Sure, but it seems to me that if the point is assigning blame for Putin’s destructive actions, at least some of that blame should go to Putin himself.
It’s not like he or any other of the world’s “worst actors” are some kind of inanimate force of nature with no responsibility for all the “worst actions” they commit.
This argument is ridiculous. It’s like if I was arguing that not reponding to Hitler invading Czechoslovakia soon enough was ‘crazy’ because it emboldened him and helped to cause WWII, and getting in response “Hey, it’s Hitler doing the invading! Why aren’t you criticizing him? Are you pro-Hitler?”
It should go,without saying that Putin is the bad actor here, but all we have control over is what we do to change his incentives, which is where the focus of debate logically has to be because we can’t change the existence of Putin. But you’d rather go personal once again and insinuate that I’m some kind of Putin-loving fascist, even though my whole point is that I oppose Germany’s policies because they emboldened Putin. I said so long before the war broke out.
It is not that you are a Putin supporter; only that the right wing well of information you use a lot, and that the “Freedom convoy” guys depend of, is poisoned with a good amount of help from Putin too. Read the Mother Jones article already linked to.
As for your point about emboldening Putin, the point I made stands, it is a very underwhelming argument; it is like the arguments defending the anti-abortion laws that don’t make exceptions in cases of rape, they usually imply or declare that the women that were raped emboldened their attackers.
And what exactly stops you from making that claim because it results in you’re side winning any dispute over policy and not because it’s actually true?
The reaction against Russia’s reckless bombardment of Ukraine is unprecedented, with somewhat meaningful economic sanctions, great public sympathy and a surprisingly coordinated (and in the US bipartisan) response strengthening major alliances.
Russia had every reason to expect the repeat of “words without action” that had occurred previously. It is true the Russian economy expected to continue to get money from supplying oil and gas and believed that Europe would prioritize this over peace.
To their credit, many countries did not. They accepted refugees, funded resistance, changed and reevaluated policies. This surprised most people. Russia invaded since they have long seen Ukraine as part of their country and they thought the repercussions would be modest. It is true German energy policy seemed to encourage the status quo. It is to Germany’s credit they greatly changed many policies and this may require some unpleasant realities in the short to medium turn. So leave it to them to sort it out.
Sam Stone was a little glib in discussing a complex situation, but it is not wrong to say most thought Germany would not support Ukraine, and to their credit they did. Energy has a role in this calculus and will continue do so. Canada returned the turbines, but all countries will do business with Russia in the future. Sam Stone’s views differ from mine but are usually coherent and reasonable. Nevertheless, energy policy is too complex with too many advantages and disadvantages to be neatly summarized in a few articles. It will take 30 years for very substantial change. It is appropriate to start planning this without losing sight of its current importance and the recognition current technology is not where it needs to be. We need to support our energy producers intelligently, without ignoring science and the economy.
Uh, that makes the arguments sound worse, I had to stop at the “neoliberal delusions of globalization”. Since this thread is about misguided conservatives in trucks, articles like that look like the efforts to turn, what are really conservative ideas, into liberal ones. Almost like the effort to declare that national socialism is the same as socialism. That and other statements before getting to the point are just poisoning the well.
One thing to notice here is that at the same time progressives in the German Green party were in favor of the elimination of the use of nuclear power, they were also against the Russian pipelines of gas and oil. The neoliberals were glad to follow that path.
Sure, but my point is that you are making Putin out to be some kind of purely deterministic puppet whose behavior is totally governed by such “incentives” as neighboring countries’ energy policies, completely independent of his own self-interest or that of his own nation.
It was by no means a foregone conclusion last September, say, that Putin would have been crazy and self-destructive enough to invade Ukraine this March, no matter what German energy policies were. So it would have been stupid for German politicians at that time to base their energy policy decisions primarily on what might or might not “incentivize” Putin to be crazy self-destructive.
But that doesn’t stop you from blaming the German policymakers for the consequences of Putin’s self-destructive craziness. This isn’t realpolitik so much as plain old victim-blaming.
I was assured by, no less than, Jordan Bernt Peterson that Putin invaded to protect Russia from the mobs of woke LGBTers.
Hmm, why is it sounding like the reason Putin invaded Ukraine depends on what ox you wish to gore? Almost like Putin is the boogeyman you invoke to get whatever you want.
No one can predict the future. I never said, ‘Putin will attack Ukraine if Germany puts its energy future in Putin’s hands’. What I said was that it would give Putin leverage over Germany, which will give Putin power to do all kinds of things we’d rather he didn’t do. Invading Ukraine was just one of them. I also thought he might use the leverage to split Europe over the sanctions regime.
I also said that the Afghanistan pullout was going to motivate bad actors to take advantage of perceived American weakness, and that the world was going to become more dangerous as a result.
Finally, I also said that western climate change policies that do not include Russia, China and India were doomed to failure and would simply result in increased CO2 emissions from those countries and a shift in energy intensive manufacturing to countries without the high cost of energy. And indeed, we are now seeing a strenghtened alliance between Russia, India and China, and a massive ramp-up in fossil fuel production in them.
Likewise, cutting fertilizer output in the west will drive the cost of food up, and stimulate increased fertilizer use in other countries. People in Canada and the Netherlands can pat themselves on the back for ‘saving the planet’ on the backs of their farm output, but the end will be little more than a wealth transfer to countries without the same rules, while reducing overall food production on the planet when we are already facing shortages.
Finally, the war isn’t over yet. If Putin starts to seriously lose, don’t be surprised if China throws its weight behind Russia with arms and money if necessary. Iran has already stepped up and sent hundreds of drones to Russia. We are creating a new cold war with a new axis, only this time it’s going to be fought over energy and food.
This is just Trumpian silliness “if Biden did it, it must be weak”. Total nonsense. We’re stronger, not weaker, now that we’re out of an endless war which accomplished absolutely nothing and got Americans killed for no benefit. We’re more able to use our various methods of influence around the world, not less, when we’re not bogged down in an expensive and pointless war.
No, but now that Putin has attacked Ukraine, you’re seizing the opportunity to blame Germany for it (as well as emissions-reduction programs elsewhere). Irrespective of whether Germany’s policies were in any way determinative of Putin’s actions.
I mean, sure, it’s very convenient to pick some open-ended unfeasible attainment as the yardstick of “success” for a policy you don’t like—a German energy policy must somehow never give Putin any “leverage” of any kind, a “western” climate change policy must somehow make Russia, China and India reduce emissions, an Afghanistan pullout must never be followed by any “bad actors” ever doing anything that could possibly be interpreted as “taking advantage of perceived American weakness”—and then sit back and say “I told you so” when that unfeasible attainment isn’t attained.
But that’s not really a persuasive argument for there having been a better and more effective alternative policy available. It just shows that you’re skilled at post hoc ergo propter hoc rationalization.
Well, looks like some people may agree with you. From The Economist (latest):
“Olaf Scholz , Germany’s chancellor, said it could “make sense” to keep the country’s three remaining nuclear power plants open amid concerns over energy supplies. from Russia . The plants had been slated for closure by the end of the year. Mr Scholz’s comments came as he visited a turbine for the Nord Stream 1 pipeline. Russia cited problems with the turbine as the cause of reduced gas supplies; the European Union disputes that argument.“