Quote (ferdia @ Mar 3 2022 10:41am)
If by Forced to Act you mean militarily, i.e. declaring war on Russia / Sending Troops to Ukraine, I would say that equates to World War 3
If by Forced to Act you mean via sanctions, I would say yes, Forced to Act. [ I would be wary of the scope of the sanctions though, always leave a door open for your enemy ].
To the meat your post: Yes I am well read on US concerns re: their long term hegemony being eroded. I understand? the notion that the US wants to remain No#1 but that it does not know how it will do that. Using your expressions, the theoryI would have for Russia is (and i hate to quote from the chinese omggg) the security of one country [ Ukraine ] should not come at the expense of the security of other countries [ i.e. Russia ], still less should regional security Europe be guaranteed by strengthening or even expanding military blocs [ Nato ]"
I would also agree that American foreign policy re: Russia is fundamentally flawed noting Russia is isolationist, not expansionist, whereas China is China [ there is enough online to explain that expression ]. Better for the US not to have provoked Russia, to have told the Nato to get back in their box, not to encourage / support Ukraine re: Nato and to have formed closer ties with Russia, as Russia was never going to overtake the US, but China already has, across alot of areas.
Interesting, but Russia invading came at the security of Ukraine. I agree we have no reason or interest to putting boots on the ground or direct intervention. But bleeding the Russian economy and military is in American, EU and therefore NATO interests (NATO is a grouping of states, they have no real power unless the states agree to allow action to take place). I don't get how you can argue Russia was forced to act based on Realism but then at the same time say the security of one state should not come at the expense of another state. Your arguing neorealism in one sentence and neoliberalism in the next while the theories and actions are incompatible. Either you believe power is relative or you believe it is absolute. If it is absolute than your security does not come at the cost of my security(liberalism), if it is relative your security comes at the cost of my security(realism).
Personally I think a change of leadership/state will be required before that type of rapprochement happens. Under the current regime they understand that by keeping a relationship with China is in their interests today over the US, together they are able to better balance power vis a vis the US. Just like the US, they would eventually pivot to China once the US is less of a threat and Chinas military/economy grows. So goading Russia into a long drawn out war, where NATO has direct borders to supply the insurgency with, is great for Western Interests. What's the real cost? Don't forget Russia has its own military alliances with countries such as Belarus (if its even a country, which is debatable), so its not a one sided affair where one side has an alliance and the other doesn't.
This post was edited by Mossom on Mar 3 2022 10:00am