Mopologist William Schryver Continues His Descent Into Madness

[MsJack]

I was going to suggest the women are grateful too..... but then I remembered we are talking about the Mormons who run BYU.

Any women who know and care are definitely grateful.

But they probably don't work at BYU.

[honorentheos]

Honorentheos, thanks for your reply, but you are still responding to something other than what I have written.

I'm replying to what your points miss and, frankly, and responding to your dismissal as others having your clear points go past them.

As to the claims that I am just cynically bitter because of some mixture of American adventurism and hypocrisy: first, I don't care at all about hypocrisy. I don't see where my words lead you to that. I don't have a faith in the people who are running this because of their record.

This translates poorly into any meaningful position. You don't care about hypocrisy but rather past performance? That suggests you don't see the rather critical line between the aim of policy making and actions undertaken to realize those aims. That's significant. It also informs how you might view this as coherent:

The United States has a vested interest in the concept of national sovereignty. Yes, we remember this only when it suites us and ignore it when it doesn't. But that leaves the perpetually open question in this thread of what you imagine to be the world order that is preferable over improving our commitments and realization of an order that discourages nationalist aggression and strengthens global ties between nations that punish choices to go to war with a significant downgrade in access to the benefits of globalism? To be honest about it, I don't think you see the policy picture forest for the PhD specialization and personal bias against past US imperialism trees.

I am astonished that you read me as advocating for one kind or world order over another. It is everyone else doing that, I am quite clearly arguing the contrary. It is completely a theoretical and academic enterprise to imagine things like that, but it becomes dangerous when we behave that way against the grain of what is actually the case.

It is difficult to capture the ignorance and hubris expressed by you here other than let it stand on its own. The danger doesn't manifest when the US chooses to act. The dynamics of international politics is in perpetual motion and power loves vacuums. The choice to not choose is a choice, so to speak. It is simply unavoidable that if you view the defense of national sovereignty and Western European security as a dangerous choice being made, you are arguing passively for an alternative world order where that doesn't happen with the antecedent results. Those being the sorts of things policy makers and analysist have to work hard at identifying probable outcomes. It's almost the exact opposite of being theoretical in the sense being right or wrong inevitably result in real world consequences.

By taking the stances you have in this thread you have taken a position in favor of a more nationalist Russia and isolationist United States. Just because it's shielded by the language of "what ought NOT to be" doesn't preclude it from taking sides in the debate of what ought to be.

I am not that far off from the points that Kotkin raises in the interview the Morley brought in:

The problem now is not that the Biden Administration made mistakes; it’s that it’s hard to figure out how to de-escalate, how to get out of the spiral of mutual maximalism. We keep raising the stakes with more and more sanctions and cancellations. There is pressure on our side to “do something” because the Ukrainians are dying every day while we are sitting on the sidelines, militarily, in some ways. (Although, as I said, we’re supplying them with arms, and we’re doing a lot in cyber.) The pressure is on to be maximalist on our side, but, the more you corner them, the more there’s nothing to lose for Putin, the more he can raise the stakes, unfortunately. He has many tools that he hasn’t used that can hurt us. We need a de-escalation from the maximalist spiral, and we need a little bit of luck and good fortune, perhaps in Moscow, perhaps in Helsinki or Jerusalem, perhaps in Beijing, but certainly in Kyiv.

I beg to differ. You are miles apart. He is engaging in the analysis and consequences of decidedly complex decisions with serious consequences for being wrong. You are just being cynical.

The similarity is that we aren't clear on what we're doing. I have said that dozens of times now. It is not cynicism to point the lack of clarity. Again, if I see the guy putting sheet rock in a shower, it is not cynical to ask what his goal is with that. What do you think our end policy goal is here, how does it support our larger strategic interests, and how we will actually accomplish this? What are the risks, and how we will minimize them? I see lots of speculation out there.

I don't believe you have shown the ability to actually judge if this is a situation where the policy actions are inappropriate given the discussion to this point. So the analogy is rather flawed. The clarity in our position is that Russia violated Ukraine's national sovereignty when they invaded and we have an interest in making it clear the world will not be held hostage to a nuclear power resorting to 19th century nationalistic ambitions. It's valid to ask what golden bridge of escape is available to Putin that allows him to save face. For some time the belief that may have been their annexations of eastern Ukrainian territories as "mission accomplished" but that is not entirely clear Putin can accept that nor that Ukraine would come away from the table agreeing to those terms but we don't know. I don't think Putin is the caged tiger you imagine him to be so much as he found out they weren't as welcomed by Ukrainians as he hoped, and the West showed more resolve in resisting than he expected.

No, I think that the United States always means well.

This is an odd place where we disagree in a different direction. I don't believe the US acts with good intentions at all times and in all places. I am very certain the Iraq war was presented differently to the American people and even many politicians while the architects behind it had aims unrelated to Saddam Hussein being involved in 9/11 or having weapons of mass destruction. Just as I believe Putin's aims are different than what he tells the Russian people they are. Fighting fascism and evil sound nice on paper, and yeah, making heroes out of Ukrainian military and civilian resistance of the occupation are both propoganda. But that is reality. The aims behind them matter and our past isn't rosey nor is our present presentation pure. That's realism.

It's problem is that its ideals are sometimes far too high for the world that we actually live in, and a benevolent will can be extremely dangerous if it isn't led by good sense. I have consistently and deliberately used the phrase "principled realism" to reflect that. I don't at all believe in amoral foreign policy or amoral approaches in general (except to shower remodeling). Realism in my sense is about limits, because limit are real things, and principles can be unbounded and become dangerous to the extent that they obscure the real limits we face.

Then we are back to the perpetual question of this thread that, as I noted earlier, cannot be avoided. What world order to you then support in place of the one outlined earlier?

You've likely never lived for very long in a country with the kinds of internal problems that Ukraine has, attached to the people living there and not to some job with a foreign company or government, and you are so reflexively conditioned to respond to narratives that depend on two axes that you can't really recognize what I'm saying: there is an X axis with democracy on the left side and authoritarianism on the right, and then a Y axis with "resistance" on the top and "oppression" on the bottom. Everything in western media and education trains you to think of every position as somehow fitting within that made-up—and highly abstract, highly un-realistic—paradigm. When you don't find a position fitting inside of that paradigm, it's literally off the grid, inherently rejecting the values system this Cartesian graph is meant to contain, and therefore cynical. You take this cynicism as representing some sort of caricature of a jaded millennial Chomskyist; others here see it as libertarian, or a boomer Reaganist that loves Trump, because these are the choices that such thinking makes available to you. It is very limiting.

You're right in a sense. I do think this argument is much more simple than the presentation supposes. Most of it has been confabulations for much more basic, emotion-based views that pre-existed the Russian invasion of Ukraine and have little to do with advancing an informed opinion on what US policy in the matter ought to be and why.

The canal is infrastructure essentially no different than powerlines, gas lines, or roads. When neighboring nations share infrastructure it involves treaties and this funny concept called international relations. Closing off the man-made infrastructure supplying a service, in this case water, happens when those relations fall apart and treaties are not in place (see: occupying force) or violated. The Fourth Geneva Convention dealt with rules of warfare regarding the treatment of civilians in occupied lands. In short, an occupying force has responsibility for providing for the public services of the civilian population. Is the shutting off of the canal using that as leverage? Yeah. But it's no different than closing roads, shutting off power through powerlines, or otherwise ceasing to cooperate with the occupying enemy force. Appeals on humanitarian grounds for not doing so have avenues and vehicles for application. They typically involve treaties and agreements to restore.

Again, completely irrelevant to the point I raised. This kind of positivist retreat is the most cynical thing I've seen in this conversation.

Again, this just confirms you are in over your head on the topic of international relations and policy.

[Symmachus]

Thank you, as ever, for the reply, Morley. It is an enlightening response, though I wonder whether any of those early 2000s predictions have really come true in the way that was often predicted. Another thread for another time, perhaps. But I'm sure they make little difference now to your Afghan friends.

I believe that it's either Kotkin or Marlene Laruelle who talks about the necessity to provide your opponent with what they call “a golden bridge” —a way out of the conflict that saves face and gives them a win that they can live with. At present, we don't have that here. And unfortunately, we don’t have the political equivalent of a John Roebling on the horizon to design and sell our bridge. At any rate, this river may be too deep and too wide.

Kotkin has certainly said it, though I don't know if he originated it. A pessimistic observation at the end there, but I hope it will prove inaccurate in the end. Right now we are in the Walter Bedell Smith stage: "The American army does not solve its problems; it overwhelms them." We'll see what the cold winter brings for build bridging, and whether people will get tired of overwhelming problems rather than solving them.

Fun Mormon tie-in: The LDS church has about 11,000 members in Ukraine.

I attribute it to Elder Kruschev's influence from beyond the veil.

Is this an across the board position? Fox? CNN? NYPost? Newsmax? MSNBC? Etc.

I think the idea of news consumption, particularly the way that a consumer of news treats it as a product with greater and lesser degrees of reliability, as if the world can be understood as an efficient refrigerator with a warranty, is antithetical to understanding for a variety of reasons, and it is kind of dumb. Some are dumber than others, but the ones mentioned here take "dumb" to new levels.

A year or two ago we started a subscription to The Epoch Times. I’ve found that even though there is a conservative slant towards most things the journalistic standards seem to be second to none.

They do take a very hard stance towards communism. But that’s as it should be in my humble opinion.

Ha! The mouthpiece of the Falun Gong! I cannot overstate how much I love this, MG.

It makes sense, in a way. MG's pose here is remarkably impermeable



A live photo of MG preparing a response to Doctor Cam and Drum Dude

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Cam and others aligning our universal chakras in preparation for 10,000 more MG missionary discussion testimonials:



Contrarian gon’ contrarian, I suppose.

- Doc

[Morley]

golden bridge

Kotkin has certainly said it, though I don't know if he originated it.

You're right, he didn't. It's famously Sun Tzu.

[MG 2.0]

Ha! The mouthpiece of the Falun Gong! I cannot overstate how much I love this, MG.

You are most welcome!



I guess my cover is blown.

Regards,
MG

[Symmachus]

Honorentheos, nearly your entire response is to tell me I know nothing. The rest is to paint me as advocating for doing nothing and thus for allowing a vacuum and promoting Russian nationalism by default. I would suggest your passion is hindering your reading comprehension. I have stated clearly what I’m asking, and I don’t think asking what the goal is, asking what is realistic, and expressing skepticism about a lot of the people involved amounts to arguing for isolationism and doing nothing. I am yet again outside your graph, so it’s hard.

You inching closer to addressing it. Let’s assume your ad hominem is correct. I’m just an ordinary voter, after all. Let’s assume so.

Please fill this in for me:

1. “The goal is _____________.”

2. “The goal is realistic because_________.”

3. “We will know the goal has been accomplished when _________.”

Now is your chance to shine brilliantly.

[honorentheos]

Honorentheos, nearly your entire response is to tell me I know nothing. The rest is to paint me as advocating for doing nothing and thus for allowing a vacuum and promoting Russian nationalism by default. I would suggest your passion is hindering your reading comprehension. I have stated clearly what I’m asking, and I don’t think asking what the goal is, asking what is realistic, and expressing skepticism about a lot of the people involved amounts to arguing for isolationism and doing nothing. I am yet again outside your graph, so it’s hard.

You inching closer to addressing it. Let’s assume your ad hominem is correct. I’m just an ordinary voter, after all. Let’s assume so.

Please fill this in for me:

1. “The goal is _____________.”

2. “The goal is realistic because_________.”

3. “We will know the goal has been accomplished when _________.”

Now is your chance to shine brilliantly.

It may be good to be careful when arguing that others are engaging in ad hominem dismissals when also making points only a few posts up essentially saying that ones point is simple yet apparently, "too difficult to grasp, no doubt because it doesn't flatter one's sense of justice," and go on to essentially dismiss every comment made as a failure of the poster to follow what you were saying.

Regardless, there are a few points I made that you may or may not dismiss for whatever cause, but are hardly based on attacking your person so much as the issues the dismissal on your part left unresolved.

For example, it is hardly ad hominem to note that equating public propoganda to policy itself is fundamentally flawed. If I ascribe that to cynicism, call it the equivalent to ascribing others response to a lack of prudence or understanding.

We have left the question on the table as to what you imagine to be the world order you prefer over the one being sought though current US support of Ukraine. And that remains either ignored or dismissed as unnecessary. This is a luxury those actually engaged in the matter cannot afford, yet pointing this out need also not be addressed apparently.

Understanding how the Fourth Geneva Convention pertains to matter of civilian populations and infrastructure support is entirely essential to properly framing the matter of the Ukraine having shut down the canal used as an example of Ukrainian animosity towards ethnic Russian. If that appears the epitome of cynicism to you, the issue appears to be with what you believe "ought not to be" compared to how they are out of necessity.

I offered answers to your quiz in the previous thread but I'll repost here in good faith that you will reciprocate.

"The clarity in our position is that Russia violated Ukraine's national sovereignty when they invaded and we have an interest in making it clear the world will not be held hostage to a nuclear power resorting to 19th century nationalistic ambitions."

Is the goal realistic? The question should take the form of "What are the likely consequences of taking this action compared to other actions including taking no action?" There are numerous risks that come with confronting Putin. But failure to do so increases the risks of other actions. An enabled Putin who successfully shows the West will stand aside when a nuclear power invades a neighbor will face a future where China, North Korea, Israel, and Saudi Arabia will adjust their future decisions accordingly. What would the consequences of this inaction mean for the India/Pakistan disputes and tensions? How will nations behave when nationalist powers with diminished commitments to a global community face climate change driven migrations and catastrophes?

How will we know if the policies succeeded in their aims? Every day you have the luxury of being cynical about it on the internet they are succeeding.

[Bond]

Will keeping his chin up as Russia folds like a tent in the north.

[Chap]

The question should take the form of "What are the likely consequences of taking this action compared to other actions including taking no action?" There are numerous risks that come with confronting Putin. But failure to do so increases the risks of other actions. An enabled Putin who successfully shows the West will stand aside when a nuclear power invades a neighbor will face a future where China, North Korea, Israel, and Saudi Arabia will adjust their future decisions accordingly.

My bolding. The question is, is it safer to stand up to Putin now, or let him do what he wants to Ukraine, and hope that this is his "last territorial demand"?