Based on your narrative, this seems like what I call "corporate soap opera." When you are in an organization, you get into personality conflicts. But of course, you can't admit "I'm in a personality conflict." You claim that there is a disagreement that is so fundamental that the very mission of the organization is in jeopardy if the other side prevails. I would have advised your friend to try to hold a more detached attitude in this situation. And I would have advised him to under no circumstances take his conflict public.
I think something like that scenario is possible, though in this case he wasn't really "in" the organization. He was a non-resident fellow, which means no salary, no office. So it's not like there were day-to-day office politics he was involved in. Still, he's a prominent figure in the world of progressive NGOs (formerly head of the Ploughshares Foundation), so I suspect he was sometimes involved in fairly high level deliberations, and friction can arise in a lot of ways.
The usual super job at finding something I would never have considered by Bob. I also wonder about Mother Jones not picking up on Bob's considerations from a journalistic perspective. Seems like they should have is my thinking. On this part of what Bob wrote: "Those unwise US policies didn’t violate international law, whereas Russia’s invasion did. So Russia is the criminal, and it’s important to punish criminal behavior (though I share the view of some people at Quincy that pushing Russia entirely out of Ukraine probably can’t be done without courting an unacceptable risk of regional or even nuclear war)." I have been thinking that, while not likely to occur in reality, getting Russia to back to the pre-invasion boundaries CAN be done if there was enough political will and military support should the Ukraine government want to do so. I think the stakes for the long term (containing Russian aggression and what not doing so would say to other troublesome nuclear powers or want to be nuclear powers in the world) warrant the increased risk of a regional war or even a nuclear exchange since I expect that nuclear exchange would be first use of a small tactical weapon by Russian with an overwhelming negative response from the world and probably a response in kind from NATO/USA. My hope at that point is that Russia would not be so foolish as to make an all out first strike on NATO or the USA but it certainly would be possible. If that occurred then that would be it of course. Easy to say by someone in their 70s and maybe not so if I was a young adult or had children and grandchildren. Now all that to say, what is the argument against this point of view? Seems to me this is at least an arguable position. I am ready to read the killer argument that refutes this thinking since I can see it is quite risky. End rant.
I'll continue to evaluate John Mearsheimer's views on this subject (another "Distinguished" scholar) who has a much wider body of writing on this subject than the ex-Quincy fellow...
I value the way that you bring light to issues by digging patiently underneath them. This draws our attention not to the agitating surface issues, which is where that evolutionary brain you talk about gets carried away by various adrenalines, but to slower principles in motion under the surfaces. So I read you, and feel that the ball has been advanced a few invaluable yards. There is still so much digging to do. Firstly, I feel the need for a slower dig under the word "provocation." I do not know why we rule out a provocation relentless enough to have left Putin to conclude that his invasion was his last best instrument on behalf of Russian security. Secondly, that word "invasion." True, some are convinced Putin intended originally to take all Ukraine. But for myself, or my own brain, evolutionary or not, Putin's definition of a limited military action seems to fit better with what has happened since February 24. And what does "invasion" mean if we accept Russia's recognition of the independence of the republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, and Ukraine's apparent years-long preparation, in cooperation with NATO (training and material), to attack them? Finally, I would like to see comprehensive digging on the issues of international law raised by Putin's invasion (I myself am OK with the word, as long as it's not also in itself a moral judgement). I'd especially like to see a response to Scott Ritter's two-part account of the legal issues at https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/29/russia-ukraine-the-law-of-war-crime-of-aggression/. May we all continue to dig.
Well, in his defense (kind of), he hasn't really tried to lay out his thinking clearly, so all we have to go on is isolated quotes in journalistic coverage of the controversy. OTOH, if he's going to accuse a think tank of 'justifying' the invasion, he really has an obligation to lay out his thinking clearly, I think.
Based on your narrative, this seems like what I call "corporate soap opera." When you are in an organization, you get into personality conflicts. But of course, you can't admit "I'm in a personality conflict." You claim that there is a disagreement that is so fundamental that the very mission of the organization is in jeopardy if the other side prevails. I would have advised your friend to try to hold a more detached attitude in this situation. And I would have advised him to under no circumstances take his conflict public.
I think something like that scenario is possible, though in this case he wasn't really "in" the organization. He was a non-resident fellow, which means no salary, no office. So it's not like there were day-to-day office politics he was involved in. Still, he's a prominent figure in the world of progressive NGOs (formerly head of the Ploughshares Foundation), so I suspect he was sometimes involved in fairly high level deliberations, and friction can arise in a lot of ways.
The usual super job at finding something I would never have considered by Bob. I also wonder about Mother Jones not picking up on Bob's considerations from a journalistic perspective. Seems like they should have is my thinking. On this part of what Bob wrote: "Those unwise US policies didn’t violate international law, whereas Russia’s invasion did. So Russia is the criminal, and it’s important to punish criminal behavior (though I share the view of some people at Quincy that pushing Russia entirely out of Ukraine probably can’t be done without courting an unacceptable risk of regional or even nuclear war)." I have been thinking that, while not likely to occur in reality, getting Russia to back to the pre-invasion boundaries CAN be done if there was enough political will and military support should the Ukraine government want to do so. I think the stakes for the long term (containing Russian aggression and what not doing so would say to other troublesome nuclear powers or want to be nuclear powers in the world) warrant the increased risk of a regional war or even a nuclear exchange since I expect that nuclear exchange would be first use of a small tactical weapon by Russian with an overwhelming negative response from the world and probably a response in kind from NATO/USA. My hope at that point is that Russia would not be so foolish as to make an all out first strike on NATO or the USA but it certainly would be possible. If that occurred then that would be it of course. Easy to say by someone in their 70s and maybe not so if I was a young adult or had children and grandchildren. Now all that to say, what is the argument against this point of view? Seems to me this is at least an arguable position. I am ready to read the killer argument that refutes this thinking since I can see it is quite risky. End rant.
I'll continue to evaluate John Mearsheimer's views on this subject (another "Distinguished" scholar) who has a much wider body of writing on this subject than the ex-Quincy fellow...
I value the way that you bring light to issues by digging patiently underneath them. This draws our attention not to the agitating surface issues, which is where that evolutionary brain you talk about gets carried away by various adrenalines, but to slower principles in motion under the surfaces. So I read you, and feel that the ball has been advanced a few invaluable yards. There is still so much digging to do. Firstly, I feel the need for a slower dig under the word "provocation." I do not know why we rule out a provocation relentless enough to have left Putin to conclude that his invasion was his last best instrument on behalf of Russian security. Secondly, that word "invasion." True, some are convinced Putin intended originally to take all Ukraine. But for myself, or my own brain, evolutionary or not, Putin's definition of a limited military action seems to fit better with what has happened since February 24. And what does "invasion" mean if we accept Russia's recognition of the independence of the republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, and Ukraine's apparent years-long preparation, in cooperation with NATO (training and material), to attack them? Finally, I would like to see comprehensive digging on the issues of international law raised by Putin's invasion (I myself am OK with the word, as long as it's not also in itself a moral judgement). I'd especially like to see a response to Scott Ritter's two-part account of the legal issues at https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/29/russia-ukraine-the-law-of-war-crime-of-aggression/. May we all continue to dig.
Same issue with criminal trial juries. The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt often calls for nuanced decisions that are unnatural to most people.
If this guys thinking is as flawed as Bob suggests is, what is he doing at a think tank?
Well, in his defense (kind of), he hasn't really tried to lay out his thinking clearly, so all we have to go on is isolated quotes in journalistic coverage of the controversy. OTOH, if he's going to accuse a think tank of 'justifying' the invasion, he really has an obligation to lay out his thinking clearly, I think.