Still in the woods.
“You know what confuses me? I can see why many early scholars of international relations would describe and predict the behaviour of whole governments based on individual human psychology.”
Contending Theories of International Relations, p. 141
In the past, some psychologists […] assumed too readily that the explanation of group aggression is a mere corollary of the explanation of individual aggression.
They took the Platonic notion that the state is the individual “writ large”and converted this into a pseudoscientific analogy under which society came to be uncritically regarded as the psychological organism “writ large.” Social psychologists are now much less confident in this respect.
“Micro theories: Instinct theories (like animals, we have an aggressive instinct involving territorial defence, access to resources, protection of offspring), frustration-aggression theories (disruption of the expected goal-oriented outcome produces aggression which must either be displaced or directed right back), or other psychological theories.”
“Exactly. They are treated like a dead-end, unproven, unscientific, cute ideas.”
“What confuses you? That we can’t compare ‘withdrawing bottles from babies’ with factors leading to a major war?”
Contending Theories of International Relations, p. 217
First of all, the time factor is quite different. The most clear-cut experimental evidence from the study of individuals would seem to indicate fairly rapid time sequences from the onset of frustration to the manifestation of aggressive responses— minutes or hours in most cases,
“… Planning makes murder premeditated. It seizes being a crime of passion. It is still murder in the eyes of the law though.”
“That example just exacerbates the problem: WHY do we plan and premeditate murder? Because we are NOT animals.”
“And hence why comparing casus belli declaring politicians with taking bottles from babies is insufficient reasoning.”
“I mean - studying our behaviour like we are animals is even less fruitful than making sense of our mental universe. You have to listen to what we say. But then you invite the micro-level as an explanation for the macro-level.
If you ask me, I can see the entire reason for the escalation fully explained by the attitudes we have seen so far. Both the emotional side as well as the material reasoning perfectly well comes to light. I feel I can see step by step how things evolved into a war.”
“Good argument”. Maurice retreated into thinking.
“Should we turn around? This forest is huge, we can easily walk until nighttime.”
Russian Security Council Meeting 21st February
“It isn’t entirely true that we can understand all the actions just from what we have heard. The actual invasion or special operation depending on perspective is not explained yet.”
“No. We have seen how most Duma members are primarily concerned with recognising LPR and DPR because that strategy seems to have worked in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Some Duma members have at this point alluded that military support could be on the table. The actual SMO seemed massive compared to that.”
“Kremlin published the transcript for their Security Council meeting on February 21st, 22022. Usually these meetings are not reported in full.”
“The Kremlin modus operandi is odd compared with our ways. Often they publish a lot of things others would have kept hidden. As if they are trying to get their version of reality out into the global sphere by flaunting their points of view.”
“So 21 February Putin asks what to do with this Duma request they just voted on to recognise LPR, DPR. Both he and most of those present - Volodin from the Duma, Matviyenko of the Federation Council, former president Medvedev, prime minister Mishustin, Lavrov and Shoigu and Chief of Staff Kozak - quickly adds in the NATO expansion issue.”
“I hate to sound modern”, Benedict said, “but I’m thinking about whether we are doing this right. We all know Putin’s decades-old emphasis on a security architecture for Europe that didn’t leave Russia out. NATO expansion to Russians is not a neutral thing. But why isn’t it neutral? Old enmity? Too tightly controlled by US? If NATO will always be an enemy because it was seen as an instrument of repression in the past, then Soviet will always be an enemy because it too was seen as an instrument of repression against subordinate satellites.”
“What’s the modern part?”
“Deriving the state of things without reference to moral absolutes. There is Putin’s reality, there is Zelensky’s. Thinking and talking made them so.”
“Stop right now. I know what is coming: Ontology? In a moment you will pose the question of the connection between our beliefs and the structure of external reality.”
“But is it not clear that however real it seems to Europeans that Russia is lead by a gang of thugs and have a centuries-old habit of genocide, there is literally nothing we can find that corroborates that picture. Or if at least the things people seem to say and worry about doesn’t match that version. But under the impression of massive news bombardment, our brains scream ‘bloody murder’ constantly. Some feel that way about Israel right now. If you propose to ask »but what are the realities then?«, we can see the problem: Reality is objectively nearly just a set of facts so devoid of meaning that they are close to useless. The rest is the actual picture.
Hearing about warcrimes trigger something other than emotions. We are using the wrong words. They set off a train of actions for lack of a better word. Sure, they are intellectual actions, but the key is this: Reflexes take over. Our animal brains elicits those reflex arcs automatically.”
“Very convenient explanation. It also alleviates you from the responsibility of deciding on your moral stance. Don’t you for a moment think that the accusations levelled against Russia or Israel could be correct? I mention Israel because I know how your sympathies are polarised between the two.”
“Absolutely they can. But how do we guard against our preconceived conclusion creating the ethics rather than the other way around? Russia has no right to security against NATO? Isn’t it up to them to decide if they see NATO as an enemy? And if so, then their relation to their neighbour becomes extremely relevant.”
“No, they don’t get to decide whether NATO is neutral or inimical to Russia’s survival. If they have an objective complaint, that is another matter.”
“But that precisely brings us back to our main problem: Right now we can clearly see how the mental mood in Ukraine in 2021-2022 becomes scary when coupled with the systematic delivery of heavy arms to Ukraine. If the goal is stability, then how do you objectively evaluate a person in a frantic mood while simultaneously holding a gun. Wouldn’t you consider disarming such a person before anything else? The notion of objectivity in such a predicament serves no other purpose than fatally delaying quick action. Let’s look at the consensus at the meeting Putin held with Lavrov, Kozak and the rest.”
“You make things objective by keeping them cold and factual. That rules out punitive reaction without an inciting action.”
Vladimir Putin
We see this as our number one objective and a top priority; instead of confrontation, we need to maintain security and ensure conditions for our development.
[…] if Russia faces the threat of Ukraine being accepted into the North Atlantic Alliance, NATO, the threat against our country will increase because of Article 5 […]
But since nobody recognises the will expressed by the people of Crimea and Sevastopol, and Ukraine continues to insist that it is Ukrainian territory
“Putin’s geopolitical perspective. Fighting with the collective NATO over Crimea.”
“Yes. This is as close to a cold, hard, objective fact as you can come. If-then-if-then, with a good chance of being correct.
I lack a good word for a very different political beast we see today. They are not merely nationalists if at all. Let’s call them intellectual political activists. Ukraine abounds with these people. They are young and anti-colonial, they wallow in tsarists Russia’s and Stalin’s sins and see painted devils everywhere. Throw a stone inside the mirror cabinets of magazines like Foreign Affairs or the Atlantic Council’s website, chances are you will hit this kind of thinking. To me they represent the antithesis of Putin.”
“Stick to the February 21st meeting.”
“Okay. Putin has his eyes on the NATO issue. He holds in his hand an appeal to recognise LPR, DPR and protect them. He hears from Shoigu:”
Sergei Shoigu
In the meantime, there are more Javelins there than in some NATO countries. This is evidence that no one is going to comply with the Minsk accords and that everyone is getting ready to solve the problem by force.
“They see the inflow of weapons at a constant pace.”
“He hears from Kozak that Minsk package negotiations have grounded to a halt. Ukraine should have acknowledged LPR, DPR as independent entities, but …”
Dmitry Kozak
Ukraine views these areas as its ordinary municipal regions with traditional rights and authority, without any special status.
“Kozak further complains about the - to him - strange behaviour of the Ukrainian delegates.”
But when Donbass representatives say anything, Ukrainian representatives turn away and do not hear them. When asked to reply, they say that they will reply if Russia asks them something. When Russia enquired as to when the Ukrainians would amend the Constitution under the Minsk Agreements (this took place about two years ago in Berlin), the very next day, Ukraine threw such a tantrum, claiming that Russia was interfering in Ukraine’s domestic affairs,
“He even hears that Donbass is in a way not considered part of Ukraine anymore.”
Let me reiterate: as is obvious, they do not want, either with Minsk, or without Minsk to bring Donbass back into Ukraine.
“At this point, the meeting develops into a closed room with its own rules.”
Dmitry Medvedev
Let us face it, Russia means a lot more than Ukraine for the international community and our friends in the United States and the European Union,
“How far from reality can you get!”
“He also stresses that when he was president, he recognised South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Two cases where recognition bore fruit.”
Viktor Zolotov
Moreover, Zelensky states that they are ready to create nuclear arsenals.
[…] And the fact that they [Americans] are rushing weapons to Ukraine and are trying to create nuclear arsenals will backfire on us in the future.
“A somewhat frantic mood is being built up, where the Russian perception of the Ukrainian sincerity about Minsk is at a low.”
“You and I stand outside the conflict on neutral ground. Objectively we recognise the facts, but the description of their motives leaves something to be desired. And that changes everything. This is the reason I’m not happy about pinning things on objectivity. Political decisions are way too closely linked to perceptions of your opponent’s subjective mental state.”
Maurice kept walking. Benedict was a rambler, but his thoughts seemed more coherent at some times than others.
“Let’s return to the subject when we get home. Let’s also make sure we go back and forth between the two realities. Clearly they conflict. Europe is not large enough for both viewpoints.”
They followed the trodden path back to the shed. Maurice sat down with a book.
/PARADOX