Geopolitics

[JPRouve]

Yes, I’m just wary of posting something which might be used to support an argument that I find distasteful (i.e. “these war crimes are less bad than those war crimes…), especially given the record of the UK and US in Iraqi history is so horrendous.



The numbers given there seem quite close to the famous Iraq Body Count tally.

Looking at the references, that's actually the source for civilians in Irak.

 

[berbatrick]

I'm not saying that what the US did in Iraq was an accident. My example should highlight that there are moral nuances to this stuff. We perceive an intentional killing as morally worse than an unintentional one. And among the unintentional ones, we distinguish between levels of recklessness. And then there's also the motive in our moral assessment. We perceive an unintentional or even intentional killing as less worse when we can understand the motive. If you drive over somebody while driving somebody in life threatening condition to the hospital, it is not as severe of a crime as doing it while driving in an illegal street race. And if you do it on purpose, it also depends on ehether you did it out of egotistical reasons, perceived self defense and so forth.


So unless you want to argue that the US specifically taregeted civilians - because that's what Russia is doing in this very moment for strategical purposes - I don't see how you can argue against this point.

That doesn't mean that the actions of the US aren't despicable, definitely not, or that the West isn't very good at turning a blind eye to such atrocities committed by himself. It just means that the NATO is the lesser evil compared to Russia.

The US (among other things) used depleted uranium in their battle to re-take Fallujah. Fallujah consequently has very high infant mortality, cancer, and birth defects.
https://merip.org/2020/09/birth-defects-and-the-toxic-legacy-of-war-in-iraq
Not sure where this falls into your targeting system - did they intentionally target the civilians or only knowingly poison their city for generations?

We also have clear evidence of the US president personally ordering civilian casualties in earlier wars, so it makes sense to restrict this comparison to Iraq - since I'm jumping into this conversation midway, not sure what the full context is.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Do you have sources for that? Because a quick google research gave me an essay suggesting this:

"Since 2003, however, several more surveys dealing with child mortality have been undertaken. Their results show no sign of a huge and enduring rise in the under-5 death rate starting in 1991. It is therefore clear that Saddam Hussein’s government successfully manipulated the 1999 survey in order to convey a very false impression—something that is surely deserving of greater recognition."

" That said, there was no major rise in child mortality in Iraq after 1990 and during the period of the sanctions. Conversely, there was no major improvement in child mortality after the downfall of Saddam Hussein. "



So you would have neither put up sanctions nor intervened militarily?

I think it comes down to a "your source or mine" approach because there isn't complete consensus, so a fair point. It would require an in-depth sociological survey which will be met with incredible difficulties. The point (Spagat's) hinges upon a comparison between the Kurdish figures and the Iraqi figures and a presumption that the latter were completely misrepresentative (scholars who compiled those statistic argue that they took deliberate misrepresentation into account). So there is ambiguity concerning the exact figure, and the exact mortality rate, but Spagat's article isn't enough in itself (it seems like a massive gap in the literature, actually) and those who carried out the previous studies still stand by it. But I take your point.

As for the other part, no I wouldn't have imposed sanctions or intervened militarily (sanctions do not work and there was no need for military intervention). Read the long quotation in the post prior to this one and consider the contradictions.

Posted this just this morning - Truth and death in Iraq under sanctions.

Spagat is a scholar at Royal Holloway whose “current research addresses universal patterns in modern war, fabrication in survey research, the Dirty War Index civilian casualties in the Iraq conflict and problems in the measurement of war deaths.” Not sure if the publication is peer-reviewed (I’m guessing not). In any case I find the argument persuasive.

His methodology is interesting but it relies upon throwing out other studies as being absolutely misled in favour of newer studies. It then becomes an exercise in historiography but it isn't a bad argument. What is surprising is the relative lack of scholarship on the issue post-2010 (about five peer review articles with one being that cited by Zehner, one offers a refutation). I don't dismiss it, anyway, but all of it seems rather qualitative (even those that affirm the 250k number).

The link posted above is a good one.

As UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq, Hans von Sponeck was a daily witness to what he calls “a harsh and uncompromising sanctions regime punishing the wrong people”. In his book, he outlines some of the most salient consequences on the daily lives of innocent Iraqis:

To reach any kind of conclusion, you'd have to square a lot of accounts such as von Sponeck's with Spagat's methodological critique.

 

[berbatrick]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

the magic of the market

 

[Kostov]

The US (among other things) used depleted uranium in their battle to re-take Fallujah. Fallujah consequently has very high infant mortality, cancer, and birth defects.
https://merip.org/2020/09/birth-defects-and-the-toxic-legacy-of-war-in-iraq
Not sure where this falls into your targeting system - did they intentionally target the civilians or only knowingly poison their city for generations?

We also have clear evidence of the US president personally ordering civilian casualties in earlier wars, so it makes sense to restrict this comparison to Iraq - since I'm jumping into this conversation midway, not sure what the full context is.

They used depleted uranium when bombing Serbia also.

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[berbatrick]

I read the article but I can't quite get what the author's point was? That Mearsheimer realism is still not sufficient to explain events?

same author explains more here: https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-95-is-ukraine-the-wests?s=r

On the distinction between explanation and justification, Eric Levitz at New York Magazine is predictably lucid.

to argue that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was a predictable response to American policy choices is not to say that it was a justified response to those choices. Too often in recent days, people trying to make the former argument have been denounced for making the latter one. … Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was a free choice. And whatever role U.S. policy played in determining Putin’s decision, it did not force his hand. Critics of NATO expansion would be wise to stipulate this point, since doing otherwise only renders their causal analysis easier to stigmatize.

This from Jon Schwarz @Schwarz at the Intercept is also good on the broader intellectual context of the debate of foreign policy in the US:

To comprehend Applebaum’s glee here, her tweet should be seen as not just about Ukraine, but as part of a decades-long battle between realists and neoconservatives. And her rhetorical gambit is a favorite of neoconservatives, one they’ve used many times before and will surely use many times again. Neither the realists or neoconservatives are any great shakes from a progressive perspective, but you have to understand them to understand U.S. foreign policy.

But, is the distinction between explanation and justification really what is at stake here?

In an essay in New Statesman that just appeared, I argue that it is not.

In my view Mearsheimer’s analysis also falls short at the level of explanation. Famously “free choices” resist causal explanation. But we cannot simply waive our hands. Indeed, if we merely waive our hands, or assume an automaticity from structural conditions to action, as Mearsheimer seems to do, we void the domain in which the responsibility of statecraft is actually enacted. We void too the domain in which a sophisticated understanding of realism would have to prove its worth. If we take Mearsheimer’s account seriously, Russia, rather than being a sentient strategic actor, is reduced to something akin to a resentful robot.

roughly what @do.ob said i think

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

same author explains more here: https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-95-is-ukraine-the-wests?s=r



roughly what @do.ob said i think

I read that essay, and some around it, and don't think it's a sufficient refutation of Mearsheimer's overall argument. If they charge Mearsheimer with being too structural and strangling agency, the reverse is true in their case: they treat interstate leviathans as if you can reduce their actions to one individual (the point about the state is that it is anti-individualist; prioritizing agency as they do is giving it far too much weight). There are valid critiques of Mearsheimer but these critiques (of late) don't comprehend structuralism (even as a concept beyond geopolitics) well enough insofar as they posit agency as its undoing.

 

[Mastadon]

I don't believe we should judge the innocent party's actions based on the aggressor's paranoid and illegal response.

There is nothing innocent about insisting to expand an anti Russian alliance up to Russias doorstep.If Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War they would have been wrecked too. The Cold War obviously never ended because nato is significantly larger than it was pre 91.

 

[MTF]

There is nothing innocent about insisting to expand an anti Russian alliance up to Russias doorstep.If Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War they would have been wrecked too. The Cold War obviously never ended because nato is significantly larger than it was pre 91.

Yawn. You're about 8 weeks late to this debate.

 

[Mastadon]

Yawn. You're about 8 weeks late to this debate.

Has the cause of the war changed since then?

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

There is nothing innocent about insisting to expand an anti Russian alliance up to Russias doorstep.If Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War they would have been wrecked too. The Cold War obviously never ended because nato is significantly larger than it was pre 91.

Boring.

One thing that did not come up to my mind until yesterday is the fact that NATO expansion came AFTER the wars in Yugoslavia. I don't know if you remember, but Russia was the main player supporting Milosevic's genocidal regime while NATO were the only organization that actively did what had to be done to stop both the Bosnian War and the Kosovo War albeit some critics say it took too long. When that drunkard Boris Yeltsin supported Milosevic, what kind of message do you think Eastern European countries - especially those who suffered under Soviet rule saw from Moscow then? If you want to lay blame somewhere, lay it to the Kremlin because of geopolitical decisions of their own.

 

[Mastadon]

Boring.

One thing that did not come up to my mind until yesterday is the fact that NATO expansion came AFTER the wars in Yugoslavia. I don't know if you remember, but Russia was the main player supporting Milosevic's genocidal regime while NATO were the only organization that actively did what had to be done to stop both the Bosnian War and the Kosovo War albeit some critics say it took too long. When that drunkard Boris Yeltsin supported Milosevic, what kind of message do you think Eastern European countries - especially those who suffered under Soviet rule saw from Moscow then? If you want to lay blame somewhere, lay it to the Kremlin because of geopolitical decisions of their own.

Russia was a threat to nobody during that era the whole country was a complete mess. NATO expansion was aimed at taking advantage of this weakness nothing less. The west kept pushing Russia because it couldn’t push back. That wasn’t going to last forever.

 

[Mastadon]

Let me guess, the cause is the US 'expanding'?

I guess the Sun narrative about mad dictators who invade other countries for no reason is easier to stomach.

 

[MTF]

Has the cause of the war changed since then?

It's all NATO's fault, they're so seductive with their big juicy AWACS rotodomes and long hard Paladin howitzers. How could any country resist?

 

[MTF]

Russia was a threat to nobody during that era the whole country was a complete mess. NATO expansion was aimed at taking advantage of this weakness nothing less. The west kept pushing Russia because it couldn’t push back. That wasn’t going to last forever.

What is Russian for lebensraum?

 

[Mastadon]

What is Russian for lebensraum?

The Cubans could probably tell you.

 

[FireballXL5]

Russia was a threat to nobody during that era the whole country was a complete mess. NATO expansion was aimed at taking advantage of this weakness nothing less. The west kept pushing Russia because it couldn’t push back. That wasn’t going to last forever.

So, a democratic sovereign state can't decide it's own future because a mad wanker like Putin doesn't like it? Gotcha.

 

[Raoul]

There is nothing innocent about insisting to expand an anti Russian alliance up to Russias doorstep.If Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War they would have been wrecked too. The Cold War obviously never ended because nato is significantly larger than it was pre 91.

Putin has proved that NATO sticking around and expanding was the correct thing to do, given that a corrupt, totalitarian dictatorship sitting atop the world's largest stockpile of nukes is now invading its neighbors for lebensraum, which has in the process legitimized every act of expansion NATO has undertaken and will undertake in the future.

 

[Mastadon]

Putin has proved that NATO sticking around and expanding was the correct thing to do, given that a corrupt, totalitarian dictatorship sitting atop the world's largest stockpile of nukes is now invading its neighbors for lebensraum, which has in the process legitimized every act of expansion NATO has undertaken and will undertake in the future.

I am of the opinion that the world would be a safer place if people would just quit expanding military alliances up to the gates of nuclear armed countries. After all what does the Monroe doctrine say about acts like this?

 

[nimic]

I am of the opinion that the world would be a safer place if people would just quit expanding military alliances up to the gates of nuclear armed countries. After all what does the Monroe doctrine say about acts like this?

If the Baltic countries hadn't joined NATO, they would have been invaded. Probably Poland too.

 

[Raoul]

I am of the opinion that the world would be a safer place if people would just quit expanding military alliances up to the gates of nuclear armed countries. After all what does the Monroe doctrine say about acts like this?

Its fine to hold such an opinion, but it is antithetical to the way the international system is set up. In the absence of a world government (which we're nowhere near having right now), powerful states will continue to do as they please and international organizations like NATO will continue to provide collective security against rogue dictatorships with nukes, such as Vladimir Putin's Russia. When his regime collapses and Russia goes democratic, the need for collective security in Europe will diminish and the need for NATO will gradually dissipate.

 

[Withnail]

There is nothing innocent about insisting to expand an anti Russian alliance up to Russias doorstep.If Mexico joined the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War they would have been wrecked too. The Cold War obviously never ended because nato is significantly larger than it was pre 91.

Jaysus lad. Abramovich is just a business man and Ukraine's right to self-determination, and to join any group/alliance they are legally free to do so, is some sinister anti-Russian plot.

You realise Putin is a maniac? You can't blame anyone else for his actions. He's the aggressor here but you'll probably tell me I'm just lapping the '"West's propaganda"

 

[Rightnr]

The Americans turned up in my country trying to get us to fight the Chinese over the SCS dispute. We politely told them to fk off we would deal with it by negotiation. It’s not easy being on the border of a super power you need to be smart and staying neutral is better than getting wrecked.

Assuming staying neutral is enough to satisfy Putin. It's clearly not or at least to me.

 

[Mastadon]

Its fine to hold such an opinion, but it is antithetical to the way the international system is set up. In the absence of a world government (which we're nowhere near having right now), powerful states will continue to do as they please and international organizations like NATO will continue to provide collective security against rogue dictatorships with nukes, such as Vladimir Putin's Russia. When his regime collapses and Russia goes democratic, the need for collective security in Europe will diminish and the need for NATO will gradually dissipate.

Russia is not a rogue dictatorship it is a super power and needs to be treated as such. The US has destroyed many countries in the Middle East on false pretenses and there have been 0 consequences. It is sheer arrogance to assume that only the US is capable of wrecking other states in the name of national security.

 

[Raoul]

Russia is not a rogue dictatorship it is a super power and needs to be treated as such. The US has destroyed many countries in the Middle East on false pretenses and there have been 0 consequences. It is sheer arrogance to assume that only the US is capable of wrecking other states in the name of national security.

Being a super power requires military, economic, and technological superiority. When you have an economy the size of Spain (soon to be the size of Holland's), you are now basically little more than a totalitarian regional power.

 

[The Firestarter]

Russia is not a rogue dictatorship it is a super power and needs to be treated as such. The US has destroyed many countries in the Middle East on false pretenses and there have been 0 consequences. It is sheer arrogance to assume that only the US is capable of wrecking other states in the name of national security.

Its only super in its ability to kill defenseless women and children. Bunch of war criminals.

 

[MTF]

Russia is not a rogue dictatorship it is a super power and needs to be treated as such. The US has destroyed many countries in the Middle East on false pretenses and there have been 0 consequences. It is sheer arrogance to assume that only the US is capable of wrecking other states in the name of national security.

I'm going to be generous and assume that this isn't actually a call for all countries to have the perceived "right" to wreck others.

What's with the absolutely terrible hot takes the last page?

Periodically someone new pops in to re-litigate what has already been done to death in the weeks ahead of the invasion. Unless you're calling my hot takes terrible, in which case I denounce your imperialist language!

 

[11101]

I am of the opinion that the world would be a safer place if people would just quit expanding military alliances up to the gates of nuclear armed countries. After all what does the Monroe doctrine say about acts like this?

You've got this the wrong way round. Nato expanded because all the small countries along Russia's borders wanted to join an alliance to protect themselves from Russian aggression. It was a reaction to Russia's aggression, not an act of aggression itself.

 

[Mastadon]

Jaysus lad. Abramovich is just a business man and Ukraine's right to self-determination, and to join any group/alliance they are legally free to do so, is some sinister anti-Russian plot.

You realise Putin is a maniac? You can't blame anyone else for his actions. He's the aggressor here but you'll probably tell me I'm just lapping the '"West's propaganda"

I would advise you to actually listen to what Putin has been saying for the last 10 years or so he’s far from being a maniac.The Ukraine war was a big miscalculation and he is the aggressor here but NATO expansion has been seen as aggressive by the Russians for a long time now and red lines were set and crossed. Do you think for example the US would accept Chinese missles and troops in Canada or Mexico?

 

[Redlambs]

The Americans turned up in my country trying to get us to fight the Chinese over the SCS dispute. We politely told them to fk off we would deal with it by negotiation. It’s not easy being on the border of a super power you need to be smart and staying neutral is better than getting wrecked.

So Ukraine aren't smart and they should just do what they are told by Putin.

Victim blaming aside, you do understand Nato membership is by application right?

 

[GlastonSpur]

Has the cause of the war changed since then?

The cause of the war is Russia invading Ukraine. And the reason they've done so is crush a free and democratic Slavic nation lest it sets an example for the Russian people - which is what Putin fears above else. It's about freedom and democracy vs control and oppression. Everything else is just smokescreen lies.

 

[MTF]

I would advise you to actually listen to what Putin has been saying for the last 10 years or so he’s far from being a maniac.The Ukraine war was a big miscalculation and he is the aggressor here but NATO expansion has been seen as aggressive by the Russians for a long time now and red lines were set and crossed. Do you think for example the US would accept Chinese missles and troops in Canada or Mexico?

Do you think Canada or Mexico are looking to accept Chinese missiles or troops? That's what's always missing from this analysis. Canada and Mexico benefit from their ties with the US and don't maintain them simply due to coercion.

 

[Raoul]

I would advise you to actually listen to what Putin has been saying for the last 10 years or so he’s far from being a maniac.The Ukraine war was a big miscalculation and he is the aggressor here but NATO expansion has been seen as aggressive by the Russians for a long time now and red lines were set and crossed. Do you think for example the US would accept Chinese missles and troops in Canada or Mexico?

If we've learned anything about Putin, its that he's a highly accomplished liar who often says the opposite of what he does. Most rational observers don't seem to have any problem acknowledging this.

 

[Mastadon]

Being a super power requires military, economic, and technological superiority. When you have an economy the size of Spain (soon to be the size of Holland's), you are now basically little more than a totalitarian regional power.

So why was it necessary to keep expanding NATO and treating them as enemies? Would you not expect them to be threatened by it?

 

[GlastonSpur]

Russia is not a rogue dictatorship it is a super power and needs to be treated as such. The US has destroyed many countries in the Middle East on false pretenses and there have been 0 consequences. It is sheer arrogance to assume that only the US is capable of wrecking other states in the name of national security.

It's dictatorship under Putin - that's undeniable. And it's rogue because it has just invaded an free and democratic nation.

Nor has Russia invaded Ukraine in the name of state security - because no one, including Putin - even remotely believes that NATO would ever invade a vast and nuclear-armed nation like Russia. The 'state security' angle is just a BS lie/excuse from Putin. The war is about crushing freedom and democracy in Ukraine.

 

[TMDaines]

I would advise you to actually listen to what Putin has been saying for the last 10 years or so he’s far from being a maniac.The Ukraine war was a big miscalculation and he is the aggressor here but NATO expansion has been seen as aggressive by the Russians for a long time now and red lines were set and crossed. Do you think for example the US would accept Chinese missles and troops in Canada or Mexico?

We'd all be very confused if Canada or Mexico had any interest in Chinese missiles being stationed in their land. Why would Canada or Mexico want to enter a defensive pact against the US that meant stationing Chinese missiles in their territory?

Ukraine joining NATO or the EU anytime in the future had been a complete non-starter until Russia decided to invade.

What's with the absolutely terrible hot takes the last page?

I think we have a daily quota of new entrants to the thread that are designed to throw a few hand grenades in.

 

[Raoul]

So why was it necessary to keep expanding NATO and treating them as enemies? Would you not expect them to be threatened by it?

Because the hyper corrupt version of Russia in the 90s and subsequent authoritarian dictatorship it spawned between the late 90s and the present, created a security problem incentivizing eastern block nations to join NATO as a means to protect themselves. A wise choice given what a corrupt and vicious monster Putin turned out to be.

 

[Mastadon]

Do you think Canada or Mexico are looking to accept Chinese missiles or troops? That's what's always missing from this analysis. Canada and Mexico benefit from their ties with the US and don't maintain them simply due to coercion.

Lack of coercion? Don’t they prop up crackpot dictatorships all over the world on the grounds that they are pro US? Don’t they invade countries like Panama and Nicaragua who don’t?

 

[sebsheep]

Lack of coercion? Don’t they prop up crackpot dictatorships all over the world on the grounds that they are pro US? Don’t they invade countries like Panama and Nicaragua who don’t?

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/geopolitics-too-whataboutery-for-other-threads.469141/

Think this is the thread you were looking for.