I just listened to this conversation, very touching, and I sympathize with the need to question one's relationship to and responsibility for the actions of one's so-called people. Where does the self end and the other begin? Where does one's people (race, tribe, family, etc., what you will) end and another's begin? We accept to some degree that these are arbitrary distinctions, yet we continue to make them with all seriousness, and to accept, indeed even pursue, the consequences, however grave. I was reminded of this passage in Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" (forgive the long citation):
'Nation states remain the principal actors in world affairs. Their behavior is shaped as in the past
by the pursuit of power and wealth, but it is also shaped by cultural preferences, commonalities,
and differences. The most important groupings of states are no longer the three blocs of the Cold
War but rather the world's seven or eight major civilizations. Non-Western societies,
particularly in East Asia, are developing their economic wealth and creating the basis for
enhanced military power and political influence. As their power and self-confidence increase,
non-Western societies increasingly assert their own cultural values and reject those "imposed" on
them by the West. The "international system of the twenty-first century," Henry Kissinger has
noted, ". ..will contain at least six major powers -the United States, Europe, China, Japan, Russia,
and probably India -as well as a multiplicity of medium-sized and smaller countries."
Kissinger's six major powers belong to five very different civilizations, and in addition there are
important Islamic states whose strategic locations, large populations, and/or oil resources make
them influential in world affairs. In this new world, local politics is the politics of ethnicity;
global politics is the politics of civilizations. The rivalry of the superpowers is replaced by the
clash of civilizations.
In this new world the most pervasive, important, and dangerous conflicts will not be between
social classes, rich and poor, or other economically defined groups, but between peoples
belonging to different cultural entities. Tribal wars and ethnic conflicts will occur within
civilizations. Violence between states and groups from different civilizations, however, carries
with it the potential for escalation as other states and groups from these civilizations rally to the
support of their "kin countries." The bloody clash of clans in Somalia poses no threat of
broader conflict. The bloody clash of tribes in Rwanda has consequences for Uganda, Zaire, and
Burundi but not much further. The bloody clashes of civilizations in Bosnia, the Caucasus,
Central Asia, or Kashmir could become bigger wars. In the Yugoslav conflicts, Russia provided
diplomatic support to the Serbs, and Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, and Libya provided funds and
arms to the Bosnians, not for reasons of ideology or power politics or economic interest but
because of cultural kinship. "Cultural conflicts," Vaclav Havel has observed, "are increasing and
are more dangerous today than at any time in history," and Jacques Oelors agreed that "future
conflicts will be sparked by cultural factors rather than economics or ideology." And the most
dangerous cultural conflicts are those along the fault lines between civilizations.'
There is a kind of symmetry to taking collective responsibility for the decisions of your government/people and Identity Politics. Both are grounded in something very like original sin. Our cultures are filled with exemplars of "right" behavior. These memes survive and are useful as our cultures (including cultural minorities) compete in what is sensed to be a zero-sum Darwinian struggle between cultures/populations. The fact that occasionally, that struggle is really Darwinian does not stop ambitious political leaders from using these loyalties and patriotic urges for their own personal ends when the struggle is simply economic or prestige-based. We are not given the information or the freedom to choose right from wrong in these conflicts.
If all of this is true, seeking absolution for involvement or non-involvement is pointless.
Thirty years of NATO expansion, and it has not been a peaceful expansion. Bombings in Somalia, Nicaragua, Bosnia, Timor, and Libya, along with invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and covert operations in Libya, Egypt, and Syria.
Is anyone surprised that Putin, and Russians in general, might feel a bit uneasy about the 1.5B in arms we sent to Kiev in 2019, along with spending nearly 5B to overthrow Ukraine's regime in 2014.
Furthermore, Kiev has refused to abide by the Minsk agreement, and I suspect much of that has to do with the fact that Donbas is sitting on most of Ukraine's oil reserves. The elites in Kiev were unhappy with the brokered agreement and so they paid rogue militia groups to bomb the residents into submission.
Our politicians continue to tell us that the shelling is not from Kiev, and that this is all just a Russian false flag operation designed to take over Donbas. However, whenever our diplomats are asked for evidence at the UN, no evidence is provided. Instead, they stand up and walk out. That behavior is reminiscent of the old USSR. Moreover, there have been American shells (probably part of the 2019 arms deal) found in the Donbas region.
Nobody should be surprised that Putin sought to end this conflict.
The response from the West? Sanctions. Sanctions that hurt Americans, and isolate Americans. India, Brazil, China, and most of eastern Europe do not support the United States. This has been evident at both the security council and by their efforts to create a new SWIFT to bypass these sanctions. If they succeed, the dollar will depreciate significantly.
Over thirty years we have built tremendous debt, alienated friends, destroyed our reputation, sought to impose our will upon other cultures and nations, and are now completely isolated. The result? A loss of prosperity.
I'd like to hear Glenn analyze the speech Putin gave at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum a few weeks ago and critique the substance of Putin's economic analysis. I'm not so much concerned about Putin's governing style as I am about the fiscal irresponsibility and authoritarian darkness that have fallen over the US in recent years. I was struck by how rational and clear-eyed Putin sounded in his St. Petersburg speech and how much he seemed to care about the welfare of the Russian people. No hysterics or inflammatory rhetoric, just a roadmap for surviving western sanctions and moving forward. I can't think of a single western "leader," let alone anyone in Biden's band of idealogues, who seems similarly competent or focused on the welfare of the American people. So I'd love it if Glenn could point out some people in the West who are working to stop what feels like a collapse engineered by our "leaders." Btw: i recommend reading Putin's speech, rather than listening to it. For me, at least, it was much easier to read it than to listen to an interpreter.
I am sorry. I don’t relate to this discussion. I fail to understand the problem(s).
Perhaps my perspective might help.
#1. Do either of you have your hands on the direct levers of power -- of national agency?
No, you do not. So why should either of you assume a measure of responsibility for elective decisions that are beyond your control?
#2. Everyone is a victim of “historical context.” Ukraine and Ukrainians are linked to a specific history and a specific geo-political construct. That is beyond an elective choice. It is an historical reality that has unique characteristics. Regarding the issues of Ukraine, realize that these issues would be different if simply, Ukraine was located adjacent to Ireland.
Now, why is that “fact” important? Ans. Because we cannot divorce our understanding of Ukraine from WWII, and German-Russian relations during WWII. We cannot divorce understanding of the current situation from the large number of murders/killings that were experienced during WWII, many of whom were actions of the fascist Ukrainian collaborators. Most Americans do not remember that Soviet losses to the German fascists were 100X greater that all the casualties of the US in both theaters during WWII. That is an important, but often ignored, FACT. The WWII legacy is/was a REAL concern for Putin about border security. [No, I do not agree with Putin, but I do recognize his anxieties about NATO-US military training of Ukrainian forces for years before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. See https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-military-success-years-of-nato-training-11649861339 and
Unrecognized and unacknowledged by the US, Russia had/has justification to be concerned about US-led forces to topple the Russian regime. Russia has been concerned about a buffer zone from the West (Ukraine) for decades. By contrast, what would the US think/do if the Chinese established a military base 100 miles north of Mexico City? If the Cuban Missile Crisis is instructive, one can assume the US would likely interpret such a development as an act of aggression.
The question of moral angst, to me, is irrelevant. IMO, the US provoked Putin without justification. The US ignored genuine and legitimate Russian concerns about whether Ukraine would become an agent of US hegemony. Now, I also recognize that Putin’s response, his military actions against civilians, is unjustified, but Putin’s perception of Western encirclement was also justified by US actions … for years.
This whole idea of a soul of a country is appealing, even as I don't know if I believe in it. Especially the soul of Russia, which seems so deep and epic and tragic and starkly beautiful to us who have read translations of 19th century Russian novels and watched Dr. Zivago and absorbed other Russian stereotypes. But what is it? One of the things I get from Nikita is that without democratic agency, this "soul" cannot be found, and the Russian people have been in oppressive regimes for so long that they cannot know their soul's true nature. The soul of a people is connected with that people's empowerment.
But I have to wonder about America--what is our soul? Is a soul of a country a thing, at least in the realm of poetry? When you go overseas, you feel your American-ness. The open spirit, the generosity, freedom, but also negatives like crassness and immaturity. So there seems like something to that idea of a soul connected with people and a place. But I also wonder...maybe we still have more democratic agency than Russians, but our real experience of power and trust in our democracy is currently so shaky. So many of us do not trust our leaders or believe our democracy is working for us. I doubt we know what our American soul is any more than Russians do.
Yes I find that most of the social issues of our time are presented in a very one-sided slant. Right or wrong, agree or disagree it has become increasing difficult to form any sort of educated guess as to the facts. The media is not serving the people and humanity is left out of the equation.
I vote, but my vote is never the realized result because I am Libertarian first, American second. When the US does bad things, I do not feel any personal moral culpability -- which is what Osama bin Laden also claimed -- because we do vote, but we never vote on war and we never vote on new taxes. Even the people we vote for don't vote for both a new program and new tax at the same time. Even the people we vote for vote for omnibus bills with numerous topics that they never read and of course they are horse trading.
I just listened to this conversation, very touching, and I sympathize with the need to question one's relationship to and responsibility for the actions of one's so-called people. Where does the self end and the other begin? Where does one's people (race, tribe, family, etc., what you will) end and another's begin? We accept to some degree that these are arbitrary distinctions, yet we continue to make them with all seriousness, and to accept, indeed even pursue, the consequences, however grave. I was reminded of this passage in Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" (forgive the long citation):
'Nation states remain the principal actors in world affairs. Their behavior is shaped as in the past
by the pursuit of power and wealth, but it is also shaped by cultural preferences, commonalities,
and differences. The most important groupings of states are no longer the three blocs of the Cold
War but rather the world's seven or eight major civilizations. Non-Western societies,
particularly in East Asia, are developing their economic wealth and creating the basis for
enhanced military power and political influence. As their power and self-confidence increase,
non-Western societies increasingly assert their own cultural values and reject those "imposed" on
them by the West. The "international system of the twenty-first century," Henry Kissinger has
noted, ". ..will contain at least six major powers -the United States, Europe, China, Japan, Russia,
and probably India -as well as a multiplicity of medium-sized and smaller countries."
Kissinger's six major powers belong to five very different civilizations, and in addition there are
important Islamic states whose strategic locations, large populations, and/or oil resources make
them influential in world affairs. In this new world, local politics is the politics of ethnicity;
global politics is the politics of civilizations. The rivalry of the superpowers is replaced by the
clash of civilizations.
In this new world the most pervasive, important, and dangerous conflicts will not be between
social classes, rich and poor, or other economically defined groups, but between peoples
belonging to different cultural entities. Tribal wars and ethnic conflicts will occur within
civilizations. Violence between states and groups from different civilizations, however, carries
with it the potential for escalation as other states and groups from these civilizations rally to the
support of their "kin countries." The bloody clash of clans in Somalia poses no threat of
broader conflict. The bloody clash of tribes in Rwanda has consequences for Uganda, Zaire, and
Burundi but not much further. The bloody clashes of civilizations in Bosnia, the Caucasus,
Central Asia, or Kashmir could become bigger wars. In the Yugoslav conflicts, Russia provided
diplomatic support to the Serbs, and Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, and Libya provided funds and
arms to the Bosnians, not for reasons of ideology or power politics or economic interest but
because of cultural kinship. "Cultural conflicts," Vaclav Havel has observed, "are increasing and
are more dangerous today than at any time in history," and Jacques Oelors agreed that "future
conflicts will be sparked by cultural factors rather than economics or ideology." And the most
dangerous cultural conflicts are those along the fault lines between civilizations.'
There is a kind of symmetry to taking collective responsibility for the decisions of your government/people and Identity Politics. Both are grounded in something very like original sin. Our cultures are filled with exemplars of "right" behavior. These memes survive and are useful as our cultures (including cultural minorities) compete in what is sensed to be a zero-sum Darwinian struggle between cultures/populations. The fact that occasionally, that struggle is really Darwinian does not stop ambitious political leaders from using these loyalties and patriotic urges for their own personal ends when the struggle is simply economic or prestige-based. We are not given the information or the freedom to choose right from wrong in these conflicts.
If all of this is true, seeking absolution for involvement or non-involvement is pointless.
I see pure John Stuart Mill in this conversation about how simply being involved with public affairs can expand the soul and human capacity
Thirty years of NATO expansion, and it has not been a peaceful expansion. Bombings in Somalia, Nicaragua, Bosnia, Timor, and Libya, along with invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and covert operations in Libya, Egypt, and Syria.
Is anyone surprised that Putin, and Russians in general, might feel a bit uneasy about the 1.5B in arms we sent to Kiev in 2019, along with spending nearly 5B to overthrow Ukraine's regime in 2014.
Furthermore, Kiev has refused to abide by the Minsk agreement, and I suspect much of that has to do with the fact that Donbas is sitting on most of Ukraine's oil reserves. The elites in Kiev were unhappy with the brokered agreement and so they paid rogue militia groups to bomb the residents into submission.
Our politicians continue to tell us that the shelling is not from Kiev, and that this is all just a Russian false flag operation designed to take over Donbas. However, whenever our diplomats are asked for evidence at the UN, no evidence is provided. Instead, they stand up and walk out. That behavior is reminiscent of the old USSR. Moreover, there have been American shells (probably part of the 2019 arms deal) found in the Donbas region.
Nobody should be surprised that Putin sought to end this conflict.
The response from the West? Sanctions. Sanctions that hurt Americans, and isolate Americans. India, Brazil, China, and most of eastern Europe do not support the United States. This has been evident at both the security council and by their efforts to create a new SWIFT to bypass these sanctions. If they succeed, the dollar will depreciate significantly.
Over thirty years we have built tremendous debt, alienated friends, destroyed our reputation, sought to impose our will upon other cultures and nations, and are now completely isolated. The result? A loss of prosperity.
I'd like to hear Glenn analyze the speech Putin gave at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum a few weeks ago and critique the substance of Putin's economic analysis. I'm not so much concerned about Putin's governing style as I am about the fiscal irresponsibility and authoritarian darkness that have fallen over the US in recent years. I was struck by how rational and clear-eyed Putin sounded in his St. Petersburg speech and how much he seemed to care about the welfare of the Russian people. No hysterics or inflammatory rhetoric, just a roadmap for surviving western sanctions and moving forward. I can't think of a single western "leader," let alone anyone in Biden's band of idealogues, who seems similarly competent or focused on the welfare of the American people. So I'd love it if Glenn could point out some people in the West who are working to stop what feels like a collapse engineered by our "leaders." Btw: i recommend reading Putin's speech, rather than listening to it. For me, at least, it was much easier to read it than to listen to an interpreter.
I am sorry. I don’t relate to this discussion. I fail to understand the problem(s).
Perhaps my perspective might help.
#1. Do either of you have your hands on the direct levers of power -- of national agency?
No, you do not. So why should either of you assume a measure of responsibility for elective decisions that are beyond your control?
#2. Everyone is a victim of “historical context.” Ukraine and Ukrainians are linked to a specific history and a specific geo-political construct. That is beyond an elective choice. It is an historical reality that has unique characteristics. Regarding the issues of Ukraine, realize that these issues would be different if simply, Ukraine was located adjacent to Ireland.
Now, why is that “fact” important? Ans. Because we cannot divorce our understanding of Ukraine from WWII, and German-Russian relations during WWII. We cannot divorce understanding of the current situation from the large number of murders/killings that were experienced during WWII, many of whom were actions of the fascist Ukrainian collaborators. Most Americans do not remember that Soviet losses to the German fascists were 100X greater that all the casualties of the US in both theaters during WWII. That is an important, but often ignored, FACT. The WWII legacy is/was a REAL concern for Putin about border security. [No, I do not agree with Putin, but I do recognize his anxieties about NATO-US military training of Ukrainian forces for years before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. See https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-military-success-years-of-nato-training-11649861339 and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEIFwLKlq1Q&t=136s&ab_channel=TheHill ]
Unrecognized and unacknowledged by the US, Russia had/has justification to be concerned about US-led forces to topple the Russian regime. Russia has been concerned about a buffer zone from the West (Ukraine) for decades. By contrast, what would the US think/do if the Chinese established a military base 100 miles north of Mexico City? If the Cuban Missile Crisis is instructive, one can assume the US would likely interpret such a development as an act of aggression.
The question of moral angst, to me, is irrelevant. IMO, the US provoked Putin without justification. The US ignored genuine and legitimate Russian concerns about whether Ukraine would become an agent of US hegemony. Now, I also recognize that Putin’s response, his military actions against civilians, is unjustified, but Putin’s perception of Western encirclement was also justified by US actions … for years.
This whole idea of a soul of a country is appealing, even as I don't know if I believe in it. Especially the soul of Russia, which seems so deep and epic and tragic and starkly beautiful to us who have read translations of 19th century Russian novels and watched Dr. Zivago and absorbed other Russian stereotypes. But what is it? One of the things I get from Nikita is that without democratic agency, this "soul" cannot be found, and the Russian people have been in oppressive regimes for so long that they cannot know their soul's true nature. The soul of a people is connected with that people's empowerment.
But I have to wonder about America--what is our soul? Is a soul of a country a thing, at least in the realm of poetry? When you go overseas, you feel your American-ness. The open spirit, the generosity, freedom, but also negatives like crassness and immaturity. So there seems like something to that idea of a soul connected with people and a place. But I also wonder...maybe we still have more democratic agency than Russians, but our real experience of power and trust in our democracy is currently so shaky. So many of us do not trust our leaders or believe our democracy is working for us. I doubt we know what our American soul is any more than Russians do.
Yes I find that most of the social issues of our time are presented in a very one-sided slant. Right or wrong, agree or disagree it has become increasing difficult to form any sort of educated guess as to the facts. The media is not serving the people and humanity is left out of the equation.
Experiences like yours, and almost the entirety of humanity, demonstrates American exceptionalism.
Sorry, not sorry, but this aggression wasn't unprovoked. It was very much provoked by NATO enlargement, which George Kennan called "a fateful error."
I vote, but my vote is never the realized result because I am Libertarian first, American second. When the US does bad things, I do not feel any personal moral culpability -- which is what Osama bin Laden also claimed -- because we do vote, but we never vote on war and we never vote on new taxes. Even the people we vote for don't vote for both a new program and new tax at the same time. Even the people we vote for vote for omnibus bills with numerous topics that they never read and of course they are horse trading.