Why do we no longer fight fire with fire with Russia?

[sqweels]

@jtgain

We have no war boner. Throwing our weight around in response to Russian aggression before it becomes a war/no war scenario is the opposite of a war boner. We prevent war by showing strength. We encourage war by allowing them to get to the point where the next step is invading a NATO country where we MUST go to war.

What exactly does “showing strength” entail? And what on Earth makes you think Russia is going to invade a NATO country?

I’m really getting tired of this “A followed by B therefore Z” mentality as it applied to so many issues.

What’s happening is that the Russians under Putin don’t like what they see as increasing Western influence in parts of Eastern Europe that had historically been under Russian or Soviet domination. They feel they can get away biting off chunks of territory that have sizable Russian-speaking populations, and the trouble is, they probably can.

A US-led military operation powerful enough to completely roll back Putin’s shenanigans is a pretty tall order right now and he knows this. But there are limits because it’s unlikely that he will push into areas that do not have a lot of Russians there.

[Xema]

@Hector_St_Clare

Kasparov’s remarks aren’t ‘interesting perspectives’, they’re vacuous sound bites.

He must be quite a shallow person, to limit himself to short comments on Twitter - yes?

I’m missing where he provides any arguments for his claims.

He’s not shy about expressing himself at length. Google turns up many links, including this Washington Post editorial.

[Der_Trihs]

@The_Second_Stone

China is, frankly, feeling its oats, and when it is bored with harassing its tiny neighbors, it will turn its attention to the vast swaths of Russia that are sparsely populated and filled with energy resources.

China is not suicidal and isn’t going to try invading a nuclear armed country to steal resources it won’t need once its population has been incinerated by Russian nukes.

[Ravenman]

@Hector_St_Clare

I believe it was SenorBeef that said that, so I’ll clarify: I don’t think we ‘installed’ the new bunch of ‘leaders’ of the Ukraine. We did our best to influence the situation, but that influence was mostly limited to exhortations, moral support, economic aid and so forth.

I apologize for misattributing his words for yours. That was an error on my part.

[Scumpup]

@Hector_St_Clare

I’m not particularly interested in anecdotes from ‘your friends and family who were involved in Euromaidan’. They’re wrong. If they were involved in Euromaidan, they should be ashamed of themselves for being on the same side as Right Sector, Svoboda, and the ideological descendants of the people who welcomed Operation Barbarossa.

Yeah, what do they know? They are just there participating. Whereas you have read stuff other people, who weren’t there either, have said about them on the internet. Clearly, yoursis the valuable voice here.

[BrainGlutton]

@jtgain

We have no war boner. Throwing our weight around in response to Russian aggression before it becomes a war/no war scenario is the opposite of a war boner. We prevent war by showing strength.

It’s amazing how often that kind of thinking fails to prevent war. E.g., it led directly to WWI. Not every peace offer is Munich, you know, and Putin is no Hitler.

[BrainGlutton]

@Velocity

As opposed to what - “Hey, Moscow, if you want West Germany, it’s yours?”

[shrug] If Truman had decided not to fight the Cold War, if he had rejected both the “rollback” and the “containment” doctrines, the USSR might or might not still exist, but certainly would not hold WG.

[tomndebb]

@Hector_St_Clare

Maybe, but Afghanistan also had great ideological value to the Soviets (because, communism), irrespective of whether it had strategic value.

Not really. Had Afghanistan willingly gone into the Soviet bloc, few would have blinked. Afghanistan had already spent most of the 1960s and 1970s establishing itself as a Soviet client state without any serious interference from Moscow. (There would have been the usual hand-wringing and wailing about the “Communist Threat,” but it is unlikely that the U.S. or Britain would have spent as much effort to upset the Soviets had there not already been a native resistance movement following the invasion.) Having Afghanistan in its sphere was a natural extension of the Soviet Union’s efforts to always have buffer states surrounding its borders. In addition, it gave the Soviets direct access to Pakistan for future endeavors. The Soviets only invaded after an internal conflict had erupted into civil war and the Soviets interfered to prevent that conflict from boiling over to affect the various *.S.S.R.s on the Afghan border.

Afghanistan had been one of the prime pieces in The Great Game that Russia and Britain had been playing since the middle of the nineteenth century. It really was the land that the Soviets were after.

[BrainGlutton]

@tomndebb

Not really. Had Afghanistan willingly gone into the Soviet bloc, few would have blinked.

But, it did – that is, the Communist DRA (like Castro’s regime in Cuba, the product of a homegrown revolution in which the Soviets were not involved) asked the Soviets for troops to help them fight anti-Communist rebels. Eventually the Soviets started acting like a foreign occupying force, but at no point did they actually “invade.”

[tomndebb]

@BrainGlutton

But, it did – that is, the Communist DRA (like Castro’s regime in Cuba, the product of a homegrown revolution in which the Soviets were not involved) asked the Soviets for troops to help them fight anti-Communist rebels. Eventually the Soviets started acting like a foreign occupying force, but at no point did they actually “invade.”

I’m not sure why I stated that as a hypothetical. (I must have started on a different tack and forgot to clean up my opening line.) Afghanistan had already entered the Soviet sphere on its own and no one had blinked, at all. The entrance of Soviet troops, as you and I both noted, was the result of Soviet interest in keeping a civil war from getting out of hand.

[SenorBeef]

Russia’s foreign policy since WW2 has been driven by the fact that they were utterly terrified of external existential threats. They suffered so greatly in WW2 and came so close to destruction that they were determined that an invasion would never be fought off in Russian soil again. So they gained influence with satellite states to create buffers between the western powers and Russia itself, and formed its military doctrine around all-out offensive with the plan of having a potential war being fought in the west, rather than the east, regardless of who started it or why.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, we had a chance at a relatively peaceful situation from a beaten down Russia. All we had to do was reassure them that they needed fear an existential threat from us, that we weren’t going to exploit their weakness and use it to strengthen ourselves in their backyard.

And what did we do? We poked the bear incessantly. We recruited former Soviet statellite states into NATO. We tried to exert influence - cultural, political, and with subterfuge - to influence the governments of countries that bordered Russia.

So when we supported a popular uprising in the Ukraine, Russia’s historically most integrated ally and the country that borders its most vulnerable areas - essentially the most vital country you could fuck with if you wanted to scare Russia - and we helped to sow descent and specifically ran programs geared at influencing the Ukranian government to be more pro-west, it was an extremely aggressive action.

Most of the Russian leadership wanted to simply rebuild their economy and solidify their own wealth and power, but there were always old Soviet hard-liners who were hawkish on foreign policy and tried to play up the western threat. By taking reckless actions like trying to move NATO further east and destabilize Ukraine, it gave credence and fuel to those hawks.

We couldn’t simply be satisfied that the cold war was over and relations with Russia were peaceful. We had to go stirring up shit and try to re-ignite the cold war. Why? My first guess is that monied interests benefited greatly from the cold war and peace is bad for business. It turned out creating a new Russian threat wasn’t even necessary - they got their way of keeping up the military budget in the form of an eternal war on terrorism and kicking over shitty countries. But I suppose when the American people got fed up with spending treasure and lives across the world on places that weren’t a real threat, maybe it was time to resurrect something that actually was a real threat to keep the machine going.

The current Russian aggression is almost entirely a reaction to these factors. The OP proposes we go stepping this process up by trying to stir up shit in even more satellite states, justifying further Russian aggression because they’re responding to a real, legitimate threat from the outside, and not just bullshit war mongering.

We could’ve had an era of peace and prosperity with Russia, with trade and good will, but instead people who still had hardon for the cold war and a financial incentive for the US to always perceive some sort of threat in the world are striving to re-create it.

[Hector_St_Clare]

@SenorBeef

Russia’s foreign policy since WW2 has been driven by the fact that they were utterly terrified of external existential threats. They suffered so greatly in WW2 and came so close to destruction that they were determined that an invasion would never be fought off in Russian soil again. So they gained influence with satellite states to create buffers between the western powers and Russia itself, and formed its military doctrine around all-out offensive with the plan of having a potential war being fought in the west, rather than the east, regardless of who started it or why.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, we had a chance at a relatively peaceful situation from a beaten down Russia. All we had to do was reassure them that they needed fear an existential threat from us, that we weren’t going to exploit their weakness and use it to strengthen ourselves in their backyard.

And what did we do? We poked the bear incessantly. We recruited former Soviet statellite states into NATO. We tried to exert influence - cultural, political, and with subterfuge - to influence the governments of countries that bordered Russia.

So when we supported a popular uprising in the Ukraine, Russia’s historically most integrated ally and the country that borders its most vulnerable areas - essentially the most vital country you could fuck with if you wanted to scare Russia - and we helped to sow descent and specifically ran programs geared at influencing the Ukranian government to be more pro-west, it was an extremely aggressive action.

Most of the Russian leadership wanted to simply rebuild their economy and solidify their own wealth and power, but there were always old Soviet hard-liners who were hawkish on foreign policy and tried to play up the western threat. By taking reckless actions like trying to move NATO further east and destabilize Ukraine, it gave credence and fuel to those hawks.

We couldn’t simply be satisfied that the cold war was over and relations with Russia were peaceful. We had to go stirring up shit and try to re-ignite the cold war. Why? My first guess is that monied interests benefited greatly from the cold war and peace is bad for business. It turned out creating a new Russian threat wasn’t even necessary - they got their way of keeping up the military budget in the form of an eternal war on terrorism and kicking over shitty countries. But I suppose when the American people got fed up with spending treasure and lives across the world on places that weren’t a real threat, maybe it was time to resurrect something that actually was a real threat to keep the machine going.

The current Russian aggression is almost entirely a reaction to these factors. The OP proposes we go stepping this process up by trying to stir up shit in even more satellite states, justifying further Russian aggression because they’re responding to a real, legitimate threat from the outside, and not just bullshit war mongering.

We could’ve had an era of peace and prosperity with Russia, with trade and good will, but instead people who still had hardon for the cold war and a financial incentive for the US to always perceive some sort of threat in the world are striving to re-create it.

While I generally agree with this, two minor nitpicks: I think Belarus is probably Russia’s ‘most integrated ally’, not the Ukraine, and I think there is an ideological as well as a geopolitical element here.

[SenorBeef]

That’s probably true, but I was thinking more in terms of actual physical and military vulnerability. Ukraine is the path to the most vulnerable and valuable areas of Russia, and the most militarily threatning to establish influence in.

[Velocity]

@SenorBeef

When the Soviet Union collapsed, we had a chance at a relatively peaceful situation from a beaten down Russia. All we had to do was reassure them that they needed fear an existential threat from us, that we weren’t going to exploit their weakness and use it to strengthen ourselves in their backyard.

And what did we do? We poked the bear incessantly. We recruited former Soviet statellite states into NATO. We tried to exert influence - cultural, political, and with subterfuge - to influence the governments of countries that bordered Russia.

There was an advantage to be pressed. The benefits outweighed the drawbacks.

And didn’t those former Soviet satellite states (now in NATO) **want **to join NATO?

[Kobal2]

@Velocity

As opposed to what - “Hey, Moscow, if you want West Germany, it’s yours?”

Velocity, where did you put the middle ? I’m sure I put it on the dresser, but now it’s not there any more, have you done something with it ?! You wouldn’t have excluded it, would you ?

[SenorBeef]

@Velocity

There was an advantage to be pressed. The benefits outweighed the drawbacks.

And didn’t those former Soviet satellite states (now in NATO) **want **to join NATO?

What benefits? NATO was an organization meant to fight a threat that was dormant. By trying to expand it, you gave that threat a justified and compelling reason for that threat to return.

And it also means that the United States and other members of NATO are now required to fucking end vast swaths of civilization for the benefit of Estonia if it comes down to that.

It’s a stupid policy that only serves the interests that profit from war mongering.

[XT]

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
Russia’s foreign policy since WW2 has been driven by the fact that they were utterly terrified of external existential threats. They suffered so greatly in WW2 and came so close to destruction that they were determined that an invasion would never be fought off in Russian soil again. So they gained influence with satellite states to create buffers between the western powers and Russia itself, and formed its military doctrine around all-out offensive with the plan of having a potential war being fought in the west, rather than the east, regardless of who started it or why.
[/QUOTE]

They ‘gained influence’ by the use of overwhelming military force. This is such an apologist and slanted view it’s almost comical. Yeah, they were scared to death about what happened to them during WWII (a war they initially joined on Hitlers side of course, since it let them do exactly the same thing their great post war fear let them do…crush and dominate their neighbors and extend their empire. Didn’t work out so well for them though)…that’s hardly an excuse though.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, we had a chance at a relatively peaceful situation from a beaten down Russia. All we had to do was reassure them that they needed fear an existential threat from us, that we weren’t going to exploit their weakness and use it to strengthen ourselves in their backyard.

We DID reassure them…multiple times. for years. And, of course, when they were really down and out we, you know, didn’t do a fucking thing to them, didn’t attack them, and even tried to include them in world politics and through trade. Their neighbors, however, were fucking scared shitless of just what’s happening now and in some cases have asked most earnestly to be let into NATO and the EU to protect themselves from the playful and peaceful intent of their Russian friends.

And what did we do? We poked the bear incessantly. We recruited former Soviet statellite states into NATO. We tried to exert influence - cultural, political, and with subterfuge - to influence the governments of countries that bordered Russia.

Horse. Shit.

So when we supported a popular uprising in the Ukraine, Russia’s historically most integrated ally and the country that borders its most vulnerable areas - essentially the most vital country you could fuck with if you wanted to scare Russia - and we helped to sow descent and specifically ran programs geared at influencing the Ukranian government to be more pro-west, it was an extremely aggressive action.

Again, pure bullshit. The president of the Ukraine did a 180 on his campaign promises, and when his people protested he fucking had his military shoot them down like dogs. And when they pushed back he fucking bolted back to his masters. WE didn’t do shit or influence a gods damned thing (and by this WE I mean either the US or our Euro-buddies). We did pretty much fuck all to help the people of the Ukraine except some rather vague mouthings and timid support…and for a country that WE fucking helped to disarm so the Russians could do this very thing to them.

Most of the Russian leadership wanted to simply rebuild their economy and solidify their own wealth and power, but there were always old Soviet hard-liners who were hawkish on foreign policy and tried to play up the western threat. By taking reckless actions like trying to move NATO further east and destabilize Ukraine, it gave credence and fuel to those hawks.

We couldn’t simply be satisfied that the cold war was over and relations with Russia were peaceful. We had to go stirring up shit and try to re-ignite the cold war. Why? My first guess is that monied interests benefited greatly from the cold war and peace is bad for business. It turned out creating a new Russian threat wasn’t even necessary - they got their way of keeping up the military budget in the form of an eternal war on terrorism and kicking over shitty countries. But I suppose when the American people got fed up with spending treasure and lives across the world on places that weren’t a real threat, maybe it was time to resurrect something that actually was a real threat to keep the machine going.

The current Russian aggression is almost entirely a reaction to these factors. The OP proposes we go stepping this process up by trying to stir up shit in even more satellite states, justifying further Russian aggression because they’re responding to a real, legitimate threat from the outside, and not just bullshit war mongering.

We could’ve had an era of peace and prosperity with Russia, with trade and good will, but instead people who still had hardon for the cold war and a financial incentive for the US to always perceive some sort of threat in the world are striving to re-create it.

Blah blah…Russian sunshine up the ass propaganda bullshit and basic apologist handwavage. Man, this kind of thing serious makes me sick. We could have had an era of peace and prosperity all right if the fucking Russians (a.k.a. Putin and those who think the good old days of the Soviet Union were rose colored) kept their dicks in their pants and decided to act in a civilized way and play nice and be good neighbors. There is zero reason for the Russians to be trying to piece back together their old empire at this point except Putin’s ego and ambitions and those who want the good old days of the Soviet Union to come back. And those willing to apologize and hand wave away what Russia is actually doing, or trying to do.

[Velocity]

@SenorBeef

And it also means that the United States and other members of NATO are now required to **fucking end vast swaths of civilization **for the benefit of Estonia if it comes down to that.

Uh, no, the United States and other members of NATO aren’t required to do that. Merely ejecting Russian forces from an invaded Estonia through conventional means, but going no further, will do.
And you didn’t answer the question - didn’t those former Soviet satellite states (now in NATO) want to join NATO?

[BrightNShiny]

I’m a little confused by this thread. During a lot the Cold War, we pretty much let the Soviets do what they wanted to within their sphere of influence (e.g., the Warsaw Pact). We fought proxy wars with them when we felt it was in our strategic interests to do so, or we used “diplomatic support” when we didn’t want to get directly engaged. After the Korean War, we made very clear what countries we would protect in response to a direct invasion. And we largely avoided direct confrontation.

I suppose in the 80s, we could say we shifted our policy to economic sanctions, military build-up and more direct proxy wars (like Afghanistan).

What exactly is so different about what we’re doing now? We have sanctions and we have a military build-up. We have a clear line of demarcation about what countries we will protect. Maybe we’re not sending arms to the Ukraine the way we did to Afghanistan, but it’s not exactly like we sent arms to Hungary in 1956. What exactly is it that we did during the Cold War that is different than what we’re doing now?

[KarlGauss]

@Hector_St_Clare

Kasparov’s remarks aren’t ‘interesting perspectives’, they’re vacuous sound bites. Even by the standards of Twitter, which is an exceptionally low bar. I’m missing where he provides any arguments for his claims.

Thismay interest you, then (brief interview with GK by Toronto’s Globe and Mail).