Posted on 01/28/2023 5:22:14 AM PST by FarCenter
The recent decision by Olaf Scholz’s German government to supply Ukraine with Leopard 2 tanks – after weeks of clear reluctance to provoke Vladimir Putin – was more than a domestic policy shift.
It also demonstrated how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine could prove to be a tipping point in a long-running battle of ideas between two schools of thought in the field of international affairs.
Scholars refer to the two camps as liberals and realists. A defining characteristic of liberalism is its view that global politics is an arena where moral values, legal norms and institutions are crucial for regulating the behavior of states and increasing the prospects of cooperation and peace.
The classical realist or “realpolitik” tradition, by contrast, remains skeptical about peace. It believes states are essentially driven by the pursuit of power and national interests through reliance on military might. It views the international arena as essentially anarchic.
These two approaches have been visible in much of the commentary following Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. In particular, the two camps have clashed over how the war in Ukraine should end.
On the one hand, many realists believe the only way out of the current conflict is a negotiated peace. That involves recognizing, in the words of US political scientist John Mearsheimer, the “taproot of the current crisis is NATO expansion.”
Ukraine must be encouraged, in some shape or form, to concede territory to Russia in order to end the invasion. Realists say it’s important for the West to recognize the legitimate security interests of a great power in Ukraine, and to avoid running the risk of Moscow forming a permanent alliance with China.
Moreover, they claim Ukraine cannot defeat the Russian occupation force because, if necessary, Putin will use nuclear weapons to ensure a “victory” – a prospect that worsens the stability of Europe and the world.
On the other hand, liberal hawks – sometimes called neo-idealists – maintain Russia’s Ukraine invasion is such a fundamental violation of the UN Charter that it has eliminated the moral and practical scope for a diplomatic compromise.
Negotiation in this context would only reward Putin’s aggression and undermine an international rules-based order that sought to uphold the territorial integrity and political independence of all states.
His word.....neo-idealist should be contrasted with the counterpart neo-isolationists
The author seems like another left-wing academic trying to justify Western, globalist, military control...no thanks.
I think "idealist" vs "realist" would be a more logical pairing; another option that makes sense is "interventionist" vs "isolationist"...
;>)
I won’t really disagree except to point out the prefix neo.
It ain’t yur daddies Oldsmobile any more
Let’s play a comparison game.
Putin invaded Ukraine (Could be seen as renegade province of Russia that was ruled by Russia for 100’s of years. And it is possible that Ukraine was a hot bed of Neo-Nazism)
Vs
Biden ALLOWS an invasion of his country and calls it good. He even gives succor and aide to the invaders!
Biden is worse +1 Biden
Putin’s government attempts to promote traditional family and structure, religion, and morals. It is even building and restoring churches.
Vs
Biden’s government promotes, perversion, mutilation of children, is hostile to religion, and revels in its immorality.
Biden is worse +2 Biden
Putin’s government outlaws homosexuality
Vs
Biden has faggots and mentally ill cross-dressers in cabinet positions
Biden is worse. +3 Biden
Putin has a mistress
Vs
Biden married his mistress
Tie
Putin’s children are not in the news for their criminality
Vs
Hunter Biden
Biden is worse +4 Biden
Putin is not (to my knowledge) a pedophile
Vs
Biden is a pedophile
Biden is worse +5
Putin’s political enemies tend to fall out of windows
Vs
Biden & US demonrats adversaries tend to die inordinate numbers (See Seth Rich, Jeffery Epstein and the term Arkancide)
Tie
Putin pursues rational economic policies for his country
Vs
Biden is an economic idiot
Biden is worse +6 Biden
Final score
Biden = 6
Putin =Zero
Tie = 2
Biden and US democrats are not only worse by almost any measure than Putin, they are significantly worse; and in no area are they any better. Biden and US democrats are monsters that would make Dr. Mengele blush and that Adolf guy envious!
You CANNOT be a moral person and support Biden and that includes supporting Ukraine.
Simply because Biden and his band of monsters support Ukraine you must support Russia, even if you don’t like them.
Before we stop Russia we need to stop the American left.
“Muh liberal ideals” sums up the pro-Ukie side on FR quite well.
If people listened to isolationist in the first place russia would never have invaded anyways
True - I'm sure the Founders are spinning in their graves...
;^)
I have felt since last February that Russia is right on this one.
This is a different snd unusual shift. In the 1970’s, liberalism was against globalization and military actions. Today it is the opposite. I don’t know what the answer is with Ukraine. there is events that have led to this invasion that could have been prevented through negotiation. However here we are over a year later and no one seems to have a real plan of strategy.
While we are being invaded, we fight an invasion half the world away. Seems fishy to me.
I think Germany just fell for a rope a dope by the Biden administration over the tanks. Biden said to Germany, well you send tanks and we’ll send tanks, then Biden comes out and sayssays, well we can’t send tanks for months Because we don’t have them inventory.
Our current government is completely dysfunctional. Russia sees that and is taking advantage of the situation in Ukraine. We are more concerned about promoting transvestites to powerful positions than securing the country
Yup brings to mind with Jesus said in the bible, physician heal thyself.
>>This is a different and unusual shift. In the 1970’s, liberalism was against globalization and military actions. Today it is the opposite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#History
Neoconservatism was initiated by the repudiation of the Cold War and the “New Politics” of the American New Left, which Norman Podhoretz said was too sympathetic to the counterculture and too alienated from the majority of the population; and “anti-anticommunism”, which included substantial endorsement of Marxist–Leninist politics during the late 1960s. Many neoconservatives were particularly alarmed by what they believed were the antisemitic sentiments of Black Power advocates.[22] Irving Kristol edited the journal The Public Interest (1965–2005), featuring economists and political scientists, which emphasized ways that government planning in the liberal state had produced unintended harmful consequences.[23] Many early neoconservative political figures were disillusioned Democratic politicians and intellectuals, such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who served in the Nixon and Ford administrations, and Jeane Kirkpatrick, who served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations in the Reagan administration. Many left-wing academics such as Frank Meyer and James Burnham eventually became associated with the conservative movement at this time.[24]
A substantial number of neoconservatives were originally moderate socialists who were originally associated with the moderate wing of the Socialist Party of America (SP) and its successor party, Social Democrats, USA (SDUSA). Max Shachtman, a former Trotskyist theorist who developed a strong feeling of antipathy towards the New Left, had numerous devotees among SDUSA with strong links to George Meany’s AFL-CIO. Following Shachtman and Meany, this faction led the SP to oppose immediate withdrawal from the Vietnam War, and oppose George McGovern in the Democratic primary race and, to some extent, the general election. They also chose to cease their own party-building and concentrated on working within the Democratic Party, eventually influencing it through the Democratic Leadership Council.[25] Thus the Socialist Party dissolved in 1972, and SDUSA emerged that year. (Most of the left-wing of the party, led by Michael Harrington, immediately abandoned SDUSA.)[26][27] SDUSA leaders associated with neoconservatism include Carl Gershman, Penn Kemble, Joshua Muravchik and Bayard Rustin.[28][29][30][31]
Norman Podhoretz’s magazine Commentary, originally a journal of liberalism, became a major publication for neoconservatives during the 1970s. Commentary published an article by Jeane Kirkpatrick, an early and prototypical neoconservative.
Good
Straw man. The realist is not “suspicious of peace”. The realist believes that nations act in their interests. And peace will only exist where nations recognize and respect other nations security interests.
The liberal is spanning the earth with messianic zeal insisting everyone is part of a globalist order.
They speak of a “rules based order”. However the rules are not anywhere to be seen. They are not enforced when the west breaks them, and seem to be made in DC and London in a case by case basis.
We break off Kosovo, attack Libya, break off a hunk of Syria for a minority and that’s fine. Russia does the same on its border and its breaking the rules.
It’s the liberals that are constantly at war and are suspicious of peace ( unless it’s the peace of submission).
That article is supposedly a professor, an expert. Just a member of the echo chamber.
Putin molests kids in the street, while Zelenskeyy is married (and Putin’s “mistress” is a beard)
LOSS - Putin
Putin is a midget, Zelenskeyy is tall
LOSS - Putin
Putin is a stupid doofus, Zelenskeyy is smart
LOSS - Putin
Russia lost their European money-generating gas market through childish games
LOSS - Putin
etc. etc.
(seems Putin just keeps losing!!)
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.