Not really, Russia is low down on the list of world economies and the Russian people are quite used to deprivation if they see a positive outcome soon. Putin paints it as an "EXISTENTIAL" threat for Mother Russia which had to be done, no matter what.
On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:41 PM Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> wrote: > That sounds plausible. What I don’t see is a release of sanctions before > a lot of damage is done to the Russian economy. North America doesn’t > really need the oil, although I could see Germany and others folding when > winter comes again. As long as the sanctions hold up, Putin is in for a > world of hurt. > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Sarbajit Roy > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 9, 2022 9:02 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Enamine > > > > What is going to happen in Ukraine is that Russia is going to teach > Ukraine a lesson for flirting with the EU, NATO and western liberalism and > signing that NATO document in November 2021. > > Putin is going to annex the Eastern and Southern parts of Ukraine by > setting them up as autonomous regions/states within Ukraines' boundaries as > Russian protectorates. He is then going to make Kyiv sue for peace under > his terms with Russia taking over some aspects of Ukraine's foreign affairs > and defence/security (think back to the former East Germany). Putin has no > intention of taking over Ukraine or ruling it. > > Russian's are very direct communicators (like Klingons), Putin, is doing > exactly what he said he would do before the invasion started. This is a > special military operation, not an invasion. The sooner Ukraine folds up > the better for everyone, and especially the Ukranians, since it's the US > and UK who are stoking the fires for their own selfish (war mongering > defence industry) interests. And interestingly the Muslim world is lining > up behind the Russia-China axis as nobody really trusts the US and UK > anymore over there. > > > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:57 PM Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> > wrote: > > EricS writes: > > > > < It seems to me that Mearsheimer’s argument does do an induction for what > to do next, and it is a 19th-century induction, in which a small number of > actors simply dictate what the world will do, and there should be some kind > of US retreat [..] > > > > > There’s another option, possibly within reach, to create the conditions to > have the current Russian government implode and give Russia the opportunity > to join NATO. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before. > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *David Eric Smith > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 9, 2022 3:58 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > [email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Enamine > > > > It’s a good list of wrongdoings, Roger, and no argument can be sound that > doesn’t keep it present and active. Facts are facts. > > > > I wasn’t saying I can’t follow Mearsheimer’s frame or its reasoning. I > was saying that the adequacy of working within the frame seems questionable > and bothers me. To put in a metaphor where I am sure it would be better if > I stuck to the particulars, it seems like a Baconian error to me: to > suppose that (a subset of) the facts are self-interpreting. > > > > You mention: > > Mearshimer's point of view is not pretty, and fairness is not part of its > calculus, but it's the way of the world that we, the United States of > America, have made. And when we screw up in our enthusiasm for truth, > justice, and the amurkan way, we should not blame others for the > consequences. > > > > I agree, and I also understand that you didn’t say my summary included > either the word or the theme of blaming anybody (while acknowledging that > both the political and media rhetoric is full of that). But I want to > reiterate that apportioning blame and with it responsibility is the opening > part of a discussion, but not obviously enough to say what to do next. It > seems to me that Mearsheimer’s argument does do an induction for what to do > next, and it is a 19th-century induction, in which a small number of actors > simply dictate what the world will do, and there should be some kind of US > retreat, after which we can conclude (?) that the Russian government will > pull back and return directly to what they were prioritizing in 2012 > (broader-based prosperity, certain conditional integrations, etc., while > still operating mainly as a partly-kleptocratic petro-state, an economic > model that is not universal and that does bring in other biases in what > kind of governance and social structure are most robust). I guess also > that Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia will recognize that they were duped and > quickly withdraw from NATO to become more Finland-like buffer states, and > that an even easier decision of that kind can be reached with respect to > Poland and Hungary, since they were backsliders anyway. (I am being > absurdist here because, even if one thought Mearsheimer’s analysis of the > optimal decisions in the past are different from those taken, I don’t see > what paths to comparable outcomes are available now.) > > > > Here’s one take, on whether there are other dimensions outside > Mearsheimer’s frame that bear on its adequacy. A mock-dialogue: > > > > QUESTION: Does the Russian (either) annexation or destruction of Ukraine > at this time move the world toward or away from a rules-based system of > international constraint? How does an analytic answer to that serve as a > criterion for valuing the event and deciding what to do in response to it? > > REJOINDER: Does not exist as a question because the U.S. has taken many > actions that, by not being constrained, undermined the role of constraint, > whether they were taken by being misguided or by being cynically > self-interested. > > > > QUESTION: There are these patches of geography, often referred to by > non-IR-specialists as “countries”. We believe there are people who live > there, and by a kind of abduction, we imagine those people have > preferences, about engaging in trade relations or military alliances. > Should decisions they adopt, through various internal negotiations — yes, > in contexts also shaped by external actors — have some right of persistence? > > REJOINDER: Does not exist as a question because the U.S. haas taken > actions that undermine rules-based international relations. > > > > One can try to make the argument that there really are no other questions, > because there is only ONE QUESTION, which is the one on which Mearsheimer’s > frame settles. But I think that is a hard argument to make analytically. > I recognize the possibility that, with short-term and blunt-force choices, > the identities of actors and their lack of trustworthiness may make this > frame so dominant that it overshadows most else. > > > > But in any case, if those other questions do exist, even in a world where > the U.S. haas taken actions that undermine rules-based international > relations, I imagine a discussion of them would include elements that arise > in this: > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/08/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-fiona-hill.html > > > > I don’t even know how to reason about the simplest things. One could just > baldly assert that a unipolar world has been inherently unstable, because > there is no adequate force either within a country, or through diplomatic > and economic alliances that a country can marshal, to stop US incursions > and force this country to reverse some of its adventures. That somehow a > hoped-for era when China fills that role, through a combination of internal > strength and diplomatic and economic influence, will be a less destructive > one. But when I look back to the geopolitical trampling, in Eastern Europe > and Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Americas during the > US-NATO/Soviet-Union struggles, they seem damaging in similar ways and > degrees to what the US was the main actor doing in many places during the > unipolar era. So it is not obvious to me that the rise of China brings us > to a better place with a more constrained US, as opposed to just returning > us to a destructive model that organized the NATO/Soviet bipolarity. > > > > And of course, technology and ecology are both different now. > > > > So, I don’t know. > > > > Eric > > > > > > On Mar 8, 2022, at 2:02 PM, Roger Critchlow <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I found Mearshimer's argument a persuasive point of view. What else has > the US done that might make other countries anxious? Engineered regime > changes in Iran and Chile, supported failed regime changes in Cuba and > Nicaragua, fought wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, intervened in Panama, > Grenada, and Somalia, no-fly-zones in the Balkans and Syria, pursued > economic sanctions against Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia, > expanded NATO twice into eastern europe, training police and > counter-insurgency forces god knows where. That's just in my lifetime > working from my eroding memory. If you want to live in the US sphere of > influence, you'd best not poke the eagle in the eye, you'd best adapt or > mask your aspirations to the ones the US approves. > > > > We protest that our interests are supporting democracy and providing > humanitarian aid, because that feels good. Pay no attention to those cozy > contracts between occupied Iraq and the western oil companies. That tasty > piece of kleptocracy wasn't in any way a motivation for the completely made > up reasons for invading Iraq. (Rumsfeld knew that he knew that Iraq had > oil reserves, it was a known known.) And don't get all tedious counting > the collateral casualties from our drone wars, we only bomb wedding > celebrations when it's absolutely necessary, and we are sincerely sorry for > your losses, so, please, stop crying over spilt milk, it really harshes the > vibe. > > > > Good for the goose is good for the gander. Putin is enforcing Russian > approved aspirations in Ukraine. And Mearshimer's point is that Putin > isn't making up his reasons, he's stated them often. Until the Ukrainians > capitulate, he will continue to level the country, one apartment block, > school, hospital, university, police station, city hall, and factory at a > time. We can hope there won't be any accidents with nuclear power plants > or hydroelectric dams. There will be no Ukrainian ports on the Black Sea > for British destroyers to visit in the future while flashing their bums at > Sebastapol. And we're going to fight him to the last Ukrainian standing, > like we fought the Sandinistas to the last Contra standing, and we fought > Cuba to the last Cuban exile standing on the beach at the Bay of Pigs. > There wasn't any air cover there, either. > > > > Mearshimer's point of view is not pretty, and fairness is not part of its > calculus, but it's the way of the world that we, the United States of > America, have made. And when we screw up in our enthusiasm for truth, > justice, and the amurkan way, we should not blame others for the > consequences. And most especially when blaming the other is both > politically expedient and a way of escalating the conflict that our > enthusiasms created in the first place. And mostest especially when we're > escalating toward a tactical nuclear war in europe. > > > > Broadwell's rebuttal was so ironic that I couldn't listen to it. "We > didn't do that. We couldn't do that. We would never do that." Sure, > Ray, we're pure as the driven snow, and anything we did or didn't do that > helped "that coup" happen was an innocent mistake, which Putin should have > laughed off. But Putin isn't laughing. In fact, he looks awful. > > > > Marcus' observation that "what's the point of a huge defense budget if all > you can do is cower?" might well be Putin's mantra. > > > > -- rec -- > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 6:37 AM David Eric Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Yes, Mearsheimer’s POV is a hard one for me to get my head around, and to > describe in some way that would be “fair”. > > > > I don’t want to say it is entirely amoral or immoral. I think, within his > view that certain conclusions are foregone, he has a sense that ordinary > people can work out some conditions of living under several different > systems, with compensations that they decide work for them, of several > different kinds. And within that constraint, a first priority should be to > avoid conflicts that kill them, destroy places to live and ways of living, > etc. > > > > But I also have a structural problem with the way he makes arguments. In > a way, one could use argument of that form to say that any time when any > powerful actor is motivated and capable of impact, that motive takes on > some kind of legitimacy simply by existing. So legitimacy gets written out > of the framing of questions. On shorter, tactical timescales, I can see > that in a way. But on longer timescales, when structure can change, it > seems like an inadequate and foreshortened frame. > > > > I should try to say this by way of an example, to try to be more explicit > about what I mean by “the structure of that kind of argument”. > > > > CEOs like to piously worry about instability as a risk to their workers. > I largely view that as manipulation. Workers can be retrained, as the > Swedish mining industry has nicely illustrated. To the extent that they > have basic competence, some skills, and productive attitudes, they can move > laterally among industries and be about as well off after the move as > before. Not exactly, not in all cases; but overall there is not a good > argument that industries need to be locked forever into one form in order > for workers to survive. A society and economy that seeks to protect > workers rather than specific job-roles can largely do so. The ones whom > there is not a need to transfer laterally are the CEOs. Once, in the past, > maybe they competed in some fair field, and by whatever combination of luck > or skill or talents, won something. But the river moves on, and someone > who is very successful and lucky in one fair, novel event has no reason to > expect to be comparably lucky in regular events afterward. What changes is > that they can dig into positions and become rentiers, as the 19th century > economists used to cast it. It is, as the Aesop fable says of the goat > taunting the wolf, not they, but the roof on which they stand, that is the > source of their safety. So the main ones threatened by industry change are > the ones who are shielded from competition and don’t want to go back. > > > > Yet the Mearsheimer framing would say that, because the CEOs are highly > motivated, because their motives can be articulated, and because they have > the capacity for impact, that gives a kind of tautological legitimacy to > their wishes to stay in power and freeze industries in place, no matter > what the cost to those who wouldn’t share that choice. > > > > A country is not one thing. Russia has clearly identifiable four large > groups (at least). There are the former KGB, not necessarily ultra-wealthy > but accumulating wealth to try to re-establish a past government where > agency remains with them. There are the oligarchs, who live as a kind of > parasitic outgrowth of oligarchs worldwide, but in a less productive > society. Then there are the populist nationalists going around wearing Zs > on their shirts. And then there are the other several layers of society > who could consider Boris Nemtsov a spokesman for them. Mearsheimer’s > expressions “Russia wants XYZ” are, in the sense of decision makers, "the > KGB-cabal of Russia wants XYZ", and it can solidify a network of oligarchs > and Zs to backstop and facilitate the decisions in which the KGB-cabal are > the decisionmakers and prime movers. That, to me, seems like a > foreshortened notion of what “Russia wants”. > > > > Of course, there is another sort of bizarre Louis XIV disease that has > bothered me in those who love power and live in academic places as long as > I have got to experience them directly. Even if one wanted to fully adopt > Mearsheimer’s frame, it is only sequitur if the next 100 years, > ecologically and climatologically, will look more or less like the past > 100. That that will not be the case is the thing we can be surest of, in > all this conversation. But the power brokers, I think, haven’t > internalized the view that there are things in the world bigger than them. > In some superficial cognitive way they have, maybe, but I feel like not > really. > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > On Mar 7, 2022, at 5:05 PM, Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I guess Mearsheimer would say this poor guy is brainwashed by his Western > puppet masters, or an elite acting against the interests of his (non) > countrymen? > > > > > *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Jon Zingale > *Sent:* Monday, March 7, 2022 1:15 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [FRIAM] Enamine > > > > > https://enamine.net/news-events/press-releases/1333-the-official-appeal-of-enamine-founder-and-ceo-andrey-tolmachov-to-the-drug-discovery-and-scientific-community > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fenamine.net%2fnews-events%2fpress-releases%2f1333-the-official-appeal-of-enamine-founder-and-ceo-andrey-tolmachov-to-the-drug-discovery-and-scientific-community&c=E,1,7_zuyurFyFe4I5VmXYseRz4O1YKW2dXzJUpMFUJ1uKzGzmiajeukuIw86vhfy544XC4ZzJBEG8h2kU7I0OK47-XzUD_mq3Cq3wydLhJscA,,&typo=1> > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2f%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,JLjh8X90xz70EtDOohswP8Ksged8LDrlujTQQTTxOgzkkMS652bcScdWhUcsUpXKRmDr4YAdlPmSF_9u0ngHsiDknrxOKYNDU0FzZE6vgA,,&typo=1 > un/subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,dDnSbJ_DEfNoagBC5P0kk0kshJ67xY4LaFE5-goO2-CJXFMUuDezuSL62QNuvggOANw_qDlKyzqB1EaMHShRemmmfJ3z1qPExLuVor03QQ,,&typo=1 > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,pIxqNs246xWgEFmILAFDb1ShZQhsNkQEKE9jpvcymsjMv8UDdmDMOcaIld_J1_0zfWRGs9NPDvm2KXwvCqcaiqHiYAFTYCZ-VYRI8w0z0FfOjoTs&typo=1 > archives: > 5/2017 thru present > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,6pwWdYPRvpzE2aeMda2SGtzo4gePZwM2TB9GVr_FbdpfwYPi-6Wh-CjzjLUuP-8ZYd8rEdsKsZ07oh1PnTYIYlMM-ix6tsyePFh0dSvGliq1uXW3&typo=1 > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,ZZV9uNx3GgXgn2DqYekEUt_mEoNe-wL4Sv2JW0p3L_Zt-Ru-5QQDlzncMTpuTaNEs7DYjhphfpYv1ax55mn2K0l4gz8MQT2M4ZhnonOQV4wMlXOq&typo=1> > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,9PddDY3liolKtWfzSAYFlJEXGVOmlNGiJg9weFOs-J4TmhUF5nyNsQjiZMMBa0JuqiAaByzgwb_d35GrHvQ9DpTMIG0nQYB2UYnxWX1EQU_HGfU,&typo=1> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,8dDBV3rQN8ImUQze8A964QKjksMdCXkLhY-BsOtrBg4NpaDvlRQEyGODlxKK2MXhxvgXtEaXEpUIv0_UFnN1PXVCeGKu5MLEeCyShzNUcZ8xZakM&typo=1> > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,hMw_Qhtxg2Y84SnPc8A9b7htG1HoBPt2VIsaFkosr3JOVUu4G6mzPM8lYqTMQI0792wDwnESlpLwaBaXPRyWpnyTsgYqEazxPCR8OzwVpXuFb7E,&typo=1> > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2f%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,R9rZ8SxSgE0_RGeDg3YSMtWbYw2gOHeUuwE6MaiJNTwUPHcW32I8Xtn36iWJxyb66xDjKIvcBHd2ynYOsCoR8YTCSZZw4efNDdjTe5WVHak1tI1mF5QSjA,,&typo=1 > un/subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,hu4OMMhcdORxWwnIt3t4Dip6JyvG6HXyEFWoc-5fyRIob4F6UDJ7EWzM9v3fLsbS3RSYPzBArylXlLRqJ28hLOoF_vRJpRYgq9MVeDOXvcb7&typo=1 > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,l484PbmWO9CNufei2Yi25ufvxfs1ck38xi0LPPvS7BDGypSHVmEygUiXuKEXPtoouBOF4KMN9dKgCnM1qJRfy_utXd9lrXPhyeR5BZKzj5g,&typo=1 > archives: > 5/2017 thru present > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,HK7o_ZHfviQzu6ARvMhIVqPYzpmrjOFDu_UqPszB4mvXa4KnLjngdsDOZNK3KJZI7ZLPFw-w7TdT2uw5hdPW2vr-_M-IwvaX5ln-Wx-4LlxeerG3WVDwpQ7Btg,,&typo=1 > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: > 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
