Posted on 03/20/2022 7:09:22 PM PDT by Zhang Fei
Discussion on the potential deescalation of the war in Ukraine with all security implications it has illustrates the difference between the goal- oriented and the system-oriented thinking
For example if you want to deescalate the war in Ukraine, what would your best strategy be? Goal-oriented people understand that the only person who could stop the war immediately is Putin himself. Thus they suggest focusing on negotiations with him and persuading him to back off
Sounds reasonable. And yet, this approach ignores the factor of human will. And goal-oriented people lowkey admit it. For example, when justifying Putin's actions they often point out that it was wrong for the West to "provoke a bear". They strip the other side of any agency
That's exactly the problem with the goal-oriented approach. This line of reasoning when applied to the human conflicts completely ignores the agency. Russia is not a "bear", China is not a "dragon", the same way the US is not an "eagle". Their policies are designed by humans
Paradox of the goal-oriented approach. Very often when you want to stop a dangerous situation, you assume you need to negotiate with the only person who has the power to stop it immediately Unfortunately, that only person who can stop it, is usually the one who manufactured it
Humans have agency and agency works both ways. They can choose to deescalate but they can also choose to escalate. Acting on assumption that everyone around you wants peace and partnership is insane. To make a correct choice you need to figure out which choice the other side made
Since he started consolidating his rule in 1999, Putin has been always manufacturing conflicts artificially. Chechnya, Georgia, Syria. Each time he claimed he needs to defend "security" of Russia, which was difficult to object to. Everyone agrees Russia has the right to be secure
The conflict in Ukraine is also artificial, manufactured. It started with the "little green men" taking over Crimea in 2014. It continued with FSB colonel crossing the border to launch the Russian insurgency. It continued with Russia funding and arming irredentists in Ukraine
It culminated with Russia launching the war of conquest in 2022. It's delusionary to view Putin as a neutral side here. It's also delusionary to describe him as "a side of the conflict". He is not *a* side. He's *the* one who manufactured this conflict in the first place
This conflict manufacturing strategy backfired on Putin. Russians are shocked by resistance they are now facing in the Russophone East Ukraine. Russians believed it would just switch to them immediately. After all, it voted for pro-Russian candidates on every election till 2014
What happened? How Kharkiv which used to be culturally and politically pro-Russian so quickly turned super anti-Russian? It's a huge cultural change and a very recent one. And the answer would be: Putin's conflict manufacturing strategy killed pro-Russian sentiments in Ukraine
When Putin manufactured the Donbass War he presented it as an Ukrainian inner conflict. Many in Russia bought it. Many in the West bought it. Many idiots even now talk about "Ukraine shelling civilians of Donbass for eight years". Bad Ukrainians being bad, that caused the war
Nobody in Ukraine bought it. Russians and Westerners considered the Donbass catastrophe as a Ukrainian problem. In Ukraine however, it was seen as a Russian problem. Donbass was simply a part of Ukraine which fall under the Russian rule and its nightmare was purely Russian-made
Putin didn't think about it. He as usually manufactured a Donbass war to later come out as a saviour, do everything he wants to do, collect a payout and be showered in gratitude and public love. But in Ukraine he was seen as the one who created this war in the first place
Nothing de-russified East Ukraine so quickly and irreversibly as the Donbass catastrophe. I'm not talking about the war, I'm talking about a general socio-economic conditions there. Under Russian control, Donbass fall under the rule of the criminal gangs, presented as the "levy"
They were usually guys from below the social hierarchy who saw this war as a chance to rise up. And they did. With their power unchecked, they started systematic plunder. Take people's homes, cars, businesses, kill those who object. Arrest someone, torture and release for ransom
It's not only how much these guys stole, it's how much they destroyed. If a normal Russian bureaucrat might destroy 10 rubles of value to steal 1, these guys would destroy 10 000. They destroyed Donbass economy, inflicted the socio-economic collapse and humanitarian catastrophe
With economy destroyed, and few opportunities for employment remaining, many locals, twenty-five-thousanders, joined this "levy" for 25 000 rubles a month paycheck. Russians paid them about 400 usd per month just to keep the war going on. It all turned into a vicious circle
You could sell this Donbass catastrophe as a Ukrainian problem to Russians or to the Westerners. But it was impossible to present it as such to the Ukrainians. People in Kharkiv, Sumy, Mariupol saw that nothing comparable is happening on territories under the Ukrainian control
East Ukrainians saw that the Russian-controlled zone turned into a nightmare with warlord gangs robbing, killing and torturing. With no protection and no security. With no employment either, because businesses were destroyed by pro-Russian warlords. You could join them or starve
Putin manufactured Donbass conflict and exacerbated it to later come out as the saviour. But he didn't consider that Ukrainians have agency, too. For the East Ukraine Russian control was associated with Donbass, and Russian invasion would mean turning them into the Donbass
Extremely tough Ukrainian resistance against superior Russian forces is understandable only in this context. East Ukraine doesn't believe Putin will "save" them. They saw what's happening on territories he captured and are fighting hard to avoid the same scenario on their land
Putin's conflict manufacturing strategy irreversibly de-Russified East Ukraine. Whatever pro-Russian sentiments existed there, are gone now. Ties with Russian kins over the border severed. Donbass War triggered this process and Z-invasion completed it. Russian Ukraine is no more
Conflicts are initiated by humans. Humans have agency. They may use it to escalate or to deescalate. Analysts know that Putin could deescalate this war. They miss however that he is the one who manufactured it. That conflict manufacturing has been his constant strategy since 1999
The constant cycle of Putin's policy has been:
1. Manufacture a conflict
2. Escalate, exacerbate
3. Come out as the saviour, collect payout
4. Scale up
So far it has worked perfectly. Why? Because the other side never escalated it
Agency works both ways. If Putin knows the West is determined to always and ever deescalate, always seek for compromise, it means his policy is working perfectly, why change it? So he repeats and scales up. And every time you'll have to deal with larger conflict he manufactured
Putin's strategy is similar to Hitler's. Hitler also manufactured conflicts referring to the historical rights & security. Every time the West deescalated to buy peace. But with all their concessions they bought the World War, cuz Hitler would scale up after each successful cycle
Putin's policy is entirely based on assumption that the West will avoid the escalation. Ergo. It was a mistake to assure him of it in the first place. Paradoxically, it may sound for goal-oriented people, it makes total sense from the perspective of a system-oriented approach
Goal-oriented people think that if you want peace with Putin, you MUST make him absolutely 100% sure of your peaceful intentions. Assure him you'll never ever escalate, never strike back, never make him feel in danger. That's how you achieve peace under the goal-oriented paradigm
In the system-oriented paradigm it works exactly the other way around. The other side has agency, too. They are not stupid. They know you have much superior resources and the only reason they behave such recklessly is that you assured them you'll never ever use the force you have
Under the goal-oriented paradigm, the route for deescalation would be make Putin feel as safe as possible. Under the system-oriented, the other way around. After each successful cycle he scales up, so you must break the cycle.
A very large part of Ukraine was under the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for a long time, which is why their culture is actually quite different from Russia’s.
Yes: Putin does not have the Soviet Union’s ability to command 40% or 50% of Russia’s economy to support military operations.
It only matters whether they're true.
As I stated early on, had Putin just kept his moves to
the two “republics” and fortified Crimea he probably
could have pulled this off. The liberal powers would
have accepted that but He bit off a bit more than
he could chew, much less the world swallow.
ABSOLUTELY GREAT ARTICLE, THANK YOU!
Isolated megalomaniacs begin to believe in the fake personas they present and in their delusions.
He’s been living in a past that the people he’s trying to control just don’t live in anymore.
A strong national identity is forged when a hostile power invades and starts to wreak havoc. Squabbling among disparate groups disappears overnight.
How credible is your message when you state it as would a wise guy teenager? If you're trying to persuade then you're failing.
Exactly. Putin has managed to promote and encourage the exact kind of Ukrainian national identity he and his supporters in the U.S. claimed never existed.
Good picture
Once forged, it is nearly impossible to break.
Russia can afford a lengthy engagement. The Chineese have encouraged them in that direction. A lengthy engagement will keep oil and mineral prices high. Fertilizere and wheat will not be sold. This inflation will hasten the end of the dollar as a reserve currency. This is the Chineese strategic objective.
[The only question that matters in your scenario is...does he have 100% control of his nukes. If he does not, the have at the guy...if he does... you need to break his nuclear chain first. Otherwise you are playing with thermonuclear war if you shoot and miss.]
Putin’s not suicidal, and he’s certainly not interested in wiping out the Putin name or Russia as a biological or geographical entity. He’ll withdraw the troops to Russia and set about the grim task of killing his internal rivals once he judges the war to be unwinnable at an acceptable cost.
Nearly nothing from the MSM/swamp/globaloids is EVER true, so thank you for the affirmation... or confirmation.
Their language is Ruthenian.
[Russia can afford a lengthy engagement. The Chineese have encouraged them in that direction. A lengthy engagement will keep oil and mineral prices high. Fertilizere and wheat will not be sold. This inflation will hasten the end of the dollar as a reserve currency. This is the Chineese strategic objective.]
The Chinese want the buying power of reserve currency status without taking the trade deficits that go with that buying power. Here’s a hint. It doesn’t work that way.
There’s another big issue - the country with the biggest economy naturally has the biggest currency exchange volumes. That makes its currency exchange trades the ones with the lowest bid-ask spreads. If you use a different currency, one party has to be willing to accept the additional costs from that arrangement. If the Saudis are willing to accept a lower price from the Chinese, or the Chinese are willing to pay a higher price, maybe this will work out to everyone’s satisfaction.
But someone in there is getting the short end of the stick vs working with the dollar. The real bottom line is that people use the dollar not because they like Americans. They use the dollar for the same reason they use iOS or Android phones - they offer the most bang for the buck. Whether operating system or currency, their association with the US has only the barest relationship to the reason people use them.
The dollar is the reserve currency of choice for two reasons - the size of the economy and the fact that unlike Japan, Germany and Switzerland, we don’t charge people interest to park their reserves in dollars to discourage them from doing so. The yuan will *never* be a reserve currency. They don’t want the trade deficits, and no one trusts them.
The Chinese king (Trump’s verbiage in frank conversation with Xi) wiped out $100b is American stockholder value by declaring Chinese for-profit education companies listed on US exchanges non-profits. I wouldn’t trust Xi with the loose change from a trip to the grocery store, never mind a nation’s forex reserves.
Let the UK, France, and Germany jump on Russia.
Not on my border.
The last people formally classified as Ruthenian speakers lived in what is now southeastern Poland. They were driven out to Ukraine after WWII, and the territory they formerly inhabited is now Biesczady National Park.
Yes, I agree, and your scenario is the best case scenario right now. And it assumes that Putin can see a way out and him stay in power and alive. If he can’t see a path out and if he has 100% control of his nukes then I think he will take down the world with him... and for those left to write history.... He will have been the great destroyer of the world and will leave his mark like no other. What I am saying is simply this...stop threatening the man, if you are going to kill him...then kill him..., but stop talking about it. And realize this... if you shoot and miss you may trigger a thermonuclear war. So shut up and and act or don’t but shut up about killing the man and shut up about your designs for him. What I think would be more effective to getting to your end state is a massive build up in oil production in the US and arms in Europe.
Yup. What a monumental miscalculation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.