Europe under extreme duress

[skybert]

 

[taxi1]

I say invading Ukraine was rational because from the standpoint of a Russian nationalist, Ukraine is of supreme importance.

Never forget that human beings have the ability to rationalize (literally, make rational) anything.

I always come back to this short but on-point essay

War’s irrational motivators

The fundamental dictum guiding our diplomats and analysts has been that states and human collectives act in their own rational self-interest. This is utterly wrong, leading us to convoluted analyse…

armedforcesjournal.com

Instead of clinging to the failed model of rational self-interest as an analytical tool, substitute “emotional self-interest.” It’s akin to switching on a light. If, instead of fabricating logical sequences of calculation where none exist, we accept that indi¬viduals, peoples and states act in ways that are emotionally sat¬isfying, no end of knotty analytical problems dissolve.

 

[Brett327]

I said if/when Russia is defeated, the West should not punish Russia too badly or else you could get a repeat of Germany in the 1930s.

This is a fairly absurd proposition.

 

[Hotdogs]

None of that is rational from the standpoint of a liberal democracy, but I'd say it is fully rational from the standpoint of a dictatorship. Dictatorships always make these kinds of claims to counter the West. Look at China. They're always threatening to sink U.S. ships or this or that violence if the U.S. sails through the South China Sea or gives aid to Taiwan or whatnot, or recently lands Nancy Pelosi in Taiwan. It is rational because it is an attempt at a scare tactic. And given how the war is going for Putin, it is a rational move to try and break the Western alliance that is supporting Ukraine. I believe he did assess Western engagement and that this is part of why he attacked, to take control before Ukraine becomes too Western. But it seems his assessment of both his own and Ukrainian capabilities were as bad as ours (remember how originally it was said Kyiv would probably fall within 72 hours and Ukraine was toast if Russia invaded).

With proper intelligence, yes, but given how the Russian state works, Putin's knowledge of his military was very bad and his knowledge of Ukraine's was bad and apparently of the Ukrainian acceptance of Russia was also very bad. I say invading Ukraine was rational because from the standpoint of a Russian nationalist, Ukraine is of supreme importance. It held I think around 70% of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. It has the most fertile agricultural soil in the world and was responsible for the majority of Soviet agricultural production. It is a major path through which to invade Russia. It gives access to a warm water port. From a Russian imperialist/nationalist view, it absolutely cannot be allowed to fall to the West. So in this sense, Putin's invasion strikes me as rational.

I will have to check out the video of him interrogating his security team.

The U.S. and U.K. going into Iraq is hugely different from if Russia starts lobbing nuclear weapons, especially into Western Europe's backyard. Also, the EU couldn't really do much to stop the U.S. from invading Iraq whereas China likely could do a lot to pressure Putin. I can't imagine China could just shrug and say, "Nothing we can do" in such a scenario.

Oh I agree there and wasn't trying to imply that a defeat of Russia would be rosy. That's why I said if/when Russia is defeated, the West should not punish Russia too badly or else you could get a repeat of Germany in the 1930s. But respectfully, I think it is you yourself that has been looking at this from a Western point of view. Your idea of rational behavior seems to be based on what is rational to a Western mindset, not a Russian mindset.

I guess you’ve just got this all figured it. I’ll just agree to disagree. Your highlighted statements are contradictory. The irrationality in Putin stems from material vs identity factors and does not make sense. As a matter of fact - Putin references the exact opposite of what you claim. Ukraine’s economic and industrial performance had declined since 1991. He consistently does not mention any of the strategic value of Ukraine in his public statements (amongst the other myths mentioned previously). It is all identity based (Reference his diatribe about Russo-Ukrainian history last year). I am not sure how you reconcile Putin’s actions with his statements. Deceit and truth are not universally western virtues. If see the rationality in his actions - then great. However, I am failing to see it.

Putin had a multitude of other options to reach his end state (Economic, Diplomatic) prior to 2014 and 2022. If he was rational or logical he would’ve realized that the U.S. led western system is built on economics, diplomacy, and governmental systems. China is making attempts in this area as well. Perhaps a logical response would’ve been to further those interests vice an extra-territorial claim. Imperialist claims are almost universally shunned by most of the modern world (Ironically including his partners: Iran and China). Further, preemptive offensive nuclear threats should never be considered rational by any stretch of the imagination.

Russia invaded with a roughly 1-1 force ratio against Ukraine. Not much flexibility in that plan. Intelligence assessments have a difficultly in assessing the will to fight - given the fighting in Donbas since 2014, I think everyone got that wrong.

Your assessment on China is incorrect for numerous factors. How much is Russia free riding from China? and vice versa? Not much. The Chinese do not rely on a Russian security constellation like NATO (EU by extension), or our Asian mutual defense treaty allies. I.e. China does not need Russia. Sino-Russian security interests maybe aligned in some areas, but not to the extent that Russia would constraint its actions for perceived vital regional interests.

You mention not punishing Russia after this is all said and done. There were numerous factors in the interwar period that caused German revanchism. Particularly occupation of the Ruhrland, Alace-Lorraine, arms control, and reparations. None of these are likely factors after this conflict. Not to mention the aftershock of internal Russian turbulence and how that shakes out.

 

[nittany03]

You mention not punishing Russia after this is all said and done. There were numerous factors in the interwar period that caused German revanchism. Particularly occupation of the Ruhrland, Alace-Lorraine, arms control, and reparations. None of these are likely factors after this conflict. Not to mention the aftershock of internal Russian turbulence and how that shakes out.

We also need to keep in mind that German revanchism was a thing because Germany had the demographic and economic means to rearm itself, and had to be kept down because of it.

 

[Random8145]

This is a fairly absurd proposition.

How so? If Russia was punished too harshly, why couldn't we see the rise of an extreme Russian nationalist party?

 

[Random8145]

I guess you’ve just got this all figured it. I’ll just agree to disagree. Your highlighted statements are contradictory. The irrationality in Putin stems from material vs identity factors and does not make sense. As a matter of fact - Putin references the exact opposite of what you claim. Ukraine’s economic and industrial performance had declined since 1991. He consistently does not mention any of the strategic value of Ukraine in his public statements (amongst the other myths mentioned previously). It is all identity based (Reference his diatribe about Russo-Ukrainian history last year). I am not sure how you reconcile Putin’s actions with his statements. Deceit and truth are not universally western virtues. If see the rationality in his actions - then great. However, I am failing to see it.

He says Ukraine doesn't really exist, that it is historically part of Russia. I could be wrong, but why would he publicly state Ukraine's strategic value to Russia? I mean leaders like that don't generally publicly say things like, "Ukraine is too strategically important to the Russian state to let it fall to the West, therefore I'm invading..."

Putin had a multitude of other options to reach his end state (Economic, Diplomatic) prior to 2014 and 2022. If he was rational or logical he would’ve realized that the U.S. led western system is built on economics, diplomacy, and governmental systems. China is making attempts in this area as well. Perhaps a logical response would’ve been to further those interests vice an extra-territorial claim. Imperialist claims are almost universally shunned by most of the modern world (Ironically including his partners: Iran and China). Further, preemptive offensive nuclear threats should never be considered rational by any stretch of the imagination.

Russia invaded with a roughly 1-1 force ratio against Ukraine. Not much flexibility in that plan. Intelligence assessments have a difficultly in assessing the will to fight - given the fighting in Donbas since 2014, I think everyone got that wrong.

Again, you're looking at this from a Western mindset and thinking the Russian is irrational because he doesn't pursue the Western ways towards prosperity and strength. Russians don't look at the world in that way. Russians at heart are still imperialists. They do not view national strength and prestige based off of economic achievements or economic size or diplomacy or standard of living, they view it based on territory and military strength. Size of the country territory-wise and fear of said nation by the rest of the world is how they rate national strength, as those things are how they see respect as being garnered. And since the standard of living in the country sucks so much, and so many Russians don't even have a proper understanding of market economics and freedom, this all the more persists. If they had a Western standard of living with Western freedoms, their mindset might be different, but they do not. This is why many Russians today long for the days of the Soviet Union.

That imperialism is rejected by the rest of the world means nothing to such a Russian. To them, the rest of the world just seeking to contain Russia. Also, what makes you think that Iran and China reject imperialism? Both of those countries I'd say are ardent imperialists, they just are working and biding their time to try and become the premier powers of their regions. China wants Taiwan, and wants domination of the Asia-Pacific region. Iran wants domination of the Middle East. I still do not get why you think nuclear threats are not rational when they are used as a scare tactic by dictatorships.

Your assessment on China is incorrect for numerous factors. How much is Russia free riding from China? and vice versa? Not much. The Chinese do not rely on a Russian security constellation like NATO (EU by extension), or our Asian mutual defense treaty allies. I.e. China does not need Russia. Sino-Russian security interests maybe aligned in some areas, but not to the extent that Russia would constraint its actions for perceived vital regional interests.

You mention not punishing Russia after this is all said and done. There were numerous factors in the interwar period that caused German revanchism. Particularly occupation of the Ruhrland, Alace-Lorraine, arms control, and reparations. None of these are likely factors after this conflict. Not to mention the aftershock of internal Russian turbulence and how that shakes out.

China I'd argue actually does need Russia to some degree, for things like jet engines. Jet engines are extremely difficult to reverse engineer, so unlike with electronics and computers, the Chinese are behind everyone in this technology. They have their own domestically-developed engines, but those are sub-par in their performance. To get decent engines, they use Russian engines a lot. And I'd think Russia needs China right now given China is their only "friend," given the Western sanctions in place at the moment. So I think regarding use of nukes, China could say to Putin, "You start doing that and we'll cut you off completely," because the Chinese I doubt want to be seen as okay with such a thing.

 

[Random8145]

Never forget that human beings have the ability to rationalize (literally, make rational) anything.

I always come back to this short but on-point essay

War’s irrational motivators

The fundamental dictum guiding our diplomats and analysts has been that states and human collectives act in their own rational self-interest. This is utterly wrong, leading us to convoluted analyse…

armedforcesjournal.com

Instead of clinging to the failed model of rational self-interest as an analytical tool, substitute “emotional self-interest.” It’s akin to switching on a light. If, instead of fabricating logical sequences of calculation where none exist, we accept that indi¬viduals, peoples and states act in ways that are emotionally sat¬isfying, no end of knotty analytical problems dissolve.

Well I never agreed with the idea that countries pursue a "rational self-interest," other than maybe liberal democracies coming the closest perhaps. But otherwise, both rationality and emotion play a huge role as well. I would have to disagree with part of the article though, regarding Germany:

The Holocaust. Fast forward to another historical enigma, in which Europe’s German-speaking populations (abetted by others) systematically rooted out their Jewish minorities and did their best to exterminate them. In terms of rational self-interest, this was madness:...But no explanation couched in terms of rational self-interest begins to offer a convincing explanation for the passion, ener¬gy and commitment of resources in wartime that the German people applied to the destruction of European Jewry.

Instead, look at this monstrous frenzy in terms of the emo¬tional satisfaction it provided. In “the Germanies,” anti-Semitism enjoyed a popular appeal dating back to the Crusades and beyond — not only because Jews were different, but also because human beings need a malign force to blame for their self-wrought difficulties (or for acts of nature, such as epidemics). The factual innocence of the Jews was irrelevant...Enlightened self-interest? A dead end analytically. Emotional self-interest? There you have it. The satisfaction Germans derived from tormenting and murdering their Jewish neighbors was so great it drove them to act in a manner direct¬ly opposed to their rational self-interest.

IMO, this is an oversimplified way of looking at why Germany did what it did. Yes, anti-Semitism was long-running in Germany and yes, it felt good to many Germans to do what they did, but there was more to it than that. The Holocaust was only one part of what the Germans did. Rational self-interest, from the mindset of a Nazi, played a huge role in Germany's behavior. For example, the author mentions the "factual innocence of the Jews..." to a Nazi, the Jews were not innocent in the slightest. They were the epitome of evil, among the most evil races to ever walk the face of the Earth. They were scum. In addition, they were sub-human, and the widely-accepted (pseudo)-science of the time, eugenics, was proof of it. Not only was the Jew evil and a threat to Western civilization, but they were biologically a threat as well, and thus had to be eliminated. Yes the science and history were wrong, but devout Nazis did not know this (or believe it).

In addition, even worse, the Jews not only had a history of evil deeds, but were responsible for the gigantic menace that was Soviet Communism. All of the Eastern peoples were Jewish-Bolshevik subhumans. Germany had to protect itself, and thus had to expand territorially. The lands of the East where the Bolshevik Jews inhabited were rich in natural resources and room. As such, Germany would expand eastwards and conquer those lands and exterminate the Jewish menace for good. The general rules of war were lifted on the German military. Because unlike with respectable peoples, this was revenge for the evils these people had done. German soldiers were encouraged to murder, rape, pillage, etc...the peoples of the East as they pleased.

So it was a combination of emotion but also self-interest. But self-interest grounded in a warped death cult mindset. And so terrible and monstrous was the treatment by the Germans to the peoples of the East (most of whom weren't really Jewish), that this is part of why the Russian nationalist mindset is so suspicious and distrustful of the West to this day. So regarding Putin, I think he is 100% rational within his particular way of thinking.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Reading this thread, I feel like we're all getting dumber by the minute.

Only came here to note that NATO is officially promising "action" in the wake of apparent Russian sabotage of the Norstream pipelines. What "action" do all you keyboard statesmen believe is even possible in this situation?

Seems like pointless rhetoric to me.

 

[Hotdogs]

He says Ukraine doesn't really exist, that it is historically part of Russia. I could be wrong, but why would he publicly state Ukraine's strategic value to Russia? I mean leaders like that don't generally publicly say things like, "Ukraine is too strategically important to the Russian state to let it fall to the West, therefore I'm invading..."

Again, you're looking at this from a Western mindset and thinking the Russian is irrational because he doesn't pursue the Western ways towards prosperity and strength. Russians don't look at the world in that way. Russians at heart are still imperialists. They do not view national strength and prestige based off of economic achievements or economic size or diplomacy or standard of living, they view it based on territory and military strength. Size of the country territory-wise and fear of said nation by the rest of the world is how they rate national strength, as those things are how they see respect as being garnered. And since the standard of living in the country sucks so much, and so many Russians don't even have a proper understanding of market economics and freedom, this all the more persists. If they had a Western standard of living with Western freedoms, their mindset might be different, but they do not. This is why many Russians today long for the days of the Soviet Union.

That imperialism is rejected by the rest of the world means nothing to such a Russian. To them, the rest of the world just seeking to contain Russia. Also, what makes you think that Iran and China reject imperialism? Both of those countries I'd say are ardent imperialists, they just are working and biding their time to try and become the premier powers of their regions. China wants Taiwan, and wants domination of the Asia-Pacific region. Iran wants domination of the Middle East. I still do not get why you think nuclear threats are not rational when they are used as a scare tactic by dictatorships.

China I'd argue actually does need Russia to some degree, for things like jet engines. Jet engines are extremely difficult to reverse engineer, so unlike with electronics and computers, the Chinese are behind everyone in this technology. They have their own domestically-developed engines, but those are sub-par in their performance. To get decent engines, they use Russian engines a lot. And I'd think Russia needs China right now given China is their only "friend," given the Western sanctions in place at the moment. So I think regarding use of nukes, China could say to Putin, "You start doing that and we'll cut you off completely," because the Chinese I doubt want to be seen as okay with such a thing.

Got it dude. You disagree. You can keep your amateur opinion on foreign relations. I don’t think you fully understand the dynamics of these countries at the strategic/macro-level.

 

[Random8145]

Got it dude. You disagree. You can keep your amateur opinion on foreign relations. I don’t think you fully understand the dynamics of these countries at the strategic/macro-level.

No need for snarkiness, we can just agree to disagree. I just try to explain the "why" of my reasoning is all. IMO your own opinion strikes me as rather amateurish in certain ways and I don't mean that in any condescending fashion. I would put my "amateurish" understanding of the dynamics at the strategic/macro level up against all of the experts who got Putin wrong over the years, ranging from the Europeans to those here in the U.S. who have been shocked, SHOCKED at his recent actions.

 

[Mos]

No need for snarkiness, we can just agree to disagree. I just try to explain the "why" of my reasoning is all. IMO your own opinion strikes me as rather amateurish in certain ways and I don't mean that in any condescending fashion. I would put my "amateurish" understanding of the dynamics at the strategic/macro level up against all of the experts who got Putin wrong over the years, ranging from the Europeans to those here in the U.S. who have been shocked, SHOCKED at his recent actions.

 

[Notanaviator]

No need for snarkiness, we can just agree to disagree. I just try to explain the "why" of my reasoning is all. IMO your own opinion strikes me as rather amateurish in certain ways and I don't mean that in any condescending fashion. I would put my "amateurish" understanding of the dynamics at the strategic/macro level up against all of the experts who got Putin wrong over the years, ranging from the Europeans to those here in the U.S. who have been shocked, SHOCKED at his recent actions.

There's an awful lot on this forum I don't feel qualified to weigh in on so I tend to limit myself to smartass remarks and listening to and learning from others who are qualified. However, I will say armed with an academic background focused primarily on European totalitarianism in the 20th century as well as Post-Communist Russian Politics, I ran out of space in the multi-quote system and desire in my head to unpack all the pretty confident and frankly incorrect pronouncements you've made in the last like three pages of back and forth. I'm tracking three categories: 1) Russian mindset and motivations, both at the leadership and societal levels, informed by a few centuries of history, and 2) comparisons to the drivers that fed into the rise of Nazism in Germany, and 3) strategic and domestic implications of what a potential loss in Ukraine looks like, and the likelihood of that happening and in what form.

There has been a ton of good writing done on 1 and 2 - if I were to suggest one title that does a great job of breaking down a lot of those two very complex case studies (Russia and Germany), it would be Richard Overy's The Dictators. As for number 3, would very much encourage a membership to War on the Rocks - between their various podcast offerings they spend a lot of time diving into assumptions folks make about how the Russian field trip into Ukraine ends, and why a lot of those hot takes are flawed. Michael Kofman particularly tends to be a pretty levelheaded commentator on this front.

 

[Brett327]

No need for snarkiness, we can just agree to disagree. I just try to explain the "why" of my reasoning is all. IMO your own opinion strikes me as rather amateurish in certain ways and I don't mean that in any condescending fashion. I would put my "amateurish" understanding of the dynamics at the strategic/macro level up against all of the experts who got Putin wrong over the years, ranging from the Europeans to those here in the U.S. who have been shocked, SHOCKED at his recent actions.

Do you have any formal training in IR?

 

[Random8145]

There's an awful lot on this forum I don't feel qualified to weigh in on so I tend to limit myself to smartass remarks and listening to and learning from others who are qualified. However, I will say armed with an academic background focused primarily on European totalitarianism in the 20th century as well as Post-Communist Russian Politics, I ran out of space in the multi-quote system and desire in my head to unpack all the pretty confident and frankly incorrect pronouncements you've made in the last like three pages of back and forth. I'm tracking three categories: 1) Russian mindset and motivations, both at the leadership and societal levels, informed by a few centuries of history, and 2) comparisons to the drivers that fed into the rise of Nazism in Germany, and 3) strategic and domestic implications of what a potential loss in Ukraine looks like, and the likelihood of that happening and in what form.

There has been a ton of good writing done on 1 and 2 - if I were to suggest one title that does a great job of breaking down a lot of those two very complex case studies (Russia and Germany), it would be Richard Overy's The Dictators. As for number 3, would very much encourage a membership to War on the Rocks - between their various podcast offerings they spend a lot of time diving into assumptions folks make about how the Russian field trip into Ukraine ends, and why a lot of those hot takes are flawed. Michael Kofman particularly tends to be a pretty levelheaded commentator on this front.

Incorrect or incorrect in your opinion? What is the Russian mindset then? On Nazism, so you don't think if the West was foolish and applied severe punishments to Russia, that it couldn't lead to an extremist Russian leadership coming to power? Also thank you for the book and podcast suggestions, I will check them out.