Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
There's two ways to interpret what is going on when one side is engaged in actual use of agents of force to obtain an objective and the other side, with the same or better force capabilities, does things like merely warn the force-using side to stop, or else...

The wrong interpretation is to imagine that anything new, like a new surrealpolitik paradigm, has infected the thinking of the non-aggressive side, which is what I see all over the blogosphere, like in your blockquote here.

The right interpretation is that the NATO side has already determined that use of force in Ukraine is not worth the effort, so it is writing the Ukraine off but cannot tell that to their allies in the Ukraine and elsewhere because it sounds too ruthless and unsupportive of justice, democracy, and the rule of law, the shared values for which any use of force must be consistent in the first place.  In Realpolitik, when someone uses words and official statements rather than actions, it is code for: you're not that important to us right now.  No one should infer from this that policymakers on the NATO side have a different view of reality at all.

As a young community organizer in Chicago, President Barrack Obama used to lead intense organizer trainings, called "week-longs" where trainees learned to abandon the "justice junkie" mindset and adopt Saul Alinsky's unique style of Machiavellian street politics. The week's training begins by reading Thucydides' "Milean Dialogue," the core text for the Realist school of international relations. The exercise that Obama, like all trainers then, like now, taught was to divide the trainees into the Melians and Athenians, and let them try to negotiate an outcome.  One of the key lessons was to not think like the stupid, self-righteous, but sympathetic Melians, but to think instead as ruthlessly and strategic as the Athenians.  Don't waste your resources on something where you can't build power as an outcome.

I really doubt Obama has forgotten this formational part of his entry into politics. Nothing else he has done indicates that he has. I'm pretty sure the US and NATO just aren't seeing where it helps them build power to get involved militarily in  Ukraine at the present time, or they would have already done so.

by santiago on Tue Apr 15th, 2014 at 03:12:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps you are right and I have just missed those occasions where Obama has exercised realpolitik. Then it is also possible that I simply disagree with what he saw as a realpolitik decision -- such as giving Wall Street a pass in '09. Perhaps that is an acceptable decision if you consider that temporary stability is more important than the long term survival of a viable society.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Apr 16th, 2014 at 12:45:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And so what about Obama's decision in '09? A calculated decision to let the financial cancer rage, considering that this would likely get him his best shot at two terms and that "Après moi, le déluge"? Even had he failed to get a second term he could have gone down as the most important single term president in US history? He could have brought about a reset that would have given the nation another three generations.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Apr 16th, 2014 at 09:38:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You have to take into account who Obama's advisors were: Summers and Geithner...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Apr 16th, 2014 at 10:04:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And who chose those advisors.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Apr 16th, 2014 at 10:49:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They were "serious".

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Apr 16th, 2014 at 10:50:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My point is that, while understanding the implications of realpolitik is necessary, it is not a sufficient guide to decision making. And that there courageous acts of realpolitik as well as cowardly acts. It is one thing to apply realpolitik dealine with Chicago politics while backed by the Pritzkers and quite another to apply it in Washington dealing with Wall Street while having been backed by Wall Street. In Washington crossing powerful economic interests can get your balls stomped - or worse.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Apr 16th, 2014 at 10:57:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And what about the whole business of letting Victoria Nuland, AID, etc., etc. carry out the activities that so signally furthered the downfall of Yanukoviych? Mis-calculated realpolitik?

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Wed Apr 16th, 2014 at 12:55:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I think that was a case of miscalculated Realpolitik, and I think they didn't realize until the phone call how much the Russians knew about what they had been up to there, but by then it was too late. In any case, it a created a problem that Putin HAD to resolve while the US only has to hover around and take advantage of any opportunities that may or may not present themselves.  So, strategically, it was a pretty ruthless and low-risk (for the West) move that would have impressed Saul Alinsky, if not Henry Kissinger.  I think Putin proved himself better player and politician than they expected to him to be.  
by santiago on Wed Apr 16th, 2014 at 08:58:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's only effective realpolitik if at least half the participants are still alive at the end.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Apr 16th, 2014 at 09:02:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, strategically, it was a pretty ruthless and low-risk (for the West) move that would have impressed Saul Alinsky, if not Henry Kissinger.
Poor European Atlanticist, they're not "The West" but just its useful idiots.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Apr 16th, 2014 at 09:56:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series