Do you know if there’s any truth to the rumor that Bill Clinton offered Putin NATO membership for Russia? If true that would seem to undermine some of your contextualizing hypotheses. “We respect you Vlad, we want you in the club, come on join us.”
In regard to where Putin lays on the mentally ill spectrum, IMHO, what’s more important is where he is on the character disorder spectrum. I’d say he’s definitely elevated himself to the status of a man-of-history by joining the ranks of famous men who have ruthlessly and needlessly gone to war to improve their status. He’s got more status now than he ever has—status as someone who is willing to murder children in order to earn our respect.
If one accepts your suggestion that the west has driven Putin “crazy,” the question becomes, now what do we do with this aggrieved resentment filled psychopathic monster we’ve created? We’re already showing very deep disrespect towards him and his nation. It doesn’t appear that that’s going to improve anytime soon.
Historically when some humans decide that other humans are less-than-human, bad things happen. “Those humans aren’t treating me like I’m a worthy human I’ll show them how human I am and be the worst kind of human possible.”
There is kind of a rationality to that way of thinking but it’s obviously flawed—it’s immature egoic self centered thinking. Historically these sort of high chair tyrants, who have tremendous power, have done us great harm. When have mad dogs responded to diplomacy?
Perhaps Biden should make Trump a special envoy to Russia. Trump could become our dog whisperer and calm that boy down.
The US and Europe have been economically and politically holding out on Russia for a long time and for various reasons (cultural/social prejudice and the impression of a "menacing Russia" was needed to justify military spending and keep weapons makers in business).
This analysis is spot on, and the advice to Western leadership (I'd also include the media) "[to put] themselves inside the heads of foreign leaders and seeing how the world looks from there" is more salient and urgent than ever. This doesn't absolve foreign leaders of the crimes they committed but would help a great deal to minimize the consequences (and avert future calamity).
The current conflict stems in large part from the disrespect most Western countries have displayed towards Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. This disrespect of Russian struggles, history, and culture (and failure to fully acknowledge its enormous sacrifices in WWII) helped propel Putin at the helm of this country in which many still see him as having saved Russia from wholesale collapse.
The anti-Putin rhetoric may be justified in view of his main responsibility for prosecuting a disastrous campaign (and given signs that he's experiencing a mental breakdown), but besides fueling more anger and paranoia on Putin's part, many people inside Russia will likely perceive such rhetoric (and any signs of military involvement) as being directed against them as a nation. Western leadership (and media) have to find a way to walk a very thin tightrope here, because failing that, the world may face even direr consequences. We all have skin in this game and so a lot to lose if this situation goes further south.
Its upshot is--in line with that of this piece--that diplomacy is needed instead of sanctions on Russia or arming of Ukraine. He basically writes off the US as a being able to do that and sees France and Germany as key to any diplomatic efforts. Both Macron and (the new German chancellor) Scholz have evidently directly talked with Putin, so there's some hope that understandable yet ineffective knee-jerk reactions in response to immeasurable human suffering will give way to approaches that avert further suffering and chart a path forward.
Jeffrey Sachs raised another interesting point. He calls for active diplomacy, and writes, “We have to talk to Putin and come to a deal. Russia must immediately stop bombing, sign a ceasefire, and recognise the sovereignty of Ukraine. In return, the West will renounce NATO's eastward expansion. Chancellor Scholz himself told President Putin during his visit to Moscow that Ukraine's membership was not up for discussion during his chancellorship. What are we arguing about here? You could give that to Mr. Putin in writing”
Right, why didn't the West respond to Russia differently? Like, Okay, we understand your concern. Actually, we have a similar policy, it’s called the Monroe Doctrine, and we wouldn't want you to place WMDs at our doorstep either. So, fine, we don't take Ukraine into NATO and we don't place WMDs in that country. We also also don't supply weapons to those Nazi Brigades, and we will urge the Ukraine government to stick to the Minsk agreement. Is that good then? Fine. Peace. 🙂
Why not? What’s going in those heads? Peace would have been possible.
Yes, a sane and rational analysis amidst all the hysteria. I wish Selensky had such a clear head. He is sending young people into a war he cannot win. Why?
So looking in the rearview mirror today we realize we can choose to learn or not to learn. Historically speaking we are all victims of intervening by politicians thinking somehow we can create a better outcome. Somehow we are ineffective at directing our leaders because the machine is too big and bureaucratic to navigate.
To me being a realist is knowing we can’t simply unturn the wheel and we shouldn’t have said we will eventually put NATO in Ukraine or Russia shouldn’t have invaded Crimea as well as Chechnya or Georgia. These examples only inform future geopolitical decisions.
What is a solid solution moving forward? We leave NATO expansion off the table in Ukraine, Sweden, Finland and Russia withdraws from Crimea? Better yet have Russia join NATO? Well unfortunately invasions and crimes against humanity preclude that - the same ones we chose in every war from Korea to Iraq/Afghanistan makes it seem as if we are calling the kettle black. Including collateral damage from drones and missiles that killed an estimate 4-500k innocent and not innocent in Iraq?
So I’d love to hear a resolve or ideas how Bob or anyone else on this thread will get us out of use of small or large nuclear and conventional weapons/warfare and decrease the suffering in Ukraine and Russia.
Q: WHAT IS THE PATH TO DE-ESCALATION AND THEN A SOLID SOLUTION?
I haven’t heard or read anything that answers because I don’t feel like anyone really knows… lots of conjecture and what ifs.
What is the path forward looking behind us all and to own our actions?
I relate songs of justice/injustice. It reminds me of the lyrics of this Sting song.
Okay, but once agains, why is Putin's ONLY choice, if NATO expansion is provocative and nasty, to invade and attack civilians and pregnant mothers? Did Putin simply NOT have the choice to be nice, to offer Ukraine a good economy and unspoiled politics? Why is the burden all on the west to do whatever Putin wants, which is your point of view, no? Under cognitive empathy, Putin gets whatever he wants, right?
The blame for the war falls on Putin. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been wise for us to do things that might have avoided the war. And in this case all we'd be doing is what we demand everyone else do for us: respect our sphere of influence, and not push an adversarial alliance all the way up to our borders.
Nonzero, ”I feel strongly that if we don't try to figure out why bad things happen--including what motivates people to do bad things--the world will remain mired in pointless conflict.”
On that note, searching for motives and factors to examine, has anyone here considered the so-called Heartland Theory? It originated over 100 years ago from an English politician John Mackinder and taken over by the US.
The idea is simply. Russia is the biggest landmass on earth, with the biggest natural resources of any country. China has the largest population, and is now rising economically. Germany is the technological powerhouse in Europe. If Germany would be good friends with these neighbours to the east, it would be the most powerful alliance ever. THAT has to be avoided by all means. Geopolitics.
Brzezinski wrote that no single power may gain control over this area; and unrestricted economic and financial access for the world community (who might that be) must be ensured. Thus, Russia's efforts to determine access alone cannot be accepted.
There maybe more to NATO expansion than what meets the eye…
If this war escalates further, Europe will be the big loser. And who is the winner?
What’s going on inside Putin’s head? I'm not sure if that is a good question to ask? I’m thinking of Alex Rosenberg’s book on the Theory of Mind as applied in history.
Okay, Doctor RIGHT. I agree 100% with you're psychoanalysis. Putin's not crazy. And also with your analysis considering human motivation regarding the importance of status. I encourage readers to read your book 'The Moral Animal'.
And ... considering respect & humiliation - that's HUGE.
Is it rational? Well, we are where we are and it is what it is.
The bar for sanity is high and that's what we should be striving for, as it is present in all of us. Most of us are on the continuum of insanity because of causes and conditions, and can vary in our manifestations. Any discussion about the sanity of someone who intentionally harms and kills, or orders others to do so, is completely moot to me. Go ahead and discuss all you want while people suffer.
Sorry you don't like my approach, but I feel strongly that if we don't try to figure out why bad things happen--including what motivates people to do bad things--the world will remain mired in pointless conflict.
I suggest checking out what Peace Literacy Institute is doing then. The motive work in general has been done over and over many times in so many words. The details will vary but the overarching motive(s) is the same. I feel we are rehashing minutiae while the world overcooks. It's too late for this conflict and we need to be preventing the one 20 years on. If we get stuck inside one guy's head it will be too late. What are we doing right now to make apocalypse aversion possible?
I agree with you that "getting stuck inside one guy's head" would be a waste of time. Much ink has been spilled in the ~70 years after Hitler's death about his state of mind leading up to and during his holding power in Germany, most of which probably delivered very little or no insight into how WWII could have been prevented and only a little into how to prevent future wars on that scale.
However, Putin is still alive, and to understand his current actions and anticipate or influence future ones, it is extremely useful to understand better what drives or afflicts him. That's not to elevate him to an extent that causes a loss of sight of the wider causes of this conflict, but it's an important part of finding out what can be done to end this conflict.
Alternative hypothesis: Ukraine was becoming more democratic and capitalistic and economically successful and this was a threat to Putin the dictator. P.S. The starvation (millions died) imposed on Ukraine by Stalin in the early 1930s during the collectivization of agriculture has to be in the minds and hearts of Ukrainians.
Do you know if there’s any truth to the rumor that Bill Clinton offered Putin NATO membership for Russia? If true that would seem to undermine some of your contextualizing hypotheses. “We respect you Vlad, we want you in the club, come on join us.”
In regard to where Putin lays on the mentally ill spectrum, IMHO, what’s more important is where he is on the character disorder spectrum. I’d say he’s definitely elevated himself to the status of a man-of-history by joining the ranks of famous men who have ruthlessly and needlessly gone to war to improve their status. He’s got more status now than he ever has—status as someone who is willing to murder children in order to earn our respect.
If one accepts your suggestion that the west has driven Putin “crazy,” the question becomes, now what do we do with this aggrieved resentment filled psychopathic monster we’ve created? We’re already showing very deep disrespect towards him and his nation. It doesn’t appear that that’s going to improve anytime soon.
Historically when some humans decide that other humans are less-than-human, bad things happen. “Those humans aren’t treating me like I’m a worthy human I’ll show them how human I am and be the worst kind of human possible.”
There is kind of a rationality to that way of thinking but it’s obviously flawed—it’s immature egoic self centered thinking. Historically these sort of high chair tyrants, who have tremendous power, have done us great harm. When have mad dogs responded to diplomacy?
Perhaps Biden should make Trump a special envoy to Russia. Trump could become our dog whisperer and calm that boy down.
LOL
Putin said in that hour-long speech that it was him who suggested to Clinton that Russia could join NATO, and that Clinton wasn't enthusiastic.
Good question. In Googling around I found this article "Putin Says He Discussed Russia's Possible NATO Membership with Bill Clinton" see here: https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-putin-says-discussed-joining-nato-with-clinton/28526757.html According to this article Putin made this disclosure in the interviews with Oliver Stone. One can see that interview series on Showtime. I saw them when they first came out but don't recall that detail. This article gives some perspective on the question as well from recently released documents in the Clinton library: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/new-sources-nato-enlargement-clinton-presidential-library
I've seen it said by a few different commentators (long before his recent speech) that Putin suggested Russia join NATO (circa 1999) and was rebuffed.
Apparently Boris Yeltsin already suggested in 1991 that Russia join NATO (https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/21/world/soviet-disarray-yeltsin-says-russia-seeks-to-join-nato.html).
The US and Europe have been economically and politically holding out on Russia for a long time and for various reasons (cultural/social prejudice and the impression of a "menacing Russia" was needed to justify military spending and keep weapons makers in business).
Love it, Bill. Yeah, if only …? And but so we (humans) do what we have always done. And get what we always got- war.
I'm still reading, but I mistrust two implicit assumptions.
1, that rational and crazy are mutually exclusive states and not points on a spectrum;
2, that rational people aren't going to nuke each other.
Those might not be Bob's assumptions, but they're easy takeaways from what I've read so far.
This analysis is spot on, and the advice to Western leadership (I'd also include the media) "[to put] themselves inside the heads of foreign leaders and seeing how the world looks from there" is more salient and urgent than ever. This doesn't absolve foreign leaders of the crimes they committed but would help a great deal to minimize the consequences (and avert future calamity).
The current conflict stems in large part from the disrespect most Western countries have displayed towards Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. This disrespect of Russian struggles, history, and culture (and failure to fully acknowledge its enormous sacrifices in WWII) helped propel Putin at the helm of this country in which many still see him as having saved Russia from wholesale collapse.
The anti-Putin rhetoric may be justified in view of his main responsibility for prosecuting a disastrous campaign (and given signs that he's experiencing a mental breakdown), but besides fueling more anger and paranoia on Putin's part, many people inside Russia will likely perceive such rhetoric (and any signs of military involvement) as being directed against them as a nation. Western leadership (and media) have to find a way to walk a very thin tightrope here, because failing that, the world may face even direr consequences. We all have skin in this game and so a lot to lose if this situation goes further south.
For those who read German, this recent interview with economist Jeffrey Sachs (who worked in Russia in the early '90s) is quite illuminating both in terms of the history of and outlook for this conflict (a translation might be available in a few days): https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/ukraine-krieg-sind-die-russland-sanktionen-das-richtige-mittel-gegen-wladimir-putin-a-683de98d-f86f-48b4-b156-e556d445d390
Its upshot is--in line with that of this piece--that diplomacy is needed instead of sanctions on Russia or arming of Ukraine. He basically writes off the US as a being able to do that and sees France and Germany as key to any diplomatic efforts. Both Macron and (the new German chancellor) Scholz have evidently directly talked with Putin, so there's some hope that understandable yet ineffective knee-jerk reactions in response to immeasurable human suffering will give way to approaches that avert further suffering and chart a path forward.
Jeffrey Sachs raised another interesting point. He calls for active diplomacy, and writes, “We have to talk to Putin and come to a deal. Russia must immediately stop bombing, sign a ceasefire, and recognise the sovereignty of Ukraine. In return, the West will renounce NATO's eastward expansion. Chancellor Scholz himself told President Putin during his visit to Moscow that Ukraine's membership was not up for discussion during his chancellorship. What are we arguing about here? You could give that to Mr. Putin in writing”
Right, why didn't the West respond to Russia differently? Like, Okay, we understand your concern. Actually, we have a similar policy, it’s called the Monroe Doctrine, and we wouldn't want you to place WMDs at our doorstep either. So, fine, we don't take Ukraine into NATO and we don't place WMDs in that country. We also also don't supply weapons to those Nazi Brigades, and we will urge the Ukraine government to stick to the Minsk agreement. Is that good then? Fine. Peace. 🙂
Why not? What’s going in those heads? Peace would have been possible.
Yes, a sane and rational analysis amidst all the hysteria. I wish Selensky had such a clear head. He is sending young people into a war he cannot win. Why?
So looking in the rearview mirror today we realize we can choose to learn or not to learn. Historically speaking we are all victims of intervening by politicians thinking somehow we can create a better outcome. Somehow we are ineffective at directing our leaders because the machine is too big and bureaucratic to navigate.
To me being a realist is knowing we can’t simply unturn the wheel and we shouldn’t have said we will eventually put NATO in Ukraine or Russia shouldn’t have invaded Crimea as well as Chechnya or Georgia. These examples only inform future geopolitical decisions.
What is a solid solution moving forward? We leave NATO expansion off the table in Ukraine, Sweden, Finland and Russia withdraws from Crimea? Better yet have Russia join NATO? Well unfortunately invasions and crimes against humanity preclude that - the same ones we chose in every war from Korea to Iraq/Afghanistan makes it seem as if we are calling the kettle black. Including collateral damage from drones and missiles that killed an estimate 4-500k innocent and not innocent in Iraq?
So I’d love to hear a resolve or ideas how Bob or anyone else on this thread will get us out of use of small or large nuclear and conventional weapons/warfare and decrease the suffering in Ukraine and Russia.
Q: WHAT IS THE PATH TO DE-ESCALATION AND THEN A SOLID SOLUTION?
I haven’t heard or read anything that answers because I don’t feel like anyone really knows… lots of conjecture and what ifs.
What is the path forward looking behind us all and to own our actions?
I relate songs of justice/injustice. It reminds me of the lyrics of this Sting song.
https://youtu.be/RprN07SfFzc
If we seek solace in the prisons of the distant past
Security in human systems we're told will always always last
Emotions are the sail and blind faith is the mast
Without the breath of real freedom we're getting nowhere fast
If God is dead and an actor plays his part
His words of fear will find a place in your heart
Without the voice of reason every faith is its own curse
Without freedom from the past things can only get worse
Sooner or later just like the world first day
Sooner or later we learn to throw the past away
Sooner or later just like the world first day
Sooner or later we learn to throw the past away
Sooner or later we learn to throw the past away
History will teach us nothing
History will teach us nothing
Our written history is a catalog of crime
The sordid and the powerful, the architects of time
The mother of invention, the oppression of the mild
The constant fear of scarcity, aggression as its child
Sooner or later
Sooner or later
Sooner or later
Sooner or later
Convince an enemy, convince him that he's wrong
Is to win a bloodless battle where victory is long
A simple act of faith
In reason over might
To blow up his children will only prove him right
History will teach us nothing
Sooner or later just like the world first day
Sooner or later we learn to throw the past away
Sooner or later just like the world first day
Sooner or later we learn to throw the past away
Sooner or later we learn to throw the past away
History will teach us nothing
History will teach us nothing
Know your human rights
Be what you come here for
Know your human rights
Be what you come here for
Know your human rights
Be what you come here for
Know your human rights
Be what you come here for
Okay, but once agains, why is Putin's ONLY choice, if NATO expansion is provocative and nasty, to invade and attack civilians and pregnant mothers? Did Putin simply NOT have the choice to be nice, to offer Ukraine a good economy and unspoiled politics? Why is the burden all on the west to do whatever Putin wants, which is your point of view, no? Under cognitive empathy, Putin gets whatever he wants, right?
The blame for the war falls on Putin. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been wise for us to do things that might have avoided the war. And in this case all we'd be doing is what we demand everyone else do for us: respect our sphere of influence, and not push an adversarial alliance all the way up to our borders.
Nonzero, ”I feel strongly that if we don't try to figure out why bad things happen--including what motivates people to do bad things--the world will remain mired in pointless conflict.”
On that note, searching for motives and factors to examine, has anyone here considered the so-called Heartland Theory? It originated over 100 years ago from an English politician John Mackinder and taken over by the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/36/36669B7894E857AC4F3445EA646BFFE1_Zbigniew_Brzezinski_-_The_Grand_ChessBoard.doc.pdf
The idea is simply. Russia is the biggest landmass on earth, with the biggest natural resources of any country. China has the largest population, and is now rising economically. Germany is the technological powerhouse in Europe. If Germany would be good friends with these neighbours to the east, it would be the most powerful alliance ever. THAT has to be avoided by all means. Geopolitics.
Brzezinski wrote that no single power may gain control over this area; and unrestricted economic and financial access for the world community (who might that be) must be ensured. Thus, Russia's efforts to determine access alone cannot be accepted.
There maybe more to NATO expansion than what meets the eye…
If this war escalates further, Europe will be the big loser. And who is the winner?
What’s going on inside Putin’s head? I'm not sure if that is a good question to ask? I’m thinking of Alex Rosenberg’s book on the Theory of Mind as applied in history.
https://www.amazon.com/How-History-Gets-Things-Wrong-ebook/dp/B08BT2THMN/ref=sr_1_2?crid=FA6CBCYOVRSM&keywords=alex+rosenberg&qid=1646845234&s=books&sprefix=alex+rosenberg%2Cstripbooks%2C177&sr=1-2
Okay, Doctor RIGHT. I agree 100% with you're psychoanalysis. Putin's not crazy. And also with your analysis considering human motivation regarding the importance of status. I encourage readers to read your book 'The Moral Animal'.
And ... considering respect & humiliation - that's HUGE.
Is it rational? Well, we are where we are and it is what it is.
Who decides?
The bar for sanity is high and that's what we should be striving for, as it is present in all of us. Most of us are on the continuum of insanity because of causes and conditions, and can vary in our manifestations. Any discussion about the sanity of someone who intentionally harms and kills, or orders others to do so, is completely moot to me. Go ahead and discuss all you want while people suffer.
Sorry you don't like my approach, but I feel strongly that if we don't try to figure out why bad things happen--including what motivates people to do bad things--the world will remain mired in pointless conflict.
I suggest checking out what Peace Literacy Institute is doing then. The motive work in general has been done over and over many times in so many words. The details will vary but the overarching motive(s) is the same. I feel we are rehashing minutiae while the world overcooks. It's too late for this conflict and we need to be preventing the one 20 years on. If we get stuck inside one guy's head it will be too late. What are we doing right now to make apocalypse aversion possible?
I agree with you that "getting stuck inside one guy's head" would be a waste of time. Much ink has been spilled in the ~70 years after Hitler's death about his state of mind leading up to and during his holding power in Germany, most of which probably delivered very little or no insight into how WWII could have been prevented and only a little into how to prevent future wars on that scale.
However, Putin is still alive, and to understand his current actions and anticipate or influence future ones, it is extremely useful to understand better what drives or afflicts him. That's not to elevate him to an extent that causes a loss of sight of the wider causes of this conflict, but it's an important part of finding out what can be done to end this conflict.
Thanks for the references. I’ll check them out.
Alternative hypothesis: Ukraine was becoming more democratic and capitalistic and economically successful and this was a threat to Putin the dictator. P.S. The starvation (millions died) imposed on Ukraine by Stalin in the early 1930s during the collectivization of agriculture has to be in the minds and hearts of Ukrainians.
Which Putin bio are you reading? So many good ones
it's called the new tsar, by nyt reporter steven lee myers. it's a good, efficient read.