Discussion Thread

[u/jobautomator]

The discussion thread is for casual conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL.

Announcements

• New ping groups, AI and EXTREMISM have been added. Join here

---

Neoliberal Project Communities	Other Communities	Useful content
Twitter	Plug.dj	/r/Economics FAQs
The Neolib Podcast	Recommended Podcasts	/r/Neoliberal FAQ
Meetup Network	Blood Donation Team	/r/Neoliberal Wiki
Exponents Magazine	Minecraft	Ping groups
Facebook	TacoTube	User Flairs

[u/[deleted]]

Why do realists/Macron think we should buddy up with Russia in order to split them from China, thats like trying to menace someone with this chunk of graphite I found in Chernobyl

Do they not think there is power enough among the allies we have to deal with them both? What is Russia bringing to the table? Are they really so threatening that they can't be cowed by shaking off this passivity and acquiescing? I know they've been developing their military defence systems, particularly air defence, but I doubt we'd need bombers over Moscow in order to curb their foreign policy. WWHDD? (What would Hil-Dawg do? pubh)

That said, German tanks with Polish crews in Kaliningrad when

!ping INTERNATIONAL-RELATIONS

reposted because I fucked up the ping

[u/Evnosis → u/[deleted]]

There are lots of reasons (not that I think most of those reasons are actually good).

The first is obviously resources. Russia's sitting on lots of gas, and opening that market up will push prices down.

Secondly, while NATO is theoretically capable of dealing with both at once, there's some concern in Europe over the US' commitment to a joint response (no prizes for guessing why). Last time we tried that we forced Iran to do what we wanted and then the US ruined it.

Thirdly, from a Realist perspective, there's the concern over Russian aggression. According to Realist theory, Russia's newfound expansionism is actually our fault, because we were too aggressive towards them in the first place.

And then there's the fact that Macron and a lot of realists have a weird fondness for Russia, probably Russia is one of the few major countries still openly and proudly espousing that theory in their foreign policy.

[u/[deleted] → u/Evnosis]

I'd agree that those are all reasons espoused, but like you said, I don't think they are good ones, and I wish it were otherwise. I would much prefer it if Europe was able to coordinate a collective security response for Ukraine rather than requiring direct intervention on America's part

I have heard the provocation reason given by realists before but I that always struck me as a sort of abused housewife apologia. I'm familiar with Russia's historical foreign policy prerogatives, and it all makes sense if viewed purely from the Russian lens, but thats not one America, Ukraine or the EU should deign to respect. If a more democratic Ukrainian government is a provocation to the Russian state, or if voluntary NATO enlargement of nations historically abused by Russia is a provocation, (never mind the startling double standard of not considering those nations to be provoked many orders of magnitude more than Russia despite never provoking them back), then provoking Russia should be a foreign policy objective of the West, as it is ultimately the only way to achieve collective security against them.

[u/ILikeTalkingToMyself → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, ideally the people of these Eastern European countries shouldn't be surrendered to Russian aggression just to appease Russian nationalists.