The General Russia Thread

Uh yeah. Those desires and perceptions were, in turn, caused by Western antics. Thats my point.

Elites are not the same thing as foreign policy decisionmakers. Democracy or not, there generally are only a few sources of policy making, generally from foreign ministries and intelligence agencies, and maybe economic ministries. It's not a simple "don't like, so switch." Policies outlast terms, and momentum in foreign policy fields is the most powerful of forces. A democracy can only say what the people want. Doesn't mean they get it, as it is proven time and again with the US, generally speaking.

Triumphalism has everything to do with it, not the slogans. If the West cared so much about these values, they'd have done it elsewhere. They didn't, because thats not where the momentum was. The momentum was the Cold War, and a desire to "win" it. With Moscow weakened, they wanted to weaken it further. That ensured the Russian people would strike back, but the West didn't care.

And bullshit. The West blames Russia even when Russia isn't doing anything wrong. The Georgia War is a perfect example. Saakashvili, to this day, is still treated like some kind of hero when the average Georgian would tell you he was no better than the people he replaced, in the end.

Your problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that the West had any hand in Russia's attitude. Politics, ESPECIALLY geopolitics, is not a mere internal affair.

What I object to is the idea that somehow what reasons the West gave for occupying Kosovo explains why Pussy Riot had to go to jail. When people in the US claim that they have to read my email because "terrorism" I call that BS. It's the same thing- trying to justify oppression at home because some scary "ferners" are threatening "our" way of life. Lets throw the "deviants" in jail because Muslims (or Communists, or Westerners, or Martians, or anyone) are nothing but tools of some shadowy foreign conspiracy. I've seen this movie before, dozens of times, including in my own country, and it's still BS, every time.

I'm happy to condemn Western rhetoric against Russia, or anyone else, because I'm happy to condemn rhetoric, period. Propaganda in the service of "practical" politics is always worthy of condemnation. Russia is a great country, worthy of our friendship and respect, but right now the Putin administration is acting against the interests of its own citizens, the Ukrainians, and anyone who values democracy. Of course, the NSA is doing the same thing, but if you go over to the Privacy, Government, Surveillance, and You. thread, you will see I'm equally adamant in condemning them.

Well I've never justified Putin's internal policies in any way, so dunno why you're talking about that, so I'll just say I agree.

As for everything else, I have yet to hear said condemnation in the instance I'm actually talking about.

Well, the fact is I dont spend a lot of time condemning anyone's rhetoric, because there is too much of it and life is too short. Also I generally dont take it seriously enough to care much. For example, people around here listen to Glen Beck, and that has political implications as well, but I dont waste my time trying to counter every crazy claim Beck makes, even though I couldn't disagree more with him. Or when Obama tries to justify a self-serving policy with high-blown rhetoric, I take that as "just politics". Frankly, my attitude is that it's the responsibility of the individual to look past surface claims and try to discern the truth. It' not my mission in life, except for certain issues that are critical to me.

But sure, I'm happy to call out BS wherever it is. Frankly, I don't know enough about the Georgia war to comment on that, and I've never heard of Saakashvili before now, but if he led his country into a futile war with a neighboring country then he deserves condemnation as well.

edited 13th Apr '14 8:19:28 PM by demarquis

Saakashvili is not treated as some sort of hero.

The key is that the Georgian War lasted for a very short time in the American attention span (August war, then there was the Beijing olympics, then in September the Dow crashed, the great recession hit home, and the big election opened up). Essentially we only paid attention to the war when it was all about "Russian tanks closing in on Tblisi" and not the later investigation that reminded everyone who was still paying attention "oops, kind of Saakashvili's fault on that one".

My perception of the foreign-policy literate in America is that they all understand that the August War was Georgia's fault. The foreign policy illiterate who are more apt to blame Russia don't even remember that war was a thing (just like they'll all have forgotten the existence of Crimea by the end of summer). The foreign policy illiterate do not care about things until America's interests become actively involved.

Which is kind of telling.

Again, no wonder that many people here think that conceding to "The West" is a losing policy. If Russia is treated as an enemy whether it acts like that or no - what exactly is the point of not doing it?

If you want someone to do what you want, you need both carrot and stick. You beat them when they go against your wishes and reward them when they do what you want. What Russia learned is that it is going to get beaten by "the West" regardless of what it is doing, with no proverbial carrot in sight.

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Not always, Russia got a carrot over Libya, there was some French military trade deal that NATO was blocking, in exchange for Russia abstaining the block was lifted. Russia then went of on a tangent about how NATO overstepped its role in Libya and was up to no good. In the Libya case Russia took the carrot and then spat in the West's face, if that's the kind of reaction we get when making a deal with Russia why should we bother?

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

It's a "chicken and egg" problem. Russia gets treated like an enemy because Russia acts like an enemy and Russia acts like an enemy because Russia gets treated like an enemy.

For a limited, humanitarian operation. To protect, not help the war or conduct regime change.

I'm not saying the war should have gone on differently, but the understanding negotiated with Russia was not a random tangent.

Yep.

And this is the tricky thing when negotiating with non-monolithic nations. Voters have limited attention spans.

How many Russians thought the planning that led up to the intervention in Libya had anything to do with negotiations? How many thought Russia was being offered any carrots? Now - how many would have reason to? Do people with jobs and families have the time to do the research on what they're up to at the UN? I'm sure there was other stuff in the Russian news at the time to occupy their attention.

Back to Georgia and the U.S. That took place in 2008. Of course the average American voter doesn't know shit about whose fault it was. In 2008 we were busy electing our first black president. That is somewhat of a big deal, and it occupied some degree of the national discourse.

This is why it's better to run foreign policy on principles of human rights and respect for sovereignty and err on the side of the weaker powers in a confrontation, not play big-boy's-club games based on realpolitik and reciprocity and whatever grievance people nurse at the time. Let's face it: the average Joe doesn't have the time to care about what foreign powers are doing until those powers are actively screwing them over. They can't see the carrot, only the stick. If you make grievances and potential grievances (yay reciprocity!) the centrepiece of foreign policy, you open the door to any megalomaniacal con artist to run on the "it's all those furriners' fault!" campaign strategy.*

*This sentence does not assume that what I have described in the second half of that conditional clause is not already the case.

edited 14th Apr '14 2:12:36 AM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

This. Getting pissy because your neighbour — who has been "yours" for decades — decides to set up trade agreements with people you don't like isn't clever in the longer term.

Instead of changing to woo the neighbour... or finding ways to hit back at the actual people... you go after the neighbour in the international equivalent of forcing your girlfriend to stay indoors and not talk to stranger people? How is this Realpolitik? It's "what I allow myself to do" politics, alright. But, it's just as much of a chimera as anything else.

Because Russia just denied that any of its neighbours have a right to negotiate anything about their relationships with it, if they choose to try talking to other countries. Which... denies the reality of having sodding borders in the first place.

It's just as much Realpolitik to look at the situation... and try wooing those around you by trying to be the most attractive thing in the room. And, trying to experiment with changing your looks and/or actions (or the perceptions of them others get) if it turns out you're not.

edited 14th Apr '14 2:32:46 AM by Euodiachloris

If I remember correctly, more than a few Americans thought that the US State of Georgia was being invaded by the Russians, not the Country^note  If they knew it existed .

edited 14th Apr '14 3:07:18 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

According to reports, Putin has just augmented his and Medvedev's salary by 2.65 times. Seriously?

Khto tse, mamo-mamo?

The world's third richest man votes himself a pay rise.

Schild und Schwert der Partei

@Radical Taoist - Um, no. Even elected governments do things in realpolitik and in strategy. The average joe has nothing to do with the determination of foreign policy. Indeed, of all the government's duties, foreign policy is the least public.

Russia figured NATO wouldn't try for regime change so soon after the mess of Iraq. In a way, they took a third option by overthrowing the guy without nationbuilding.

Bringing the public's sentiment in this is irrelevant. The public might be distracted, but that doesn't mean the foreign service (of any country) suddenly forgets things. And thats why rights and other ideological concerns only come into it when other factors are either already met or aren't in play.

Do not confuse how things should or could be with how they actually are.

edited 14th Apr '14 6:09:36 AM by FFShinra

No. Switzerland voted to not join the EEA[1] and to join the UN. We're not going to join the EU anytime soon, despite 3 of the 4 major parties being in favor of it, simply because the voters don't want to.

The population's resistance against it is also a reason why Germany didn't partake in the Iraq war, for another example.

edited 14th Apr '14 6:31:31 AM by Antiteilchen

In Switzerland's case, that issue specifically requires the participation of the people, so it doesn't count. In Germany's case, it wasn't like the German government was in favor and the people against, the German government was never in favor of it, based on its own calculations.

To your point, public will may factor as a calculation, but they are not the deciding factor in foreign policy. Interests are.

edited 14th Apr '14 6:38:03 AM by FFShinra

Switzerland is not a very good example given that it's more direct form of democracy is the exception in the world rather then the rule.

That being said I do agree that saying that popular sentiment plays no role in foreign policy is rather extreme.

edited 14th Apr '14 6:40:35 AM by Mio

Interesting fact: those working the factory or shop floor are usually up-to-date (even if their equipment isn't). Managers, however... their headspace can be a few years behind — even if, technically, they've been notified of updates. <_< I got that vibe about the EU trade delegations. -_-

I didn't pull the figure of five years out of the air by accident. <shrugs> That's about the kind of lag you expect in appreciating the Zeitgeist, often enough.

And, it's been a lot less than that since Putin decided to brush the dust off the old rules of engagement. -_- When, he'd been swearing blind for years he'd lost them. Honest.

edited 14th Apr '14 7:25:10 AM by Euodiachloris

True. For the first two examples. There was no vote on the EU but the electability of politicians and parties depends on how they conduct themselves on this topic. The politicians have to be careful what they do. Our foreign minister was critized for compromising Switzerland's neutrality by speaking for the OSCE.

Public will is an interest in democracies. For good or ill.

But there is a difference in being AN interest and THE interest. They are rarely the same thing, democracies or no.

I'm not sure about that. Sometimes it feels as if foreign policy is often about pandering to public interest at home rather than actual advantage. Not wanting to appear weak, for one

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common

Public interest either gets you elected or no, so I'd say it is usually on the top of the priority list of interests.

But - you can manipulate public interest to further your means. So it's not a case of whether public interest is crucial or no, but - do you have the means to turn the public interest to your aims or no.

Khto tse, mamo-mamo?

The public, as has been mentioned, is too preoccupied with the day to day and it's memory too short to be able to understand and heavily influence foreign policy. As such, their only factor to the process is "whether or not this hurts/helps chances for reeelection or whether they even care". In which case, the average joe usually doesn't even know when something is happening, and so they don't factor in.

Most of the elements that factor in are economic, strategic, historical (sometimes translating into trans-administrational momentum), ideological, moral, internal (not in the same sense as public sentiment, but in the sense of using foreign policy to fix a problem internally, though that's tie in to economic factors most of the time, it's not exclusively so), and at a distant last, public.

FF Shinra, I was speaking in "ought"s, not "are"s. Sorry if I was not clear. We're seeing the long-term consequences of realpolitik "wisdom" and I for one am sick of it.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.