Strawmanning my opponents like always? Fuck off buddy.
1 Like
Ok my understanding of this is that Iâm a bit confused. To me it seems like realism is being used as a cudgel to say that assistance to Ukraine or Ukraine resisting was objectively wrong, but from whatâs been laid out of what realism is, I donât understand how it follows.
We take the definition of realism, that nation states seek to maximize their sphere of influence while minimizing others, and so great powers have smaller countries that are in their orbit and thereâs all this give and take between smaller countries accomodating great powers and great powers competing with each other.
So far so good. The implication, and explicit from what little Iâve seen is that countries should seek to maximize their strategic advantage and minimize others, and do so even at the expense of (higher) moral imperatives. So the US should team up with Russia or Saudi Arabia against China even if we have moral qualms about them.
Ok, but from that it doesnât follow that we shouldnât be expanding NATO or the current situation in Ukraine is wrong from maximizing USâs sphere of influence perspective. If we want to reduce Russiaâs sphere of influence weâd want to pull as many countries into our alliance as possible to deny Russia the ability to sway them, and if Russia wants to take Ukraine then, if we are complete realist cynical bastards, we should arm them to the gills to both bleed Russia and force them to level Ukraine so they rule over rubble after the fact.
If that means even if we flirted with Ukraine and lead them on, thatâs fine from a US maximizing perspective. It is Ukraine thatâs getting attacked not the US.
The only reason Iâve seen to say that expanding NATO is bad or arming Ukraine is bad is because in reality we need Russia to be in an alliance with US against China, and so we need to give a little to get a little and thatâs it. Itâs not the sanctity of human life or the meaningless deaths of war that should make us pause, itâs that weâre pushing Russia to China, and thatâs really the only consideration that we should be taking into account. Thatâs a different argument than Ukraine, the US, or Russia caused the war. âCausingâ and âresponsibilityâ of the war mean nothing, only the strategic failure to bring Russia into the American alliance does by this definition of realism.
1 Like
Itâs weird how you never really talked about this here before the Ukraine crisis. Almost like itâs a position youâve taken to be a contrarian
3 Likes
Well ikes, no one on this forum ever talked about the lofty moral standards set by American foreign policy until like three weeks ago, so it never really came up.
2 Likes
Lol well thatâs a blatant lie
Thereâs a difference between what American foreign policy has been in the past to what it should be going forward.
I think most people here donât want a foreign policy rooted in realism; they want (liberal) idealism that is supportive of democracy and human rights. That doesnât mean going around fighting wars to topple dictatorships and establish western-style liberal democracies around the world, but it does mean supporting the democracies that are trying to exist.
1 Like
lol OK ikes. The forum went from âare we the baddiesâ to
1 Like
Lots of people have talked about Yemen and the many other failures of American policy. This is the first time youâve brought up Yemen seriously in at least more than a year. Weird given how important it is to you now.
Youâre not making any grand point. Itâs just dishonest, petty and semantic contrarianism. Trust me I would know what that is
1 Like
How important is Yemen to me, ikes?
Considering you last posted about it in 2020 with the word YEMEN before Ukraine hit the news hard, doesnât seem that important!
Right, and I mention Yemen to point out that, currently, right now, thinking US foreign policy in any way resembles this ideal is like believing in a fucken fairy tale. We will support the worst and most oppressive regimes on the planet if theyâre the right regimes.
Cool, but that still doesnât make taking the right action wrong.
1 Like
OK, so thatâs the first question, why is it in Americaâs interest for Ukraine not to be in Russiaâs sphere of influence. Is Ukraine important in any way to the US? I donât see how. Is Ukraine important to Russia? Very important, right? So, the only reason to try to get Ukraine into the Western sphere is to stick it to Russia, either by getting them to lose Ukraine from their sphere of influence, or provoke a costly armed conflict of some sort with Ukraine armed by the West. If you think that the latter is a likely outcome, then this is a pretty monstrous foreign policy! Using Ukraine as a catspaw to bleed Russia financially and literally? Is that something thatâs really necessary to contain a country that has an economy the size of Italyâs?
Other than the highly questionable morality and increased nuclear war threat. A destabilized Russia is an unpredictable and dangerous Russia. And what does the US actually gain? Russia weaker? Thatâs not terribly compelling.
Thatâs not true. Realism doesnât necessarily ignore the moral implications of a nationâs choices. It could ignore morality, but so could any foreign policy framework. Mearsheimerâs offensive realism is just a framework for predicting how great powers will react in pursuit of regional hegemony. And depending on different goals, you can come to different logical actions. Like your scenario where US policy provokes Russia into invading is consistent with realist logic assuming the US is primarily concerned with hurting and isolating Russia. So is backing off of Ukraine entirely because the US wants to pursue better relations with Russia and wants to minimize the risk of armed conflict in the region. These are both consistent with realist logic, but I think the former is pursuing a batshit insane goal.
Not that I think thatâs what happened with US policymakers, theyâre just literally the idiots who planned the Iraq invasion so what do you expect. End of History nonsense.
Would a realist provide aid to the Saudis and UAE in Yemen in order to maintain access to their oil? Havenât they reported to be refusing to talk to Biden because of lack of support in Yemen?
Who are the good guys in Yemen anyways?
I have taken a college course in international relations
- Yes
- No
0 voters
I think we have the foreign policy we do because we are a liberal democracy that is relatively welcoming to immigrants. We end with immigrants like Alexander Vindmand and Victoria Nuland who grew up in Eastern Europe and know the horrors of Russian subjugation. Our politicians hear their stories and are moved by them, and adopt positions accordingly. Their constituents then agree with those positions and they become foreign policy.
Dastardly!
Why does that not apply to Saudi Arabia/Yemen? Well it does, actually. The state of play here is miles from what it was 5 years ago:
Is it ideal, noâŚ. but we are well on the way to shoving the worldâs largest oil producer out of our âsphere of influenceâ and into the arms of Russia:
Hardly fits into your GG cartoonish vision of US foreign policy.
Maybe Iâm just too stupid and/or uninformed (source: my vote on the international relations poll above), but can someone ELI5 exactly what ârealismâ means in this context?
Sure!
1 Like
For realism, the important unit of analysis for international relations is the state. States act to maximize their power and security within the context of an anarchic political system where there are no rules and no authority that could impose any rules and are not motivated by things such as morality or ethics. This leads to a general perception that realism equates to âmight makes rightâ.