What I have learned:
- Russia has already won the Ukraine war
- Which NATO started
- A lot of people in the West think that Ukraine should surrender
- Also Ukraine was the world’s main provider of CSAM
- Also Ukraine is exploited by the West but if they can unite with Russia then their economy and everything else will finally be alright
It’s literally like a bizarro world and everyone is over there agreeing with it. I’m genuinely confused by, who even are these people (what is the mixture of Russian bots / Russian-aligned ordinary people / confused Westerners / some other explanation.)
Where else other than hexbear or Russian state media were you able to find such egregiously biased views?
John Mearsheimer among others, were do you get your views from?
primarily from all the bombs Russia dropped on my country when we dared to move past the swamp that Soviet Union drowned us in and decided to join NATO so Russia would not invade us the third time. And from the torture I have seen done to the war prisoners and civilians they abducted from around the occupation lines.
Your argument violently disregards the human beings in Ukraine and Georgia who have tragically suffered for generations under Russian oppression, and are ready to fight to death rather than return to being slaves of those disgusting imperialistic maniacs again. western communists or edgy political scientists or whatever reason/intention you have for talking so extremely condescendingly about these conflicts literally forget that we are actual people who have themselves made a decision to regain independence and chose the alliance with the west. We are being terrorized, murdered, tortured and raped by Russians to force us back to their repulsive and disgusting empire, which was such literal hell that thousands upon thousands of Ukrainians keep choosing death over going back. These are our countries and I aggressively despise anybody who so much as entertains the reasoning where we require permission and approval from fucking Russia. There is a single solely responsible party in these wars, the one that occupied a sovereign country and committed such horrific acts of cruelty that even hearing about it leaves a person traumatized.
The nuance that the academic you named tries to argue for, I assume has many interesting points and arguments, but for a very specific discussion topic and a narrowly justified aspect of this war, only with people who are in touch with reality about the Ukraine war, conflicts in Georgia, history and goals of Russia, etc. But here it can be seen as nothing else but intent to shift blame and responsibility away from the aggressor, and an attempt to advocate for the loons on hexbear celebrating bloodshed and masturbating to the idea of independent sovereign nation being crushed by brutal, authoritarian, and savage state.
Who are the others?
I think John Mearshimer’s analysis of the situation is extremely accurate on the whole, but what he says is very different from what you’re saying.
From which respected academic did you get the idea that the West was provoking Russia on purpose by expanding to include countries Russia was attacking or threatening (which presumably then weren’t themselves the driving force wanting NATO or EU membership)?
I’m not trying to represent all of Hexbear, my views differ from the norm (just as yours seems to differ from the lemmy.world norm).
Second, I don’t want to give the impression that I’m certain on everything. It just seems very clear to me that the current narrative is dangerous and risks leading to escalation beyond Ukraine and has already caused a lot of suffering, (I think in this I echo Mearsheimers views, see the recent interview on the Spectators Americano podcast). Wether it was intentional or accidental I purposely left open in my original comment because, like I said, it’s very hard to judge at this point. But given the US trackrecord it’s probably a healthy dosis of both overconfidence in their power as well as cynical intent.
To me it’s hard to imagine that after Russia put their army on the border and explicitly said, Ukraine stays neutral or war, that the US wasn’t aware of the consequences. Clearly Ukrainian lives were not on the forefront of their decision making process at that point. So then the question is what was.
But these are my personal opinions, and I’m happy to be convinced otherwise (but calling me a Russian bot is not very convincing I find).
I would say it’s all the shelling and rocket attacks and bombings, not so much the narrative.
In general I think trying to talk and understand the world is not a hostile act. If you’re trying to deliberately distort honest conversation to justify something, then that’s a bad thing, but just saying that some sincere narrative right or wrong can be a dangerous thing all on its own, I don’t agree with.
Bro
What if I put a couple of my friends on the border of your house, and explicitly said, hey if you try to do X Y or Z then I might have to kill you. What’s your reaction? What’s fair in that scenario? If you ask for some allies to come over because you plan on doing X Y and Z anyway and fuck the border-standers, does it all of a sudden become the allies’ fault that any of that happened? What you’re saying is just a very weird allocation of blame to me.
Like I say, what Mearsheimer says on this issue actually makes a good deal of sense to me, but what you’re saying here is very different from what he says about it, as far as I know. I think one of the critical issues is whether the whole thing was a “ploy” by the West – he definitely doesn’t think that, that I’m aware of. Where did you get that idea? It definitely doesn’t seem to me that fighting between Russia and various former-USSR states needed any additional help in order to develop, although I’m sure the US is happy it’s happening and happy to help it go badly for Russia.
I think it’s relevant what the Ukrainians think. Are you saying that rejecting Russia’s orders for what they were and were not allowed to do, knowing that Russia might attack them as a result, was not their decision but someone else’s? What do you think they think about it?
Here’s a little excerpt, somewhat related, from “Sky Above Kharkiv” by Serhiy Zhadan:
"And I’d like to make another point. I was rather skeptical of the current government. I was struck by one particular thing. The elections of 2019 brought a lot of young people to power – not my peers (I’m a far cry from being young) but a bunch of political youngsters who didn’t belong to dozens of parties or hadn’t worked for all kinds of shady cabinets of ministers. ‘But why do these young people,’ I thought, ‘act like old functionaries from the Kuchma era? Where did their childish urge to make a quick buck and flaunt it come from? Why aren’t they trying to be different?’ Thing is, I personally had the chance to do what I still consider rather constructive, useful things with a lot of them – everyone from ministers to mayors and governors. Nonetheless, I’d look toward the Parliament building and ask myself, ‘Why aren’t you trying to be different?’
“Now [in wartime] with the naked eye you can see them trying to be different. Advisers, speakers, ministers, negotiators, officers, mayors, and commanders – these forty-year-old boys and girls whose generation has been dealt the cruel lot of having to stand up for their country. And this applies no less (and possibly even more) to the millions of soliders, volunteer fighters, and just regular people pitching in, people shedding the swampy legacy of the twentieth century, like mud falling off new, yet well-chosen combat boots. Young Ukrainian men and women – that’s who this war of annihilation is being waged against. And then, in contrast, are the heads of Russia, Belarus, America, and Germany. The first two are old delusional geezers from the past century who look a lot like old Russian armored vehicles, but they’re old. And they’re Russian, which, in itself, does little to recommend a vehicle. Then there are the latter two – they’re cautious office clerks, retired capitulators who aren’t brave enough to admit that they, too, are involved in what’s going on.”
What do you think started, and kept WWI going, narrative. Every party believed or was sold that they could win this thing if they just kept climbing the escalation ladder. With the result that an entire generation of boys and men was gone for basically nothing.
For a start I would not do X, Y and Z, this is the whole idea of realism, accept the world as is. Threats work, I’m sorry. If your response is to call the police, there is no police in the world of international politics, you have to play the hand you’re dealt.
And in the case of Ukraine this was sadly a very bad hand, that is why I don’t blame Ukraine for much. You could of course blame Ukraine for being lured by the power of the US, and that they could thus safely ignore dire warnings from Russia. But as they say, with great power comes great responsibility, so I choose to put the blame at the hands of Russia and the US.
I mean… not really. Surely, at the time, the “dangerous” narrative was anything against the war. To me, allowing a freer flow of ideas would have helped to resolve the war sooner, and deciding that certain narratives were dangerous and should be stayed away from (leading to difficulty in understanding what was happening) was a factor that made things worse, not better. No?
I am glad that you are not involved in the foreign policy of either Ukraine or any country I care about. There is realism, sure; the world is not always a comic book where being righteous is enough. Then, also, there is cowardice, and then beyond that there is saying that someone else who is rejecting cowardice is to be blamed (along with anyone who gives them assistance in standing up) for danger they find themselves in as a result.
Ukraine seems likely to be able to hold on to a significant chunk of their territory and self determination, after deciding to pay a heavy heavy price for it, in homes and cities and money and lives and anything else. You can take your condescending stuff about realism and whose decision that was, and what kind of lives under Russian rule they should be resigning themselves to instead, and shove it up your ass.
You seem to conflate questioning a narrative with banning a narrative, I have the intent nor the means. I value being able to have an open discussion on topics as important as war, especially based on substance rather than resorting to personal insults and such.
No, I’m disagreeing with the idea of describing a narrative as “dangerous” as a reason to criticize it, instead of whether it’s true or not. To me, whether it’s a sincere and accurate description of the world is the main thing.
I’m being rude to you because, to me, you’re being wildly insulting to the Ukrainian people. Sorry. Maybe it is uncalled for. But I know some Ukrainians. Telling them to lie down to Russian aggression because of “realism,” and criticizing the resistance their country is putting up, is way more insulting than anything I’ve said to you.
that line of reasoning essentially makes every single US invasion ok. and every single oppression okay. Because threats work and fuck you for being weaker.
Accepting how the world works is not the same as saying it’s moral.
If someone threatens to shoot you, you saying it’s immoral is not a practical defense, unless there is some kind of higher power like a justice system with a police to enforce it. But the entire point of international politics is that such a force does not exist, just countries with interests.
I mean the evidence exists that NATO is a substantially higher power here
Also, as I said, there’s a huge difference between “I know it’s not an ideal outcome but I’m scared and want to save my skin” - I won’t say someone’s always wrong for saying that, by any means - and saying to someone else who’s fighting and suffering to defend themselves “I know it’s not an ideal outcome but you should be scared, and accept it to save your skin.” It’s like cowardice by proxy. Especially while they’re winning.
Why would Joe Biden provide tools of narration to all those WW1 powers
Mearsheimer, Morgenthau and similar “political realists” are the main reason why the world is in such a messy state.
They dehumanise entire societies into poker chips to be traded between the superpowers, disregard their national interests and ignore history and non-european states when convenient.
You switch cause and effect, realism tries to describe the word as is and not as it should be and then bases policies on that. Of course basing your policies on realism changes the world, but US policy has mostly been based on liberalism for the last 30 years, and yet the world is still made up of poker chips and superpowers.
Of course the policies you choose based on realist principles can be used to increase your power as a country (and thus use poker chips cynically) or it can be used to build a prosperous and peaceful world (given the limitations of the natural anarchic state of international politics).
As a Dutch person I accept that the US can decide to turn the Netherlands into a nuclear testing ground whenever it wants and there is nothing we can do about that, but given this fact we should still try to create a peaceful world.
It’s less of a linear relationship and more of a feedback loop. The more politicians buy into this political theory, the more effect it has on the world and vice versa.
Iran is a good example of being neither. There are also a bunch of non-state actors who challenge the status quo. Realism fails to explain Al Qaeda, Taliban and ISIS joining the poker table.
Commercial actors are also become more and more powerful and their interests often do not align with those of the state. Google and Meta have a higher revenue than several countries and is capable of influencing public opinion.
Realism fails to explain how all superpowers fall apart from within or from outside forces eventually. Where is the British Empire? Where is the Dutch Empire? Where are the Romans?
It can also be used to lose your power, destroy your credibility and sabotage your economy. Realism also doesn’t take soft power into account. You can easily trade your soft power for hard power but it is very difficult to get soft power back.
But international politics are governed by international law and various treaties. Just because some countries can break international law and get away with it, doesn’t mean that the law itself is meaningless.
You can do a lot about it, from petitioning other governments to cease diplomatic relations to terrorism. Even a small country, like the Netherlands, is a complex social system with it’s own interests and guiding principles and not just a chip in political games of giants.