Geopolitics

Sir Matt said:
Mearsheimer is a decrepit old man who's so wedded to his simplistic theory of international security that he can't acknowledge basic facts about the whole situation. I think @Raoul posted an interview Isaac Chotiner did with him for the New Yorker where he looks incredibly stupid. He insists that Russia's invasion of Ukraine is "geopolitics!!!" and not imperialism. He also insists that Russia won't invade all of Ukraine, despite the fact that it is doing just that.

The Russians have been all over Mearsheimer's nuts because his view of realism posits that Russia should be guaranteed its sphere of influence, regardless of what the people around Russia believe. People in the Baltics, Ukraine, Poland, Belarus? Yeah, their freedom and sovereignty don't matter because they should be in Russia's sphere of influence.
Click to expand...

Having listened to a fair bit of Mearsheimer’s talks I would take issue with your use of ‘should’.He doesn’t say what the Russians should do. He said (and quite compellingly said this 8 years ago) exactly what they will/would do and was correct. The West has led Ukraine ‘up the primrose’ path in his words, letting them believe their situation is more secure than it was. Despite a very aggressive invasion, there’s not a single NATO foot on Ukrainian ground, no NFZ and the most pressure they can exert is probably only serving to force Russia into the arms of China, the real elephant in the room. The wests silence by lack of riposte is deafening. It’s not about morality, Ukraine is just not an area of enough strategic importance.
Also a debunking of his ideas that relies on a lot of emotive insulting language like ‘decrepit’, ‘stupid’ isn’t best way to convince people attempting to think rationally he is wrong. I suggest you explain exactly why his ideas are so bad and put forth something that is more robust in its place.
 
InspiRED said:
Having listened to a fair bit of Mearsheimer’s talks I would take issue with your use of ‘should’.He doesn’t say what the Russians should do. He said (and quite compellingly said this 8 years ago) exactly what they will/would do and was correct. The West has led Ukraine ‘up the primrose’ path in his words, letting them believe their situation is more secure than it was. Despite a very aggressive invasion, there’s not a single NATO foot on Ukrainian ground, no NFZ and the most pressure they can exert is probably only serving to force Russia into the arms of China, the real elephant in the room. The wests silence by lack of riposte is deafening. It’s not about morality, Ukraine is just not an area of enough strategic importance.
Also a debunking of his ideas that relies on a lot of emotive insulting language like ‘decrepit’, ‘stupid’ isn’t best way to convince people attempting to think rationally he is wrong. I suggest you explain exactly why his ideas are so bad and put forth something that is more robust in its place.
Click to expand...

I wasn't involved in this thread (my post from the Ukraine thread was posted in here) and don't really plan to argue about James Mearsheimer. I've read enough of his work (and Walt) and about offensive realism to think it's a simplistic and flawed lens to interpret all of international relations through. It fails to account for far too many inputs and attributes a fantastical unitary structure to states that doesn't exist in reality. Mearsheimer's realism posits that Ukraine and other former Soviet states must be either within Russia's sphere of influence or permanently at risk or victim of Russian domination. I didn't waste a further 45 minutes of my life on listening to him. He's being trotted out by the Russians and Tankies to justify Putin's actions and to vilify NATO because it suits their agenda.

Here's the interview I referenced.
 
VorZakone said:
No brainer for Finland?

Click to expand...

Too soon to tell. There is a very lively debate in Finland.


Dr. Dwayne said:
And you are over-estimating their numbers, reach and appeal. Azov was legislated to have up to 12,000 serving members, of whom 10-20% are suspected to be neo-nazis today ...The battalion's leader has expressed admiration for Israel and suggests it should be a role model for Ukraine (although that could be good or bad from a blood purity/race perspective :nervous:)
Click to expand...

Many neo-mazis in Europe love how the regime in Israel oppresses Palestinians. It represents the fulfillment of some of their fantasies. Can you guess who wrote the following in his manifesto?
“Were the majority of the German and European Jews disloyal? Yes, at least the so called liberal Jews, similar to the liberal Jews today that opposes nationalism/Zionism and supports multiculturalism. Jews that support multiculturalism today are as much of a threat to Israel and Zionism (Israeli nationalism) as they are to us. So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists. Conservative Jews were loyal to Europe and should have been rewarded. Instead, [Hitler] just targeted them all…”
Click to expand...
 
Needham said:
And still, the US basically fled from both. Russia sees this stuff and acknowledges to itself the human sacrifices it's willing to make while seeing the US/West unwilling to make those same sacrifices. It is part of the calculus that led Putin to think the rationale for war during this American administration was a sound one.
Click to expand...

It didn't flee from either. The ending of the Iraq war was as a result of a biliateral agreement between both countries and the withdrawal from Afghanistan was out of a lack of interest in remaining there. The US could've easily remained in both countries if there was an interest to do so and in fact still has thousands of troops in Iraq today. (A topic for the Geo-politics thread of course).
 
Raoul said:
It didn't flee from either. The ending of the Iraq war was as a result of a biliateral agreement between both countries and the withdrawal from Afghanistan was out of a lack of interest in remaining there. The US could've easily remained in both countries if there was an interest to do so and in fact still has thousands of troops in Iraq today. (A topic for the Geo-politics thread of course).
Click to expand...
Definitely fled Afghanistan, see news reports last year for hours of footage of it doing so. Iraq it left unloved and softened up for Iranian domination, whether 'bilaterally agreed' or not. The perception that the west is spent through, among other things, these two conflicts as well as better informed but flabby, dopamined-up populations unwilling to risk the kind of casualty numbers that a major conflagration would create is, I am certain, part of Putin's blind faith in this mess. (Though I do agree it's for the other thread, but the comparison came up in casualty figures for Rus/US troops.)
 
Needham said:
Definitely fled Afghanistan, see news reports last year for hours of footage of it doing so. Iraq it left unloved and softened up for Iranian domination, whether 'bilaterally agreed' or not. The perception that the west is spent through, among other things, these two conflicts as well as better informed but flabby, dopamined-up populations unwilling to risk the kind of casualty numbers that a major conflagration would create is, I am certain, part of Putin's blind faith in this mess. (Though I do agree it's for the other thread, but the comparison came up in casualty figures for Rus/US troops.)
Click to expand...

I spent 7 years in both countries and trust me, there was no fleeing at all. The US could've stayed in either if it wanted to. The Afghanistan withdrawal was admittedly bungled due to a miscalculation of how quickly the Taliban would return, which was a result of Trump's timeline to leave and Biden not being adequately prepared to deal with the suddenness of what happened. The US could've of course opted to stay and obliterate the Taliban advances yet again, but decided not to.
 
Pintu said:
Many neo-mazis in Europe love how the regime in Israel oppresses Palestinians. It represents the fulfillment of some of their fantasies. Can you guess who wrote the following in his manifesto?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can see that there would be elements that they would like.

It's contradictory to the ideology, though, and for me is further evidence that these groups are nothing more than thugs and a long way from bring actual nazis.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
Yeah, I can see that there would be elements that they would like.

It's contradictory to the ideology, though, and for me is further evidence that these groups are nothing more than thugs and a long way from bring actual nazis.
Click to expand...



An enemy of an enemy is a friend. With the rise of Islamophobhia in Europe, it's probably not surprising.
 
Red Dreams said:
In the same way the US had no right to implement regime changes in Latin America a dozen times.
Spheres of influence.
Click to expand...

Remind me again when the US unilaterally invaded a Latin American country?
 
The Corinthian said:


Really takes the piss. Imagine how many people have died in dinghy’s trying to get to Dover.
Click to expand...


It's quite obvious once the outrage dissipates a little. The Ukrainian refugees are pre processed and accepted prior to arrival, the government has no idea who is coming across the Channel.
 
11101 said:
It's quite obvious once the outrage dissipates a little. The Ukrainian refugees are pre processed and accepted prior to arrival, the government has no idea who is coming across the Channel.
Click to expand...
I’ve worked with the Home Office and UKVI team over the last few years. Trust me when I say, Afghan refugees were given the short(est) straw when compared to Ukrainians. And that’s from the last 3-5 months I’m talking about. I can go on and on about our border policies if we want to stretch the timeline further back.
 
The Corinthian said:
I’ve worked with the Home Office and UKVI team over the last few years. Trust me when I say, Afghan refugees were given the short(est) straw when compared to Ukrainians. And that’s from the last 3-5 months I’m talking about. I can go on and on about our border policies if we want to stretch the timeline further back.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they are and the global sentiment towards the Ukraine invasion was always going to mean corners are cut for them, but that Instagram post about why can't Eurostar just offer up free seats to anybody? It's nonsense attention seeking.
 
11101 said:
I'm sure they are and the global sentiment towards the Ukraine invasion was always going to mean corners are cut for them, but that Instagram post about why can't Eurostar just offer up free seats to anybody? It's nonsense attention seeking.
Click to expand...
Why couldn’t Eurostar open up free seats to Afghan refugees? Genuine question.
 
11101 said:
So only once, then, in a place where 92% of the population wanted them to. Not quite the same is it.
Click to expand...

Well there was Iraq and Vietnam as well, even if you don't want to count the many times they've given weapons and money to dictators/armed forces who kill innocent people.
 
This is a horrible horrible read.


CIA black site detainee served as training prop to teach interrogators torture techniques
Newly declassified documents reveal Ammar al-Baluchi was repeatedly slammed against a wall while naked until all trainees received ‘certification’

1431.jpg



A detainee at a secret CIA detention site in Afghanistan was used as a living prop to teach trainee interrogators, who lined up to take turns at knocking his head against a plywood wall, leaving him with brain damage, according to a US government report.

The details of the torture of Ammar al-Baluchi are in a 2008 report by the CIA’s inspector general, newly declassified as part of a court filing by his lawyers aimed at getting him an independent medical examination.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/mar/14/cia-black-site-detainee-training-prop-torture-techniques
 
The Corinthian said:
What? What are you on about?
Click to expand...

It is illegal for Eurostar, or anybody else, to help people enter the UK illegally. These Ukrainians will have permission to enter before they board the train. Those crossing the Channel don't. That's the answer to the question in the Instagram post.

Even the civil penalties are steep for truckers who get caught with somebody hiding in the back, or airlines who have passengers rejected at the border.
 
11101 said:
It is illegal for Eurostar, or anybody else, to help people enter the UK illegally. These Ukrainians will have permission to enter before they board the train. Those crossing the Channel don't. That's the answer to the question in the Instagram post.

Even the civil penalties are steep for truckers who get caught with somebody hiding in the back, or airlines who have passengers rejected at the border.
Click to expand...
There are clear mechanisms in place with the UK Govt to help resettle and process Afghan refugees that come in by boat from Dover. There’s also a similar scheme set up for unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASCs). There are processing units in Kent who work in conjunction with LAs to help resettle Afghan refugees. They’re also providing English lessons and legal representation to aid their asylum process. So it’s not illegal as we have a protocol in place.

My question to you is why don’t/didn’t Eurostar allow Afghan refugees free seats?
 
Spoony said:
An enemy of an enemy is a friend. With the rise of Islamophobhia in Europe, it's probably not surprising.
Click to expand...

I don't know Spoons. I think the era of ideologues is well past us and today people will look for any justification for their beliefs, even it doesn't align to their supposed core values.
 
The Corinthian said:
There are clear mechanisms in place with the UK Govt to help resettle and process Afghan refugees that come in by boat from Dover. There’s also a similar scheme set up for unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASCs). There are processing units in Kent who work in conjunction with LAs to help resettle Afghan refugees. They’re also providing English lessons and legal representation to aid their asylum process. So it’s not illegal as we have a protocol in place.

My question to you is why don’t/didn’t Eurostar allow Afghan refugees free seats?
Click to expand...

You're not getting this. There might be processes in place to help them once they arrive but it is still illegal to bring them in. That's what Eurostar would be doing if they offered the seats.
 
11101 said:
You're not getting this. There might be processes in place to help them once they arrive but it is still illegal to bring them in.
Click to expand...
Let me break this down as simple as possible for you.

The UK has systems and protocols in place to take Afghan and Ukraine refugees.

Eurostar has offered free seats to Ukrainian refugees looking to come to the UK.

My question, for the 3rd time, is - what’s stopping Eurostar doing that for Afghan refugees?
 
The Corinthian said:
Let me break this down as simple as possible for you.

The UK has systems and protocols in place to take Afghan and Ukraine refugees.

Eurostar has offered free seats to Ukrainian refugees looking to come to the UK.

My question, for the 3rd time, is - what’s stopping Eurostar doing that for Afghan refugees?
Click to expand...

I'll make it as simple as I can for you.

When Ukrainian refugees board the train to London they are not illegal immigrants. They have been processed and accepted.

When Afghan refugees board the boats to Dover (or a train to London) they are illegal immigrants. They have not been processed and accepted.

Transporting illegal immigrants is, unsurprisingly, illegal. I can't explain it any more clearly than that.
 
11101 said:
I'll make it as simple as I can for you.

When Ukrainian refugees board the train to London they are not illegal immigrants. They have been processed and accepted.

When Afghan refugees board the boats to Dover (or a train to London) they are illegal immigrants. They have not been processed and accepted.

Transporting illegal immigrants is, unsurprisingly, illegal. I can't explain it any more clearly than that.
Click to expand...
They’re not illegal though. How are you not getting this? Why do you think these protocols and systems are in place to take Afghan refugees if they’re illegal?
 
Raoul said:
I spent 7 years in both countries and trust me, there was no fleeing at all. The US could've stayed in either if it wanted to. The Afghanistan withdrawal was admittedly bungled due to a miscalculation of how quickly the Taliban would return, which was a result of Trump's timeline to leave and Biden not being adequately prepared to deal with the suddenness of what happened. The US could've of course opted to stay and obliterate the Taliban advances yet again, but decided not to.
Click to expand...

Why did it decide not to?
 
11101 said:
Transporting illegal immigrants is, unsurprisingly, illegal. I can't explain it any more clearly than that.
Click to expand...
It seems to me he is not talking about “illegal immigrants”, but about refugees already approved to be settled in the UK.
 
Zlatattack said:
Why did it decide not to?
Click to expand...

The goal in Iraq had been met - Saddam out and the Iraqis are running their own democratic government. At that point there was no reason to stay, although that changed a couple of years later when ISIS rolled in. Those residual troops are mostly gone now as well.

On Afghanistan, Americans had largely forgotten about it and didn't know why troops were still there. Once Trump took office, he saw a chance to score an easy win by removing troops, and in the process, also potentially shackle Biden with the responsibility of their departure. There was also a certain futility to endlessly fighting a group who could scamper back and forth across the Pakistani border to regroup and launch new attacks. The US could've obviously opted to stick around and continue doing that indefinitely, but why bother when the original strategic goal of getting rid of Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden had already been achieved. There is obviously not sufficient political will in Afghanistan to become a democracy at the moment as there was in Iraq, so if a milder, less medieval version of the Taliban who don't allow the country to be used to plot attacks in the west (such as the earlier iteration of the Taliban with Bin Laden), are not breaking anything, then that's something the US can live with.
 
Last edited:
The Corinthian said:
They’re not illegal though. How are you not getting this? Why do you think these protocols and systems are in place to take Afghan refugees if they’re illegal?
Click to expand...

OK, rent a truck and go and bring a few back and see what happens. They're entering the UK illegally and anybody who transports them is guilty of an offence and liable for up to 14 years in prison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.