Nicholas Grossman: The "Ukraine never in NATO" crowd seems to think they're avoiding confrontation with Russia, but they're actually encouraging Russia in a confrontation that's well underway. Events are past the point where "don't make Russia nervous, don't push back, or they might get aggressive" becomes denial.

The "Ukraine never in NATO" crowd seems to think they're avoiding confrontation with Russia, but they're actually encouraging Russia in a confrontation that's well underway. Events are past the point where "don't make Russia nervous, don't push back, or they might get aggressive" becomes denial.

I don't mean to be too reductive about things but I feel like every woman who has been in an abusive relationship knows exactly how this goes. There is only one trajectory. "If I just stop doing the thing that makes him angry, he won't shove me into a wall again."

I don’t think that’s too reductive. A domestic abuser is a useful frame for understanding Putin (or, say, Trump and US media). Not 100% analogous of course, but definitely overlapping.

National tyranny (and, in between, cults) works in -exactly- the same ways as domestic abuse, just scaled up. Add a few techniques unique to large scale situations. but the basics? The same. I like this for "how to spot any of the above. "Authoritarian control." freedomofmind.com/cult-mind-co...

BITE Model of Authoritarian Controlfreedomofmind.com Discover the foundational principles of psychological freedom with our BITE Model PDF. Dr. Steven Hassan's pioneering framework offers insights into controlling behaviors and thoughts. Download now to...

I was thinking an analogy of domestic abuse akin to “Her parents made me kill her by telling her she could come stay with them. “

A lot of the "realist restraint" arguments suffer the same fallacy: that if X caused Z, then doing ~X would => ~Z.

I’m skeptical that X did in fact cause Z, when Z is Russia launching a war of choice and X does not include the Russian govt making a choice. But even if one assumes Russian actions aren’t due to Russian agency here, there’s no good reason to think reversing X would therefore reverse Z. It’s done.

Tbf, if we are talking about the last open letter in this regard, I don't think this sums up the argument correctly. Ofc this text genre is open to lots of interpretations by default. From my perspective the argument is: "NATO members have undermined any credibility of a future NATO guarantee...

... for Ukraine, by making clear that they won't fight for Ukraine now, when it is already under attack."

First, that's a bad argument on the merits. You helped Ukraine a lot even without a treaty commitment, that means you won't help Ukraine more if you make a treaty commitment to do so? Doesn't make much sense. And second, why devote energy to this now? Why are they making this their priority?

I am not saying it's a strong or weak argument, just that it's a different one from what you have described in the first place. Personally, I think the letter overlooks something else. If the argument of some historians and constructivists is correct, (1/2)

that not only Putin but also the Russian elite is delusionally obsessed with Ukraine, the question arises: is Ukraine one of those "extreme case[s]" in which "the other [side] is undeterrable and would rather fight than concede." www.jstor.org/stable/2009945

Review: Deterrence Theory Revisited on JSTORwww.jstor.org Robert Jervis, Deterrence Theory Revisited, World Politics, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Jan., 1979), pp. 289-324

That’s a good point, and the erroneous omission of Russia and Ukraine specifics comes from the same place as claiming NATO somehow made Russia do it: thinking about the war not based on the actual participants and actions, but on what the analysts imagine they themselves would do in the abstract.

They appear to think of Finland, the Baltics, and Poland in a similar manner.

Russia says they're at war with us every night on their state TV.

Yes. And we don't have to believe them. Part of it is a show for domestic audiences. "We face tough challenges against a bigger enemy but we're overcoming them" is a better narrative than "we're failing against a smaller enemy in a war we started." But still, Russian media's take isn't subtle.

The only argument left seems to be "Russia will use nukes" but I don't see any target where they might realistically use them. When I last looked the most sensible target would be a population center in a non-aligned nation like Delhi or Tokyo. Not a military target but designed for max death

We have nukes too. They check each other. The idea that Russia is likely to accept turning Russia into a radioactive wasteland merely because it failed to conquer all of Ukraine is quite a stretch. Even more so that US and European policy should be based on "we fear your nukes, but don't fear ours."

Exactly that. A nuclear attack on Ukraine would be unlikely to change much except draw the US into the war & attack Russia. Russia could attack military targets in the US, but there are a LOT of targets, & that's unlikely to do much except draw the US into the war.

The only "sensible" (heavy use of sarcasm quotes here) strategy at that point is to just kill lots of people to make people afraid to go against you, & to do that you don't even need to attack an enemy, hence attacking one of the most populous cities in the world.

Abuser/tyrant appeasement. Works SO well.

Post