EPTOn October 11 2016 02:02 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I think you'll find we pay much closer attention to her policies, as well as actual accomplishments, than you do.
I think you'll find we pay much closer attention to her policies, as well as actual accomplishments, than you do.
On October 11 2016 02:02 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I still need to address your ridiculous assertions about Russia and NATO.
I still need to address your ridiculous assertions about Russia and NATO.
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
And this whole post is horseshit.
And this whole post is horseshit.
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
You're just trying to be contrarian without providing any meaningful figures or evidence to back up your assertions that clear power indicators of Russian decline are baloney.
You're just trying to be contrarian without providing any meaningful figures or evidence to back up your assertions that clear power indicators of Russian decline are baloney.
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Your dismissal of basic indicators of economic and military strength and the fundamentals of "power" is moderately surprising, but mostly just an indicator you likely haven't scratched the basic corpus of IR literature.
Your dismissal of basic indicators of economic and military strength and the fundamentals of "power" is moderately surprising, but mostly just an indicator you likely haven't scratched the basic corpus of IR literature.
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
And please, no "whataboutisms."
And please, no "whataboutisms."
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Rubbish.
Rubbish.
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Your comments here, simply put, highlight a gross lack of understanding of NATO's full extent and capacity, and utility in furthering US security interests. "Does not serve a positive purpose" my ass.
Your comments here, simply put, highlight a gross lack of understanding of NATO's full extent and capacity, and utility in furthering US security interests. "Does not serve a positive purpose" my ass.
So, before I get into the content part of your post, I wanted to briefly highlight the tone you chose to set for this entire discussion. Without even getting into how you tend to make a red herring out of everything (attacking an argument that no one made but that you felt it necessary to address anyways), without getting into the meat of the content disagreement I have with your post, the eight quotes above epitomize why I do not generally bother discussing this topic, or in fact any other, with you. Certainly, there is a lot of work that has to go into actually reading through all the papers you cite and every claim you choose to make. Pair that with the general vitriol you spout (it would not take me very long to get far, far more than the above), your tendency to talk about something completely unrelated to what other people actually said, your tendency to reach well beyond the conclusions of the papers you cite (and ascribe an unwarranted certainty to their assertions), and your abuse of rhetoric for misleading people, and you have a recipe for a really unpleasant discussion.
Liquid`Drone defended you as an upstanding poster - I do not think that that point was in any way a fair assessment of your posting. In fact, I would say that it is a real shame that a poster who obviously has enough interesting things to say about the topic makes himself so utterly unpleasant to actually discuss anything with that I don't want to bother. Though there is valid and useful material being posted, it is done so in a dishonest agenda-pushing fashion, which appears just fine for people who are already inclined to believe you and very fond of drive-by mudslinging. In the same way that a religious sermon would be believed in full by a convert - without nuance, based on their own lack of understanding on the topic, with a lot of self-convincing - those who have little knowledge of FP but a lot of reason to want to believe your interpretation of the events will go along with it without any form of skepticism. Below the surface, much unpleasantry can be uncovered.
In light of how much effort you devoted to random and unprovoked vitriol, in light of your tendency to use misleading rhetoric to convince people of the truth of your own unwarranted assertions, and in light of the tendency of others to look past all that and see only a surface-level interpretation of your posts (all mega-essay posters who say popular things look positive if no one bothers to call them out on their BS), I believe that the above disclaimer/criticism is fully necessary. I will not drag myself down to this level of petty name-calling, nor will I use it as a reason not to respond to the content part of your post. However, I do see it fit to explain why I tend not to bother responding to your posts, and why after this post I do not plan to have any further hand in it. Nevertheless, you have posted the same Russia shtick at least three times now, maybe many more (I lost count a while ago), and I do not want it to be said that I did not respond simply because I had nothing to rebut, so I will give you a response - with a full counterargument and without the random and unpleasant mudslinging that you have put forward.
And with that, let's proceed to the meat of the post.
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
And this whole post is horseshit.
You're just trying to be contrarian without providing any meaningful figures or evidence to back up your assertions that clear power indicators of Russian decline are baloney.
And this whole post is horseshit.
You're just trying to be contrarian without providing any meaningful figures or evidence to back up your assertions that clear power indicators of Russian decline are baloney.
Kay so, let's start with the actual context of my post. Mohdoo made a few posts in which he causally made the claim that Russia and China are superpowers.
On September 29 2016 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:
Perhaps, as a planet, we should welcome it? Imagine a world where superpowers are accountable. What if Russia couldn't just give missiles to rebels, end up shooting down a plane, then wiping their hands of it? What if China was accountable? Realistically, this idea of the big 3 being immortal has to go away at some point. Sometimes the only thing to do is rip the bandage off. You're gonna do it eventually, so YOLO.
However, I will concede that a world where the US is the only one able to be sued is silly. I welcome a revamp where everyone is accountable, but if the US is the only one, it just tips powers towards the other 2 with no real worldly benefit.
Perhaps, as a planet, we should welcome it? Imagine a world where superpowers are accountable. What if Russia couldn't just give missiles to rebels, end up shooting down a plane, then wiping their hands of it? What if China was accountable? Realistically, this idea of the big 3 being immortal has to go away at some point. Sometimes the only thing to do is rip the bandage off. You're gonna do it eventually, so YOLO.
However, I will concede that a world where the US is the only one able to be sued is silly. I welcome a revamp where everyone is accountable, but if the US is the only one, it just tips powers towards the other 2 with no real worldly benefit.
Now there is certainly a lot to criticize in this post and it is clearly coming from a position of minimal FP knowledge.
Kwark added a random drive-by shot at Russia (neither China nor Russia are superpowers obviously, but the context makes it clear that it is meant to be a potshot):
On September 29 2016 06:08 KwarK wrote:
You think Russia is a superpower?
You think Russia is a superpower?
Then:
On September 29 2016 06:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I think it is a superpower with down syndrome. It does not have the capability to achieve any of the greatness of CN/US/EU, but it still has enough to really shitty on people's day. A shadow of its former self, for sure, but lets not pretend NATO has no purpose anymore. Russia is a major player in the Syrian conflict. They matter a lot. It is easy to shit on them, but they are still relevant.
I think it is a superpower with down syndrome. It does not have the capability to achieve any of the greatness of CN/US/EU, but it still has enough to really shitty on people's day. A shadow of its former self, for sure, but lets not pretend NATO has no purpose anymore. Russia is a major player in the Syrian conflict. They matter a lot. It is easy to shit on them, but they are still relevant.
Your first response:
On September 29 2016 06:36 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Hah.
No.
Russia faces severe demographic crisis and an economy that...well. It's not a pretty long-term projection. It's going to be challenging to keep their current, relative status and influence abroad. Crimea was a response to the drift away of Ukraine proper from the Russian sphere (as was Georgia), meanwhile China continues to expand economic ties and investments in Central Asia, a region traditionally dominated by Russia. They will remain a strong regional actor/power, but to call them a "superpower" is a complete misuse of the term. They don't even fit the traditional definition of a "great power".
Hah.
No.
Russia faces severe demographic crisis and an economy that...well. It's not a pretty long-term projection. It's going to be challenging to keep their current, relative status and influence abroad. Crimea was a response to the drift away of Ukraine proper from the Russian sphere (as was Georgia), meanwhile China continues to expand economic ties and investments in Central Asia, a region traditionally dominated by Russia. They will remain a strong regional actor/power, but to call them a "superpower" is a complete misuse of the term. They don't even fit the traditional definition of a "great power".
Kwark's response:
On September 29 2016 07:14 KwarK wrote:
Russia is expected to run out of cash to fulfill its obligations sometime in mid 2017. Their budget shortfall fund is approaching just $15b, from $90b before the oil price fall started. They also burned $140b in foreign currency assets trying to prop up the ruble in the face of sanctions.
It makes the estimated $51b cost of the Sochi Olympics, and the $3b/year subsidies to the Crimea, look pretty foolish. Vanity projects to distract from the failing economy aren't worth much if they make the problem worse.
Russia is expected to run out of cash to fulfill its obligations sometime in mid 2017. Their budget shortfall fund is approaching just $15b, from $90b before the oil price fall started. They also burned $140b in foreign currency assets trying to prop up the ruble in the face of sanctions.
It makes the estimated $51b cost of the Sochi Olympics, and the $3b/year subsidies to the Crimea, look pretty foolish. Vanity projects to distract from the failing economy aren't worth much if they make the problem worse.
Your other response:
On September 29 2016 06:53 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Traditional definitions of a "superpower" are varied, but always include exerting and projecting tremendous hard and soft power on a global scale.
Russia only somewhat fits the definition of a "great power", which is simply to be capable of being able to project power on a global scale: their military is only operational in a fairly limited, regional scope (though they do retain economic and political influence beyond that, aka "soft power": hence not fitting the traditional definition, which only concerns itself with military potential). Syria is still fairly close to the Russian border, but they would be completely unable to conduct operations in, say, South Africa or Latin America.
Arguably, the UK and France still better fit the definition of a "great power" than does Russia.
Traditional definitions of a "superpower" are varied, but always include exerting and projecting tremendous hard and soft power on a global scale.
Russia only somewhat fits the definition of a "great power", which is simply to be capable of being able to project power on a global scale: their military is only operational in a fairly limited, regional scope (though they do retain economic and political influence beyond that, aka "soft power": hence not fitting the traditional definition, which only concerns itself with military potential). Syria is still fairly close to the Russian border, but they would be completely unable to conduct operations in, say, South Africa or Latin America.
Arguably, the UK and France still better fit the definition of a "great power" than does Russia.
And Mohdoo's reaction post:
On September 29 2016 06:46 Mohdoo wrote:
perhaps I am simply misusing the term then. I considered Russia a superpower because they are a nuclear power and a really large economy. Now that I have done more research, I am finding that Russia's military (nukes) are basically the only reason they are relevant nowadays. Weird. Thank you all for correcting my ignorance.
perhaps I am simply misusing the term then. I considered Russia a superpower because they are a nuclear power and a really large economy. Now that I have done more research, I am finding that Russia's military (nukes) are basically the only reason they are relevant nowadays. Weird. Thank you all for correcting my ignorance.
And that was to what I replied. Now, the specific lines that my post briefly alluded to:
On September 29 2016 07:14 KwarK wrote:
Russia is expected to run out of cash to fulfill its obligations sometime in mid 2017. Their budget shortfall fund is approaching just $15b, from $90b before the oil price fall started. They also burned $140b in foreign currency assets trying to prop up the ruble in the face of sanctions.
Russia is expected to run out of cash to fulfill its obligations sometime in mid 2017. Their budget shortfall fund is approaching just $15b, from $90b before the oil price fall started. They also burned $140b in foreign currency assets trying to prop up the ruble in the face of sanctions.
Let's just say the govt is not exactly just waiting and hoping that this issue will resolve itself.
On September 29 2016 07:14 KwarK wrote:
It makes the estimated $51b cost of the Sochi Olympics, and the $3b/year subsidies to the Crimea, look pretty foolish. Vanity projects to distract from the failing economy aren't worth much if they make the problem worse.
It makes the estimated $51b cost of the Sochi Olympics, and the $3b/year subsidies to the Crimea, look pretty foolish. Vanity projects to distract from the failing economy aren't worth much if they make the problem worse.
One of which was in a large part an infrastructure development project (still in progress and possibly poorly spent - some outline of Sochi spending here - but definitely not spent on just the Olympics), and the other of which is a highly valuable naval base. Kind of a very simplistic interpretation.
On September 29 2016 06:36 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Russia faces severe demographic crisis and an economy that...well. It's not a pretty long-term projection. It's going to be challenging to keep their current, relative status and influence abroad. Crimea was a response to the drift away of Ukraine proper from the Russian sphere (as was Georgia), meanwhile China continues to expand economic ties and investments in Central Asia, a region traditionally dominated by Russia.
Russia faces severe demographic crisis and an economy that...well. It's not a pretty long-term projection. It's going to be challenging to keep their current, relative status and influence abroad. Crimea was a response to the drift away of Ukraine proper from the Russian sphere (as was Georgia), meanwhile China continues to expand economic ties and investments in Central Asia, a region traditionally dominated by Russia.
To be addressed. The simple issue with this is that you take a few issues, predict their outcome and assert certainty, and then take some skewed perception of events to go with it.
On September 29 2016 06:53 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Arguably, the UK and France still better fit the definition of a "great power" than does Russia.
Arguably, the UK and France still better fit the definition of a "great power" than does Russia.
So, strictly speaking this could be a fairly reasonable point. It is true that, while Russia has a powerful military, its geography and military doctrine make it a very different sort of military force than Western powers which project power in a more traditional manner. However, the context of this post is really disingenuous. It's quite clear that you are building on Mohdoo's ignorance - how else could you describe going from "Russia is a superpower" to "Russia only matters because it has nuclear weapons" in two posts - and taking a potshot at Russia using rhetorical spin. That's the most reasonable way to describe randomly ending your first post with
On September 29 2016 06:36 Lord Tolkien wrote:
They don't even fit the traditional definition of a "great power".
They don't even fit the traditional definition of a "great power".
then trying to say that the UK and France do it better (lol). The contextual intent of your posts is obvious: you use some rather obvious abuse of definitions to try to detract from Russia by implication. Yes, it's true that you have to be not very perceptive not to see that part of it, but given that you are attempting to "educate" someone who clearly is not very well-versed in the matter, it's one that could work. And that is really disingenuous and something I did not take very well.
At the same time, I simply wasn't in the mood for a long post. I already outlined the reasons why I don't like to address your posts in general. In addition, it really did not look like the making of a good discussion. I was not really in the mood for giving a long post in response to some short bouts of ignorance - I generally only write a long post if I'm in the "describe my position in depth" mood. That was not one of those times, so I went with a rather simple "don't take it all at face value because they make some questionable assertions" post and called it a day (the US comparison was just to show a "issues =/= imminent unstoppable decline" point). I would have been all too happy to leave it at that too. But then this came up and for some reason you decided to just ascribe whatever position you wanted to me - and here we have the same "Russia demographics" shtick as before.
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
For instance, demographic decline is perhaps one of the fundamental indicators of economic and military power. Demographics are what allowed France to dominate Europe from the 16th to mid-19th century through their massive population advantage over the rest of Europe, and demographics are what propelled Great Britain, and later Germany, to the forefront and to French decline. Demographics are why China is the rising power, yet faces quite severe economic hardships in the future, and why the notion of an oncoming a geriatric peace in the next few decades is not unrealistic in the slightest. It's even more true today, where with high life expectancy, decline in the workforce corresponds with growing disparity between workers and dependents, and the growing fiscal need for social security and medical care for the elderly, to say nothing of the necessary increases in average worker productivity to keep an economy growing, if the size of a workforce is declining. You tell me how Russia can lose over half of it's net population by the end of the 21st century and still "grow" as a Great Power, without accounting for the brain drain and other health factors that Russia currently faces, because at current fertility rates, that's what's going to happen.
And demographic numbers are notoriously difficult to change without radical shifts in government and immigration policies. Japan for instance has tried running major fertility campaigns to little avail, and unless they're able to effect a massive change in their national culture and start taking on boatloads of immigrants, it's not going to change. Their rapid demographic decline is, fundamentally, why their economy has been in the doldrums for the past few decades, despite the intense focus on mechanization and on robots to fill the growing shortfall. France faced a similar problem in the late 19th and early 20th century, as German population continued to explode while French population growth stagnated, mitigated by being one of the few net migrant positive European nations in the period, and the demographic catastrophe for France that was World War One was only mitigated by the massive influx of migrants to France from the colonies or Europe. Demographics are long-term trends with well-noted consequences, and to say that we cannot predict the influence they will have in the future power projection capabilities of a country is willfully denying the facts.
For instance, demographic decline is perhaps one of the fundamental indicators of economic and military power. Demographics are what allowed France to dominate Europe from the 16th to mid-19th century through their massive population advantage over the rest of Europe, and demographics are what propelled Great Britain, and later Germany, to the forefront and to French decline. Demographics are why China is the rising power, yet faces quite severe economic hardships in the future, and why the notion of an oncoming a geriatric peace in the next few decades is not unrealistic in the slightest. It's even more true today, where with high life expectancy, decline in the workforce corresponds with growing disparity between workers and dependents, and the growing fiscal need for social security and medical care for the elderly, to say nothing of the necessary increases in average worker productivity to keep an economy growing, if the size of a workforce is declining. You tell me how Russia can lose over half of it's net population by the end of the 21st century and still "grow" as a Great Power, without accounting for the brain drain and other health factors that Russia currently faces, because at current fertility rates, that's what's going to happen.
And demographic numbers are notoriously difficult to change without radical shifts in government and immigration policies. Japan for instance has tried running major fertility campaigns to little avail, and unless they're able to effect a massive change in their national culture and start taking on boatloads of immigrants, it's not going to change. Their rapid demographic decline is, fundamentally, why their economy has been in the doldrums for the past few decades, despite the intense focus on mechanization and on robots to fill the growing shortfall. France faced a similar problem in the late 19th and early 20th century, as German population continued to explode while French population growth stagnated, mitigated by being one of the few net migrant positive European nations in the period, and the demographic catastrophe for France that was World War One was only mitigated by the massive influx of migrants to France from the colonies or Europe. Demographics are long-term trends with well-noted consequences, and to say that we cannot predict the influence they will have in the future power projection capabilities of a country is willfully denying the facts.
So, basically your entire argument here is just about demographics and how Russia has weakness on that front, it's historically important to have strong demographics, and you briefly argue that that will extend into the future and cause trouble.
Well, yes and no. Your coverage is somewhat less-than-nuanced in that it pretty much assumes the outcome of events and that it assumes certain historical trends (e.g. manpower dependence) extend quite well into the future. So here is a study that goes into the various economic and military issues of demographics in more depth. And the conclusion is... they're important, but the technical expertise / monetary wealth / government effectiveness issues are increasingly important in a world with substantial automation and with technological warfare being far more than it was in previous wars, and the importance of manpower (a direct result of demographics producing working-age individuals) is important under fewer circumstances than in the past. All in all, favorable demographics are desirable, but your treatment of them as the end-all-be-all is... questionable.
Now, let's get to what you posted, starting with the "geriatric peace" study. It covers the fertility and demographics issues of various powerful nations, noting that the US has unfavorable demographics, but that it's better off than most other powerful countries. Sure, that much is clearly true. Now where it jumps the shark is when it goes from that to a very un-nuanced "omg that means America gonna be on top forever!" tangent. That part of the discussion is not well-justified. Nor is the general idea of "healthcare and pensions will crowd out military spending" line particularly convincing since, while it is clear that that will be a major expense, there is absolutely no justification here for causality that is worth considering. It's a possibility, certainly, but one of many.
As that study was from 2007, we can easily see some mistakes it has made in predicting how things would develop. One obvious one is that the Russian military has significantly improved its technological prowess since then. However, a more interesting one is comparing UN world population predictions for 2004 and 2015. In the case of Russia, the difference is rather notable: a change from -32 mil to -14 mil in just 11 years of a supposedly set-in-stone factor.
Now, on to Russia and its demographics issues. That they exist is definitely true; there is little to argue there. That the numbers as above changed do suggest a positive trend, likely influenced by various factors associated with stabilizing after the end of the USSR and the 1990s privatization (healthcare, economics making child-raising unfeasible, emigration). On the economic front, Russia has definitely stabilized, though there is obviously much more work to be done there. On healthcare... it's a work in progress - some details are rather well described in this blog post and its sources. Immigration/emigration, mostly stabilized but obviously there needs to be some work done on that front. However, these are all issues that can be addressed and improved upon in the same way the issues I cited (Iraq, ethnic clashes, debt) can be resolved without "omg impossible crisis" being the interpretation. Similarly, extrapolating "omg half of the population gone by the end of the century" from your second study is some severe reaching.
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Beyond this, Russia, since the 1990s, has seen its global influence in perpetual recession with the collapse of the USSR. The loss of the Visegrad states, the loss of the Balkans, the loss of the Baltics, and the current erosion of Russian former monopoly in the Central Asian states (for anyone who actually pays attention to it, the growth of Chinese investment and interests in the region directly challenges Russia's former primacy in the region: for instance, Russia use to be the only power capable of shipping/pipe-lining petroleum or natural gas out of the region which gave them significant clout: not anymore). The Wars in Georgia and even the Ukraine have been attempts to temporarily reverse the trends, but have been nothing if not been damaging to Russia as a whole. The whole kerfuffle over Ukraine has as much to do with the pro-Russian government of Ukraine being ousted by pro-EU partisans and Russia not wanting Sevastapol under possibly NATO/EU control as with anything else. That of course brings of the problems of Russian geography, and the problems they've historically face in building global power projection when they need to maintain 4 separate fleets (Black, Baltic, Arctic, Far East), and a vast, relatively underpopulated land empire.
Beyond this, Russia, since the 1990s, has seen its global influence in perpetual recession with the collapse of the USSR. The loss of the Visegrad states, the loss of the Balkans, the loss of the Baltics, and the current erosion of Russian former monopoly in the Central Asian states (for anyone who actually pays attention to it, the growth of Chinese investment and interests in the region directly challenges Russia's former primacy in the region: for instance, Russia use to be the only power capable of shipping/pipe-lining petroleum or natural gas out of the region which gave them significant clout: not anymore). The Wars in Georgia and even the Ukraine have been attempts to temporarily reverse the trends, but have been nothing if not been damaging to Russia as a whole. The whole kerfuffle over Ukraine has as much to do with the pro-Russian government of Ukraine being ousted by pro-EU partisans and Russia not wanting Sevastapol under possibly NATO/EU control as with anything else. That of course brings of the problems of Russian geography, and the problems they've historically face in building global power projection when they need to maintain 4 separate fleets (Black, Baltic, Arctic, Far East), and a vast, relatively underpopulated land empire.
zzz... 1990s take time to recover, Georgia attacked Russia, there is a hell of a lot more to Ukraine than that, etc. That the end of the USSR and the 1990s have not been friendly to Russia is clear. That that means it's not able to recover influence as the effects of that are less visible is unsubstantiated and perhaps contrary-to-fact (given that, obviously, it is much more capable of exerting influence when things were going more poorly). Georgia and Ukraine, lol (sort of going to skip this one because I do NOT see that discussion ending well no matter how you slice it).
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
The Russian economy still remains tethered to their oil fortunes to prop it up, as the remaining sectors of the economy remains underdeveloped/invested, as their case of "dutch disease" is both well-known and still entirely unaddressed. Without even commenting on their present fiscal/monetary/currency woes (which are actually quite severe, and a collapse in the ruble over it or somesuch will cause lasting economic damage), the Russian economy is in desperate need of FDI in non-petroleum/natural gas sectors, and there are systemic reasons as to why it's not showing up. Even if a turnaround is in the cards in the medium-term (it's not happening so long as sanctions remain in place), it's still going to have to grow at a sufficient pace to keep the metaphorical neck of the Russian economy above the water in terms of demographic decline.
The Russian economy still remains tethered to their oil fortunes to prop it up, as the remaining sectors of the economy remains underdeveloped/invested, as their case of "dutch disease" is both well-known and still entirely unaddressed. Without even commenting on their present fiscal/monetary/currency woes (which are actually quite severe, and a collapse in the ruble over it or somesuch will cause lasting economic damage), the Russian economy is in desperate need of FDI in non-petroleum/natural gas sectors, and there are systemic reasons as to why it's not showing up. Even if a turnaround is in the cards in the medium-term (it's not happening so long as sanctions remain in place), it's still going to have to grow at a sufficient pace to keep the metaphorical neck of the Russian economy above the water in terms of demographic decline.
That the Russian economy has had an over-dependence on O&G is true. That the lack of investment and monetary woes are issues is also true. Nevertheless, there has been decent growth in some industries which the country has sought to develop, most notably IT. That an end to sanctions is important to a real economic recovery is true; however, the effect of sanctions and oil prices collapsing has not been entirely negative. Some industries (most notably agriculture) would like sanctions to continue so that they are able to develop their own technological capabilities and become competitive against foreign competition; this is in part the rationale for extending the food import sanctions to the end of 2017.
The sanctions aren't the only issue with the economy; they just came at about the time of a recession and made it worse. The corruption (especially in the courts), poor business law, lack of diversification, and other structural issues with the economy needed to be addressed, and significant progress has been made on that front. I won't bother you with too many details on that matter (I doubt too many people care about Russian domestic policy), but Russia has definitely made leaps and bounds in corruption / ease of business indicators in the past few years. Sanction relief would certainly help, and it would definitely not be beneficial if they were to continue in perpetuity, but the will for sanctions does seem to be waning in the EU (which has its own economic problems and really would not mind additional business opportunities).
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
This is without touching the state of Russia's military (which, while certainly better than it was 10 years ago, when the intelligence community doubted the majority of Russian nuclear missiles could even launch, is still regionally limited, and the most important part of the nuclear triad, the nuclear submarines, remains in dismal condition).
This is without touching the state of Russia's military (which, while certainly better than it was 10 years ago, when the intelligence community doubted the majority of Russian nuclear missiles could even launch, is still regionally limited, and the most important part of the nuclear triad, the nuclear submarines, remains in dismal condition).
lol
Not even going to bother with this one since it's kind of vague and definitely deliberately obtuse.
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
For the record, Russia is a Great Power. My point in that post was to note that in the traditional, military-industrial focused definition Russia is not, simply due to their limited power projection capabilities on a global scale. However, in the broader, modern definition of "power", Germany Japan, and even arguably India and Brazil are construed as "Great Powers", heck even South Korea, despite these countries having only a regional capacity for military operation.
For the record, Russia is a Great Power. My point in that post was to note that in the traditional, military-industrial focused definition Russia is not, simply due to their limited power projection capabilities on a global scale. However, in the broader, modern definition of "power", Germany Japan, and even arguably India and Brazil are construed as "Great Powers", heck even South Korea, despite these countries having only a regional capacity for military operation.
Disingenuous argument in context of how it was used. See above.
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
The Russian economy is still large and essential (being anywhere between the 13th and 6th, depending on if you're using PPP or nominal GDP), and no one denies that they remain a major regional player. However, to say that the long-term indicators do NOT point at Russian decline being in the cards is just being grossly ignorant of the fundamentals of power, as Russia's current position in most indicators of power are in either relative and/or absolute decline.
The Russian economy is still large and essential (being anywhere between the 13th and 6th, depending on if you're using PPP or nominal GDP), and no one denies that they remain a major regional player. However, to say that the long-term indicators do NOT point at Russian decline being in the cards is just being grossly ignorant of the fundamentals of power, as Russia's current position in most indicators of power are in either relative and/or absolute decline.
So to summarize:
1. Demographics are a problem - though in this case there are important mitigating factors and furthermore Russia isn't alone in having that problem.
2. Russia has holdover issues from the collapse of the USSR and the 1990s and even though it's clearly been regaining a lot of ground since then it's "in decline."
3. Something something deliberate obtuseness and rhetorical wordplay.
Meh. Kind of nothing special. Just, as I said, an acknowledgment of issues that exist, with a presumption of something approximating worst-case scenarios. That the US is likely to remain the strongest nation for the near future is hardly in doubt, though I don't think anyone argued against that and it's not really clear what you're arguing for since you move the goalposts a lot.
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Your dismissal of basic indicators of economic and military strength and the fundamentals of "power" is moderately surprising, but mostly just an indicator you likely haven't scratched the basic corpus of IR literature.
I'll start you off.
The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Paul Kennedy
This is probably the most relevant to the above.
And for follow up.
The Future of Power, Robert Nye
Theory of International Politics, Kenneth Waltz
Power & Interdependence, Keohane & Nye
And please, no "whataboutisms": it is not relevant that the US is in relative decline when we're discussing the strong possibility of absolute decline of Russia. If you did a side-by-side comparison of the United States and Russia, the United States is in far better condition, both short- and long-, in pretty much every relevant "power" category.
Your dismissal of basic indicators of economic and military strength and the fundamentals of "power" is moderately surprising, but mostly just an indicator you likely haven't scratched the basic corpus of IR literature.
I'll start you off.
The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Paul Kennedy
This is probably the most relevant to the above.
And for follow up.
The Future of Power, Robert Nye
Theory of International Politics, Kenneth Waltz
Power & Interdependence, Keohane & Nye
And please, no "whataboutisms": it is not relevant that the US is in relative decline when we're discussing the strong possibility of absolute decline of Russia. If you did a side-by-side comparison of the United States and Russia, the United States is in far better condition, both short- and long-, in pretty much every relevant "power" category.
The way you decided to post it is very much like "here, educate yourself" conspiracy theorists. Honestly it would do you a whole lot of good to learn some manners.
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
There are plenty of criticisms you can levy against Saudi Arabia, as a state and as an ally, but they're the best we've got at present in the region, and we need to make do with what we have as, at the very least, they are just as threatened by radical Islamic jihadist movements, and ISIL, as we are.
In the column of "allies we aren't happy with" Israel and Turkey also fall here, as the continued Palestinian occupation (and from it, our support of Israel) is probably the most important issue that undermines our credibility in (and the stability of) the region, and Turkey has been, well. Between problems with the Kurds and Endrogan cozying up to Putin and the whole demanding extradition of Gulen, is not the staunch ally we used to have.
Really, the only reliable ally of the US in the region has been the Kurds.
I understand the Israeli security complex very well, but the Occupation is quite frankly detrimental to Israel's own security, let alone the stability of the region, but politically it's too complicated to untangle. But let's not linger too much on that. For those of you interested, The Gatekeepers (2012) is a fantastic film to watch if you want to learn more about the security implications of the Occupation.
There are plenty of criticisms you can levy against Saudi Arabia, as a state and as an ally, but they're the best we've got at present in the region, and we need to make do with what we have as, at the very least, they are just as threatened by radical Islamic jihadist movements, and ISIL, as we are.
In the column of "allies we aren't happy with" Israel and Turkey also fall here, as the continued Palestinian occupation (and from it, our support of Israel) is probably the most important issue that undermines our credibility in (and the stability of) the region, and Turkey has been, well. Between problems with the Kurds and Endrogan cozying up to Putin and the whole demanding extradition of Gulen, is not the staunch ally we used to have.
Really, the only reliable ally of the US in the region has been the Kurds.
I understand the Israeli security complex very well, but the Occupation is quite frankly detrimental to Israel's own security, let alone the stability of the region, but politically it's too complicated to untangle. But let's not linger too much on that. For those of you interested, The Gatekeepers (2012) is a fantastic film to watch if you want to learn more about the security implications of the Occupation.
Don't know why you felt the need to respond to what was clearly a very un-nuanced statement about distaste for the Saudi regime - for which there are plenty of criticisms that are valid.
As to what alliance structure the US should have... I have some thoughts on the matter but it's not interesting enough for me to make another long, researched post out of it. Nevertheless, the terrible state of the Sauds as an ally do suggest that the US should seriously reconsider to what extent it wants to work with them. Obviously sometimes allies are not the best and do evoke a justified rage, but in this case I was merely expressing my personal distaste for the Saudi regime on a not so policy-centric level.
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
Rubbish.
NATO as it exists continues to serve a multitude of purposes, from the extension of a nuclear umbrella and deterrence to Europe, and the prevention of nuclear, efficient intelligence sharing and counter-terrorism coordination, basic conventional deterrence and the preservation of Eastern European territorial integrity, to even simple command/equipment interoperability that drastically improves the ability of NATO membership militaries to operate in conjunction with one another. Even if the traditional role of NATO as an anti-Russian defensive pact is far less relevant in the modern day, NATO remains the cornerstone of a stable European security environment.
There are of course disagreements in the alliance as to the continued evolution of NATO, but there has been nothing, outside of Trump's ludicrous comments, that actually point to the development of an actual fracture of the alliance.
Your comments here, simply put, highlight a gross lack of understanding of NATO's full extent and capacity, and utility in furthering US security interests. "Does not serve a positive purpose" my ass.
Rubbish.
NATO as it exists continues to serve a multitude of purposes, from the extension of a nuclear umbrella and deterrence to Europe, and the prevention of nuclear, efficient intelligence sharing and counter-terrorism coordination, basic conventional deterrence and the preservation of Eastern European territorial integrity, to even simple command/equipment interoperability that drastically improves the ability of NATO membership militaries to operate in conjunction with one another. Even if the traditional role of NATO as an anti-Russian defensive pact is far less relevant in the modern day, NATO remains the cornerstone of a stable European security environment.
There are of course disagreements in the alliance as to the continued evolution of NATO, but there has been nothing, outside of Trump's ludicrous comments, that actually point to the development of an actual fracture of the alliance.
Your comments here, simply put, highlight a gross lack of understanding of NATO's full extent and capacity, and utility in furthering US security interests. "Does not serve a positive purpose" my ass.
I was on my phone and I posted a much less nuanced perspective than I intended because I was traveling (and not in a particularly good mood at that). My longer NATO posts clarifies exactly what I mean here - perhaps you should have addressed that instead of this one, since I know you are not unaware of its existence. I even think it was a direct reply to that comment chain.
But no, attacking the short precursor post is good as well.
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
1) Imperialism. Well, thats one way to view NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia I guess. The well-documented ethnic cleansing that was taking place had no part in it I guess, or the deliberate targeting of civilians by the Serbs and Sebrenica I guess, or the general ineffectiveness of UN Peacekeepers....I guess. No, we did it to establish pro-Western governments. Nevermind that any such government would take years to set up, the economy in the area were shattered, we left the formation of the government/state to be supervised and mediated by the UN, and the Serb leaders were put under trial for war crimes, no.
Intervention in the former Yugoslavia is one of the least debatable moves the United States has done in quite some time, and while there are plenty of things to criticize in our record of interventions, the former Yugoslavia is not one of them. Yes, I'm sure that the eventual installation of a pro-EU/NATO government was a plus, but we could've done the same with the Serbs (and the Serbs are even now still leaning more with NATO than with Russia). US foreign policy has, generally, been dictated by the "4 P's", Power, Peace, Prosperity, and Principles. Yugoslavia is a case where our intervention was primarily lead by humanitarian concerns as opposed to any thoughts of expanding influence in the region, and, to be quite frank, we were fairly late to push through the intervention.
2) Those of you skeptical, LL is correct, Russia did oppose the Bosnia and Kosovo interventions. Officially, it was because our interventions "unduely" favored the Bosniaks and Kosovars and that we weren't giving the Serbs a fair shake (or were overlooking Bosnian/Kosovar atrocities), and it may even be true (though when there was ethnic cleansing being conducted and documented, I find this claim for equivalence amusing). The Russians mostly just wanted a seat at the table and some say in the intervention/outcome. But, really, the dissolution of the Yugoslavia and the fall of the USSR must have seemed quite similar, and I wouldn't doubt they saw the parallels between the Serbs and themselves, to say nothing of feelings of Slavic bonds of brotherhood.
1) Imperialism. Well, thats one way to view NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia I guess. The well-documented ethnic cleansing that was taking place had no part in it I guess, or the deliberate targeting of civilians by the Serbs and Sebrenica I guess, or the general ineffectiveness of UN Peacekeepers....I guess. No, we did it to establish pro-Western governments. Nevermind that any such government would take years to set up, the economy in the area were shattered, we left the formation of the government/state to be supervised and mediated by the UN, and the Serb leaders were put under trial for war crimes, no.
Intervention in the former Yugoslavia is one of the least debatable moves the United States has done in quite some time, and while there are plenty of things to criticize in our record of interventions, the former Yugoslavia is not one of them. Yes, I'm sure that the eventual installation of a pro-EU/NATO government was a plus, but we could've done the same with the Serbs (and the Serbs are even now still leaning more with NATO than with Russia). US foreign policy has, generally, been dictated by the "4 P's", Power, Peace, Prosperity, and Principles. Yugoslavia is a case where our intervention was primarily lead by humanitarian concerns as opposed to any thoughts of expanding influence in the region, and, to be quite frank, we were fairly late to push through the intervention.
2) Those of you skeptical, LL is correct, Russia did oppose the Bosnia and Kosovo interventions. Officially, it was because our interventions "unduely" favored the Bosniaks and Kosovars and that we weren't giving the Serbs a fair shake (or were overlooking Bosnian/Kosovar atrocities), and it may even be true (though when there was ethnic cleansing being conducted and documented, I find this claim for equivalence amusing). The Russians mostly just wanted a seat at the table and some say in the intervention/outcome. But, really, the dissolution of the Yugoslavia and the fall of the USSR must have seemed quite similar, and I wouldn't doubt they saw the parallels between the Serbs and themselves, to say nothing of feelings of Slavic bonds of brotherhood.
I'm generally going to pass on this one because I see it ending about as well as a discussion over Ukraine, except with fewer people caring. Safe to say I disagree with you (and this is definitely one of the more strongly opinionated of your points) but I'm just not in the mood for that today, or at any point in the near future. Though I would like to make one comment:
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
US foreign policy has, generally, been dictated by the "4 P's", Power, Peace, Prosperity, and Principles.
US foreign policy has, generally, been dictated by the "4 P's", Power, Peace, Prosperity, and Principles.
Well if we're talking in pointless platitudes you might as well say it's dictated by "truth, justice, and the American way."
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
3) I find it sad that we forgot the lessons of the former Yugoslavia and Sebrenica, and have left Syria to fester and continue as it has. The primary, most vocal advocates for a Syrian intervention has always been the State Department (and the foreign policy community), because we, at least, remember. I understand of course that Obama is afraid of another Iraq and the political considerations that the state of the country has lead him to refuse any assistance, but our failure to properly intervene will be a stain on him, much like Somalia or Rwanda was for Clinton, and a blot on our record as a country. I however have faith that Hillary remembers Rwanda, remembers Sebrenica, and most of all the consequences and moral evils/complicity of inaction.
3) I find it sad that we forgot the lessons of the former Yugoslavia and Sebrenica, and have left Syria to fester and continue as it has. The primary, most vocal advocates for a Syrian intervention has always been the State Department (and the foreign policy community), because we, at least, remember. I understand of course that Obama is afraid of another Iraq and the political considerations that the state of the country has lead him to refuse any assistance, but our failure to properly intervene will be a stain on him, much like Somalia or Rwanda was for Clinton, and a blot on our record as a country. I however have faith that Hillary remembers Rwanda, remembers Sebrenica, and most of all the consequences and moral evils/complicity of inaction.
Another kind of completely unrelated point? Also a somewhat odd comparison to Syria. The Syrian issue has more commonly been compared with Iraq and Libya, which in the context of more current interventions makes a lot more sense as a comparison. One was an ultimately ill-fated and expensive war that left people less interested in prolonged MidEast conflicts, the other was a great example of poor planning of succession. The polls, even ones asking loaded questions, were fairly strongly against Syrian intervention, making it a politically unfeasible decision. And given that there was no clear direction that the US intended to go after getting rid of Assad, the case for Syria was not there.
On October 12 2016 09:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:
You have another long post on NATO which I will touch upon later, sometime this week (probably), and I still need to discuss Clinton's record.
You have another long post on NATO which I will touch upon later, sometime this week (probably), and I still need to discuss Clinton's record.
Do it if you like. I probably will not post another response of this length because frankly it's really tiring for all the reasons outlined. But perhaps it will interest someone or other if you find that you want to make the post. Or, given how you usually just go off on infinite tangents, make a separate post on the topic rather than a point-by-point response.
And that's the last that I will have to do with that.
