I saw this quote in an article which actually admitted that Biden misunderstood Putin. Before you think I'm praising the author though, the author had no idea how to fix the problem because, you know, Putin's just not normal. And that's the problem with establishment thinking: "everyone thinks like we do or they're mental and you can't predict mental." The reality is establishment thinking is aberrational. Let me demonstrate.
Here's the quote:
Got it? We tried everything except the one which seems risky and uncertain to work -- actual threat of force -- and none of it worked. Shocking! Who could possibly have seen this coming? And now poor Mr. Biden is in a bad spot because of this inexplicable madman!!!
Does this make any sense though? Consider each "tool":
(1) Biden’s appeals to Putin’s geopolitical ego didn’t work. This is stupid. Even the most vain, need-the-public-to-love-me-to-validate-my-life people (usually actors) put economics and power over vanity. Why? Because as a species we have wants and needs and they can only be achieved through gathering wealth and power. What person in their right mind would sacrifice their ability to control or earn in favor of a fleeting bit of public adulation? It doesn't happen. This type of "tool" would never work even on an average manager of a McDonalds, and it definitely doesn't work on billionaires, so why should Putin fall for it?
(2) Neither did threats of sanctions. Sanctions have never stopped anyone, relying on those is silly. Why? Well, the problem is the West never does sanctions that really hurt. Even now, with Biden promising to swing as hard as his soft little stick can hit, he didn't hit Putin personally, didn't hit Russia's oil and gas sector at all, and would never touch things like food or medicine or the things that make people panic when they disappear. In other words, the way the West sanctions by definition excludes the things that make sanctions painful and effective.
(3) words of condemnation Same as geopolitical ego. Words are a harmless sanction unless they are tied to a specific threat, and then it's the threat that works, not the words. Sticks and stones, yes. Words, no.
(4) emotional appeals on human rights grounds We don't even agree what human rights are or how far they extend. What's more appeals to human rights are just the modern version of appeals to morality. Morality is an internal barrier. If someone has shown they don't have that barrier, then appealing to them not to cross that barrier is as stupid as expecting pot heads to stop doing pot after telling them "it's wrong." Dave's not here, man.
(5) deployments of U.S. troops to NATO countries Ooooooh scary. That would be troops you said won't be used in this conflict. How exactly is that a threat?
(6) and weapons to Ukraine This is the only one that had the potential to matter. This one changes the calculus because it means the cost of invasion goes up. The problem is that Putin has shown he's willing to bear that cost. He started bloody wars in Chechnya and Georgia... and Syria without a care. What's more, he's sure his military can handle Ukraine. And he has some plan we don't understand yet to gain control at what he considers an acceptable cost. Also, like most dictators, Putin does not care about his soldiers or public opinion. So while this can work, it wasn't enough here.
(7) or the relatively united front put forth by the United States and its allies. Twice zero is still zero. A hundred zeroes is still zero. None of the above offered the slightest reason for Putin to stop, so everyone agreeing to do them also means nothing.
(8) Even an unusual tactic employed by the Biden administration — publicizing significant amounts of intelligence about Putin’s plans — didn’t stop the dictator. Again, so what? Biden can tell the world everything, but if no one is willing to step in, then it doesn't really matter does it?
What's interesting here to me is that, of this list, only one even had the chance to affect things. Yet, our establishment and the West generally seem to think they are meaningful deterrents. It's clear that they have no understanding of the human mind outside of their little bubble world. Add the fact that they don't seem to understand that Putin is playing with a different definition of right and wrong, and it's shocking that anyone would think any of this even might have worked. This is the same logic the establishment uses to fail to solve bullying. I'm seeing a trend.
Thoughts?
[+] Read More...
Here's the quote:
[Putin] also proved resistant to many traditional tools of diplomacy and deterrence.
Biden’s appeals to Putin’s geopolitical ego didn’t work. Neither did threats of sanctions, words of condemnation, emotional appeals on human rights grounds, deployments of U.S. troops to NATO countries and weapons to Ukraine, or the relatively united front put forth by the United States and its allies. Even an unusual tactic employed by the Biden administration — publicizing significant amounts of intelligence about Putin’s plans — didn’t stop the dictator.
And actions that might have — maybe — changed Putin’s calculus, such as deploying U.S. troops to Ukraine itself, were not ones Biden would consider.
For Biden and his team, it is a deeply frustrating moment. Their strategy toward Russia has largely failed, despite their effort to adjust it over time to account for Putin’s stubborn moves.
Got it? We tried everything except the one which seems risky and uncertain to work -- actual threat of force -- and none of it worked. Shocking! Who could possibly have seen this coming? And now poor Mr. Biden is in a bad spot because of this inexplicable madman!!!
Does this make any sense though? Consider each "tool":
(1) Biden’s appeals to Putin’s geopolitical ego didn’t work. This is stupid. Even the most vain, need-the-public-to-love-me-to-validate-my-life people (usually actors) put economics and power over vanity. Why? Because as a species we have wants and needs and they can only be achieved through gathering wealth and power. What person in their right mind would sacrifice their ability to control or earn in favor of a fleeting bit of public adulation? It doesn't happen. This type of "tool" would never work even on an average manager of a McDonalds, and it definitely doesn't work on billionaires, so why should Putin fall for it?
(2) Neither did threats of sanctions. Sanctions have never stopped anyone, relying on those is silly. Why? Well, the problem is the West never does sanctions that really hurt. Even now, with Biden promising to swing as hard as his soft little stick can hit, he didn't hit Putin personally, didn't hit Russia's oil and gas sector at all, and would never touch things like food or medicine or the things that make people panic when they disappear. In other words, the way the West sanctions by definition excludes the things that make sanctions painful and effective.
(3) words of condemnation Same as geopolitical ego. Words are a harmless sanction unless they are tied to a specific threat, and then it's the threat that works, not the words. Sticks and stones, yes. Words, no.
(4) emotional appeals on human rights grounds We don't even agree what human rights are or how far they extend. What's more appeals to human rights are just the modern version of appeals to morality. Morality is an internal barrier. If someone has shown they don't have that barrier, then appealing to them not to cross that barrier is as stupid as expecting pot heads to stop doing pot after telling them "it's wrong." Dave's not here, man.
(5) deployments of U.S. troops to NATO countries Ooooooh scary. That would be troops you said won't be used in this conflict. How exactly is that a threat?
(6) and weapons to Ukraine This is the only one that had the potential to matter. This one changes the calculus because it means the cost of invasion goes up. The problem is that Putin has shown he's willing to bear that cost. He started bloody wars in Chechnya and Georgia... and Syria without a care. What's more, he's sure his military can handle Ukraine. And he has some plan we don't understand yet to gain control at what he considers an acceptable cost. Also, like most dictators, Putin does not care about his soldiers or public opinion. So while this can work, it wasn't enough here.
(7) or the relatively united front put forth by the United States and its allies. Twice zero is still zero. A hundred zeroes is still zero. None of the above offered the slightest reason for Putin to stop, so everyone agreeing to do them also means nothing.
(8) Even an unusual tactic employed by the Biden administration — publicizing significant amounts of intelligence about Putin’s plans — didn’t stop the dictator. Again, so what? Biden can tell the world everything, but if no one is willing to step in, then it doesn't really matter does it?
What's interesting here to me is that, of this list, only one even had the chance to affect things. Yet, our establishment and the West generally seem to think they are meaningful deterrents. It's clear that they have no understanding of the human mind outside of their little bubble world. Add the fact that they don't seem to understand that Putin is playing with a different definition of right and wrong, and it's shocking that anyone would think any of this even might have worked. This is the same logic the establishment uses to fail to solve bullying. I'm seeing a trend.
Thoughts?