I’m not asking you to salute anything. Just address the question or argument directly without spewing personal insults. You’re an intelligent man, so you needn’t stoop to that.
If we are having an international relations discussion, it’s not exactly “pompous” to use terminology and concepts from that discipline and to expect others to do so as well. Why ignore the accumulated knowledge of a discipline that traces its origins to the city-states of ancient Sumer?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
What’s the bet, exactly? If he isn’t a staunch realist (I believe he is) what is he? Lay it out for me.
[/quote]
The bet is a year’s supply of any Biotest supplement your heart could desire if El Putino continues to be “pragmatic” and is therefore fully satisfied with just taking Crimea.
Shake hands?
[/quote]
Tempting, but I couldn’t possibly bankroll that, so I’ll settle for bragging rights.
An interesting place to start is to consider the Russian forces that invaded Georgia in 2008 vis a vis those that recently invaded Crimea. They appear to be much more professional, better armed, and better equipped. Russia has been seeking to upgrade its conventional and strategic nuclear forces and the results are telling. How should we interpret this?
I see it as a great power that has fallen from its apex at the end of the Cold War and that is seeking to reassert itself in the international political system. I do not believe that Putin desires an USSR 2.0 + its Warsaw Pact allies. Even if he did, he is too shrewd to fail to see that he lacks the material capability and political capital to do so. He would also be encouraging balancing behavior on the part of NATO, which would leave the Russian Federation in a weaker position than it had been previously. Putin is a political realist. He is concerned with the relative gains of his counterparts, particularly when they occur in his own backyard. The recent withdraw of armored forces, which are offensive in nature, deployed at the Russian border is a positive sign, for now. I believe that he will be content with access to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Note the Crimean War that Russia waged in the mid 19th century. In any case, the Ukrainian armed forces are in a different league than those Russia faced in Georgia. Putin will have a bloody nose if he goes against the calculating realism that has defined his career as an intelligence officer and statesman.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The Russian Federation simply does not have the same material or latent power that 1939 Nazi Germany did, who qualified as a potential hegemon.
[/quote]
So, you’re saying Hitler was armed with thousands of mobile Inter Continental Nuclear Balistic Missiles, a fleet of nuclear submarines, and advanced MiG jet fighters and didn’t think to use them? Shame, he lost out.
Security dilemma, your term, you define it.
Oh yeah, check out this article:
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-debuts-sleek-force-crimea-rattling-nato-180311767.html[/quote]
Nice strawman. Those weapon platforms did not exist in 1939. Regardless in the nuclear age, nuclear weapons are only strategically viable as defensive weapons systems through the practice of deterrence, so that is especially irrelevant. Nazi Germany was the premier military power of its time. The Russian Federation certainly is not presently.
Not my term. It’s John H. Herz’s. He wrote of it in his 1951 book Political Realism and Political Idealism, and many other scholars have built upon the idea. You purported to have known its meaning. You criticized my post that stated that NATO expansion presented Moscow with a security dilemma. You said that it was ludicrous that the presence of Russian naval vessels in the Americas didn’t do likewise. It’s ludicrous to believe that a few rust buckets in the hemispheric waters of the world’s lone regional hegemon presents a security dilemma.
Already read it. Interesting stuff. Doesn’t change my point.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
German Ambassador compares Russian Federation to Nazi Germany.
Now, it’s unlikely HE doesn’t know what he’s talking about.[/quote]
Not only is this hyperbole, but it’s poor logic.
Hitler had an aggressive foreign policy.
Putin has an aggressive foreign policy.
Therefore, Putin is Hitler
The Russian Federation simply does not have the same material or latent power that 1939 Nazi Germany did, who qualified as a potential hegemon.
[/quote]
Actually the Wehmacht was inferior in size and had fewer and less powerful tanks than the French. The Luftwaffe was also inferior to the French airforce. The campaign was won for these reasons:
The Germans utilised paratroopers to land on top of Belgium forts and take them out with shaped charges.
The Germans surprised the allies who expected them to come through Belgium as they had in WW1. They caused the French and British expeditionary force to deploy the bulk if their forces Northwards.
The Germans then raced through the Ardenne forest, crossed the Meuse and raced Eastwards splitting the allied forces in two and causing chaos and confusion in the allies rear.
BTW I never made any claim that Russia is a super power .
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The expansion of NATO towards the heartland of a diminished Russia created a new security dilemma for Moscow…[/quote]
But the fact that we have Russian ships parked in Cuba and Venezuela and this is not seen as expansion of Russian power towards the heartland of the United States is ludicrous.[/quote]
I don’t think you understand what the security dilemma is. That certainly doesn’t present one to the US.
[/quote]
Oh, I get it. You ever hear of the Cuban Missile Crisis? The Russians have been creating a security delemma in our part of the world for a long time. They just don’t like it because the tables have now turned against them. If they don’t like Nato being in their “sphere of interest” then they should get the hell out of ours. [/quote]
America has always 100% of the time started the ‘internationalism’ that means Russians are in ‘your part of the world’. e.g. the Cuban Missile Crisis happened because Kennedy put Nukes in Turkey - Russia trying to put weapons in Cuba was a response to that. Contemporarily Americans field of interest and influence is for some bizarre reason in the Middle East.
This is the most bizarre thing about America. THe continent you are part of could easily be your only field of influence. If you made friends all the way down to Brazil and had some good free trade deals, your continent could be completely self sufficient. You are all even the same religion. You wouldn’t even need to think about Muslims, Europe, Russians, anything like that.
But for some reason, America spent the bulk of the 20th century supporting the most corrupt South American dictators who killed and tortured their own citizens while trying to be nice to people in the Middle East.
Its AMerica which has the backward foreign policy - which is basically ‘have as much influence as far away from us as possible; neglect all the countries close to us’.[/quote]
You have much to learn on your little anti-jingoism joyride.
All is not what it seems to be in the minds of those who don’t know history.
[/quote]
lol, the history you subscribe to isn’t any history other than a postmodern history of human stupidity.
[quote]squatbenchhench wrote:
lol, the history you subscribe to isn’t any history other than a postmodern history of human stupidity.[/quote]
Postmodernism is a Hegelian/Marxist ideology.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
It’s ludicrous to believe that a few rust buckets in the hemispheric waters of the world’s lone regional hegemon presents a security dilemma.
[/quote]
Not a few rust buckets, but a Russian Communist ally right on our border. Now tell me why that’s not the same as a pro-western country right on Russia’s border again?
And it’s not a strawman, the existance of those weapons make Russia as formatible a foe as Nazi Germany. If that’s not the case, than why hasn’t Nato and the Ukraine responded and crushed the Russian invasion? If Russia’s not a superpower, then why hasn’t the West responded militarily? What exactly are they afraid of? A few rust bucket tanks? Or several powerful nuclear backed divisions perhaps?
Hi, I haven’t written for a while nor read the forum, but I I’ll share my opinion as a finn and as someone who obviously is deeply interested in the subject.
From a view of global politics, the Ukrainian situation is a double blunder. As Putin has said, the US and Nato and even EU has driven a politics of enlargement eastward. Many of them quite natural and clearly based on the wishes of the inhabitants of each coutry. But take a map and pinpoint every Nato country west of Russia. Right or wrong, after that you don’t have to ask why russians reacted as they did.
On the other hand, the russian corporation, as some russians call the russian leadership, has made a serious blunder by backing an ukrainian leadership that was thoroughly, laughably corrupt. No wonder that the ukrainians revolted and yearned westwards. That’s their wish and it should be respected.
Anyhow, the american rhetorics is just over the top. Just as is the russian rhetorics. What I find funny, is that GW Bush didn’t need censorship to rally the american public to support the ousting of Saddam, in Russia censorship is quickly blackening independent media. They are not exactly closed, the chosen method is to hinder them from delivering. Postal fees for delivery of subscriptions have risen abruptly and the only independent tv-channel can’t fint networks to deliver its programs.
On the map, Ukraina has a laughably short borderline with Russia compared to Finland, but there is a difference with where they are situated. Ukraina is closer to the heart of Russia, both metaphorically and by family ties. To defuse the situation the western block can’t push any more eastward. That’s it. It’s obvious, isn’t it? The only way to save Ukraina is to make it a neutral state, even by allowing some of the Russian bullshit pass as truth. By consciously allowing finlandisation. If the interest is in saving Ukraina, that is. There are also global markers that favour a poltically watered down solution, not least of all economical. Finland have had to argue with EU about the fact, that a country with a border of closer to 700 miles with Russia must retain hign level connections with Russia. That’s an insoluble fact, no matter what the sanctions say. You just can’t break connections with a bigger neighbour whatever democratic idealism dictates. A big neighbour is a pain in the ass. Even when it is friendly a bear hug makes bruises. An a mastodont donkey grazing haphazardly in the vicinity tis not a favourable situation and when considered deeply, it is an unnecessary show-off even for the mastodont donkey. Not to say that Nato should back of it’s duty to protect it’s allies, but de facto, Ukraina is not a Nato ally. Realpolitik, please.
E: Nato, and US as the most important member of Nato, should favour a neutral zone and hope, that the ukrainians will vote sensibly. That Ukraina will not be divided. I’m not convinced that geopolitical strategist share my view, though.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
BTW I never made any claim that Russia is a super power . [/quote]
It was implied. Bipolarity is a system characterized by the presence of 2 powers of rough parity.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
It’s ludicrous to believe that a few rust buckets in the hemispheric waters of the world’s lone regional hegemon presents a security dilemma.
[/quote]
Not a few rust buckets, but a Russian Communist ally right on our border. Now tell me why that’s not the same as a pro-western country right on Russia’s border again?
And it’s not a strawman, the existance of those weapons make Russia as formatible a foe as Nazi Germany. If that’s not the case, than why hasn’t Nato and the Ukraine responded and crushed the Russian invasion? If Russia’s not a superpower, then why hasn’t the West responded militarily? What exactly are they afraid of? A few rust bucket tanks? Or several powerful nuclear backed divisions perhaps?[/quote]
The DPRK is the only Communist state in the world, and the United States shares contiguous geography with only Canada and Mexico, so your first sentence is less than cogent. Russia enjoys warm relations with several Latin American regimes, but warm relations are not the equivalent of an encroaching military alliance. In the case of NATO, a collective security organization, member states agree that an attack against one will result in mutual defense by all. Also, please provide a reputable source that Russian naval warships are deployed in the western hemisphere indefinitely. Russia has conducted joint naval exercise in the region in the past, but that is not the equivalent of forward deployed forces.
It’s absolutely a strawman because you can not candidly compare the military forces of a state that existed prior to the atomic age to the 21st century fighting force of a great power. The Russian Federation presently does not enjoy the same share of world power that Nazi Germany did at its apex. Not even close. I’m going to address your questions individually.
“If that’s not the case, than why hasn’t Nato and the Ukraine responded and crushed the Russian invasion?”
Firstly, NATO would not act in concert with Ukraine, a non-member. NATO does not wish to start a long and bloody great power war with Russia over Crimea. The costs exponentially outweigh any gains that could be made. Why make a bad situation much, much, much worse? Ukraine is weak relative to Russia, and military action on their part would be used to justify a Russian counter offensive that would place the whole state under De Facto Russian control.
“If Russia’s not a superpower, then why hasn’t the West responded militarily?”
You either honestly believe that Russia is roughly equal in power to the United States (a superpower) or you don’t understand polarity in international relations. Russia is a great power, but certainly not a superpower. Not even close. I’m not using the adjectives great and super because I think they sound nice. Rather, they have precise meanings within the discipline of international relations. As far as the military response, a great power war serves no one’s purposes, especially the inhabitants of Crimea.
“Or several powerful nuclear backed divisions perhaps?”
A division consists of 10,000-30,000 soldiers, and there is presently one Russian division deployed in Crimea, so I’m not sure where you’re getting several from. What do you mean by nuclear backed? Do you believe that the Russian Federation would respond with tactical, intermediate, or strategic nuclear weapons against the West if it intervened militarily? Assured access to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean is not worth risking nuclear annihilation.
I believe that you have several misconceptions regarding strategic nuclear forces in particular. Both American and Soviet strategic planners recognized that nuclear weapons are essentially militarily useless, because their use risked mutual annihilation. The belief that limited nuclear war could be waged is not only morally dubious, but alarmingly naive. Nuclear weapons preeminently benefit deterrence. A good place to start is to study the concept of mutually assured destruction, or MAD.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The belief that limited nuclear war could be waged is not only morally dubious, but alarmingly naive. Nuclear weapons preeminently benefit deterrence. A good place to start is to study the concept of mutually assured destruction, or MAD. [/quote]
How does MAD workout when you’re dealing with people who really are mad? Mad as in, they believe we are living in the ‘end times’ and that a 12th century Imam in suspended animation will arrive and save them from ‘the great satan.’ The 12ers are so batshit Ayatollah Khomeini had them banned. Would you be willing to play nuclear chicken with a lunatic?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The belief that limited nuclear war could be waged is not only morally dubious, but alarmingly naive. Nuclear weapons preeminently benefit deterrence. A good place to start is to study the concept of mutually assured destruction, or MAD. [/quote]
How does MAD workout when you’re dealing with people who really are mad? Mad as in, they believe we are living in the ‘end times’ and that a 12th century Imam in suspended animation will arrive and save them from ‘the great satan.’ The 12ers are so batshit Ayatollah Khomeini had them banned. Would you be willing to play nuclear chicken with a lunatic? [/quote]
Let’s not derail this thread. Perhaps you could start one concerning the strategic nature of nuclear weapons? That being said, I agree with preponderant analysts that believe that Iran seeks to become a nuclear weapons state to achieve a bulwark against regime change and to enhance its prestige in southwest Asia and internationally. Essentially, security and status. In the event that Iran joins the ranks of the NWS, the international community should be most concerned with the subsequent wave of horizontal proliferation that could very possibly occur in the region, and the unraveling of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a whole.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
The belief that limited nuclear war could be waged is not only morally dubious, but alarmingly naive. Nuclear weapons preeminently benefit deterrence. A good place to start is to study the concept of mutually assured destruction, or MAD. [/quote]
How does MAD workout when you’re dealing with people who really are mad? Mad as in, they believe we are living in the ‘end times’ and that a 12th century Imam in suspended animation will arrive and save them from ‘the great satan.’ The 12ers are so batshit Ayatollah Khomeini had them banned. Would you be willing to play nuclear chicken with a lunatic? [/quote]
Let’s not derail this thread. Perhaps you could start one concerning the strategic nature of nuclear weapons?
[/quote]
The Iranians are backed by Russia, have assets in Central America and are on the verge of going nuclear. It is entirely to Russian advantage to see Iran go nuclear and attack the United States. It’s not a derailment, it’s a pertinent question.
*Expanded on my post. apologies. In any event, the question of Iran and the bomb is too off base for this thread. Start a Nuclear Weapons and Deterrence thread.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
*Expanded on my post. apologies. In any event, the question of Iran and the bomb is too off base for this thread. Start a Nuclear Weapons and Deterrence thread.[/quote]
‘The question of Iran and the bomb’ requires complete revision of every argument you’ve made vis-a-vis(with an umlaut) Russia and the US.