On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 12:20:22 AM UTC, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
ltlee1, <news:818faed8-5d67-48e2...@googlegroups.com>
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/11/29/the-perpetually-irrational-ukraine-debate/
Stephen Walt explained in his article:
1) Why American debate about the war in Ukraine is perpetually irrational, and 2) Possible undesirable consequence.
1) Three reasons for irrational debate about the war in Ukraine.
"One reason public discourse is so heated is moral outrage, and I have a degree of sympathy for this position. What Russia is doing to Ukraine is horrific, and it's easy to understand why people are angry, eager to support
Kyiv any way they can, happy to condemn Russia's leaders for their crimes,
Destruction of infrastructure is no more horrific that what the US Army
did while bombing out Yugoslavia and other places where they invaded.
The Kremlin wouldn't have had to resort to it if there had not been this extraordinary support for the Kiev regime from the US / Atlanticism with modern weapons and intelligence assistance. And given the fact that the Atlanticist propaganda would try its best to depict the Russian military action as much horrific / heinous as possible (as it already did with
regard to the Russia's military action in Syria), the Russians - as the Kremlins as the populace - become not so interested in "what they say".
Moral outrage is not a policy, however, and anger at Putin and Russia does not tell us what approach is best for Ukraine or the world. ...
Debates on Ukraine have also been distorted by a desire to deflect responsibility. ...
These righteous moral outragers are not enthusiastic to recall that the whole mess started when the Atlanticism sought to play a zero-sum game against Russia through the Ukraine "EU association", and then it ensured
the rise of extremists in the Ukraine by supporting the violent 2014 coup triggering the separatism, then they turned a blind eye to the post-coup regime's "horrific doings" and sabotaged the Minsk-2 agreement (about the latter they now speak out openly that it was just a sham on their part).
Read also <https://tinyurl.com/2m3d24ll>
Third, the war has been a disaster for Ukrainians, but supporters of U.S. liberal hegemony-especially the more hawkish elements of the foreign-policy
"Blob"-have gotten some of their mojo back. If Western support enables Ukraine to defeat an invading army and humiliate a dangerous dictator, then
the failures of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and the Balkans can be swept into the memory hole and the campaign to expand the U.S-led liberal order will get a new lease on life. No wonder the Blob is so eager to put Ukraine in the victory column."
2) Possible blowback
"the Biden administration could find itself in an awkward position in the months or years ahead. On the one hand, it is publicly committed to winning
the war and hopes U.S. soldiers aren't involved in combat, but the entire national security establishment is helping Ukraine in lots of ways. On the other hand, the administration also seems mindful of the risks of escalation, does not want to get into a shooting war with Russia, and some U.S. officials apparently believe that a total Ukrainian victory is unlikely
and that eventually there will have to be a deal.
Here's the rub: What if the war does end in a messy and disappointing compromise instead of the happy Hollywood ending most of the world would like to see? "
This "happy Hollywood ending" is a highly delusional expectation.
Soberly - not propagandistically, - there's no reason for such expectations. As far as I can see, the Atlanticist main bet is that Russia might crack from
the inside ("palace coup" and/or popular discontent). Time will tell.
Well, Mr Stephen Walt is a realist. By realist, it means foreign policy is not a matter of
morally right or wrong. But whether such policy would Realistically benefit the people
and/or the world and at what cost. Debate about the Ukraine war is irrational as long
as such debate is not framed correctly.
It is obvious that he does not think the war would have a "happy Hollywood ending."
Yet he does not give much hint concerning the outcome of US stupid foreign (per his
previous article) policy action dominated by irrational debate.
Well, one can only consult another author for the outcome of consistently irrational
debate. The following is the view of a retired Indian Ambassador, Columnist.
https://www.indianpunchline.com/ukraine-war-tolls-death-knell-for-nato/
"If the neocons in the driving seat in the Beltway wanted an arms race, they have it now. The paradox, however, is that this is going to be different from the bipolar Cold War era arms race.
If the US intention was to weaken Russia before confronting China, things aren’t working that way. Instead, the US is getting locked into a confrontation with Russia and the ties between the two big powers are at a breaking point. Russia expects the US
to roll back NATO’s expansion, as promised to the Soviet leadership in 1989.
The neocons had expected a “win-win” in Ukraine: Russian defeat and a disgraceful end to Putin presidency; a weakened Russia, as in the 1990s, groping for a new start; consolidation of western unity under a triumphant America; a massive boost in the
upcoming struggle with China for supremacy in the world order; and a New American Century under the “rules-based world order”.
But instead, this is turning out to be a classic Zugzwang in the endgame — to borrow from German chess literature — where the US is under obligation to make a move on Ukraine but whichever move it makes will only worsen its geopolitical position.
Biden has understood that Russia cannot be defeated in Ukraine; nor are Russian people in any mood for an insurrection. Putin’s popularity is soaring high, as Russian objectives in Ukraine are being steadily realised. Thus, Biden is getting a vague
sense, perhaps, that Russia isn’t exactly seeing things in Ukraine as a binary of victory and defeat, but is gearing up for the long haul to sort out NATO once and for all.
The transformation of Belarus as a “nuclear-capable” state carries a profound message from Moscow to Brussels and Washington. Biden cannot miss it. (See my blog NATO nuclear compass rendered unavailing, Indian Punchline, Dec. 21, 2022
Logically, the option open to the US at this point would be to disengage. But that becomes an abject admission of defeat and will mean the death knell for the NATO, and Washington’s transatlantic leadership goes kaput. And, worse still, major west
European powers — Germany, France and Italy — may start looking for a modus vivendi with Russia. Above all, how can NATO possibly survive without an “enemy”?
Clearly, neither the US nor its allies are in a position to fight a continental war. But even if they are, what about the emerging scenario in the Asia-Pacific, where the “no limits” partnership between China and Russia has added an intriguing layer
in the geopolitics?
The neocons in the Beltway have bitten more than what they could chew. Their last card will be to push for a direct US military intervention in the Ukraine war under the banner of a “coalition of the willing.” "
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)