My memory of the era has faded but, as I recall, the reformist, UN-recognized Government of Afghanistan invited the USSR to assist in modernizing the country and the USSR did so, and then left in good order.
The actual Soviet INVASION occurred during the Carter administration after the CIA set up and accomplished their fundamentalist Muslim based coup d'etat against the (excessively modernizing in their view) Afghanni government which had worked with USSR on infrastructure development, with the explicit intent of drawing the USSR into "their own Vietnam". These assholes BRAGGED about causing the USSR:Afghan war and claimed it was their clever actions which destroyed the USSR.
How did this article end without any reference to Israel ?
"Indeed, the manipulation of large nations by small nations for their benefit is one of the least-studied parts of international politics, mainly because it appears counter-intuitive"
I concur. True to form, our host avoids describing the relationship between israel and the Western goverments, especiallythose of the USA, UK, France and Germany-the real elephant in the room. Given that these governments routinely vote against the best interests of their own people to support the "shitty little country" infecting MENA, deny and/or justify genocide just for this one entity, and send "envoys for peace" who served in the IDF and/or awoved zionists, and destroy anyone who speaks against the ziocons, who really has the agency in this set of relationships?
I suspect there is some art at work here on Aurelien's part -- and you came up with the (I think frankly obvious) example on your own anyway, didn't you? I don't think this is an accident ...
Author not required to wave a red flag in Mossad's face and simultaneously offer whatever is left of Unit 8200 a free shot at one of their very favoritest attack surfaces, anyone who can allow their mind to go there already went.
It is a better argument to reference the difference between English-speaking Palestinians who frequent BBC and other western channels compared to what they say in Arabic and what Palestinians think themselves. There is no body of evidence that Palestinians support a two state solution where Israel remains a Jewish State. Rather they say openly that the Jews will "go back to Poland" and that is peace for them and what they want.
Is there any indiction that media or even people like yourselves understand that? You fall into the same trap that Israel is all-powerful, that the Palestinians are mere children, and peace can come if Israel just tweaks their behaviour, as if the Palestinian people will fall into line behind "peace" like automatons.
The so called two state solution wasn’t supposed to solve anything, it was intended to give the colonialist a moral veil while expanding their colony. Which the Palestinians see trough so you are right, the only ones that still support it are the people paid to do so, ie the PA.
As to telling the settlers to go back to their country of origin, what on earth is wrong about that? (The invasion is more Brooklyn than Poland, though.)
Israel is the most successful refugee-managed country in the world. The majority of Israeli Jews are from Middle Eastern countries and they cannot return even if they wanted to because of violence from their Muslim-majority neighbours. They have no alternative but to stay and fight. There is a reason why Itamar Ben-Gvir is Iraqi by background and such an extremist: his family personally experience Arab persecution and has no desire to go back to being beaten, tortured, raped and killed.
Beaten, tortured raped and killed, sounds like an average afternoon for a Palestinian, except for skipping having your land and your house stolen.
And you logic is flawed, because what may or may not have happened in Iraq or any other country does not give you the right to go to a third country and simply steal it.
The Zionist entity has already suffered a strategic defeat in this war, but there is still a chance for coexistence in a secular and democratic Palestine.
I suggest you take it or do as hundreds of thousands of your compatriots: book a flight back to Brooklyn.
There is not “secular and democratic” Palestinian society and the mere fact you wrote that highlights your extraordinary ignorance of Palestinians. Much like those diplomats and PMC types Aurelian writes about who are overly reliant on English speakers who are invariably more liberal than their compatriots, you genuinely seem to think that there is a secular state on offer by the Palestinians.
My point is that there is nowhere else for the Jews to go. They are not the Crusaders who can return to Europe. So they fight rather than die and of course you would prefer the latter happening to the former.
Which you know for a fact because you are… a scott living in France. Cute. I am clan Graham by the way, so mind your manners commoner!
Okay: about half of the population of the Zionist entity is Askenazi, and could just return to Europe and the United States (which houses the biggest Jewish population in the world).
The other half has lost the war. You claim that they have no place to go. All the greater the reason for them to try to create a unified Palestine with a secular state and a democratically elected government.
I am not suggesting that it will be easy, but if they build on the Chinese group of 14 initiative and get some support from Russia (there is about a million Russian citizens in the Zionist entity) it is still possible.
The alternative is to face the consequences, preferably without whining.
The above reminds me of how manipulative kids in some of my many schools, would influence large stupid lumps who were not necessarily natural bullies in order to gain power over the playground.
One can only marvel at the lack of sane work with Ukrainian political forces on the part of the Kremlin during the 30 years of Ukraine's existence. When the open confrontation between the Donetsk and Lviv groups began, the Kremlin could only give money or military support to one of the parties. But if you look at Ukraine as an American puppet that does not make decisions on its own, then what is the point of negotiating with local players if you have to go to Washington.
1. The founding of the Viet Minh is most instructive here, with wheels turning inside of wheels. The Cliff's Notes version is that the Viet Minh didn't want to be communists at all, they respected and admired the United States, which, however, could not afford to cheeze off its French and British vassals.
2. "They had no ability to take the pulse of the Street, *not any apparent interest in doing so*, and, like other western governments, were completely ignorant about the religious dimension to the protests." (emphasis added)
The emphasized text "not any apparent interest in doing so" is the money quote in that sentence.
Re: Viet Minh and their initial political desires?
Ho Chi Minh's February 28th 1946 telegram to President Truman is instructive:
----------
President Ho Chi Minh Vietnam Democratic Republic Hanoi
To the President of the United States of America Washington D.C.
On behalf of Vietnam government and people I beg to inform you that in course of conversations between Vietnam government and French representatives the latter require the secession of Cochinchina and the return of French troops in Hanoi stop meanwhile French population and troops are making active preparations for a coup de main in Hanoi and for military aggression stop I therefore most earnestly appeal to you personally and to the American people to interfere urgently in support of our independence and help making the negotiations more in keeping with the principles of the Atlantic and San Francisco charters
Re: The USSR invasion of Afghanistan & US conservative's analysis of USSR motive?
(Quote)
"But the West, stuck in its great power mentality, and in the middle of a transition to much tougher anti-Communist line, opted to treat the invasion as a simple expansionist enterprise, which those on the political Right had always warned against. Indeed, many figures on the Right argued gleefully that their worst fears had been confirmed, and that the next target would be Pakistan or Saudi Arabia."
----------
Despite the Carter & later, Reagan administration "authorized version" of events, that the evil commie Russians were expanding their iron fisted dictatorship, intent upon conquering all of western Asia, then the whole world? The State Department and CIA knew better, as they had selected a number of Islamic fundamentalists and local tribal/wannabe war lord power seekers to finance and TRIGGERED the coup against the (too USSR friendly) Afghan government.
Before that coup, the old king's ministries were modernizing Afghanistan too quickly for the sensibilities of some Saudi financed Wahabi fundamentalist trained mullahs and their students (AKA "Taliban"). They were also exercising a bit too much centralized control for the tastes of some ethnic/tribal leaders, even threatening to reduce their ability to produce & traffic in narcotics. The CIA exploited these two attack surfaces, financed and accomplished that coup which caused chaotic conditions they KNEW would not be acceptable to the USSR in their "near abroad" & would lead to a military response. Then, more weapons and training in guerilla tactics by British and USA intelligence were provided, along with weapons and financial support solicited from Saudi Arabia, also the Pakistan ISS aligned factions were granted a franchise to export opiates to further finance their insurgency (and a good bit of the profits stuck to various intelligence and warlord types fingers as well, naturally!).
Jimmy Carter's State/CIA were financing the wannabee rebels at least SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE COUP, then his CIA director and Brzezinski told him "we have
presented the USSR with their own Vietnam". President Carter's public facing BS about this maneuver, including boycotting the US attendance of the Olympic games (when he knew full well that THE CIA had maneuvered the USSR into that invasion) is one of the reasons I don't care how many Habitat for Humanity houses he is photographed at, Jimmy is going to Hell if there is one.
----------
"According to former CIA Director Robert Gates, US intelligence services began aiding the anti-Soviet Union mujahideen six months ahead of the Red Army’s invasion.
Brzezinksi said he convinced Carter to sign the first directive for secret aid to opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul on July 3, 1979 in an effort to goad the Red Army into invading, in a 1998 interview.
“I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention,” said Brzezinksi."
After that action (and the USSR) collapsed, when Afghanistan had been reduced to tribal warfare and anarchy, the whole later business of western energy companies not getting a sweetheart energy pipeline deal with the surviving Afghanis, who asked for local distribution of sufficient natural gas in return to provide energy for rebuilding and supporting THEIR OWN infrastructure and economic development, rather than the usual offerings of some (relative pittance of) bribes to those at the top level for transit? Their too high asking price for transit was involved in the later USA invasion, of course. As the pipeline negotiators told the Afghannis: "We offer you a carpet of GOLD, or a carpet of BOMBS". (Afghannis do not like being dictated to by rude ferengi, they chose bombs).
Hrrrm… I would say that outside your circles the obvious lack of realism and the tendency to be emotionally driven (reacting to media coverage) is a much bigger problem than over reliance on realist analysis.
Ukraine is the most recent example: regardless of whether we like it or not, the Russian reaction to the threat posed by a NATO-affiliated Ukrainian state is not hard to understand. The current war was to be expected, it’s perfectly in line with what any other major power would do in the same situation.
Do people in the colonial countries understand that? No, all they see is evil Russia fighting poor noble Ukraine, and if you tell them that it is because of how the world works, their answer will be either that it doesn’t or that it shouldn’t.
The trick about realism is to understand the level of aggregation where it operates. Realism lets you draw the map, but it’s not reality. And no matter how good your map is, when you are out in the woods you will find things that are truly bewildering, some times even things that make it impossible for you to follow the path you planned to take.
And on that level you are right: we often miss the agency of smaller actors. I made that mistake in the early days of the bombing of Libya: I assumed that the decision was made in Washington, it took me years to realise that the driver was actually Paris.
Same thing with Syria: yes the CIA funnelled the weapons (from the balkans, by the way) but the main actors were Saudi Arabia and Turkey. At the time Washington was happy about what happened, but today they are stuck in wounerable positions that they can’t find any way out of.
So what analysis you make depends on what you want to know: if you want to know why venezuela doesn’t retaliate against the United States militarily, realism is a good tool. If you want to have a basic idea of how the world works on a general level mix in some marxism with your realism.
But if you want to have an understanding of what is happening in a specific place at a specific time that makes it possible for you to take action that leads to a desired outcome you need knowledge and experience on a level that is seldom available to an outsider.
Re: The attempts of smaller nations to influence "great powers" to advance their own interests?
Ho Chi Minh's February 28th 1946 telegram to President Truman is instructive. I wonder how much cheaper it would have been for all involved in the end if Truman had let uncle Ho twist his arm just a bit and told the French NO.
----------
President Ho Chi Minh Vietnam Democratic Republic Hanoi
To the President of the United States of America Washington D.C.
On behalf of Vietnam government and people I beg to inform you that in course of conversations between Vietnam government and French representatives the latter require the secession of Cochinchina and the return of French troops in Hanoi stop meanwhile French population and troops are making active preparations for a coup de main in Hanoi and for military aggression stop I therefore most earnestly appeal to you personally and to the American people to interfere urgently in support of our independence and help making the negotiations more in keeping with the principles of the Atlantic and San Francisco charters
Have had long conference with Prime Minister, Ho Chi Min and he impresses me as sensible, well balanced, politically minded individual. His demands are few and simple namely limited independence, liberation from French rule, right to live as free people in family of nations and lastly right to deal directly with outside world.
He stated that for many years missionary work of propaganda within party, training of youth and preparation for this day has made them ready not necessarily for complete independence but at least the privilege of dying for their ideals. From that I have been these people mean business and am afraid that French will have to deal with them. For that matter will all have to deal with them. French and beginning to recognize this fact and are going to be big about it by offering Viet Minh terms for their independence. On other hand Vietnam is smart enough to see through Machiavellian attitude French here especially Sainteny and have absolutely refused to deal with him.
Annamese are in unique advantage our position in as much as Japs have given them independence so they consider themselves free of any sovereign power and this includes French who have been hiding behind Jap skirts, vichy tactics and passing themselves off as friends of Americans. On whole Viet Minh has full control of situation not only in hands (unreadable) whole of 3 provinces. Their organization is well knit, program clear and their demands on outside world few. They ask they be permitted travel particularly to America particularly for education purposes and that America send technical experts to help them establish those few industries Indochina is capable of exploiting. Prime Minister particularly asked me that American exercise some control over Chinese occupation forces and that Chinese purchase materials and food rather than requisitioning it during occupation period. Furthermore he pointed out and this I have confirmed from other sources Jap and French that due to flood this year famine is imminent and should Chinese depended on Indochinese for their subsistence during occupation period they will all starve plus creating situation where Annamese will be forced to wage war upon Chinese to protect his livelihood and family.
Annamese celebrating Annamese independence day tomorrow with high solemn mass by Catholics and special ritual by Buddhists.
"I wonder how much cheaper it would have been for all involved in the end if Truman had let uncle Ho twist his arm just a bit and told the French NO." That would have been a simple approach, and there is no profit in that. 😎
Uncle Ho seems to have made a good impression on every American intelligence or military person whose accounts I have seen that he had met and talked with. His cadre returned pilots, worked with OSS, sent weather reports & received some material support- But the OSS at the command level was deliberately recruited from those who were assumed to be automatically anti communist- Children of the rich and established conservative politicians. Hence their aspersion by other US intelligence groups as the "Oh So Social".
'Indeed, the manipulation of large nations by small nations for their benefit is one of the least-studied parts of international politics, mainly because it appears counter-intuitive, and is often hidden'
Even though it describes the colonial expansion in the 19th century pretty well…
And it's not just counter-intuitive, it's counter-ideology. Previously counter the academically popular idea of western robber-states overwhelming 'poor countries' and right now 'we're doing it again', unleashing our CO2 bombs at EM climates. Just read decolonizing actvist climate warriors like Jason Hickel. Post Christianity is very Christian indeed.
Branko Milanovic published a related essay today:
Freedom by North-West - The obscurantist nature of East European nationalisms
"So there is often a competition, not to explain a problem as such, but rather to fit it into one of a series of competing frameworks and models, which generate an analysis and a course of action which suits the objectives of the organisation, or strengthens its position in the political market."
Thank you again for adding depth. It is not that I am now or have been slavishly devote to the Great Power dominance narrative, but neither have I been as clear eyed and logical as you are. The most striking case in the present is the manipulation of the United States by Israel, a manipulative client state masquerading as an ally. Very often, just when I think I have understood a situation actions and relationships of which I had not considered important or of which I had been unaware will upend my supposed understanding. In the case of Southwest Asia, I find it best to await events as the complexities, I suspect, confound even the best informed observer.
I agree with this "Human beings can only tolerate a certain degree of complexity.". However I'm of the opinion our complexity limitations do not stop us from making simple things, complicated. There are a number of reasons, here are a couple.
People need to have a sense of worth. Many think their activities/work needs to be perceived as complicated to justify the activity/job. This is also true in government. Simple situations don't justify growing salaries and departments; always seeming to be necessary.
Nobody expected outraged comments from supporters of the various countries mentioned, but we all knew that one mention of a certain state even in passing would lead to a burst of them. It is fascinating how the truth of Aurelien's argument about the importance of mastery of the language and shared cultural heritage and understanding is so quickly and clearly demonstrated. The little country most associated with managing to manipulate much bigger, supposedly far more powerful nations (excluding Vatican City) is not even whispered about but quickly dominates the discussion below. Of course it helps that the anglophone internet is awash with eagle eyed enthusiasts looking to take offence and to explain, and above all to justify the most egregious, extreme, brutal, contradictory, and unconscionable behaviour. What I wonder is do they think that simply repeating the same lame justifications again and again convinces anyone anymore? In summary, it takes two to Tango, and even when the dance floor has been mined, one dancer's leg removed, a blindfold applied and everyone in the band is playing a different tune, the failure to offer up a recognisable set of steps, or any rhythmic movement at all, is explained as a lack of genuine commitment to the dance by one of the pair - and not the intact one who also manages the dance hall.
the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan?
My memory of the era has faded but, as I recall, the reformist, UN-recognized Government of Afghanistan invited the USSR to assist in modernizing the country and the USSR did so, and then left in good order.
@Godfree Roberts
The actual Soviet INVASION occurred during the Carter administration after the CIA set up and accomplished their fundamentalist Muslim based coup d'etat against the (excessively modernizing in their view) Afghanni government which had worked with USSR on infrastructure development, with the explicit intent of drawing the USSR into "their own Vietnam". These assholes BRAGGED about causing the USSR:Afghan war and claimed it was their clever actions which destroyed the USSR.
How did this article end without any reference to Israel ?
"Indeed, the manipulation of large nations by small nations for their benefit is one of the least-studied parts of international politics, mainly because it appears counter-intuitive"
I concur. True to form, our host avoids describing the relationship between israel and the Western goverments, especiallythose of the USA, UK, France and Germany-the real elephant in the room. Given that these governments routinely vote against the best interests of their own people to support the "shitty little country" infecting MENA, deny and/or justify genocide just for this one entity, and send "envoys for peace" who served in the IDF and/or awoved zionists, and destroy anyone who speaks against the ziocons, who really has the agency in this set of relationships?
Ishmael Zechariah
I suspect there is some art at work here on Aurelien's part -- and you came up with the (I think frankly obvious) example on your own anyway, didn't you? I don't think this is an accident ...
@eg
Yep.
Author not required to wave a red flag in Mossad's face and simultaneously offer whatever is left of Unit 8200 a free shot at one of their very favoritest attack surfaces, anyone who can allow their mind to go there already went.
It is a better argument to reference the difference between English-speaking Palestinians who frequent BBC and other western channels compared to what they say in Arabic and what Palestinians think themselves. There is no body of evidence that Palestinians support a two state solution where Israel remains a Jewish State. Rather they say openly that the Jews will "go back to Poland" and that is peace for them and what they want.
Is there any indiction that media or even people like yourselves understand that? You fall into the same trap that Israel is all-powerful, that the Palestinians are mere children, and peace can come if Israel just tweaks their behaviour, as if the Palestinian people will fall into line behind "peace" like automatons.
The so called two state solution wasn’t supposed to solve anything, it was intended to give the colonialist a moral veil while expanding their colony. Which the Palestinians see trough so you are right, the only ones that still support it are the people paid to do so, ie the PA.
As to telling the settlers to go back to their country of origin, what on earth is wrong about that? (The invasion is more Brooklyn than Poland, though.)
Israel is the most successful refugee-managed country in the world. The majority of Israeli Jews are from Middle Eastern countries and they cannot return even if they wanted to because of violence from their Muslim-majority neighbours. They have no alternative but to stay and fight. There is a reason why Itamar Ben-Gvir is Iraqi by background and such an extremist: his family personally experience Arab persecution and has no desire to go back to being beaten, tortured, raped and killed.
Beaten, tortured raped and killed, sounds like an average afternoon for a Palestinian, except for skipping having your land and your house stolen.
And you logic is flawed, because what may or may not have happened in Iraq or any other country does not give you the right to go to a third country and simply steal it.
The Zionist entity has already suffered a strategic defeat in this war, but there is still a chance for coexistence in a secular and democratic Palestine.
I suggest you take it or do as hundreds of thousands of your compatriots: book a flight back to Brooklyn.
There is not “secular and democratic” Palestinian society and the mere fact you wrote that highlights your extraordinary ignorance of Palestinians. Much like those diplomats and PMC types Aurelian writes about who are overly reliant on English speakers who are invariably more liberal than their compatriots, you genuinely seem to think that there is a secular state on offer by the Palestinians.
My point is that there is nowhere else for the Jews to go. They are not the Crusaders who can return to Europe. So they fight rather than die and of course you would prefer the latter happening to the former.
Which you know for a fact because you are… a scott living in France. Cute. I am clan Graham by the way, so mind your manners commoner!
Okay: about half of the population of the Zionist entity is Askenazi, and could just return to Europe and the United States (which houses the biggest Jewish population in the world).
The other half has lost the war. You claim that they have no place to go. All the greater the reason for them to try to create a unified Palestine with a secular state and a democratically elected government.
I am not suggesting that it will be easy, but if they build on the Chinese group of 14 initiative and get some support from Russia (there is about a million Russian citizens in the Zionist entity) it is still possible.
The alternative is to face the consequences, preferably without whining.
Then they should not have left in the first place
Well for Jews in Muslim nations they were forced out. It’s not as if they had an option.
If they, either or both, had no option then they, eother or both, have no option now
Why bother to argue, they argue only by death
It will end with their either or both more likely both death anyway, they do not care to know if there is any other solution
The above reminds me of how manipulative kids in some of my many schools, would influence large stupid lumps who were not necessarily natural bullies in order to gain power over the playground.
One can only marvel at the lack of sane work with Ukrainian political forces on the part of the Kremlin during the 30 years of Ukraine's existence. When the open confrontation between the Donetsk and Lviv groups began, the Kremlin could only give money or military support to one of the parties. But if you look at Ukraine as an American puppet that does not make decisions on its own, then what is the point of negotiating with local players if you have to go to Washington.
1. The founding of the Viet Minh is most instructive here, with wheels turning inside of wheels. The Cliff's Notes version is that the Viet Minh didn't want to be communists at all, they respected and admired the United States, which, however, could not afford to cheeze off its French and British vassals.
2. "They had no ability to take the pulse of the Street, *not any apparent interest in doing so*, and, like other western governments, were completely ignorant about the religious dimension to the protests." (emphasis added)
The emphasized text "not any apparent interest in doing so" is the money quote in that sentence.
@Feral Finster
Re: Viet Minh and their initial political desires?
Ho Chi Minh's February 28th 1946 telegram to President Truman is instructive:
----------
President Ho Chi Minh Vietnam Democratic Republic Hanoi
To the President of the United States of America Washington D.C.
On behalf of Vietnam government and people I beg to inform you that in course of conversations between Vietnam government and French representatives the latter require the secession of Cochinchina and the return of French troops in Hanoi stop meanwhile French population and troops are making active preparations for a coup de main in Hanoi and for military aggression stop I therefore most earnestly appeal to you personally and to the American people to interfere urgently in support of our independence and help making the negotiations more in keeping with the principles of the Atlantic and San Francisco charters
Respectfully
Ho Chi Minh
(signed)
----------
https://history.iowa.gov/history/education/educator-resources/primary-source-sets/cold-war-vietnam/letter-ho-chi-minh-to
Re: The USSR invasion of Afghanistan & US conservative's analysis of USSR motive?
(Quote)
"But the West, stuck in its great power mentality, and in the middle of a transition to much tougher anti-Communist line, opted to treat the invasion as a simple expansionist enterprise, which those on the political Right had always warned against. Indeed, many figures on the Right argued gleefully that their worst fears had been confirmed, and that the next target would be Pakistan or Saudi Arabia."
----------
Despite the Carter & later, Reagan administration "authorized version" of events, that the evil commie Russians were expanding their iron fisted dictatorship, intent upon conquering all of western Asia, then the whole world? The State Department and CIA knew better, as they had selected a number of Islamic fundamentalists and local tribal/wannabe war lord power seekers to finance and TRIGGERED the coup against the (too USSR friendly) Afghan government.
Before that coup, the old king's ministries were modernizing Afghanistan too quickly for the sensibilities of some Saudi financed Wahabi fundamentalist trained mullahs and their students (AKA "Taliban"). They were also exercising a bit too much centralized control for the tastes of some ethnic/tribal leaders, even threatening to reduce their ability to produce & traffic in narcotics. The CIA exploited these two attack surfaces, financed and accomplished that coup which caused chaotic conditions they KNEW would not be acceptable to the USSR in their "near abroad" & would lead to a military response. Then, more weapons and training in guerilla tactics by British and USA intelligence were provided, along with weapons and financial support solicited from Saudi Arabia, also the Pakistan ISS aligned factions were granted a franchise to export opiates to further finance their insurgency (and a good bit of the profits stuck to various intelligence and warlord types fingers as well, naturally!).
Jimmy Carter's State/CIA were financing the wannabee rebels at least SIX MONTHS BEFORE THE COUP, then his CIA director and Brzezinski told him "we have
presented the USSR with their own Vietnam". President Carter's public facing BS about this maneuver, including boycotting the US attendance of the Olympic games (when he knew full well that THE CIA had maneuvered the USSR into that invasion) is one of the reasons I don't care how many Habitat for Humanity houses he is photographed at, Jimmy is going to Hell if there is one.
----------
"According to former CIA Director Robert Gates, US intelligence services began aiding the anti-Soviet Union mujahideen six months ahead of the Red Army’s invasion.
Brzezinksi said he convinced Carter to sign the first directive for secret aid to opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul on July 3, 1979 in an effort to goad the Red Army into invading, in a 1998 interview.
“I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention,” said Brzezinksi."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2003/4/23/afghanistan-the-soviet-unions-vietnam
----------
After that action (and the USSR) collapsed, when Afghanistan had been reduced to tribal warfare and anarchy, the whole later business of western energy companies not getting a sweetheart energy pipeline deal with the surviving Afghanis, who asked for local distribution of sufficient natural gas in return to provide energy for rebuilding and supporting THEIR OWN infrastructure and economic development, rather than the usual offerings of some (relative pittance of) bribes to those at the top level for transit? Their too high asking price for transit was involved in the later USA invasion, of course. As the pipeline negotiators told the Afghannis: "We offer you a carpet of GOLD, or a carpet of BOMBS". (Afghannis do not like being dictated to by rude ferengi, they chose bombs).
One could add, as Western states can't even micromanage themselves, or evem manage, how could they micromanage others?
Hrrrm… I would say that outside your circles the obvious lack of realism and the tendency to be emotionally driven (reacting to media coverage) is a much bigger problem than over reliance on realist analysis.
Ukraine is the most recent example: regardless of whether we like it or not, the Russian reaction to the threat posed by a NATO-affiliated Ukrainian state is not hard to understand. The current war was to be expected, it’s perfectly in line with what any other major power would do in the same situation.
Do people in the colonial countries understand that? No, all they see is evil Russia fighting poor noble Ukraine, and if you tell them that it is because of how the world works, their answer will be either that it doesn’t or that it shouldn’t.
The trick about realism is to understand the level of aggregation where it operates. Realism lets you draw the map, but it’s not reality. And no matter how good your map is, when you are out in the woods you will find things that are truly bewildering, some times even things that make it impossible for you to follow the path you planned to take.
And on that level you are right: we often miss the agency of smaller actors. I made that mistake in the early days of the bombing of Libya: I assumed that the decision was made in Washington, it took me years to realise that the driver was actually Paris.
Same thing with Syria: yes the CIA funnelled the weapons (from the balkans, by the way) but the main actors were Saudi Arabia and Turkey. At the time Washington was happy about what happened, but today they are stuck in wounerable positions that they can’t find any way out of.
So what analysis you make depends on what you want to know: if you want to know why venezuela doesn’t retaliate against the United States militarily, realism is a good tool. If you want to have a basic idea of how the world works on a general level mix in some marxism with your realism.
But if you want to have an understanding of what is happening in a specific place at a specific time that makes it possible for you to take action that leads to a desired outcome you need knowledge and experience on a level that is seldom available to an outsider.
This is very realist, thank you
Italian translation here:
"Piccole persone con un'agenzia. No, non quell'Agenzia."
https://trying2understandw.blogspot.com/2024/09/piccole-persone-con-unagenzia-no-non.html
Re: The attempts of smaller nations to influence "great powers" to advance their own interests?
Ho Chi Minh's February 28th 1946 telegram to President Truman is instructive. I wonder how much cheaper it would have been for all involved in the end if Truman had let uncle Ho twist his arm just a bit and told the French NO.
----------
President Ho Chi Minh Vietnam Democratic Republic Hanoi
To the President of the United States of America Washington D.C.
On behalf of Vietnam government and people I beg to inform you that in course of conversations between Vietnam government and French representatives the latter require the secession of Cochinchina and the return of French troops in Hanoi stop meanwhile French population and troops are making active preparations for a coup de main in Hanoi and for military aggression stop I therefore most earnestly appeal to you personally and to the American people to interfere urgently in support of our independence and help making the negotiations more in keeping with the principles of the Atlantic and San Francisco charters
Respectfully
Ho Chi Minh
(signed)
----------
https://history.iowa.gov/history/education/educator-resources/primary-source-sets/cold-war-vietnam/letter-ho-chi-minh-to
----------
The September 1945 assessment of Viet Minh and Ho by OSS officer Archimedes Patti is also instructive:
https://history.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/primary-sources/pdfs/history-education-pss-vietnam-operational-source.pdf
----------
Operational Priority
Have had long conference with Prime Minister, Ho Chi Min and he impresses me as sensible, well balanced, politically minded individual. His demands are few and simple namely limited independence, liberation from French rule, right to live as free people in family of nations and lastly right to deal directly with outside world.
He stated that for many years missionary work of propaganda within party, training of youth and preparation for this day has made them ready not necessarily for complete independence but at least the privilege of dying for their ideals. From that I have been these people mean business and am afraid that French will have to deal with them. For that matter will all have to deal with them. French and beginning to recognize this fact and are going to be big about it by offering Viet Minh terms for their independence. On other hand Vietnam is smart enough to see through Machiavellian attitude French here especially Sainteny and have absolutely refused to deal with him.
Annamese are in unique advantage our position in as much as Japs have given them independence so they consider themselves free of any sovereign power and this includes French who have been hiding behind Jap skirts, vichy tactics and passing themselves off as friends of Americans. On whole Viet Minh has full control of situation not only in hands (unreadable) whole of 3 provinces. Their organization is well knit, program clear and their demands on outside world few. They ask they be permitted travel particularly to America particularly for education purposes and that America send technical experts to help them establish those few industries Indochina is capable of exploiting. Prime Minister particularly asked me that American exercise some control over Chinese occupation forces and that Chinese purchase materials and food rather than requisitioning it during occupation period. Furthermore he pointed out and this I have confirmed from other sources Jap and French that due to flood this year famine is imminent and should Chinese depended on Indochinese for their subsistence during occupation period they will all starve plus creating situation where Annamese will be forced to wage war upon Chinese to protect his livelihood and family.
Annamese celebrating Annamese independence day tomorrow with high solemn mass by Catholics and special ritual by Buddhists.
"I wonder how much cheaper it would have been for all involved in the end if Truman had let uncle Ho twist his arm just a bit and told the French NO." That would have been a simple approach, and there is no profit in that. 😎
@Conservative Contrarian
Uncle Ho seems to have made a good impression on every American intelligence or military person whose accounts I have seen that he had met and talked with. His cadre returned pilots, worked with OSS, sent weather reports & received some material support- But the OSS at the command level was deliberately recruited from those who were assumed to be automatically anti communist- Children of the rich and established conservative politicians. Hence their aspersion by other US intelligence groups as the "Oh So Social".
https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/remembering-vietnam-online-exhibit-episodes-1-4
'Indeed, the manipulation of large nations by small nations for their benefit is one of the least-studied parts of international politics, mainly because it appears counter-intuitive, and is often hidden'
Even though it describes the colonial expansion in the 19th century pretty well…
And it's not just counter-intuitive, it's counter-ideology. Previously counter the academically popular idea of western robber-states overwhelming 'poor countries' and right now 'we're doing it again', unleashing our CO2 bombs at EM climates. Just read decolonizing actvist climate warriors like Jason Hickel. Post Christianity is very Christian indeed.
Branko Milanovic published a related essay today:
Freedom by North-West - The obscurantist nature of East European nationalisms
https://branko2f7.substack.com/p/freedom-by-north-west?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=371309&post_id=149086170&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=6mos7&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Very good points indeed
"So there is often a competition, not to explain a problem as such, but rather to fit it into one of a series of competing frameworks and models, which generate an analysis and a course of action which suits the objectives of the organisation, or strengthens its position in the political market."
At last, an ideal use case for LLMs.
Thank you again for adding depth. It is not that I am now or have been slavishly devote to the Great Power dominance narrative, but neither have I been as clear eyed and logical as you are. The most striking case in the present is the manipulation of the United States by Israel, a manipulative client state masquerading as an ally. Very often, just when I think I have understood a situation actions and relationships of which I had not considered important or of which I had been unaware will upend my supposed understanding. In the case of Southwest Asia, I find it best to await events as the complexities, I suspect, confound even the best informed observer.
I agree with this "Human beings can only tolerate a certain degree of complexity.". However I'm of the opinion our complexity limitations do not stop us from making simple things, complicated. There are a number of reasons, here are a couple.
People need to have a sense of worth. Many think their activities/work needs to be perceived as complicated to justify the activity/job. This is also true in government. Simple situations don't justify growing salaries and departments; always seeming to be necessary.
Those are two simple examples, many more exist.
Nobody expected outraged comments from supporters of the various countries mentioned, but we all knew that one mention of a certain state even in passing would lead to a burst of them. It is fascinating how the truth of Aurelien's argument about the importance of mastery of the language and shared cultural heritage and understanding is so quickly and clearly demonstrated. The little country most associated with managing to manipulate much bigger, supposedly far more powerful nations (excluding Vatican City) is not even whispered about but quickly dominates the discussion below. Of course it helps that the anglophone internet is awash with eagle eyed enthusiasts looking to take offence and to explain, and above all to justify the most egregious, extreme, brutal, contradictory, and unconscionable behaviour. What I wonder is do they think that simply repeating the same lame justifications again and again convinces anyone anymore? In summary, it takes two to Tango, and even when the dance floor has been mined, one dancer's leg removed, a blindfold applied and everyone in the band is playing a different tune, the failure to offer up a recognisable set of steps, or any rhythmic movement at all, is explained as a lack of genuine commitment to the dance by one of the pair - and not the intact one who also manages the dance hall.
Thank you for a much needed analysis, even as an overview, of international relations as viewed from a big vs. small country basis.