To make sense of the growing irrationality in Europe’s political debates — particularly those concerning Ukraine — we shouldn't turn to geopolitics or economics, but to psychology
Just as the leaders of the USSR towards the he end deluded themselves. Great piece and a very interesting analysis. However, I am afraid that things might be a bit more complicated especially when it comes to the top leadership. Here some conspiracy theories might also be relevant perhaps?
I am not sure if psychology can explain people’s behaviour, despite neoliberals trying to convince us of that. It is even less possible to reduce structural mismanagement to psychology. Sorry! Maybe article does go into a different, expanded, direction. Hard to say, since it is, as always in Compact, behind a pay wall.
Psychological angle is often neglected as a way of shedding light on human behaviour. I suppose physics or chemistry might be more precise, quantifiable etc but where will that get you?
Most analysis assumes that the actors (decision makers) are perfectly rational all the time, or that if not, they return to rationality. In other words robots.
Their analysis analyses a world which does not exist. Like mainstream economists. Looking at the psychological angle helps with that problem. Even if it is not hard science like physics.
Within the realm of using psychology to explain the EU power elites, I have another view. The situation of EU decision-making is like a car facing an imminent wreck. The driver tends to swing the driving wheels to avoid a head-on collision in the driver's position. Consequently, it the passenger sitting by the driver tends to receive the full force of the wreck. There are exceptions, all happened when the driver made a conscientious decision to sacrifice himself and protect the passengers. I don't mean the author's view is wrong. I just do not believe the power elites in the EU are competent enough to make out a priority order and deal with the less important business. What they are really doing must be to avoid the head-on collision on the driver's side. I wonder how much of Europe's money has escaped to the US, UK, and Switzerland, or is in the process of that.
i think what you say here is very true - "The problem is Europe has been locked in a classic dominant-subordination relationship with America for so long that now that Trump threatens to destabilise its historic security dependence on the US, Europe is unable to seize this opportunity to redefine itself as an autonomous and peaceful actor; on the contrary, it is attempting to replicate the US’s aggressive foreign policy — to unconsciously “become” the US, in a sense."
Lets assume for one moment that serious war crimes were committed by both sides since the start of the dirty war in 2014. There is a legacy of bitterness, and an air of utter exhaustion - a military solution looks impossible. So the two sides will simply have to enter talks, whether they like it or not. In the meantime Europe will continue, not unreasonably, to arm Ukraine, the smaller and weaker party, to preserve some kind of fragile balance. The last thing Europe wants is the hordes at the gates of Vienna!
there has been no desire for 'balance' and i say this with regard to nato and all it's members going along with the usa agenda of ignoring russias security needs... this is a conflict between nato and russia - always has been... ukraine is just a tool for the continuation of a policy of security that is not interested in any type of balance of security needs on the part of both parties, but instead a dismissal of security concerns from the one side nato - to the other - russia..
Yes, and one thing occurs to me, after decades of observation. Neither side actually seeks a total victory over the other - not in the Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq, Kosovo, and the rest. The problem for the dark actors is that if they ever won such a victory, they would all lose their jobs and their armies and military-industrial complexes would be closed down.
and just who is a master at starting wars the past 75 years?? when it is looked at as a 'make work project' for the military, banking and energy complex, it starts to make more sense.. it is not about winning, so much as destabilizing, destroying and profiting off the mayhem... not everyone is a fan of this type of activity - in fact, most aren't... as we see today, more of the folks in many countries don't want war, but the political leaders don't align with their populace.. this is very obvious in europe today..
I think Russia and the USA (together with their minion states like the UK and France) have a pretty equal track record. It amuses me that the weak and lowly Afghans gave them both a good thumping, but its less funny when you consider how many good men died or lost limbs and eyes, and the catastrophic damage to civilians.
OK, let us start by accepting that Russia is not a State - it is a colonial Empire and that the vast majority of so-called 'Russians' are not actually Russian at all. Does that help?
Just as the leaders of the USSR towards the he end deluded themselves. Great piece and a very interesting analysis. However, I am afraid that things might be a bit more complicated especially when it comes to the top leadership. Here some conspiracy theories might also be relevant perhaps?
I am not sure if psychology can explain people’s behaviour, despite neoliberals trying to convince us of that. It is even less possible to reduce structural mismanagement to psychology. Sorry! Maybe article does go into a different, expanded, direction. Hard to say, since it is, as always in Compact, behind a pay wall.
Psychological angle is often neglected as a way of shedding light on human behaviour. I suppose physics or chemistry might be more precise, quantifiable etc but where will that get you?
Most analysis assumes that the actors (decision makers) are perfectly rational all the time, or that if not, they return to rationality. In other words robots.
Their analysis analyses a world which does not exist. Like mainstream economists. Looking at the psychological angle helps with that problem. Even if it is not hard science like physics.
To answer this would be to write a long essay. Neither chemistry nor physics can explain humans, and I doubt that psychology can. Sorry.
What exactly do you imagine I said?
I said psychology can be helpful.
Yet psychology & emotions are often neglected and analysts assume decision making to be done by totally rational actors.
Both are surely perfectly reasonable, if not self-evident, statements.
Within the realm of using psychology to explain the EU power elites, I have another view. The situation of EU decision-making is like a car facing an imminent wreck. The driver tends to swing the driving wheels to avoid a head-on collision in the driver's position. Consequently, it the passenger sitting by the driver tends to receive the full force of the wreck. There are exceptions, all happened when the driver made a conscientious decision to sacrifice himself and protect the passengers. I don't mean the author's view is wrong. I just do not believe the power elites in the EU are competent enough to make out a priority order and deal with the less important business. What they are really doing must be to avoid the head-on collision on the driver's side. I wonder how much of Europe's money has escaped to the US, UK, and Switzerland, or is in the process of that.
EU is like a pitiful, decrepit old man trying still to be a young blade.
Oh dear.
Yet the EU seeks to prove it is Mars, God of War !
Bacchus, God of Brussels, would be nearer the truth.
i think what you say here is very true - "The problem is Europe has been locked in a classic dominant-subordination relationship with America for so long that now that Trump threatens to destabilise its historic security dependence on the US, Europe is unable to seize this opportunity to redefine itself as an autonomous and peaceful actor; on the contrary, it is attempting to replicate the US’s aggressive foreign policy — to unconsciously “become” the US, in a sense."
Lets assume for one moment that serious war crimes were committed by both sides since the start of the dirty war in 2014. There is a legacy of bitterness, and an air of utter exhaustion - a military solution looks impossible. So the two sides will simply have to enter talks, whether they like it or not. In the meantime Europe will continue, not unreasonably, to arm Ukraine, the smaller and weaker party, to preserve some kind of fragile balance. The last thing Europe wants is the hordes at the gates of Vienna!
there has been no desire for 'balance' and i say this with regard to nato and all it's members going along with the usa agenda of ignoring russias security needs... this is a conflict between nato and russia - always has been... ukraine is just a tool for the continuation of a policy of security that is not interested in any type of balance of security needs on the part of both parties, but instead a dismissal of security concerns from the one side nato - to the other - russia..
Yes, and one thing occurs to me, after decades of observation. Neither side actually seeks a total victory over the other - not in the Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq, Kosovo, and the rest. The problem for the dark actors is that if they ever won such a victory, they would all lose their jobs and their armies and military-industrial complexes would be closed down.
and just who is a master at starting wars the past 75 years?? when it is looked at as a 'make work project' for the military, banking and energy complex, it starts to make more sense.. it is not about winning, so much as destabilizing, destroying and profiting off the mayhem... not everyone is a fan of this type of activity - in fact, most aren't... as we see today, more of the folks in many countries don't want war, but the political leaders don't align with their populace.. this is very obvious in europe today..
I think Russia and the USA (together with their minion states like the UK and France) have a pretty equal track record. It amuses me that the weak and lowly Afghans gave them both a good thumping, but its less funny when you consider how many good men died or lost limbs and eyes, and the catastrophic damage to civilians.
i don't see it the same way in terms of equal track record..
OK, let us start by accepting that Russia is not a State - it is a colonial Empire and that the vast majority of so-called 'Russians' are not actually Russian at all. Does that help?
Great Analysis!
Well, well, the republican a royalty and their socialist minions are working hard to solve the problem this way. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2025/02/06/france-delivers-first-fighter-jets-to-ukraine_6737853_4.html