Putin is a problem for the West beyond this war and the criminal annexations of Ukrainian territories. The authoritarian turn of his regime to grant concentration of power in his hands, the Russian growing military presence in the Mediterranean area (also through the Black Sea), in the Middle East, in North Africa, in the Baltic sea (encircling Europe), Russian attempts to corrupt the democratic life in Western countries (from state cyberwar to financing western politicians), Russian attempts to economically blackmail the West by compromising the trade of critical commodities (e.g. gas and wheat), Putin's nuclear threats, Putin's declared goal to challenge Western hegemony and his attempts to build an alliance with other countries to antagonise the West, all these facts justify the Western intervention in Ukraine. — neomac

The irony in this is that a large part of the world views the United States in exactly the same light.

Everything you list here the United States has done before and on a larger scale, and that includes nuclear threats.

Are nations 'justified' (whatever that may mean) to intervene whenever the United States engages in similar behavior?

Of course they can't, because the United States is the biggest bully of them all, but I am still curious if you're willing to follow through, or prefer to hang onto a double standard.

I did not mean to suggest it is simple. I was trying to relate how views of who is calling the shots shapes how negotiation is seen as possible. So the question could be asked in the other direction: Is it merely a proxy war?

The Ukrainians and their supporters all have their own agendas. They will not always align. The danger of simplicity comes from only permitting a single narrative.

lol

I don't think it's hard really. The more humiliation Russia suffers, the more they missiles they will use to flatten Ukraine. It's not the "actual opposite" of what I'm saying, it's what's happening.

If you don't know the difference between defensive and offensive, you can look it up. I've been polite with you till now, but you've been insulting one too many times.

It boils down to the fantasy, which is what it is, that you think Ukraine will be able to defeat a NUCLEAR armed country. It won't. The fact that you can't get this through your head, is more a signal of your own inabilities to understand how fucked up this situation is, than any alleged shortcomings I may have.

So keep on dreaming about Ukraine defeating Russia, "helping" the Ukrainians get slaughtered, which is what you are advocating for.

Let me play the threat-game for a moment ...

We, Moldova Poland Romania Hungary Slovakia, can't have weapons of mass destruction pointed our way sitting on our doorstep. Should actions toward that come to pass, we'd have to take counter-measures. And in case of threats from non-democratic regimes, more decisive measures.

That's Putin's logic applied if Ukraine was "enrolled" into Russia, and is equally applicable to Ukraine until then.

^{(Moldova is not a NATO member, the others are. Poland since 1999, Romania 2004, Hungary 1999, Slovakia 2004. Finland and Sweden are expected to become members.)}

EDIT: grammar

You see, if NATO would collapse (like SEATO and CENTO) and EU would become disorganized, Russia could approach every European country on a bilateral basis. And on a one-on-one basis Russia is strong and quite dominant towards every West European country. And that is the objective. It is the objective of an imperialist great power: it won't attack everybody, but sure wants to dominate all the relationships. It's not going to invade every country it can, hence it's not the Mongol Horde you are talking about. So the idea that Russia would try to invade all of Europe is quite naive. Yet without an EU and Atlanticism, Russia is the top dog in Europe. — ssu

:up: It's just the old divide and conquer strategy. (As an aside, Putin's cyber-henchmen have employed similar methods on the information highways to sow division/distrust.)

I'll just sneak a "missing" bit in. :)

"helping" the Ukrainians get slaughtered [by Putin's orders] — Manuel

By the way, they say there's been a surprising amount of unity/direction among the Ukrainians.
ROC style (in english)?

So the question could be asked in the other direction: Is it merely a proxy war? — Paine

And the answer is the same: of course not.

The danger of simplicity comes from only permitting a single narrative. — Paine

Yes.

Funny how this has all of a sudden become a rallying cry. — Isaac

Does that disturb you? ;) Not much of a rallying cry, though, and hardly sudden. Besides, becoming a member isn't (just) their choice, seeking membership is. And Putin needed no more than that, by a logic to make things go south. :/

, you replaced my words with your own characterization — a characterization that would fit, what, half the nations on Earth? More?

Trying to remember what nations have threatened Putin's Russia with invasion/takeover, or a downright existential threat, but coming up short. There were some distressing mutual assured destruction situations during the cold war. Gay rights or democracy (or McDonald's) or whatever isn't an invasion. Yet, Putin's Russia is the victim here? That's the ultimate conclusion?

I don't (personally) agree with this statement by the Lithuanian minister, I'll just observe that it only takes one party to start/make war, no manner of votes or words can change that, call it "free will" if you like: "Nobody wants a World War, but dictators can only be stopped with weapons."

the question could be asked in the other direction: Is it merely a proxy war? — Paine

I think this gets to the nub of the problem. any suggestion that this is a proxy war is treated as if it were a suggestion that this is a mere proxy war. Any suggestion that the US are influencing events is taken as a suggestion that the US are solely influencing events. Any suggestion the the UK are directing the course of negotiations is treated as a suggestion that the UK are autocratically directing the course of negotiations... And so on.

The point, though, is that these polemic positions are not taken because that's the way the arguments seem. It'd be, I think, quite impossible to take any post here (or in most serious media) and point to the aspect of it's presentation that gave the impression the poster was implying anything like such unilateral control. So why are these comments being interpreted in this polemic way - to what end?

Does that disturb you? — jorndoe

Yes. Yes, it does. I'm deeply disturbed my masses of influential voices (the public at large) being so easily directed by the media. I'd be delighted if they all had just suddenly grown a conscience, but seeing as there's absolutely zero interest in any other punitive control exercised by loan agreement, that seems very unlikely. As such it's more likely that such a hypocritical position is an unexamined one, and yes, unexamined positions worry me.

Yet, Putin's Russia is the victim here? That's the ultimate conclusion? — jorndoe

That wouldn't be my conclusion.

However, where two nations fight over influence in Ukraine, I see them both as part of the cause, and I am not buying any narrative that ignores the significant American role in this conflict.


On the topic of the "existential threat"-rhetoric by Russia, I think you're not catching the meaning of that phrase.

When a nation uses that term, they're not saying that their nation will cease to exist.
If Ukraine were to become NATO, Russia would not cease to exist. If the Soviets managed to station nuclear missiles on Cuba, the United States would not cease to exist, If somehow a nation were to blockade the entire Chinese coastline, China would not cease to exist, etc.

What those things will do however, is put those nations in a permanent state of strategic vulnerability. The term "existential threat" is international code language for saying "You are threatening my core strategic interests, (and I will protect those with nuclear weapons.)"

The term "existential threat" is international code language for saying "You are threatening my core strategic interests — Tzeentch

No. The phrase means: "You could anihilate my country and I don't like the idea."

You are entitled to your opinion, not to your own private language.

The phrase means: "You could anihilate my country and I don't like the idea." — Olivier5

If that's what you believe, then how could you argue with Putin? That the United States could annihilate Russia has been a fact for well over half a century.

So either you believe world leaders go out of their way to state the obvious, or that's not what the phrase means.

Actually now Putin is a burden for Russia. Like Slobodan Milosevic was for Serbia.

Starting a conventional all-out war with Ukraine, which basically needed all of the Russian Army (and even that wasn't enough) has been a disaster for Russia. Defeat on the battlefield is a real possible option (even if it's not guaranteed). And just what would be the gains? Crimea wasn't some resource rich oilfield like Kuwait was for Iraq. Russia is now a pariah state, it has lost it's valuable trading partners. It has lost it's status compared to China. He has gone back on his promises that there wouldn't be no mobilization and he cannot hide the coffins as he could earlier.

The question is how much truly does the Russian accept the inconveniences of the war for the imperial gain of Novorossiya? How much do they support the war? The Crimean annexation did genuinely excite Russians. It was bloodless and there was support for it in the Crimean population (if not a majority, but anyway). The annexation of these new territories was a Stalinist theatre, especially when Putin is losing ground in them.

The fact is, that if there would be general excitement about the war, the Western media couldn't hide it. There would have been too many Russians on the streets celebrating and chanting "Russia, Russia!". There would be ex-pats coming to Russia to join the fight. There would be Russians stopping Western media crews and telling how justified the cause they are fighting is. Above all, this would be seen in the social media. What we basically have seen from the populace is support for the troops. Supporting yours troops in war is something people do, but that doesn't mean they are enthusiastic for the war (as War on Terror showed with Americans).

Putin first created stability after the Yeltsin years and punched way above his weight class for a long time in the World arena, but now that has been exposed in his latest gamble and he is losing badly. Now he is a real problem for Russia.

No. The phrase means: "You could anihilate my country and I don't like the idea."

You are entitled to your opinion, not to your own private language. — Olivier5

In the most basic, literal sense, an existential threat means a threat to the physical existence of the nation through the possession of an ability and intent to exterminate the U.S. population, presumably via the use of highly lethal nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. A less conventional understanding of the term posits the radical erosion or ending of U.S. prosperity and freedoms through economic, political, ideational, and military pressure, thereby in essence destroying the basis for the American way of life. Any threats that fall below these two definitions do not convey what is meant by the word “existential.” — https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/21/china-existential-threat-america/

An example of it in use...

Some argue that China could militarily push the United States out of Asia and dominate that region, denying the country air and naval access and hence support for critical allies. This would presumably have an existential impact by virtue of the supposedly critical importance of that region to the stability and prosperity of the United States.

I am still curious if you're willing to follow through, or prefer to hang onto a double standard — Tzeentch

This looks to me as a false alternative, let me explain.

I cumulated the reasons why the West must intervene in this war against Russia. However the appeal of those reasons is grounded on two implicit assumptions: 1. The standard of life the avg person can experience in the West in terms wealth and rights is perceived as evidently preferable than the standard of life the avg person can experience in societies in the opposite ideological spectrum (e.g. authoritarian regimes like Russia, China and Iran) 2. Struggles between political powers for hegemony is practically a historical constant for whatever reason, and states must deal with it: so either be a hegemonic power (with all the privileges and burdens, merits and abuses [1] that can go with it), or within its sphere of influence (e.g through alliance), or challenge one, or remain neutral if affordable. Individuals who have no fucking clue about how to fix the world (who has?), will pick their side according to their preferences/convictions, bitch about it and good luck with that.

The first assumption explains why there is a double standard, I’m picking a side wrt a standard of life that I wish to be preserved as much as possible (if not improvable) for me and likeminded peers within my reach, at minimum. Double standards is inevitable when standards are clashing: so e.g. I won’t treat a democratic regime nuclear bombing a fascist regime in the same way I would treat a fascist regime nuclear bombing a democratic regime. That’s the predicament we have to deal with. The second assumption explains why I expect states to struggle against perceived hostile/alien/exploitative competitors (including the hegemonic power I happen to be siding with), and I expect people (me included) to at best exercise empathy, political restraint and self-criticism whenever affordable (which by the way is an option likely best supported by Western democratic institutions like the ones where I live than in authoritarian regimes) in line with the side they have picked. That far I’m willing to follow through.
Do you see any striking and unrecoverable incompatibilities between these two intellectual dispositions? I don’t.

[1] you can replace “abuses” with “shocking injustice”, “horrible crimes”, “callous hubris”, “inhuman barbaries”, “satanistic atrocities” and the like.

Just because some journalists made a click bait out of the concept, doesn't mean it's right.

An existential threat is a threat to something's or someone's continued existence.

Just because some journalists made a click bait out of the concept, doesn't mean it's right. — Olivier5

It's written by Michael D. Swaine, director of the East Asia program at the Quincy Institute. Not a journalist, a foreign policy expert.

And if experts on foreign policy are not arbiters of the correct use of the term in foreign policy, then who is? You?

To my mind, existential means: relative to existence. Pundits can disagree. But even them know they are abusing the term when they do.

Someone may pretend that it poses him an existential threat if he finds one morning that his favorite parking spot in front of the office is already taken. Doesn't make it true.

To my mind, existential means — Olivier5

...

You are entitled to your opinion, not to your own private language. — Olivier5

Go back to your quotes:

In the most basic, literal sense, an existential threat means a threat to the physical existence of the nation — https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/21/china-existential-threat-america/

This is what I am saying.

A less conventional understanding of the term posits the radical erosion or ending of U.S. prosperity and freedoms through economic, political, ideational, and military pressure, thereby in essence destroying the basis for the American way of life. — https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/21/china-existential-threat-america/

Although unconventional, this use still focuses on a radical collapse of society. Which is not the same thing as a mere annoyance.

Some argue that China could militarily push the United States out of Asia and dominate that region, denying the country air and naval access and hence support for critical allies. This would presumably have an existential impact by virtue of the supposedly critical importance of that region to the stability and prosperity of the United States.

That would be a mere annoyance, and would

fall below these two definitions [and] not convey what is meant by the word “existential.” — https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/21/china-existential-threat-america/

To my mind, existential means: relative to existence. — Olivier5

Me too. A gun to the head is an existential threat. A threat to end existence.

But this ...

"Nobody wants a World War, but dictators can only be stopped with weapons." — jorndoe

... is not true. Weapons are only useful for making and carrying out existential threats. Dictators need existential threats, and if people do not agree to make them or respond with fear to them, then they cannot dictate. Co-operators do not need them.

Your fear is the only thing that can dictate to you:

Always keep a-hold of Nurse, for fear of finding something worse. — Hilaire Belloc

Always keep a hold of Putin, or else be shot instead of shootin'.

The question is how much truly does the Russian accept the inconveniences of the war for the imperial gain of Novorossiya? How much do they support the war? The Crimean annexation did genuinely excite Russians. It was bloodless and there was support for it in the Crimean population (if not a majority, but anyway). The annexation of these new territories was a Stalinist theatre, especially when Putin is losing ground in them. — ssu

Indeed, a wide Russian support to Putin’s expansionism is likely to be conditional on mass mobilisation (especially of ethnic Russians), otherwise why would Putin be so late and cautious to call for a wider military mobilisation?
Yet I guess that the insurgence of the military to be more decisive for Putin’s destitution and the push for more liberal political reforms than the Russian population insurgence per se. That is why military humiliation on the battlefield (including the killing of generals) combined with Putin’s disposition to put all the blame on and replace military leaders for military failures, is the right recipe for military defection or conspiracy from the military subordinates and high ranks.

Americans use superlatives often.

And as the key part of US foreign policy is to talk about (and create) these threats, because Americans don't understand that a lot of their prosperity and position comes from their stance in the Global arena, then the term something being "an existential threat" to US is used frequently. Hence US Foreign Policy is marketed mainly by threats and dangers.

The US is such a large country with so many cities, that in fact a Russian nuclear attack might not be so existential (as likely the targets are military bases and any attacker will leave a nuclear weapons reserve). Assuming we really stick to the definition of existential.

That is why military humiliation on the battlefield (including the killing of generals) combined with Putin’s disposition to put all the blame on and replace military leaders for military failures, is the right recipe for military defection or conspiracy from the military subordinates and high ranks. — neomac

Let's remember that Russia has a long history of liberalization of the system after disastrous lost wars.

The Crimean war - > Afterwards the end of serfdom in Russia.

The Russo-Japanese war - > Afterwards political reforms, the Duma is created.

The war in Afghanistan - > Perestroika and Glasnost

So a really humiliating defeat in the war can be very beneficial to Russia. If it humiliates all those jingoist imperialists that now promote this recapture of the Empire, that would be beneficial. They should be a laughing stock that sane people avoid. The British do understand their Empire isn't coming back. The Austrians understand that their Empire isn't coming back. And so do the Spanish. The Russians should really understand that it's over, really over. Now there's not even the possibility for Russia to hang on to their Empire / colonial territories like the French do, subtly and out of sight accepting the limits of the present.

Exactly!

Americans use superlatives often. — ssu

:up:

It may have be largely invisible to us, but Western culture is now hopelessly stupid. A century or two of imperialism followed by another of mass global dominance, abundance, and excess have created an image of power, prestige, technological, political, cultural supremacy and an ingrained presumption of superiority - even much of the non-western world believes it to be true.

In reality, the many decades of comfort and excess enjoyed by the western world has atrophied our intellect, eviscerated gumption, and left us all ethically deranged.

Of course, there are many achievements of which the Western World should be proud. There are also excesses that should be condemned. Ambiguity is true of all cultures but few other cultures - in human history - have become so unconscious, so unaware of how it is possessed by an immeasurable hubris that sits on a foundation of unbridled self indulgence.

There is an unconscious competence, a built in inertia and momentum that continues to sustain the satisfaction of whims. The incompetence and signs of a systemic collapse are obscured by this fading but continuing momentum. Only don't need to look very carefully to know there is no wherewithal to reverse the decline.

We haven't so much surrendered to our own doom as we are determined to bring it on. The public, our political class and even our oligarchs are exhausted and bereft of ideas or agency. We just don't appreciate what we've got and especially how we got it.

You don't know what you've got til it's gone

Reminds me that the Untergang des Abendlandes (The Decline of the West) was written by Oswald Spengler in 1918. And I presume it was not the first of it's kind.

Of course Western culture has been hopelessly stupid for a long time... we just pick the best part later to define what our culture stands for. Those people who we later put up to a pedestal (to define what Western culture is) were actually a minority in their time.