I worked for a few years in and around Nigeria. While I was there, Boco Haram displayed its penchant for cutting the throats of school boys, and incinerating them alive in their classrooms. When they realised that gynocentric western societies don't care much about boys, they switched to kidnapping schoolgirls. Only then did Michelle Obama demand that we #bringbackourgirls and everyone get emotional about what was happening to Nigeria.
I mention this because it illustrates how arbitrary are the things we decide to get emotional about. Those who demand we get emotional about issue (A) rarely explain whey they aren't demanding that we get emotional about equally deserving issues (B), (C), (D), etc. Most often, the difference is nothing more than "they look like us / they don't look like us".
You find yourself arguing that we should now get emotional about misfortunes that we are the agents of. We decided to pivot NATO from a defensive organisation to an offensive one. We decided to incite a putsch to install a client government sympathetic to Western governments, then overlook their oppression of ethnic Russian minorities. We decided to threaten the Russian navy's access to Crimea's warm water port, and pave the way to installing nuclear weapons on its borders. NATO would never have accepted China or Russia overthrowing the Mexican government, entering into an offensive military alliance with them, and parking nuclear weapons on their territory. Knowing the brutal nature of Russia, we decided to play in a space that accommodates outcomes that look like this. To be surprised now by Russia's actions and claim that we have a responsibility to be emotional about them seems to overlook our responsibility for them.
You argue that cold realism is left to policy makers and decision takers. You overlook that, in poorly governed countries such as ours, policy makers and decision makers reflect the emotional - which is to say, irrational - demands of their citizens. Look, for example, at the recent catastrophic public policy response to a 99.97% survivable virus. To argue that *we* should arbitrarily become emotional about this issue is to argue that *our policy makers and decision takers* should become emotional.
And it is when policy makers and decision takers abandon cold realism and get emotional that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are deployed (I make this observation as a former serving officer in the RAF).
We can distinguish between the legitimacy of Russia's rejection of NATO offensive action and the utterly deplorable means by which they are expressing that rejection. Our hearts can go out to the suffering of men, women, and children that our expansionist goals have, at least in part, led to. But however tempting (and, for some, virtuous) it might be, emotion and modern weaponry make a horrific combination, with outcomes even more horrific than the ones we have already incited. I think it is unwise of you to advocate it.
Your feelings about Ukraine are shared by every decent person Blair.
If we are going to survive this crisis decent people have to think clearly and act decisively. Things cannot be left to political leaders chasing short term advantage or their own blinkered dogmas.
This, like nearly very other problem faced by humanity, is essentially down to nationalism. In the case of Ukraine both in its evil form (Putin) and its futile form (Western failure to coordinate).
You don't need me to tell you where most of us have to fight nationalism and the experience of the last ten years teaches us that we cannot be complacent even in the face of the most ludicrous lies and self delusion by advocates of our home grown nationalism.
I worked for a few years in and around Nigeria. While I was there, Boco Haram displayed its penchant for cutting the throats of school boys, and incinerating them alive in their classrooms. When they realised that gynocentric western societies don't care much about boys, they switched to kidnapping schoolgirls. Only then did Michelle Obama demand that we #bringbackourgirls and everyone get emotional about what was happening to Nigeria.
I mention this because it illustrates how arbitrary are the things we decide to get emotional about. Those who demand we get emotional about issue (A) rarely explain whey they aren't demanding that we get emotional about equally deserving issues (B), (C), (D), etc. Most often, the difference is nothing more than "they look like us / they don't look like us".
You find yourself arguing that we should now get emotional about misfortunes that we are the agents of. We decided to pivot NATO from a defensive organisation to an offensive one. We decided to incite a putsch to install a client government sympathetic to Western governments, then overlook their oppression of ethnic Russian minorities. We decided to threaten the Russian navy's access to Crimea's warm water port, and pave the way to installing nuclear weapons on its borders. NATO would never have accepted China or Russia overthrowing the Mexican government, entering into an offensive military alliance with them, and parking nuclear weapons on their territory. Knowing the brutal nature of Russia, we decided to play in a space that accommodates outcomes that look like this. To be surprised now by Russia's actions and claim that we have a responsibility to be emotional about them seems to overlook our responsibility for them.
You argue that cold realism is left to policy makers and decision takers. You overlook that, in poorly governed countries such as ours, policy makers and decision makers reflect the emotional - which is to say, irrational - demands of their citizens. Look, for example, at the recent catastrophic public policy response to a 99.97% survivable virus. To argue that *we* should arbitrarily become emotional about this issue is to argue that *our policy makers and decision takers* should become emotional.
And it is when policy makers and decision takers abandon cold realism and get emotional that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons are deployed (I make this observation as a former serving officer in the RAF).
We can distinguish between the legitimacy of Russia's rejection of NATO offensive action and the utterly deplorable means by which they are expressing that rejection. Our hearts can go out to the suffering of men, women, and children that our expansionist goals have, at least in part, led to. But however tempting (and, for some, virtuous) it might be, emotion and modern weaponry make a horrific combination, with outcomes even more horrific than the ones we have already incited. I think it is unwise of you to advocate it.
Your feelings about Ukraine are shared by every decent person Blair.
If we are going to survive this crisis decent people have to think clearly and act decisively. Things cannot be left to political leaders chasing short term advantage or their own blinkered dogmas.
This, like nearly very other problem faced by humanity, is essentially down to nationalism. In the case of Ukraine both in its evil form (Putin) and its futile form (Western failure to coordinate).
You don't need me to tell you where most of us have to fight nationalism and the experience of the last ten years teaches us that we cannot be complacent even in the face of the most ludicrous lies and self delusion by advocates of our home grown nationalism.