Yeah I said earlier the only way I see us getting to Star Trek future w/o blowing ourselves up first is if every nuclear power is a liberal democracy, or the whole world is under one government run like China. And I didn’t even have to read the book!
The idea that an authoritarian superpower can coexist indefinitely on the same planet with a liberal democracy superpower is not realistic imo. Ironic, because that’s what the self-proclaimed realists seem to be pushing for.
It’s the same equation as why Russia can’t tolerate Ukraine as a liberal democracy next door. The world is too connected and too open now. People can see a better way to live. Authoritarian leaders see that as an existential threat.
The realists don’t want to push our wonderful liberal democracy to all the ends of the world. Russia wants to be authoritarian? OK, not much we can or should do about it. Even more true with China, and Mearsheimer points out how crazy it is to have such close economic ties with China when they’re clearly a rising adversary. But the idea that liberal democracy needs to be pushed with soft power campaigns into authoritarian countries’ backyards is what is causing a lot of the conflict. Yes, Putin would be hugely threatened by pushing our wonderful corporate, er, liberal democracy into Ukraine. To realists that’s a reason not to do it.
This is ridiculous argle bargle, even for you. The Ukrainians tried liberal democracy and liked it. They’re clearly willing to die en masse to preserve it, just as the West was in WWII. You can’t both sides liberal democracy vs. authoritarianism.
You can’t shun countries that want a liberal democracy and then claim to your children that you have any values whatsoever.
Go spew it on Greenwald substack comments where you can be among like-minded compatriots.
Yeah I know. The tried and true “I didn’t say exactly that!” (it’s just the logical conclusion of my position that I try not to say out loud) argument.
But the idea that liberal democracy needs to be pushed with soft power campaigns into authoritarian countries’ backyards is what is causing a lot of the conflict.
This quote is crystal clear. You’re saying don’t push liberal democracy. But what you’re really advocating is to actively shun countries like Ukraine when they reach out to the West - to slam the door in their face. At least have the honesty to come out and say what you mean.
What the fuck are you talking about? I’ve repeatedly said that the US shouldn’t have gotten involved in Ukraine at all. Shouldn’t have been involved in the 2014 coup, shouldn’t have armed them, none of it. Of course I think we should have shut down inquiries to joining NATO cold and I’ve said as much. What the Europeans would want to do about the EU is up to them but I’d imagine they’d probably have followed the US lead if that had been our policy.
Of course we do. It’s to concede the whole world to any authoritarian strongman with nukes, except maybe drawing the line at a fortunate few countries who got into a defense pact with nuclear armed liberal democracies at the right time (and don’t even think about expanding that list of fortunate countries if the strongman doesn’t like it).
Ok so you’re being honest about having no values. My apologies. I look forward to your next moralizing sermon over some contrarian issue you decide to take up.
You can feel free to clarify what your “I didn’t say that” or “Realists don’t say that” defense was. Because that contentless rebuttal comes up a lot, and generally the reader is left to guess wtf you’re even talking about.
In some remote corners of this country (the USA), there are people who believe that men can and should, according to their religion, marry many wives.
Yet we continue to arrest and prosecute them for bigamy, and often other crimes to go along with it.
Should we not? Should we live and let live?
What about if the wives are 8 years old?
What about if the “men” of these sects cast out boy children? what if they kill the boy children?
If you have no line, then i congratulate you for being consistent with your relativism in both cultural, moral, and political arenas. If there is a line where what those people do becomes absolutely wrong to you, then your inconsistency shines through.
You seem to be arguing “to each their own” to an extreme that is untenable in the real world, because as we keep tolerating the authoritarian state, they will take and take and take until there is no other type of state to be had. It is the paradox of tolerance writ large (which is, of course, just a refutation of relativism in more relatable terms)
it’s ironic that this thread is 7+k posts and you still haven’t explained realism and how it applies to ukraine, or any country that doesn’t want to be subjugated
what are you talking about? how was US involved in 2014 coup? do you realize that you are just repeating a lie that putin bases his entire ukraine message on?
if you keep repeating a propagandist message, at some point you just become their useful idiot.
The US was involved because we didn’t tell Ukraine to piss off and hope the EU followed our lead. Clearly our fault. No support from the West, no coup. Ukraine is subjugated like Belarus and realists rejoice.
Realist foreign policy allows for authoritarian great powers and liberal democratic great powers to co-exist more peacefully because realism doesn’t operate on the assumption that the US Liberal Democratic Global Hegemon needs to spread our wonderful democracy around the world. The End of History democratic evangelism sparks conflicts with authoritarian great powers because they don’t want color revolutions coming to their countries. The authoritarians don’t like that for whatever reason.
As far as having values, I think there is value in avoiding war in the first place. Encouraging Ukraine into a conflict with Russia and abandoning them when the extremely violent response happens? Seems morally dubious, but I guess opinions vary.
McCain and others went to Ukraine to express their support for the protestors and there are emails that Putin leaked were the US Ambassador uses level 1 political analysis to suggest the next President that ended up coming to fruition…. so we masterminded it all and it’s all our fault obviously….
Does it matter at all that if you stop “spreading” liberal democracy and adopt an isolationist foreign policy, authoritarians will fill that power vacuum? And that the conflict will simply shift to a different place? Say, the US Capitol?