• SimulatedLiberalism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why do you think it would need to be a conspiracy? The Europeans simply didn’t see Russia as a potent threat and felt entitled to not giving Russia the respect it deserves. This attitude was all too common during the lead up to Ukraine signing the EU Association Agreement which then led to the Maidan coup. The crass European behavior can be seen as them not taking Russia seriously.

    For Europe, Russia is simply a gas station with an economy smaller than Italy. If Italy is barely surviving in the EU, you don’t even have to think about what would happen to Russia when both US and EU combine their economic forces whose GDP is many fold higher than Russia’s.

    In other words, they perceive Russia as a nuisance that can be easily crushed when worst comes to worst i.e. a war broke out. No need to anticipate for what will happen in a war when you already see yourself as an economic powerhouse against a tiny struggling economy and has the power to turn it into a pariah state in a matter of weeks, which would then end the war.

    • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why do you think it would need to be a conspiracy?

      Because you’re assuming coordination between different groups, even when it doesn’t make sense and goes against their interests. This is like the third time I’ve brought this up - Germany relied heavily on Russian gas, then didn’t shut it off, which led the US to blow up the pipeline. How do any of those events make sense in your narrative? Is all of that part of an elaborate ruse to trick people into thinking that my narrative is correct and yours is wrong? It’s nonsense.

      The Europeans simply didn’t see Russia as a potent threat and felt entitled to not giving Russia the respect it deserves.

      And this is where I think your narrative is coming from. It’s all about Russia surpassing everyone’s expectations and proving how strong and powerful it is, and it’s like, every event has to be somehow contorted to fit that narrative, when there’s much more coherent ways to fit them together.

      Tbh, it just seems like this is what you want to believe, in which case I can’t stop you. You’re not looking at countries’ actions and you’re also not looking at class interests, it’s just “everybody hated Russia and thought they were weak when they were actually big and strong.” It’s a very biased and oversimplified narrative that I find hard to take seriously, I’m just as skeptical of that as I would be about one that’s brazenly pro-Ukraine tbh.

      • SimulatedLiberalism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        How do any of those events make sense in your narrative?

        I think you have fundamentally misunderstood what I am trying to say. Europe did not turn off Russian gas because they expected Russia to fold within a few months. They were confident that their sanctions were going to work.

        Here’s what George Soros said in May 2022: George Soros says Russia’s gas storage is almost full — and Europe should hold its nerve

        The European chauvinists are very used to being the master and going into Global South countries to dictate their economic policy is very common. They expect the Global South countries to come begging for their investments, not the other way round. Without European investments, they would have a hard time growing their economy. This is a very common assumption even in mainstream media - that’s how you get classification like G7, developed markets vs emerging markets etc. I don’t understand why you can’t see this point.

        Similarly, here, they expected Putin to come begging European customers to buy their gas again, because without the gas sale the Russian economy would collapse. What’s so hard to understand?

        Everything that I have said is literally reported in mainstream media.

        It’s all about Russia surpassing everyone’s expectations and proving how strong and powerful it is, and it’s like, every event has to be somehow contorted to fit that narrative, when there’s much more coherent ways to fit them together.

        Where did I ever say that? Russia being able to resist sanctions is a fact, but that does not mean their economy is stronger than Europe’s. It simply means that the global supply chain is far more complex than the European policymakers drafting the sanctions had anticipated. Is it so difficult to understand the difference?

        • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Europe did not turn off Russian gas because they expected Russia to fold within a few months. They were confident that their sanctions were going to work.

          So you’re saying that not only was everyone in the West convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that mere sanctions would cripple Russia, but also that those sanctions wouldn’t even have to include gas?? That’s even more absurd than I thought. I’m absolutely baffled at why you think Western leaders have such a ridiculously inflated view of the power of sanctions, when there’s such a more reasonable explanation, that they were simply exaggerating the power of sanctions for the people watching at home.

          Here’s what George Soros said in May 2022:

          I don’t care what he said. This whole time I’ve been explaining to you why you can’t just take quotes at face value, and here you’re just posting another quote and taking it at face value, and this time not even from a policy maker. People can confess to murder and still turn out to be innocent. You have to examine why they’re saying it. In this case he’s saying sanctions will work, as I have explained several times, because he supports them and wants to sell people on them, it tells us nothing about his actual beliefs. People in positions of power generally make public statements because of a rational calculus of what effect that statement will have, whether they think it’s true or not is irrelevant. This is why you have to look at actions and interests and not just statements.

          This is a very common assumption even in mainstream media

          You’re assuming that what’s said in the media is the same reasoning and calculus that’s happening behind closed doors. As I said, statements to the public are made based on political calculus, not actual beliefs. The reality is that the West’s grip has been slipping even with smaller countries due to Chinese investment, which is why I find it completely implausible that Western policymakers simply didn’t consider that Russia could just trade with China and India.

          Assume for a moment that I’m correct, and that nobody actually expected sanctions to work. What consequences have any of them faced for saying that they would? None whatsoever. But saying they’d work helped build support for them. So there’s a benefit to saying it an no drawback to saying it, so of course they’re going to say it. What’s so hard to understand about that?

          Where did I ever say that?

          It’s literally your whole narrative!

          but that does not mean their economy is stronger than Europe’s.

          I never claimed you said anything like that.

          It simply means that the global supply chain is far more complex than the European policymakers drafting the sanctions had anticipated

          Right, because you think that they’re unbelievably stupid and naive (yet at the same time managing to orchestrate a complicated long-term plot). Did they just not know that China exists? It’s absurd to think that they wouldn’t consider this possibility.

          Here’s the points that I think you’re being fundamentally unreasonable about:

          1. Taking politicians’ words at face value as a reflection of genuine belief, instead of critically examining the calculus of why they would say something

          2. Claiming that the idea that sanctions alone (not even including gas) would cripple Russia is anything but an absurd and blatantly unrealistic fantasy sold to the masses, to the point that policy-makers not only believed it but even relied on it as a lynchpin to their plans.

          3. Believing an oversimplified narrative designed to make Russia look good over a more realistic narrative based on facts and class analysis, which still makes Russia look pretty good.

          To the third point, I mean, come on. I can’t count the number of cartoons I’ve seen where the bad guy underestimates the protagonist only for the protagonist to prove their worth. This is exactly the kind of simple narrative about empowerment and resiliance that I’d expect any country to put out during war-time. But Russia is a geopolitical entity and not a shonen character. Both it and it’s rivals are composed of various competing interests acting more or less rationally. It’s tiring to argue with this nonsense, Merkel does not control Ukraine and is not always in agreement with the US, and she also doesn’t reveal her schemes to the hero in a villainous monologue to the hero just for shits and giggles.

          I guess we’re at an impasse, your narrative seems completely unreasonable to me, while it seems mine seems completely unreasonable to you. I think that our methods of examining the situation and drawing conclusion are completely different and irreconcilable, yours relies far too heavily on quotes, which I find unreliable.

          • SimulatedLiberalism [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I don’t know what to tell you except that everything I said (the “narrative” as you call it) is grounded on factual reportings by the media. You seem to think that German politicians have some “secret calculations”, but there aren’t: they followed the advice of the academics and their policy think tanks.

            yours relies far too heavily on quotes, which I find unreliable.

            Here’s an example, Germany’s position on sanctioning Russian gas was heavily reliant on the following two papers that were published in early March 2022, as the nation was deciding what to do with their energy situation (I actually remember the debates and went back to dig up these two papers for you):

            https://www.econtribute.de/RePEc/ajk/ajkpbs/ECONtribute_PB_029_2022.pdf

            https://www.leopoldina.org/fileadmin/redaktion/Publikationen/Nationale_Empfehlungen/2022_Stellungnahme_Energiesicherheit_V1.1.pdf

            The reason you can’t see my point is because you haven’t been following European policymaking and their politics closely. And yes, I know how politicians think and where they get their information/proposals from because I used to work for them.

            The fact is, there is no “conspiracy theory” as you keep thinking there is. There is no “secret calculation”. It’s just plain old political and bureaucratic processes based on faulty assumptions of a complex scenario.

            • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              You seem to think that German politicians have some “secret calculations”, but there aren’t

              Of course there are and it’s ridiculous to claim otherwise. Every politician (hell, every individual) considers the effects of their words and what they say or don’t say is influenced by that. This is a basic fundamental truth, literally nothing you say could convince me it’s wrong lol. Maybe you misunderstood what I meant? That’s the only reason I could imagine you disagreeing with it.

              Germany’s position on sanctioning Russian gas was heavily reliant on the following two papers that were published in early March 2022

              I don’t read German, unfortunately. Think tanks have the same incentives to say things people want to hear as anybody else, so it doesn’t mean much to me regardless. None of this stuff is what I look at to draw conclusions from which is why I think our approaches are just fundamentally incompatible. All the evidence you’ve presented can be explained by my narrative just as well as yours.

              It’s just plain old political and bureaucratic processes based on faulty assumptions of a complex scenario.

              I think I’d be more receptive towards your argument if you were claiming like, they thought the threat of sanctions would be painful enough to deter Russia from crossing the West due to the influence of Russian capitalists. But it would take extraordinary evidence to convince me that everyone essentially just forgot that China exists. It’s very obvious to me (and was at the time) that sanctions alone would not cause Russia to collapse and I am unwilling to accept that policy makers with access to much more information and intelligence than me could be so much dumber than me, when more plausible explanations exist.

              Sanctions didn’t even bring down Afghanistan, nobody seriously believed they’d bring down Russia, it’s absurd on its face.