"'Western' means rule of law, democracy, private property, open markets, respect for the individual, diversity, pluralism of opinion, and all the other freedoms that we enjoy, which we sometimes take for granted. We sometimes forget where they came from. But that’s what the West is. And that West, which we expanded in the nineties, in my view properly, through the expansion of the European Union and NATO, is revived now, and it has stood up to Vladimir Putin in a way that neither he nor Xi Jinping expected. If you assumed that the West was just going to fold, because it was in decline and ran from Afghanistan; if you assumed that the Ukrainian people were not for real, were not a nation; if you assumed that Zelensky was just a TV actor, a comedian, a Russian-speaking Jew from Eastern Ukraine—if you assumed all of that, then maybe you thought you could take Kyiv in two days or four days. But those assumptions were wrong."
Says Stephen Kotkin, a scholar of Russian history, in "The Weakness of the Despot/An expert on Stalin discusses Putin, Russia, and the West" (The New Yorker).
Posts
25 comments:
I don't think Putin had a clue that invading Ukraine would unite the "West," or what I would call the free world democracies.
Clearly, we need to organize a Western Pacific Treaty Organization.
“Hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ has got to go.”
Human rights taken as a priori is a gift to the world from the West. It's a result of the free market and contract law making the amount of capital needed for defense very small, and so a huge standard of living boost.
That first sentence has never been further from the truth.
"The West" is not "standing up to Putin". What complete nonsense. "The West" is an imperial power demanding Putin bow down to them. "The west" is demanding Putin accept a hostile country on Russia border.
NATO and the USA are the agressor not Putin. Just let Ukraine be part of Russia's sphere of influence. Just like you allow tibet to be in china's. Or Lebanon to be in Israel's sphere of influence.
Americans - stop thinking every country in the world is in YOUR area of influence. And that YOU get to decide what happens to every country on the globe. Get a life and stop living for others.
A very good demonstration of why we need humanities scholars as well as STEM. When you read this guy on Russia you get the same feeling as you do when you hear the old Joseph Campbell videos about the "hero."
No, no, no, that’s the “Whiteness” that “anti-racists” say they hate, in order to hide hatred of the people they classify as white.
I remember these kind of articles after 9/11. "Bin Ladin thought we were the 'weak horse', the one without courage and conviction to carry something through to the end. The one that would react and over-react on the spot but would lose interest and fold." Yup.
Russia is Asian in all but color. But is not Western in diversity (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism), genderist ideologies, selective-child, consensus opinions, and other popular philosophies. Zelensky is the post-coup leader of a regime in Kiev, were democracy was aborted in 2014 in what was a Slavic Spring in the Spring series of coups without borders, which forced catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform, a civil war in progress.
Is Russia European? I've always been told that part of the problem is that it's not European, at least not fully. It's its own thing, a weird mix of various cultures layered over each other.
"If you assumed that the West was just going to fold, because it was in decline and ran from Afghanistan"
The West didn't run from Afghanistan, Biden did, without coordinating with allies. And of course it was the manner of running that signaled weakness. But the Europeans have regained some resolve, as they should. But what do they want to achieve, and at what cost? Teaching Russia a lesson is one thing, effecting regime change another. Encouraging Ukrainians to fight is one thing, absorbing millions of refugees another.
"if you assumed that the Ukrainian people were not for real, were not a nation"
Well, I think the common assumption was that it was a divided nation. But a big chunk on one side clearly was outraged. You don't even need to be a nation for that.
Yes, St. Petersburg is not Russia, the GreekOrthodox is not Russia. Russia is a despotic state like China. Can all the NYTfolks get this straight? They were wrong. Socialism sucks, Bernie. Don’t go to Russia and comrade out. It does not work. They will use you like a tool. Russia will not allow the non oligarchs to succeed. The genius math profs will live in poverty.
It's a good article
IIRC, that two from the New Yorker in the last week :-)
Russia has a kind of hybrid geographical and cultural identity. Its boundaries face both east and west, bordering Ukraine and Eastern Europe in the west and China, Mongolia, and Central Asian states in the east. From the 13th to the 15th centuries, it was dominated by
Mongolian conquerers, who profoundly influenced its culture and history. Today, most Russians acknowledge the significant Mongolian influence on their history, and many can trace part of their genetic inheritance back to the Mongolian invaders.
Ten percent of Russia’s population today identifies Islam as their religion; so Russia also has had to come to terms with Islam in myriad ways. Moreover, Aleksandr Dugin, one of Putin’s intellectual influencers, has developed an ideology called Eurasian National Bolshevism, which
Putin allegedly ascribes to. Some commentators claim that Putin invoked this “Eurasian” philosophy to justify his invasion.
rcocean said...
"The West" is not "standing up to Putin". What complete nonsense. "The West" is an imperial power demanding Putin bow down to them. "The west" is demanding Putin accept a hostile country on Russia border.
Russia already shares borders the following NATO countries.
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
Norway
Poland
The United States
@Mr Wibble
Some interesting reading here:
https://razib.substack.com/p/getting-a-sense-of-the-russian-soul?s=r
"Russia’s origins as a nation go back to the arrival of the Swedish Viking Rurik in the city of Novgorod nearly 1,200 years ago, and the subsequent conquest of Kiev by his sons. Russian identity is deeply rooted in the conversion of his great-grandson, Vladimir, prince of Kiev, to Greek Christianity in 988 AD. The Russian soul retains trauma from the arrival of the Mongol hordes in the 1250’s, two centuries that they refer to as the “Tatar Yoke.” Likewise, Russians continue to feel widespread pride at the expansion of the vast Russian Empire, which spanned the continent from Poland to Manchuria by the 1600’s."
He goes on to back that up delving into the "genetic ghoulash" of Russia.
What does Sam Elliot think?
Ukraine has certainly fought much harder than expected, but let's be honest -- the failure of the Russian invasion has far more to do with the material weakness and poor organization of the Russian forces than with the response from the West.
Kotkin sounds uncomfortably smug about Western advantages. He doesn't mention the risks to our choosing financial sanctions as an alternative to military action. It's the supposedly pain-free (to us) kind of war. I have my doubts that there is any such thing as pain-free war. It will certainly draw our enemies much more closely together. That may deliver more pain in the future than we are considering right now. But even right now, disrupting world economic conditions runs a big risk. It's not like our economy is running smoothly and our government is on a sound financial footing. Those are not a part of our beautiful glass house.
Tom T. said...
Ukraine has certainly fought much harder than expected, but let's be honest -- the failure of the Russian invasion has far more to do with the material weakness and poor organization of the Russian forces than with the response from the West.
If by that you mean "closed systems where no one is allowed to say things that the rulers don't want (you know, like when they censor "misinformation") are intently more fragile and prone to failure", I'd hav to entirely agree.
But no of that would have mattered if the Ukrainians weren't willing to fight.
Because if there's never a "hill you're willing to die on", if you always run away from fights because you don't like confrontation, then you're always guaranteed to lose, no matter how weak the other side is
rcocean said...
"The West" is not "standing up to Putin". What complete nonsense. "The West" is an imperial power demanding Putin bow down to them. "The west" is demanding Putin accept a hostile country on Russia border.
NATO and the USA are the agressor not Putin. Just let Ukraine be part of Russia's sphere of influence. Just like you allow tibet to be in china's. Or Lebanon to be in Israel's sphere of influence.
Americans - stop thinking every country in the world is in YOUR area of influence. And that YOU get to decide what happens to every country on the globe. Get a life and stop living for others.
Fuck you asshole.
1: When you say "Ukraine is in Russia's sphere of influence", what you're saying is that "the people of Ukraine have no right to self determination. They have no right to decide who they want to live. They have no right to disagree with Putin."
2: Russia has two types of countries on its border: hostile countries, and countries ruled by a dictator who trades support for Russia for help in surpassing the population.
if Russia doesn't want "hostile countries" on its borders, it needs to stop being such a hostile, piece of shit country
3: Kind explain to us what is the threat prosed to Russia by having Ukraine as a NATO country?
Do you have anything other than "it hurts Putin's ego"? Are you just his jock-strap holding suckup, or can you claim some actual justification for your dictator felation?
4: The Baltic State and Finland are on Russia's border. The Baltic States are already part of NATO. Do regale us with all the horrors that have been inflicted on Russia by having "NATO on its border". We'll wait
5: Finland is being pushed by the Russia invasion of Ukraine into applying for NATO membership. Will you oppose that, and say "the Finns must accept that being on Russia's border means they deserve to be bullied and enslaved by Putin" like you're saying for Ukraine?
if not, why is that different?
6: Tibet isn't "in China's sphere of influence", it's a province of China that has no freedom, and the people of Tibet are almost as much China's slaves as the Urghurs are.
7: If Lebanon were in Israel's "sphere of influence", Hezbollah wouldn't be routinely launching attacks on Israel from there.
8: You are a morally wretched creature to be claiming moral equivalence between Israel protecting itself from people who want to genocide it, to Russia and China simply wanting to ensalve people who pose no threat to them.
9: I note you're also a moral coward, if not just a flat out liar. The relevant comparison to Russia and Ukraine is China and Taiwan. A free State with free people who are trying to chose for themselves how to live, facing a dictator who wishes to take away everything and enslave them. Tibet is already enslaved.
You're a evil garbage person to want Ukraine, Finland, Taiwan, etc. to all share Tibet's fate.
Do you bithc about US elites destroying elections and taking our choices away? Why?
It certainly can't be a principle for you, because if it was you wouldn't be so desperate for Putin to get to do it to the people of Ukraine.
You disgust me
Sebastian said...
"If you assumed that the West was just going to fold, because it was in decline and ran from Afghanistan"
The West didn't run from Afghanistan, Biden did
And now you want to do to Ukraine what Biden did to Afghanistan. Pretty sad
But what do they want to achieve, and at what cost? Teaching Russia a lesson is one thing, effecting regime change another. Encouraging Ukrainians to fight is one thing, absorbing millions of refugees another.
They won't have to absorb millions of refugees if Russia loses.
Why is it that you are so desperate for Russia to win? You after all keep on calling for the Ukrainians to give up, and for teh West to stop supporting them.
"if you assumed that the Ukrainian people were not for real, were not a nation"
Well, I think the common assumption was that it was a divided nation. But a big chunk on one side clearly was outraged. You don't even need to be a nation for that.
"But a big chunk on one side clearly was outraged"? Really?
Is that the "big chunk" that's fighting against Russian invasion?
Or is that "big chunk" Putins' BS of an "oppressed Russian minority that desperately wants to rejoin with Holy Mother Russia"?
You know, the people whose city Putin was hitting with indiscriminate civilian targeted bombing. Which is what you always do when you're trying to break into a city so you can protect the populace from their evil oppressors.
/sarc
Exactly how big was this "big chunk"?
"Western' means rule of law, democracy,"
Except for the EU, which hates Polish or Hungarian democracy when they pass laws to protect kids from being groomed for pre-teen sex by gender ideology folk.
See why the EU commission is trying to stop EU funds to those countries - while many who deplore Putin as a dictator, support him in protecting family values.
Putin is bad, terrible; and should be shot (tho probably won't be). Still, he has some good ideas. Protecting kids & their parents is good - invading is bad.
When you read this guy on Russia you get the same feeling as you do when you hear the old Joseph Campbell videos about the "hero."
Is that a recommendation or a criticism?
The West is good. We are the West. I like the West. But we aren't always wise or prudent and don't always act in our own best interest. We're not as bad as Putin, though.
Much of what we've been doing over the last thirty years is going to have to be seriously reconsidered. That includes Clinton-era bravado and the expansion of NATO, as well as all the trans nonsense and promotion of racial divisions at home.
It is strange if progressives, who questioned or disclaimed our own country's righteousness during the Cold War, now assume it unquestionably, when if anything, things are murkier and the proper course of action less certain.
Post a Comment