Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
My point earlier was that the realpolitik perspective is indistinguishable from the Russian propaganada, for me anyways. Continuing to fight a war you can't win is just not a good idea, even though invading your neighbours is not a nice thing to do.
So Russian propaganda says "Russia Stronk -- Ukraine can't win and should give up before we crush them" -- how do you tell the difference between this and a complicated analysis of military strength arriving at the same conclusion? (which is basically my position on this, despite not being a Russian propagandist -- I do read with interest (for example) Dean's complicated analyses showing that Ukraine might win in the end; I just don't think they are correct)
Probably the majority of the 'realpolitik' posts are bent on avoiding the stating of plain facts such as that 'Russia is a totalitarian state that invaded a democracy'. If they could actually bite the bullet and describe reality as is, while also advocating that Ukraine should surrender (or all but), that would be an honest realpolitik position, but it's no coincidence that they also want to blame Ukraine and empathise with Russia. That is not realpolitik at all but moral justification.
I have no problem with this, but would tend not to include it in a realpolitik post because it's exactly the kind of thing that's irrelevant in a realpolitik framework.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link