Did Angell's opinion change when nukes entered the picture? The main argument for America/EU holding back is risking escalation. But I imagine it's a similar argument… why risk nuclear war over a non-NATO country like Ukraine?
Wait wait wait. Isn't the logic of Angell's argument (in particular his mention of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and China) that the West - Poland, Germany, France, Britain, the United States, Canada - should be fighting Russia for Ukraine's independence right now? Isn't this the fallacy of the harmony of interests taken from a different angle, not just that it'd be irrational and immoral for a country to attack another, but that it'd be rational for all countries to respond by going to war with the aggressor? (See E. H. Carr, "The Twenty Years' Crisis 1919-1939.")
The actual Western response is to (1) raise the costs to Russia, through strong sanctions and through military aid to Ukraine, and (2) humanitarian assistance to the millions of refugees who have fled. But we're not following Angell's view.
Certainly it makes sense that countries seek alliances to defend against threats, but that's different from what Angell is saying, which is (if I understand correctly) that a threat to any one country is a threat to all other countries, and thus that there's a natural alliance between them. This is the mistaken reasoning on which the League of Nations was founded. NATO was set up with different assumptions and more limited objectives.
A well written post, it is always enjoyable to read you Dan. The basis of NATO is an alliance against Russia. Russia is big and at right angles to most of the objectives of Europe. That small nations might be protected in its enclosure does not mitigate the fact it has a reason to be and purpose. If it was there to merely protect small nations all over the globe, no matter who they are otherwise allied to, or whatever its competing interests to Europe, it is unlikely to have achieved or ever to achieve that purpose.
One is reminded of the eventual PM Lloyd Georges' appeal to justify Britain's entry into WWI. It was not in the interest of the British Empire but to merely protect small nations. "God has chosen little nations as the vessels by which He carries the choicest wines to the lips of humanity, to rejoice their hearts, to exalt their vision, to stimulate and to strengthen their faith; and if we had stood by when two little nations were being crushed and broken by the brutal hands of barbarism our shame would have rung down the everlasting ages." (Sept 19, 1914) Somehow the claim rings a little false with the evidence, nice though to the ears of those with Welsh ancestry these sentiments are.
Did Angell's opinion change when nukes entered the picture? The main argument for America/EU holding back is risking escalation. But I imagine it's a similar argument… why risk nuclear war over a non-NATO country like Ukraine?
Wait wait wait. Isn't the logic of Angell's argument (in particular his mention of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and China) that the West - Poland, Germany, France, Britain, the United States, Canada - should be fighting Russia for Ukraine's independence right now? Isn't this the fallacy of the harmony of interests taken from a different angle, not just that it'd be irrational and immoral for a country to attack another, but that it'd be rational for all countries to respond by going to war with the aggressor? (See E. H. Carr, "The Twenty Years' Crisis 1919-1939.")
The actual Western response is to (1) raise the costs to Russia, through strong sanctions and through military aid to Ukraine, and (2) humanitarian assistance to the millions of refugees who have fled. But we're not following Angell's view.
Certainly it makes sense that countries seek alliances to defend against threats, but that's different from what Angell is saying, which is (if I understand correctly) that a threat to any one country is a threat to all other countries, and thus that there's a natural alliance between them. This is the mistaken reasoning on which the League of Nations was founded. NATO was set up with different assumptions and more limited objectives.
A well written post, it is always enjoyable to read you Dan. The basis of NATO is an alliance against Russia. Russia is big and at right angles to most of the objectives of Europe. That small nations might be protected in its enclosure does not mitigate the fact it has a reason to be and purpose. If it was there to merely protect small nations all over the globe, no matter who they are otherwise allied to, or whatever its competing interests to Europe, it is unlikely to have achieved or ever to achieve that purpose.
One is reminded of the eventual PM Lloyd Georges' appeal to justify Britain's entry into WWI. It was not in the interest of the British Empire but to merely protect small nations. "God has chosen little nations as the vessels by which He carries the choicest wines to the lips of humanity, to rejoice their hearts, to exalt their vision, to stimulate and to strengthen their faith; and if we had stood by when two little nations were being crushed and broken by the brutal hands of barbarism our shame would have rung down the everlasting ages." (Sept 19, 1914) Somehow the claim rings a little false with the evidence, nice though to the ears of those with Welsh ancestry these sentiments are.
Another excellent post. May I add this for your perusal?https://zacharydcarter.substack.com/p/lessons-from-keynes-for-the-crisis?s=r