Discussion about this post

User's avatar
hk's avatar

One thing undergirding all of these, I suspect (and I'm talking about more than just Russia, but "everything") is the state of fundamental epistemic dissonance, not unique historically to the West, but certainly prevalent now.

If people have at least basic agreement on what "Russia" is, they may disagree about what to do about it, but at least there's some basis for coming to an understanding--the shared understanding on what Russia is. But all these factions in the West couldn't even agree on what Russia is and rather than risk a confrontation (among themselves) over figuring out what Russia really is, they covered themselves up on obfuscation masquerading as grand (and vague) moralization. The catch, of course, is that, having done so much moralizing, they'd need to do something if they get pushed, but since these actions are really for covering their own collective a**es, they are always inappropriate for the situation (this, incidentally, makes things even more dangerous--I've been saying that F-16s will be a game changer not because they'll do any good, for example, but they will have to be operated by NATO pilots from bases in NATO countries, and they'll force (and Putin has warned as much) Russia to attack NATO bases that they are operating from.)

But is this really different from anything (really) else? A curious development that has come out of the strange strain of modern "LIberalism," I think, is the notion that the individual has the right to his/her/its own version of the Truth: not only do I have the right to believe whatever I want to believe (about the reality), I'm also entitled to have others treat my beliefs as if it is the Truth. Implicitly, if others dispute my beliefs, not only are they liars (because they are denying "self-evident" Truth), but they are intruding on my individual rights. "Political correctness" increasingly runs on this theme: it's not just that it's impolite to bring up too publicly things that are important to other people for various reasons, but it is that certain things (often of questionable veracity) need to be enshrined as the Truth and that criticizing them should be condemned as sacrilege and heresy--because those who hold these beliefs have the right to have these as the Truth.

The paradox this introduces is too obvious and, besides, the original proponents of Liberalism would be spinning as fast as anything possibly could at this interpretation. But it is also true that socio-political philosophy (Liberalism included) has never been too strong on rigorous epistemology (that's the realm of real science--and even there, what exactly the Truth is is far from obvious: there is, after all, a whole field of philosophy of science for this reason and, ultimately, even they seem to have conceded in the end that science is what scientists do--and scientists are still human, with all the human social and epistemic conventions that may not always be compatible with the Truth. So even the 18th century Liberals punted, as we say in America: the Truth is self-evident, so to speak (and literally stated in American declaration of independence.) Any and every "reasonable" people should be able to see it and agree on what it is. And if they don't, well, those who do not agree with the "reasonable" people must be "unreasonable" and must be reeducated by force or else. (This, incidentally, was actually a fairly common attitude in the middlebrow version of 18th century Liberalism--Robert Darnton's wonderful book, "The Forbidden Best Sellers of the Prerevolutionary France," gets into these--and apparently is still just as common among the modern middlebrow Liberals (of both liberal and conservative stripes, "ideologically" speaking.) The trouble is that LIberalism assumes "rational" individuals--but what is rational is never clearly defined. (Back in the days when I taught game theory, I'd joke to students that "rational" in this context literally means that we assume human thinking follows laws of math because, otherwise, what we are doing would not make sense. I'm not sure if they got what I was saying although that is in fact mostly true.)

Perhaps this is not atypical of bad "bureaucracies": But bureaucracies, in turn, are a product of "Liberal" thinking, that the problem to be addressed can be "measured" and a rational "solution" can be developed and implemented more or less "scientifically." If "rational" is the product of a particular epistemology, it should follow that murky epistemology should lead to confused "rationality" and Frankensteinian "solutions" that muddy the waters rather than converge on something workable.

Expand full comment
Feral Finster's avatar

Just yesterday, the US announced yet another "accounting error" that allows for the transfer of an additional $6.2 billion to Ukraine. How incredibly convenient, and just as Ukrainian forces were getting slaughtered yet again!

This is a clear signal, that the United States is going to keep doubling down, and that it isn't going to bother to ask Congress. Doubtless additional mysterious and unspecified accounting errors and suchlike will be discovered whenever these might prove helpful in the future. For its part, Congress is happy to not have to exercise any oversight, as this would involve having to take a stand.

Russia has made a lot of miscalculations in this war, most of them stemming from a failure to appreciate how lawless, arbitrary and sociopathic the West is, how quickly and effortlessly it jettisons Muh Rule Of Law! the moment it becomes inconvenient.

And I have zero doubt that NATO is looking to intervene openly.

Expand full comment
65 more comments...

No posts