Typo posted:

Which is a problematic statement when states with wildly differing ideologies share the same set of realpolitik interests

bagual posted:

That's really wrong, but also right if you look at by another angle. The whole point of realpolitik is to go "well we think different, so what" and basically disregard anything not "objective" like how many and how good is what armament every countries has, what resources do have within their national boundaries, what role do they play in the grand scheme of geopolitics. This disregard of human angles has made the US spend billions of dollars to arm and train inherently corrupt and ineffectual national security forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's high-level power-play between global state actors, with different states backing different rebels in different civil wars and so on.
On the other hand, this whole meta-level of global politics is being driven by ideological drivel machines supported by all sides, each state has it's own lapdog media and they're going full spin full time on these international issues. The Syrian conflict is an example of this high level of bullshit being thrown by all sides at full speed, with false reports of all sorts of things popping up all the time to support the embattled media narratives.
In the end a clash of national interests is it's own mini event horizon, where different actors take actions supporting their own interests, and where the narrative changes daily and the meaning of events will only be determined when hostilities ceases and some years pass by. At the same time, the players of this international have no choice but keep on with the bullshit until some endgame no actor can reasonably predict. This uncertainty pushes governments to push on tried-and-true tactics like media bullshit screens, "advisers", "voluntaries"..etc. because apparently it works at some level, I mean, if you had a whole propaganda machine set up what's the incentive to dismantle it?
This leaves the world barrelling into a powder keg, with current crises going from bad to worse with no end in sight.


Well yeah, that's the situation for most of the world's elite. They have such a firm grip on power there's no incentive but to keep doing what they're doing and keep the blood and money flowing. Somehow all their disparate world narratives have meshed with the cold-blooded rationality of globalism, with fundamentalist Christians and oriental communists supporting the free market and Islamist fundamentalists supporting military dictatorships like the Al-Nour party in Egypt. This cacophony of ideological contradictions ensures regimes cling to realist economic, diplomatic and military perspectives, with the power struggle being defined by who back's what armed bands of people in some place or another, leading to situations like American media focusing on Shia militias in Iraq while ignoring the ongoing Saudi war on Yemen or Russia claiming to hit several ISIS targets while only targeting other rebel groups and so on. poo poo's so entangled there s no way but forward.

Effectronica posted:

Oh, I see. You think that "intervention" refers to a tight family of processes rather than a concept, such that there was literally no way to remove the Hussein family from power in Iraq without the 2003-2011 strategy being repeated in its entirety. Well, you are a well-known loving idiot.

Effectronica posted:

On the contrary, Realpolitik is always ideological in nature. What constitutes "interests" is axiomatic. To put it simply, the reason the US does little that is humanitarian is because of the great many little Kissingers who are in positions of implementation and justification and advising for the greater monsters and more ordinary people, keeping them in the lines of a "reality" which they, demiurges, have created. To put it shortly, Karl Rove's statements about the "reality-based community" are entirely in line with the mental confusion endemic to American political elites and their spear-carriers.

rudatron posted:

Quick Question: What realpolitick objectives were pursued in the Iraq invasion?

rudatron posted:

The sentiment expressed by tezzor (states only have interests and only act in those interests) is less true then pure cynicism would leave you to believe. Quick Question: What realpolitick objectives were pursued in the Iraq invasion? Resources? America never claimed sovereignty of either country, and the amount of Oil Iraq has isn't that spectacular for the cost expended (especially since they were already getting a favorable rate with the leverage of sanctions). Labor? Nope. Another example: the Guatamalen Coup, urged at the behest of the United Fruit Company. What objectives does that satisfy for the US state? Helping a US Corporation? Well, why does that matter? Corporations don't have loyalty to the state they operate in. Why should the state help it at all, without at least charging them for it? As far as the US government is concerned, a global corporation is just another foreign entity that it can extract resources from, but it should be by no means beholden to it. So why did that happen at all?

Because the people who make the decisions for countries don't necessarily operate in the country of states interests, but their own. Those decisions can also be intensely ideological. They were buddy-buddy with the Corporation, and were ideologically opposed to the opposition in Guatemala. Ergo, coup. Similarly, the Saudis loving hated Saddam, and the US elite likes the Saudi elite, so they help a brother out and invaded Iraq for them.

So when we come to Libya, we have to ask, not which states benefited (because that doesn't matter), but what ideology is being expressed here. Personally, I'm sympathetic to the arab spring, what they stood for and what they wanted. I like the non-islamist rebels, because I like their ideology when compared to both Gaddafi and the islamists, so I'd like to see them win. I also like the Syrian rebels that aren't ISIS, because I like what they stand for, so I'm positive for intervention for them. But in a realpolitick sense, neither intervention will actually pull a profit, so neither makes sense. So, why did the US elite intervene in Libya? Answer: they didn't like Gaddaffi. Supporting the rebels and what they stand for was a secondary concern. So their motives conflict with mine, but I'm happy they did help, even if it was for the wrong reasons. Why isn't Syria receiving the same support? A bunch of reasons, but I suspect it's Obama's own personal cautiousness that's at play here. Which is, I think, a mistake which the region is worse off for.

bagual posted:

there’s no way but forward.

Neurolimal posted:

Just curious, what prevented us from cooperating with the Libyan government for a joint-strike operation to help pacify crazy post-war tribes and push back ISIS? A lot of the time when I hear about Libya people seem to act like the only options were an Iraq occupation or nothing. Is collaborating with another military something that is only reserved for whitecivilizedFirst World countries?

Effectronica posted:

This is a lot of hot air that does nothing to address anything, say anything, or joke about anything. I award you zero points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Arglebargle III posted:

Ah, the old saw, "others operate within an ideological framework, but we clear-sighted few see reality as it is."

Xandu posted:

Gaddafis terrorism was no better than ISIS's. And that strategy of cooperating with monsters for geopolitical gains is the kind of thing people constantly criticize the US for.

Jarmak posted:

What? The term Realpolitik explicitly refers to political decisions made absent of ideological or ethical motivations, its the entire loving point of the term.

Please spare me the bullshit about how acquiring food or land or wealth is actually moral issue because of Epicureanism. That's not the way language works.

Neurolimal posted:

Uh, I'm preeetty sure I was talking about the post-Gadaffi government.

You can tell because I dont think ISIS was even a thing when gadaffi was tethered to his mortal coil.

Effectronica posted:

No, it isn't. What, do you think that a "different ideology" renders thought processes entirely inexplicable? That's either stupid or the start of a process to justify terrorist violence.

Xandu posted:

It does seem like the us has tried ever intervention strategy in MENA over the past 15 years, from full scale occupation to non-intervention to aerial support/nfz to covert arms supplying and they've all been a pretty clear failure.

Typo posted:

I have no idea what you are trying to say or how you came to this conclusion.

Main Paineframe posted:

Honestly, I feel like the problem is the same one that has haunted US efforts at interventions for much longer than 15 years: a lack of a solid, credible alternative to the existing government. Either we prop up some vague, unstable puppet government that lacks popularity or credibility amongst the populace and is barely able to sustain itself even with US support, we support an equally brutal regime because they're the most viable opposition group, or the US halfasses the support because the rebels/revolutionaries are all too nasty for us to be able to pretend they suit our rhetoric about human rights and democracy.

Ultimately, the method of intervention doesn't matter half as much as the popularity and legitimacy of the resulting government. If the population doesn't like who ended up in charge, then insurgency is practically inevitable - particularly in the Middle East, where a century of Western meddling and interventions along with civil wars and brutal dictators and ethnic violence has supplied the populations with an abundance of guns.

Main Paineframe posted:

Honestly, I feel like the problem is the same one that has haunted US efforts at interventions for much longer than 15 years: a lack of a solid, credible alternative to the existing government. Either we prop up some vague, unstable puppet government that lacks popularity or credibility amongst the populace and is barely able to sustain itself even with US support, we support an equally brutal regime because they're the most viable opposition group, or the US halfasses the support because the rebels/revolutionaries are all too nasty for us to be able to pretend they suit our rhetoric about human rights and democracy.

Ultimately, the method of intervention doesn't matter half as much as the popularity and legitimacy of the resulting government. If the population doesn't like who ended up in charge, then insurgency is practically inevitable - particularly in the Middle East, where a century of Western meddling and interventions along with civil wars and brutal dictators and ethnic violence has supplied the populations with an abundance of guns.

Arglebargle III posted:

Like "realists" not only failed to predict the collapse of the USSR, they still struggle to explain it in a way that remotely matches up with what the people involved thought and said.

quote:

No he's right, nations don't exist in mutually unintelligible ideological bubbles and realpolitik is an ideology that attempts to flatten states into unitary actors and systematically justify certain narrow points of view while ignoring and marginalizing others. It is essentially an ideology of "great game" nationalists that is ideologically blind to most domestic and epistemic factors.

Typo posted:

That's because the USSR collapsed due to domestic reasons and realism don't claim to make prediction on domestic politics of a country, only their foreign objectives
Except countries of every ideology quickly realize that in order for their ideology to succeed the first rule is the survival of the state and hence the need for real economic and military force to ensure survival. As well as the need to retain influence in vital regions in order to guarantee their security. It is no accident that states as varied in ideology as Tsarist Russia, Communist Soviet Union, Maoist China, Capitalist United States and Islamist Revolutionary Iran all came to those same conclusions and acted accordingly.

They might choose to pile some poo poo on top of realpolitik like humanitarianism on the US's part or Comintern on the Soviet's, but those things are always secondary and are probably part of their realpolitik strategy anyway.

Fojar38 posted:

In my experience people who describe themselves as "geopolitical realists" or some similar poo poo tend to be the densest motherfuckers in the field.

Effectronica posted:

That is what is claimed by its supporters, but Realpolitik is incapable of functioning without an ideological basis to establish national interests. The insistence that certain interests are inherent and not others reveal the true purpose of the concept- to rationalize and promote criminal activity. Nobody has ever suggested humanitarian relief is Realpolitik because people naturally help one another.

Arglebargle III posted:

Hence the ideological blinders like "all states seek security and survival" when states voluntarily disband, reform, etc. I do think it's funny that they call themselves realists and then with a straight face say they make no predictions about domestic politics but whatever. Remember I was responding to the claim that realists are not ideological.

Notice how you implicitly do flatten the state into a unitary actor just by using the language of realist ir. I mean I know unitary states are a basic precept of realism on a par with anarchy but it's just so contrary to well, the real world. It's an ideology.

tekz posted:

Liberal democracy lmfao. The USA practices and supports terrorism while denouncing it, props up despotic and murderous regimes that support it while working against ones that don't (just like every other great power in history!). The onIy goal here is maintaining hegemony, this shining beacon of freedom and democracy wall of noise propaganda might work well for domestic consumption but idk how many people on the outside give a poo poo about foreign policy schweens jerking off about how moral they are.

Fojar38 posted:

As we all know, non-Americans both think differently from Americans and all think the same way.

(Hi I'm not American)

Tezzor posted:

All told, 24 percent of worldwide respondents chose America as the greatest threat to world peace. Coming in second, with a whopping 8 percent, was Pakistan.

Tezzor posted:

http://www.wingia.com/en/services/about_the_end_of_year_survey/global_results/7/33/
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/279944-country-named-biggest-threat-world-peace/



When people around the world were asked which country they see as the greatest threat to world peace, guess what they said?

This poll, whose results were announced at the start of 2014, was conducted by Win/Gallup and questioned nearly 66,000 people in 68 countries.

As you can see in the map above, most countries — even allies like Australia — chose America as the greatest threat to world peace.

All told, 24 percent of worldwide respondents chose America as the greatest threat to world peace. Coming in second, with a whopping 8 percent, was Pakistan.

Tezzor posted:

There was an article that I read by a non-American that really opened my eyes. In America, we tend to debate each individual war on its own merits. Will killing Gaddhafi be good or bad? Will invading Iraq protect America? However, outside of America, they tend to see each individual instance as a pattern. This is, I think, a correct way to look at it, because incidents are close together, ceaseless, and have been occurring for decades.

Effectronica posted:

It's cool how military interventions only become acceptable when at least 6 million people would have died otherwise, and not in a way that could have been easily predicted, either. It's also cool how nothing of the aims or process matters, and the incredible incompetence and utterly immoral goals had nothing to with why we lost the Vietnam War.

Tezzor posted:

Tezzor posted:

There was an article that I read by a non-American that really opened my eyes. In America, we tend to debate each individual war on its own merits. Will killing Gaddhafi be good or bad? Will invading Iraq protect America? However, outside of America, they tend to see each individual instance as a pattern. This is, I think, a correct way to look at it, because incidents are close together, ceaseless, and have been occurring for decades.