The future of Putin's geopolitical adventure

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

There are many within the government, particularly among those, who have served under the Clinton administration, who think, that Putin’s adventurism will not stop with the Crimea, in fact they feel that that was only a testing of the waters, so to speak.
What is happening, is perhaps, a beginning to a road to further reconquest of other places in the east Ukraine, and finally a complete re-domination and re-
occupation of the whole of Ukraine. But wait, they
say, it will not stop there, and there may be further areas where re-occupation will occur, particularily in the states of Latvia and Lithuania, where too, there
are sizeable Russian populations, some greater than
25% of the population, who would welcome a Russian dominated government. A particular dangerous situation could occur in the Baltics, where
the West would have to guarantee the sovereignty of
countries with Nato membership.

Another coincidental fact is the the sharp inrease in
Russia’s spending on defense. This debate was taken
up again in the context of the question, whether the West should adhere to the request by the Ukraine government for advanced weapons, particularly field
anti tank ground missiles. Russia has been observed
sending large amounts of materiel into the Ukraine separatists hands, and there is a growing realization that an imbalance may give further proof to Putin
that the West is indecisive on the issue, giving him
the initiative to escalate his program.

 What occured to me, is

that Russia is just too big and dangerous of a
country, and a direct involvement is quite apparently avoided by NATO and the West at all costs. Is there a predictable outcome? Is the vastly superior
economy of the West guarantee, that the new
Capitalists may ultimately reject any return to social-communist approaches to their governance, or, are they pretty well locked into it, ensuring that the
potential damage to their economies will be determined by their perception of how the economic sanctions in place will effect their geo-political outlook?

Does a political economic reality subsist under the supposed designs by Putin or, is he only staging ad hoc tests of international power play and fortitude?

2

What I see as going on is that, as the EU grows as an economic superpower, it wishes to capture markets and consolidate more control over resources (as is the norm of any country). Many European countries have a lot of stake in Russian commodities, for this and other reasons the EU would like to incorporate Russia into itself. I suspect that what has gone on is that, due to Europe’s current economic strength as well as Russia’s, also Russia’s history as a powerful and dominant nation, has caused trouble for the powers coming to a “mutually desirable” economic agreement, most likely both sides desiring the upper hand in the deal.

This “battle” (in an underground economic sense, not overtly military in its entirety) is taking place beyond Europe’s borders and involves allegiances of many geopolitically sensitive locations, notably the middle east, also, for example, China…

Europe has been able to see eye to eye with the US to a much greater extent, and “the sharp inrease in Russia’s spending on defense” you spoke of is no doubt still dwarfed by that of the US, this has helped Europe get a deeper foothold in the middle east (also check out the work of Mark Curtis for an eye opening view on some of Britain’s underhanded geopolitical maneuvering).

Euromaidan was a particularly cataclysmic event for Russia, supported strongly by EU countries, no doubt as an attempt to wrest some more power from Russia, as is evident from Ukraine’s proximity to Russia, and its history of close dealings with Russia. This was something of a triggering event in Russia’s newfound media popularity (though we can point to prior incidents where Russia has taken the spotlight, like the events in Georgia not so long ago)…

Russia’s conquests are no doubt part of a strategy to secure a stable base of economic relations for itself as it becomes increasingly ostracized by the economic community of Europe, the US and most likely their allies (Saudia Arabia comes to mind).

I do forsee Russia continuing its expansion for this very reason. The more sanctions put on Russia, the greater the need of conquest to make up for its losses. Also, because the US is also on an expansive trajectory currently felt greastest in the middle east and North Africa, this will add to the squeeze on Russia which, again, will have to expand and seek out more allies, for example North Korea (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/04/russia-bolster-ties-north-korea)…

It probably isn’t going to end without some kind of cataclysmic event or else the map becoming at least temporarily divided by the oppositional relations of current powers and their alliances. What will happen after is harder to see, there is a possibility of some kind of immense splintering or else greater dominance of a particular bloc.

3

This expansion business is all quite transparent propaganda. A refusal to look at the facts is required to fall for it. It gets to blood hot, it’s the Russians after all.
The story of Crimea is clear: Chruchev gave it away, he was Ukrainian, the Russians never could live with it even formally and certainly not factually. No NATO on the peninsula. That was impossible in advance.
Southeast Ukraine is connected to the contested region thus must be defended. Ukraine itself must be prevented from becoming a NATO state. It is incredible that people dare to speak of Russian expansion, when all NATO has done is expand even unto the Russian border, against all agreement.
Russia is no Soviet Union. The same rules do not apply. As brutal as Putins war in Chechnya may have been, it was little compared to the mid Eastern tragedies the international community have caused always against the will of the Russians and the Chinese. Russia is playing containment politics, simply resisting insanity. The insanity is in part due to the absence of a European identity. Russia is part of Europe, a part without which the continent would have been enslaved to the Germans in the past century, and without which it would be enslaved by the Americans in this one. It is our closest ally against totalitarianism. The Russians have already learned what it means to have an expansive ideology. It is not only about Russian population, but about beloved land that is historically been a crucial military location. Nato is placing nukes on the Russian border, and Putin is being accused of being Hitler for refusing absolute submission by forfeiting the Black Sea. But this battle is already lost. The play went wrong. Europe will not tolerate an open war against Russia, but that is the consequence of engaging directly now. It is to be hoped that America does not succeed in fully convincing its populace that Putin is the aggressor who must be stopped. I find it hard to imagine that they could be moved to that degree of stupidity. But if the aim is war at all costs, of course there will be war. But Europe will be completely divided, Germany might take the side of the US but France will not. The nuclear nations except Britain and Israel will take the side of Russia. The outcome of the war depends on the sophistication of the rocket shields, and the preparedness to sustain losses. Russia will sustain losses to the end, that is what it is used to doing. What the US would opt for… who can tell - it is hard to say who’s in charge. That is one of the reasons why people prefer Putin… visibility of power.

4

Point taken, there has been an inane amount of propaganda going around.

This is really the issue, which is that NATO wants to expand and NATO countries want economic control or surety around the globe. I don’t think this is unique to NATO countries though in any sense, it’s really one of the main, if not the main key to politics of all time. (That is, economic surety, and surely also dominance.)

I think for some it’s not so much that it’s Russia “after all”, but that current politics are often looked at in light of the past. Because Russia has departed from its ‘Soviet taint’ it is probably unfair to still consider it in that light, though on the other hand we would still look at the US in its history of aiding coups against fledgling or fullblown Communist countries, but I suppose it is more in line with their current overt trajectory (namely the “scandal” of WMDs in Iraq) as well as more recent past.

(On a side note its interesting to consider that Anthony Sutton wrote a series of works which he began with the Hoover Foundation which detailed western influence in Soviet development up until at least '65 and was confirmed by now-former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1970.)

I might think you’re going a bit far on this though. Yes, you’re right that certaintly North American and most (if not all?) European nations have been shamelessly pumping out anti-Russian propaganda lately but they are certainly not an “innocent country” (though I find that term silly since I don’t think such a thing does or perhaps even can exist…) but actions against journalists and protestors there have certaintly not been praiseworthy. It also has adopted a familiar anti-terror policy in recent years… Which is no defense of NATO countries, as actions against protestors there have also been reprehensible. Take it as my general suspicion of government.

I don’t think the US is going to jump into an overt or traditional war with Russia anytime soon. It’s hard to tell if such a war will ever occur again in western nations, which is not to say some kind of untraditional warfare may not take place (and is really already taking place on a certain level).

5

Joe Biden puts Goebbels to shame.

NATO is a culture-less, blindly expansive warmachine. There are indeed quite a number of precedents to its ruthless behavior. But it’s ugly nonetheless, quite as ugly as Islamic radicalism. It’s a disease, not a whole lot else.

The destruction of Yugoslavia alone is enough to forever disavow NATO as the enemy of mankind. Bush’s WMD’s are just one of the innumerable lies and tyrannies perpetrated by Washington. But what I can condone sometimes of the USA, I can not condone of NATO. Because my own nation is part of NATO, I have a responsibility to work against this horrible machine.

Note I never said anything of the sort of “innocent country” I simply point out that Russia is our ally against totalitarianism at this point. We are not under threat of Russia, but NATO and the EU are very serious and advanced totalitarian threats.

Russia is the only nation that has held and is holding to its agreements. All NATO nations are quite simply “dark forces”. There is nothing that can justify their expansionism except bloodlust. Let’s call a spade a spade.

Absurd, absolutely disastrous wars have been caused by the currently operative machine before. Very generally, I see in the current , post WWII US a continuation of Bismarcks policies and philosophy.

6

I agree with most of the above , and note that Nato expansion is the culprit to bring Putin to flex hus muscles. What is the real problem here, is the rercurrence of the cold war, and some voices out there, are claiming that this new coming cold war, fueled by a possible proxy war between Nato and Russia, will be ever more sinister and dangerous than the last one. The Yalta Conference well before these events went down, laid down the policies, thay such Nato expansion toward the east were justified.

 The late Walter Kennan had predcted this 20 years ago, and he adivsed against Nato expansion , as leadngdown o a very unfortunate course.  This was done undwr , the Clinton administration, and the policy details were a ironed out by Prs. Obama.

The thing is, is the currentmpolitical flurry between Kiev, Moscow, and Washington, is leasd by Angela Merkel, who seems not to want to ship weapons to Kiev, for fear of war. This echoes the appeasement polices of British Prime Minister Chamberlain, whose similar policies invited, rather than prevented disaster.

What is the biggest fear of Russia over the Nato expansion? It is that Nsto will install antimissile systems close to Russia, whrereby making Russia’s nuclear force obscolete. That is what helped to bring about the Soviet’s demise,the fact that they could not prevent their nuclear force to be effected by the so called ‘Star Wars’ system. The pwer struggle was always three fold: strategic, ideological and economic. The felt they could play the game of pseudo capitalism, as theyn learned from Michael Kadar, that You could mix systems, as too, the Chinese, seemingly presenting a free enterprise face, but harboring ideologically indestructible frame. Gorbachev , the father of detentr and perestroika came out today, to announce to theworld,that thisis the most dangerous situation since the Cuban Missle Crisis of the 1960’s. Is it feasable to look at power struggle to this degree of deception and propaganda on all sides?

I think what isgoing on today is an ideologically unsolved problem, beginning with the late 19th century, whereby the social and politicl landscapes of the great , now dissolved empires of thr ancien world, vis that of the Austrian, Hapsurg, the RussioanImperial, the Ottoman empire, the British empires have not yet found a singular voice in the theatrics of a now propaganda laden international politics. This politicsl dynamics is what sibsist on the level of Bismarkian thinking, as well noted above. Since lawyers would be politicians adhere and assent to the stagement that defacto arguments may well triump de jure argumentation, this carries over into a postmodern world, where the law of the land dictates.

Ths is why the terrorism of fragmented peopleofthe middle east, relateto what is going on and directlyn effects th ideological bubble, filled with a lotof misunderstood steam, and this fact is denied everywhere. The confusion persists and has persisted for at least 100 uears, and some people who profess the end of history, callingthemselves futurists, foget that the 100 years war in Europe, still, allegedly within a hystorically relevant context, was just another war on the continent. How shortsighted we have become to project this ongoing worldly staged struggle on commerce-economics, or terrorism, or adventurism to recapture territory.

7

When i look at the world as whole in the terms of power struggle, there are two types of the forces or ideologies in the play and trying to beat each other. One is dominance by technology and second is by resources (both natural and human).

US is the epic center of force one, while the second force is distributed in the countries like Russia, China and India. Russia has huge natural resouces while China and India have huge human resouces. A very important point that people tend to miss that Russia not only has huge natural resources but it have very less population to consume that too. That gives Russia an extraordinary surplus, which perhaps no other country has. The distant second is Australia.

Both forces tries to play to their strength hence the struggle.

If Putin wants to win, he has to bring contries with big population like China and India to his side, like US has been done with EU in the case of technology and money. If that happens, technology and money of US and EU would become useless because both will not have any market to sell and add on to their strength. These three countries combine, can stand the onslaught of US and EU combine. Then, Putin can negociate about the control mechnicasm of the world with US, on the behalf of his combine.

But, the resource side is a devided house, hence finding it difficult to compete with its counterpart, though Putin is trying hard to bring those under one umbrella. His failure or success entirely depends on this single issue. He cannot take on joint force of US and EU alone.

And, if he tries alone, he will have the same fate as of Hitler. He either got killed or thrown out by the western MNC’s in one way or other, who have or want to have a stake in the natural resouces of Russia. Right now, he is biggest enemy for them. He should be watchful.

with love,
sanjay

8

Well said, and it adds another dimension to this state to which we have been brought to. Some wonder how, among them the comissioner of human rights at the U.N. He says in a recent interview, that it is incredible to even begin to believe that in this dawn of a new millenium, barabarism of that kind would still occur. He lists among them , :crucifying children, burning people alive, beheadings of innoscent journalists, and other monstrosities. It seems as if 20 centuries of civilization have not made any difference in people, and their hate is unabated, in spite, of thoisands of years of learning.
One other thought is that perhaps this idea for a one world government has it’s Achilles heal here, when they speak of multiculturalism, the basic agressive nature of certain societies, may not fit-neatly into the
mold. The ‘advanced’ socoeties of the West , isong coercive methods to force these ideas into actuality may have not sufficiently accounted for the demonic element of intelligent, as a reactive process, and can not bring to focus, the third world’s retension of the last great political idea: that of colonialism. It is apropo, You mentioning the third world in economic terms, but my point fits with this in terms of social psychology, where it may be neer impossible to erase social consciousness to a degree, where all will be forgotten and forgien for past trespasses upon human rights. Human rights is a fairly newly coined cliche, and it is like a cosmetic nand aid solution. Here Jung’s ideas are significant, inasmuch he goes beneath a simple analysis of people’s retension, into a socially constructed sub conscious, of which’s basic elements may have been formally constructed into a reality which defies conventionally thought learning.
Hobbes may be right in this respect over Rousseau, that the social contract is actually based on people’s distrust of each other. They construct a socially devised reality based on the illusion that men left to themselves would really not cause each other harm.

9

That is true. It never changed throughout the history of the mankind. People wrongly have the impression that knowledge alone would make some positive difference in the life of the people. Society must have wisdom too along with the knowledge to elevate itself in real terms. Technology can give you comfort once only. Once you get used to it, it becomes useless. Then, one has to find another new thing to have some comfort.

In the past, there were some short periods of time, where some fringe subsets of the mankind, have been able to elevate their understanding and mindset to some extent, but they have not been able to maintain and add upon it. Alien forces used to hit them time and again, and the effort of a century was lost in some days.

Back to square one and start the counting again.

But, there is one very important difference between past and now. Due to technological advances, the world has been come together. It is more like a single unit now than the scattered different civilizations, as it used to be 10 centuries ago. Now, isolation is at the minimum.

It is double edged sward now, which can be either good or bad. Now, if something very good will happen to the one part of the world, it will spread to the rest. And, in the same way, if something very bad will happen to the one part of the world, it will spread to the rest of the world too. Now, the spreading time is not centuries but merely some years. A country can change its fate now in a decade either way.

Thus, either way, the world will have to have only one combine from here on. Time is ripe for the both of a Prophet and a Satan too. The million dollar is who will come first? That will decide the fate of the world.

with love,
sanjay

10

Yes and the masquarade is over for sure. Or, it will be pretty soon. In India , the caste system is till well and alive. I see it from the may Indian people here, if they are from Bamgladesh, they are on the defensive. Then, the oneds from Bangladesh, they project unto their nemesis. The do not knw, so they react. They react to something deeply hiden. Maybe in a few generations they will internilize… If they do
not go back. Despite what everyone is saying here on board, this cluntry the USA is Gods countey, i was an immigrant way back nd reaize the hard lessons of cast. Your lot is casr for ever, ere at least You can forgetit, but suffer the diametrical paine of contrition, if uou hapoen to be a has been. The material is everything, the formal is nothing withut the substantioal. No need to act as if…to snow others, well ,I will descend to his level, because i am just doing it as an act of kindness…
This is, the preverbial assumption of those who are reactionary. They can never battle because ther front is misleading, their alligance suspect. They are fearfulof ostracism. Here the they have a chance t redeeming themselves. And no holds makde alliances. Hypocracy and propaganda have to end.

11

The traces of colonialism have to eclipse the dishonesty of thre western world as to their intentions. That is where the trouble lays, and Putin is a pawn to internal pressures to react. Katharine the Great, and Peter the great did want to westernize Russia, to make it more aigned to Europe, but tje surfs…the former surfes had to be placated/ and the white Russians became defensive, they had no ideolog only convention, therefore, they had to plcate the reds. The confused reds just like the muslims of today are confused, poor things, they csnot see the light, so they blame their oppessors. Yjre is a pattern here, a pattern left to analysts to debate over, while the world boils…We must not let opportunitied go by. We must save the world…

12

Yes, it is still alive but losing its strength by each passing day. India is westernizing by a good speed since last 25 years or so. Though, this process may be halted because of the emergence of new leadership in the last general election, when a slight right to center party came to power with absolute majority for the time in the history of India.

Cast system is quite broken in metros here. Small cities are still inclined towards castism, while it is very much dominant in rural India, which still accounts 40% of the total population, if not more . Having said that, the breaking of cast system has not affected the institution of the family at all in India, at least for now, can’t say about the future.

You can compare the present social situation of India with what was in US one century ago, before the first sex revolution. It is to be seen whether India follows the same path or not. Unlike the west, India has one advantage that it has the example of the west before it to see what lies ahead down the line. West did not have that luxury but India can cherry pick now from the precedents and decide its further course.

with love,
sanjay

13

As far as Putin is concerned, it looks to me that his intention and mindset is right, but unable to do much so far.

He knows what is to be done, but do no know how it could be done. On the other hand, Obama seems to be a person, who knows how things can be done, but he does not seems to be aware of the fact what is exactly there to be done. Or, he may be knowingly overlooking what is to be done.

with love,
sanjay

14

Sanjay, I had no intention to focus on the caste system, only brought it up in conjunction with hjow colonialism effects the social perimeters brought on by the changingm shift toward one world governance as conflicting with various ideologies. I think it is not thhe ideologoes per se, but the lack thereof, which drives the policies of both the west and the east. Russia is caught in the middle, as she trditionally has, between Europe and the Caucasus. She is suffering from a casde of identity crises, and that is partly why she has broken up into various parts, there was no unity except constraint.