The myth of Russian humiliation

[AmericanPride]

AP---"Russian humiliation or no humiliation" some others see Russia as much as a threat as I do and I went through the Cold War here and thought in 1991 it was going to be a thing of the past.

Good for you. I don't think anyone on this board has stated that Russia is not a 'threat' to U.S. interests. The difference remains in the extent and causes of that threat.

I think you might agree with me for a moment that any leader of a country that is "rational thinking" in the face of a "free falling economy" WOULD in fact do everything possible to 'save" his or here country.

There are alot of tangled assumptions in that statement. 'Rational thinking' only means that there is a logical connection between motive, opportunity, and means. That's it. Now what we think is rational from an outsider's perspective for Russia's political elite will be different from what they determined to be rational from their point of view. Humans are also rationalizing - meaning that their decisions are shaped by previous decisions and their own perceptions. Not every decision is made on its own merits but is made within the continuity of all the decisions before it, starting with the anchoring positions and assumptions. This is why people "throw good money after bad" or "throw the baby out with the bathwater".

Additionally, we also have to consider the consequences of collective and bureaucratic decision-making. There is a 'collective rationality' produced by the outcomes of internal debates and deliberations between key personalities and bureaucracies. Sometimes this 'collective rationality' generates sub-optimal outcomes when compared to the assumption of monolithic state decision-making. So the Putin administration may in fact be doing 'everything' they think possible to "save" the Russian economy.

BUT what if he or she takes a completely different stance---meaning a military geopolitical victory takes precedence over virtually everything else.

It depends how a "military geopolitical victory" fulfills the desired objectives of the Putin administration. It may be that the outcomes of such a victory (say, consolidation of state powers or control of the state by Putin and his allies) are more important to the decision-makers than the consequences, such as recession. Generally speaking, domestic interests trump international ones, and sometimes directly dictate foreign policy decisions. Even with the economic consequences, Putin has managed to consolidate state powers and sustain high public opinion, even for him. This probably reinforces Russia's intrasgience when it comes to Ukraine.

Now when a state is commited to a course of action, the issue becomes less about the course taken and more about the credibility of the state. One of your arguments is that Russia's actions have encouraged NATO solidarity, and is therefore 'irrational' since the assumption is that Russia wants to break NATO. That may be true. But it also may be true that the Russian elite on some level welcomes NATO's perception that Russia is a threat because it indicates that Russia is being taken seriously as a world power. Reversing course now would give credence to the argument that Russia is impotent.

SO AP---just what maneuver did the Russian soldier sgo missing on?

You ask these questions like I care about Russian propaganda.

If as you argue they are "rational thinking human beings"---then one would say totally defying the laws of economics in the face of a fully collapsing economy is intensely damaging to one's career if you are a leader of a "normal thinking" country.

First, to say that there are 'laws of economics' to be defied is absurd. There are causual relationships between inputs and outputs that sometimes hold true under some circumstances given specific conditions.

Second, Russia's economy is not 'fully collapsing'. It's heading towards recession. There is no way to predict how long the recession will last or the depth it will go.

And third, the recession may or may not be 'intensely damaging' to Putin. Political leaders have survived worse, even in reliably democratic countries. More likely, Putin will find a scapegoat to direct any public resentment - probably the West since the majority of Russians view the West as the enemy.

ethno neo imperialism cloaked in the simple term fascism or DO you have an explanation for the eight Russian mercenary groups which are truly Russian fascists fighting in the Ukraine against from Russia alleged to be Ukrainian Nazi's?

I've answered this question elsewhere already.