Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
- 52
- 1
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I think here it's more anti-Western elite than actual pro-Russia, certainly compared to Twitter.
Presumably they don't like the way the West/Europe/America is going and would like to see the current ruling institutions and elites embarrased.
What counts as a justification for war is up for debate. Some people reject the moral view of diplomacy that cares about things like sovereignty and justifications and think that a view based on threats and interests is more realistic. In this view things like a trend of NATO expansion become a trigger for war even if Ukraine didn't actually join NATO or do anything to harm Russia directly, and the only way this war could have been avoided and future wars also is if Western diplomats stop looking at things in idealistic moral terms and start thinking about how to preserve the balance of power.
There is a risk of implying too much about Russia with this model, if Western leaders are all idealists their enemies must be the opposite and therefore Putin is a rational calculator right? I can see someone convincing themselves into the pro-Russia camp this way, but looking at diplomacy in terms of threats and interests means you have to be open to the possibility of people misjudging their interests and the 'Putin made a huge blunder' case has also been made here.
More options
Context Copy link