Sarbajit, what is the relationship of India and Russia? Is it true that Russia is India's biggest arms supplier?https://time.com/6154734/india-ukraine/-J. -------- Original message --------From: Sarbajit Roy <[email protected]> Date: 3/9/22 18:03 (GMT+01:00) To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Enamine What is going to happen in Ukraine is that Russia is going to teach Ukraine a lesson for flirting with the EU, NATO and western liberalism and signing that NATO document in November 2021. Putin is going to annex the Eastern and Southern parts of Ukraine by setting them up as autonomous regions/states within Ukraines' boundaries as Russian protectorates. He is then going to make Kyiv sue for peace under his terms with Russia taking over some aspects of Ukraine's foreign affairs and defence/security (think back to the former East Germany). Putin has no intention of taking over Ukraine or ruling it. Russian's are very direct communicators (like Klingons), Putin, is doing exactly what he said he would do before the invasion started. This is a special military operation, not an invasion. The sooner Ukraine folds up the better for everyone, and especially the Ukranians, since it's the US and UK who are stoking the fires for their own selfish (war mongering defence industry) interests. And interestingly the Muslim world is lining up behind the Russia-China axis as nobody really trusts the US and UK anymore over there.On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:57 PM Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> wrote:
EricS writes: < It seems to me that Mearsheimer’s argument does do an induction for what to do next, and it is a 19th-century induction, in which a small number of actors simply dictate what the world will do, and there should be some kind of US retreat [..] > There’s another option, possibly within reach, to create the conditions to have the current Russian government implode and give Russia the opportunity to join NATO. It’s not like it hasn’t happened before. From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of David Eric Smith Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2022 3:58 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Enamine It’s a good list of wrongdoings, Roger, and no argument can be sound that doesn’t keep it present and active. Facts are facts. I wasn’t saying I can’t follow Mearsheimer’s frame or its reasoning. I was saying that the adequacy of working within the frame seems questionable and bothers me. To put in a metaphor where I am sure it would be better if I stuck to the particulars, it seems like a Baconian error to me: to suppose that (a subset of) the facts are self-interpreting. You mention: Mearshimer's point of view is not pretty, and fairness is not part of its calculus, but it's the way of the world that we, the United States of America, have made. And when we screw up in our enthusiasm for truth, justice, and the amurkan way, we should not blame others for the consequences. I agree, and I also understand that you didn’t say my summary included either the word or the theme of blaming anybody (while acknowledging that both the political and media rhetoric is full of that). But I want to reiterate that apportioning blame and with it responsibility is the opening part of a discussion, but not obviously enough to say what to do next. It seems to me that Mearsheimer’s argument does do an induction for what to do next, and it is a 19th-century induction, in which a small number of actors simply dictate what the world will do, and there should be some kind of US retreat, after which we can conclude (?) that the Russian government will pull back and return directly to what they were prioritizing in 2012 (broader-based prosperity, certain conditional integrations, etc., while still operating mainly as a partly-kleptocratic petro-state, an economic model that is not universal and that does bring in other biases in what kind of governance and social structure are most robust). I guess also that Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia will recognize that they were duped and quickly withdraw from NATO to become more Finland-like buffer states, and that an even easier decision of that kind can be reached with respect to Poland and Hungary, since they were backsliders anyway. (I am being absurdist here because, even if one thought Mearsheimer’s analysis of the optimal decisions in the past are different from those taken, I don’t see what paths to comparable outcomes are available now.) Here’s one take, on whether there are other dimensions outside Mearsheimer’s frame that bear on its adequacy. A mock-dialogue: QUESTION: Does the Russian (either) annexation or destruction of Ukraine at this time move the world toward or away from a rules-based system of international constraint? How does an analytic answer to that serve as a criterion for valuing the event and deciding what to do in response to it? REJOINDER: Does not exist as a question because the U.S. has taken many actions that, by not being constrained, undermined the role of constraint, whether they were taken by being misguided or by being cynically self-interested. QUESTION: There are these patches of geography, often referred to by non-IR-specialists as “countries”. We believe there are people who live there, and by a kind of abduction, we imagine those people have preferences, about engaging in trade relations or military alliances. Should decisions they adopt, through various internal negotiations — yes, in contexts also shaped by external actors — have some right of persistence? REJOINDER: Does not exist as a question because the U.S. haas taken actions that undermine rules-based international relations. One can try to make the argument that there really are no other questions, because there is only ONE QUESTION, which is the one on which Mearsheimer’s frame settles. But I think that is a hard argument to make analytically. I recognize the possibility that, with short-term and blunt-force choices, the identities of actors and their lack of trustworthiness may make this frame so dominant that it overshadows most else. But in any case, if those other questions do exist, even in a world where the U.S. haas taken actions that undermine rules-based international relations, I imagine a discussion of them would include elements that arise in this: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/08/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-fiona-hill.html I don’t even know how to reason about the simplest things. One could just baldly assert that a unipolar world has been inherently unstable, because there is no adequate force either within a country, or through diplomatic and economic alliances that a country can marshal, to stop US incursions and force this country to reverse some of its adventures. That somehow a hoped-for era when China fills that role, through a combination of internal strength and diplomatic and economic influence, will be a less destructive one. But when I look back to the geopolitical trampling, in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Americas during the US-NATO/Soviet-Union struggles, they seem damaging in similar ways and degrees to what the US was the main actor doing in many places during the unipolar era. So it is not obvious to me that the rise of China brings us to a better place with a more constrained US, as opposed to just returning us to a destructive model that organized the NATO/Soviet bipolarity. And of course, technology and ecology are both different now. So, I don’t know. Eric On Mar 8, 2022, at 2:02 PM, Roger Critchlow <[email protected]> wrote: I found Mearshimer's argument a persuasive point of view. What else has the US done that might make other countries anxious? Engineered regime changes in Iran and Chile, supported failed regime changes in Cuba and Nicaragua, fought wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, intervened in Panama, Grenada, and Somalia, no-fly-zones in the Balkans and Syria, pursued economic sanctions against Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia, expanded NATO twice into eastern europe, training police and counter-insurgency forces god knows where. That's just in my lifetime working from my eroding memory. If you want to live in the US sphere of influence, you'd best not poke the eagle in the eye, you'd best adapt or mask your aspirations to the ones the US approves. We protest that our interests are supporting democracy and providing humanitarian aid, because that feels good. Pay no attention to those cozy contracts between occupied Iraq and the western oil companies. That tasty piece of kleptocracy wasn't in any way a motivation for the completely made up reasons for invading Iraq. (Rumsfeld knew that he knew that Iraq had oil reserves, it was a known known.) And don't get all tedious counting the collateral casualties from our drone wars, we only bomb wedding celebrations when it's absolutely necessary, and we are sincerely sorry for your losses, so, please, stop crying over spilt milk, it really harshes the vibe. Good for the goose is good for the gander. Putin is enforcing Russian approved aspirations in Ukraine. And Mearshimer's point is that Putin isn't making up his reasons, he's stated them often. Until the Ukrainians capitulate, he will continue to level the country, one apartment block, school, hospital, university, police station, city hall, and factory at a time. We can hope there won't be any accidents with nuclear power plants or hydroelectric dams. There will be no Ukrainian ports on the Black Sea for British destroyers to visit in the future while flashing their bums at Sebastapol. And we're going to fight him to the last Ukrainian standing, like we fought the Sandinistas to the last Contra standing, and we fought Cuba to the last Cuban exile standing on the beach at the Bay of Pigs. There wasn't any air cover there, either. Mearshimer's point of view is not pretty, and fairness is not part of its calculus, but it's the way of the world that we, the United States of America, have made. And when we screw up in our enthusiasm for truth, justice, and the amurkan way, we should not blame others for the consequences. And most especially when blaming the other is both politically expedient and a way of escalating the conflict that our enthusiasms created in the first place. And mostest especially when we're escalating toward a tactical nuclear war in europe. Broadwell's rebuttal was so ironic that I couldn't listen to it. "We didn't do that. We couldn't do that. We would never do that." Sure, Ray, we're pure as the driven snow, and anything we did or didn't do that helped "that coup" happen was an innocent mistake, which Putin should have laughed off. But Putin isn't laughing. In fact, he looks awful. Marcus' observation that "what's the point of a huge defense budget if all you can do is cower?" might well be Putin's mantra. -- rec -- On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 6:37 AM David Eric Smith <[email protected]> wrote: Yes, Mearsheimer’s POV is a hard one for me to get my head around, and to describe in some way that would be “fair”. I don’t want to say it is entirely amoral or immoral. I think, within his view that certain conclusions are foregone, he has a sense that ordinary people can work out some conditions of living under several different systems, with compensations that they decide work for them, of several different kinds. And within that constraint, a first priority should be to avoid conflicts that kill them, destroy places to live and ways of living, etc. But I also have a structural problem with the way he makes arguments. In a way, one could use argument of that form to say that any time when any powerful actor is motivated and capable of impact, that motive takes on some kind of legitimacy simply by existing. So legitimacy gets written out of the framing of questions. On shorter, tactical timescales, I can see that in a way. But on longer timescales, when structure can change, it seems like an inadequate and foreshortened frame. I should try to say this by way of an example, to try to be more explicit about what I mean by “the structure of that kind of argument”. CEOs like to piously worry about instability as a risk to their workers. I largely view that as manipulation. Workers can be retrained, as the Swedish mining industry has nicely illustrated. To the extent that they have basic competence, some skills, and productive attitudes, they can move laterally among industries and be about as well off after the move as before. Not exactly, not in all cases; but overall there is not a good argument that industries need to be locked forever into one form in order for workers to survive. A society and economy that seeks to protect workers rather than specific job-roles can largely do so. The ones whom there is not a need to transfer laterally are the CEOs. Once, in the past, maybe they competed in some fair field, and by whatever combination of luck or skill or talents, won something. But the river moves on, and someone who is very successful and lucky in one fair, novel event has no reason to expect to be comparably lucky in regular events afterward. What changes is that they can dig into positions and become rentiers, as the 19th century economists used to cast it. It is, as the Aesop fable says of the goat taunting the wolf, not they, but the roof on which they stand, that is the source of their safety. So the main ones threatened by industry change are the ones who are shielded from competition and don’t want to go back. Yet the Mearsheimer framing would say that, because the CEOs are highly motivated, because their motives can be articulated, and because they have the capacity for impact, that gives a kind of tautological legitimacy to their wishes to stay in power and freeze industries in place, no matter what the cost to those who wouldn’t share that choice. A country is not one thing. Russia has clearly identifiable four large groups (at least). There are the former KGB, not necessarily ultra-wealthy but accumulating wealth to try to re-establish a past government where agency remains with them. There are the oligarchs, who live as a kind of parasitic outgrowth of oligarchs worldwide, but in a less productive society. Then there are the populist nationalists going around wearing Zs on their shirts. And then there are the other several layers of society who could consider Boris Nemtsov a spokesman for them. Mearsheimer’s expressions “Russia wants XYZ” are, in the sense of decision makers, "the KGB-cabal of Russia wants XYZ", and it can solidify a network of oligarchs and Zs to backstop and facilitate the decisions in which the KGB-cabal are the decisionmakers and prime movers. That, to me, seems like a foreshortened notion of what “Russia wants”. Of course, there is another sort of bizarre Louis XIV disease that has bothered me in those who love power and live in academic places as long as I have got to experience them directly. Even if one wanted to fully adopt Mearsheimer’s frame, it is only sequitur if the next 100 years, ecologically and climatologically, will look more or less like the past 100. That that will not be the case is the thing we can be surest of, in all this conversation. But the power brokers, I think, haven’t internalized the view that there are things in the world bigger than them. In some superficial cognitive way they have, maybe, but I feel like not really. Eric On Mar 7, 2022, at 5:05 PM, Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> wrote: I guess Mearsheimer would say this poor guy is brainwashed by his Western puppet masters, or an elite acting against the interests of his (non) countrymen? From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jon Zingale Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 1:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [FRIAM] Enamine https://enamine.net/news-events/press-releases/1333-the-official-appeal-of-enamine-founder-and-ceo-andrey-tolmachov-to-the-drug-discovery-and-scientific-community .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2f%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,JLjh8X90xz70EtDOohswP8Ksged8LDrlujTQQTTxOgzkkMS652bcScdWhUcsUpXKRmDr4YAdlPmSF_9u0ngHsiDknrxOKYNDU0FzZE6vgA,,&typo=1 un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,dDnSbJ_DEfNoagBC5P0kk0kshJ67xY4LaFE5-goO2-CJXFMUuDezuSL62QNuvggOANw_qDlKyzqB1EaMHShRemmmfJ3z1qPExLuVor03QQ,,&typo=1 FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,pIxqNs246xWgEFmILAFDb1ShZQhsNkQEKE9jpvcymsjMv8UDdmDMOcaIld_J1_0zfWRGs9NPDvm2KXwvCqcaiqHiYAFTYCZ-VYRI8w0z0FfOjoTs&typo=1 archives: 5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,6pwWdYPRvpzE2aeMda2SGtzo4gePZwM2TB9GVr_FbdpfwYPi-6Wh-CjzjLUuP-8ZYd8rEdsKsZ07oh1PnTYIYlMM-ix6tsyePFh0dSvGliq1uXW3&typo=1 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2f%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,R9rZ8SxSgE0_RGeDg3YSMtWbYw2gOHeUuwE6MaiJNTwUPHcW32I8Xtn36iWJxyb66xDjKIvcBHd2ynYOsCoR8YTCSZZw4efNDdjTe5WVHak1tI1mF5QSjA,,&typo=1 un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,hu4OMMhcdORxWwnIt3t4Dip6JyvG6HXyEFWoc-5fyRIob4F6UDJ7EWzM9v3fLsbS3RSYPzBArylXlLRqJ28hLOoF_vRJpRYgq9MVeDOXvcb7&typo=1 FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,l484PbmWO9CNufei2Yi25ufvxfs1ck38xi0LPPvS7BDGypSHVmEygUiXuKEXPtoouBOF4KMN9dKgCnM1qJRfy_utXd9lrXPhyeR5BZKzj5g,&typo=1 archives: 5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,HK7o_ZHfviQzu6ARvMhIVqPYzpmrjOFDu_UqPszB4mvXa4KnLjngdsDOZNK3KJZI7ZLPFw-w7TdT2uw5hdPW2vr-_M-IwvaX5ln-Wx-4LlxeerG3WVDwpQ7Btg,,&typo=1 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
.-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
