be about obtaining and maintaining wealth.

    Dealing with Russia is exceedingly tricky. To oversimplify, it's as if we were dealing with an individual whose gun is always in hand (sometimes hidden, sometimes out in the open and sometimes it's a working gun while other times it's a piece of junk but it' s awfully hard to tell) and who is going to view our actions far differently than we intend them to be, but even if we shoot them, we can't kill them without being irremediably hurt ourselves in the process.

    I wish it were different, I have no prescription for what is truly the best thing to do. With Russia, things are always on a knife's edge, even if it's sometimes dull.



    *This is how politicians naturally think no matter what country they're from. If I get elected to a post, you didn't; if I get an agency high level job, you didn't; if I control X amount of territory, you don't. To anyone whose livelihood is politics (from a country's dictator to a local city councilman) power and riches is a finite pie; if I get some, it's from other people's share and vice versa; therefore if I get rich and powerful or my people and/or country get wealthy and powerful it's because I took and keep protecting my slice from others who want it. Any economist worth his salt will tell you that there is no pie, there never was. Wealth and power come from human ingenuity and creativity. All advances in personal safety and well being, in technology, in living standards, come from the capability to exchange, to trade, to creatively use and find new uses for the material and energy that is already in place and the only limitation is not who has which slice but how to minimize the costs.

    ** Trying to convince Russia that indifference doesn't mean weakness ends up being understood, at best, that the US is naive and thus ripe to being taken advantage of and at worst, that the US has some nefarious plan that endangers Russia's survival. There is a basic absence of common ground to build on.

  2. #62
    Site Supporter MDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Terroir de terror
    Yep, I understand. I just disagree, is all. I think we and the Russians are more alike - that the Russians are less "must grab pie while getting is good," and Americans are more so - than what you describe. I think the animosity feels so natural because for, what, three generations? At least two. Anyway, for a long time Russia had this explicit goal to rule the world. And since the US was honestly the only country in a position to stop them, we started thwarting them, or trying to, at every turn.

    Russia couldn't have taken over back then, and they certainly can't expand forever now. So why are we so hellbent on war?
    The answer, it seems to me, is wrath. The mind cannot foresee its own advance. --FA Hayek Specialization is for insects.

  3. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Columbus Ohio Area
    Quote Originally Posted by MDS View Post
    I think we and the Russians are more alike - that the Russians are less "must grab pie while getting is good," and Americans are more so - than what you describe.
    While you both make great arguments, I've got to strongly agree with this quote.

    Frankly, I think the people making the real "war" whispers are actually the people trying to restore America's economy and "status" in the world...not the Russians. Putin makes some outrageous statements, to be sure, but I feel this is more of a case of who is highlighting and repeating those comments, rather than who is making them.

  4. #64
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Canton GA
    Maybe Putin is rattling sabers so that the Russians are not focused on their internal issues. Or, maybe that is us?

  5. #65
    Site Supporter MDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Terroir de terror
    Quote Originally Posted by ranger View Post
    Maybe Putin is rattling sabers so that the Russians are not focused on their internal issues. Or, maybe that is us?
    Ooh! Is there a choice C, all of the above? To me, one of the more interesting intricacies of all this is how the domestic politics make the game just exponentially more complicated. Putin has a lot more freedom of action because his people would more or less have to physically revolt, but he is still very, very constrained by internal dynamics.
    The answer, it seems to me, is wrath. The mind cannot foresee its own advance. --FA Hayek Specialization is for insects.

  6. #66
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by MDS View Post
    TGS, thanks again for those articles. The boys decided to play instead of building their new model rockets right now, so I had time to peruse them. Admittedly, I didn't read every word of all of them, but I do feel like I got a strong sense for the picture each was trying to paint.



    I agree with this article pretty well. It plainly states that Russia's actions in the Ukraine only look like expansionist aggression to US eyes, but are in fact motivated by Russia's perception of existential threats from the US. "Putin describes the Crimea as a birthplace of Russian culture, and his government has repeatedly warned against the expansion of Western economic and political influence into a region historically regarded as Moscow’s sphere of influence." And Russia is in fact a dangerous adversary, because "sanctions sometimes provoke precisely the opposite response from what policymakers hope. In Russia’s case, that could mean a threat to America’s survival."

    Not sure why you think this article supports ongoing intervention, could you clarify that?



    This article isn't far off, though it ignores a lot of context that could help interpret the facts it reports. My view of Russian military exercises in areas that are traditionally thought of as European or American sphere of influence is that it's a simple how do you like it when the shoe's on the other foot? Buried in the article is a line that captures my thinking: 'Gortney said the Russian air patrols, in part, are designed to "communicate its displeasure with Western policies, particularly with regard to Ukraine."' I would add that it communicates not only displeasure, but also an ability and willingness to step up military posturing in lockstep with Western posturing...with attendant military possibilities.

    This article only supports ongoing intervention if the facts are taken out of context, and placed in a new, illusory context of a natural, intrinsic animosity between Russia and the West.



    This article has a slant much more in line with what you've been arguing. The points are not invalid, and in fact I was fascinated by the following: 'Russia’s approach to ideology is fluid: it supports both far-left and far-right groups. [...] Far-right groups are seduced by the idea of Moscow as a counterweight to the EU, and by its law-and-order policies. Its stance on homosexuality and promotion of “traditional” moral values appeal to religious conservatives. The far left likes the talk of fighting American hegemony.'

    There's a lot of detailed understanding about the mechanics of this adversarial dance. No one is questioning that there is such a dance. Malamute wrote above about Russian crowds cheering the image of Yellowstone as a nuclear wasteland. No doubt, America and Russia are geopolitical adversaries.

    What's missing, though, is an understanding of what's under that dance. A good start is to think about the question someone asked above: is Russia gunning for imperial glory, or looking to reestablish that ancient buffer zone? But the issue is much more complex - whether expansionist or buffer-zone-ist (sp?) we have a Kremlin with some apparent internal struggles, and an economy that's not keeping the people as happy with their leaders as their leaders might like. These are the questions I'm alluding to, when I ask if we have to be so anti-Russia all the time.

    Sure, the regime is oppressive. The people are often on the government's side in large part because of lies and propaganda. But are the interests of liberating oppressed people be better served by continuing to antagonize those people? Or could we respect their space and their sphere of influence, engage in mutually beneficial trade, and allow the rubbing of cultures (which is inevitable in this internet age) to do the slow work of breaking down barriers? More to my point, is the need to keep Russia out of Ukraine so urgent, that we're willing to risk so much? I get that we're entangled in many ways now, but why are we so eager to intervene in the Baltics when we've got so many pressing issues at home and elsewhere in the world?


    I really liked this article, even though I cringed at gratuitous barbs like "he seems certain to get what he wants there [in Ukraine]: a wretched little quasi-state in the Donbas" - I wish they're replace the hysterical phrase wretched little quasi-state with some more objectively descriptive words. There's clearly an anti-Russia bias, and there's not a real explanation of why. Implicit in that bias is a very romantic notion of what motivates the West. Consider: "Mr Putin plays by different rules; indeed, for him, there are no inviolable rules, nor universal values, nor even cast-iron facts [...]" There's a long and well-analyzed body of evidence showing that these are exactly the rules the US plays by. Again, I just loathe the internal inconsistency - if not outright dishonesty - of moral or ethical arguments in geopolitics.

    But whatever. I can put that aside, and in fact I don't know why I don't read more of The Economist. The article states the obvious: that Russia wants to destabilize Western institutions as much as we want to keep Russian institutions as weak as possible. Our patronizing attitude after the Cold War spawned a lot of butt hurt, and though I'm not well-versed in that period enough to say for sure, I can't imagine there wasn't a better long-term approach. But that was all foreplay, and things are now getting serious, this adversarial relationship is getting very dangerous. Russia's going to get what's fair (a buffer zone periphery) because we don't want nuclear war, either, and Russia seems willing to risk nukes if it means protecting their sovereignty. By the same token, they're not going to cross the line into invading Europe because is also willing to go all the way to protect its sovereignty as well. So we'll do a little dance for a while, find some kind of equilibrium, and each side will stay just shy of truly threatening the sovereignty of the other.

    But here again, there is a core unstated assumption, that as sure as the sun rises in the east, our military must rush to intervene wherever Russia flexes. My question is, why don't we let Europe and Russia figure out that equilibrium (mostly) on their own? Then, if against all odds major war does break out, it'll stay (mostly) on the continent. We can weigh in towards the end, being careful to avoid threatening such critical interests that we're liable to get nuked. If Russia really does nuke Europe, well, all bets are off and that's where my whiskey, tobacco, and ammo come in. But the lesson from the Cold War is that people don't want to trigger that if they can help it, so we should be able to find a middle path. (Not that I'm confident in our ability to find that path...)

    So there's a lot to gain from delayed intervention. Now let's come at it the other way. What will early intervention buy us? Do we really think Russia will stop working on its peripheral buffer zone because of some US troops nearby? On the contrary, I suspect this would embolden Putin, the Kremlin, and the Russian people. Do we really think these maneuvers will make nuclear war less likely? Again, on the contrary, it can only serve to make Russia even more nervous about our motivations and the threat to their sovereignty. So what do we gain from early intervention, and would that be lost by a policy of late intervention?
    Mario,

    I think the answer to your question on "why do these articles support intervention" is actually answered quite well in the few posts afterwards, discussing Russia's habit of paranoia.

    Some countries have certain traits in international relations. The Israelis have the habit of acting like a cornered cat, simply because they have zero defense in depth....thus preemptive, proactive kinetic actions are always going to be a major point.

    North Korea is the epitome of an 18 year old named "Candy" whose gag reflex is as absent as her father figure, and takes to a grungy pole on the weekday off-hours to make shit money. In more candid terms, North Korea always plays the victim using crazy rhetoric within a convulsed reality only they can dream up, and then extorts money from other nations.

    And then there's Russia, as explained.

    Simply put, if the last hundred years aren't a reason to believe that Russian aggression is real, and that we should be concerned....I really don't know what else to say. In addition, today we have major economic competition between the US and Russia within the energy market. That alone is enough reason to be concerned, as economic sanctions over Russian aggression have severely hurt Russia's economy, as well as dangered Putins power as he rose in popularity due to riding an economic wave of improvement. His response has been to stir up nationalism, build up the military, and invade other countries.....all the while blaming us for all of their problems (nevermind the fact you could consider not invading other countries without provocation in the first place).

    In the end, there really isn't any deep understanding needed for why we should be concerned about Russia, as the last sentence should say it all. It doesn't matter if we're natural born enemies or not, because Russia is picking a fight with us regardless.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Wondering Beard View Post

    What I was trying to convey (and did badly) is that Americans, as a population in general, do not see the world as a pie of which we need a huge share in order to feel safe but rather do not see a pie at all. Instead we tend to see at a minimum a place in which cohabitation is a fine thing (so long as you don't "step on our toes" thus the fences comment) or at a maximum a place where we extend our interests all over in order to grow wealth (preferably ours). As a result, most Americans who enter international politics start off with that sort of vague cultural attitude in mind. Whereas the Russians start off with the vague cultural attitude of "if you win something, I must have lost something" and vice versa.
    There are American military bases set all over the world. No other country has the same rapid force deployment capabilities thanks to our carriers. The US has been involved in two wars lately thousands miles away from the shores, one of them in an oil rich country, and neither of them solved any particular problem. This is what the outside world sees, and that's what everyone, including but not limited to Russians people, brings into the conversation about "cohabitation and not wanting a piece of pie". When I talk about Crimea, they talk about Guantanamo. Etc.
    As far as Russian people having an expansionist ideas, trust me, they don't give a shit.

  8. #68
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    YVK (and Suvarov), I'd love to hear your take on Russia's military aggression over the last year.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by TGS View Post
    YVK (and Suvarov), I'd love to hear your take on Russia's military aggression over the last year.
    TGS, do you want my personal opinion or my insight on Russian people's attitudes?

  10. #70
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by YVK View Post
    TGS, do you want my personal opinion or my insight on Russian people's attitudes?
    I guess both would be awesome! I was orginally just asking for your personal opinion on Russia's aggression, and I guess if you could share your opinion on whether they present any danger (direct or indirect) to the US.

    I don't know....I just want to pick your brain.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •