[FRIAM] Enamine

[Sarbajit Roy]

Not really,
Russia is low down on the list of world economies and the Russian people
are quite used to deprivation if they see a positive outcome soon.
Putin paints it as an "EXISTENTIAL" threat for Mother Russia which had to
be done, no matter what.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:41 PM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:

> That sounds plausible.   What I don’t see is a release of sanctions before
> a lot of damage is done to the Russian economy.   North America doesn’t
> really need the oil, although I could see Germany and others folding when
> winter comes again.   As long as the sanctions hold up, Putin is in for a
> world of hurt.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Sarbajit Roy
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 9, 2022 9:02 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Enamine
>
>
>
> What is going to happen in Ukraine is that Russia is going to teach
> Ukraine a lesson for flirting with the EU, NATO and western liberalism and
> signing that NATO document in November 2021.
>
> Putin is going to annex the Eastern and Southern parts of Ukraine by
> setting them up as autonomous regions/states within Ukraines' boundaries as
> Russian protectorates. He is then going to make Kyiv sue for peace under
> his terms with Russia taking over some aspects of Ukraine's foreign affairs
> and defence/security (think back to the former East Germany). Putin has no
> intention of taking over Ukraine or ruling it.
>
> Russian's are very direct communicators (like Klingons), Putin, is doing
> exactly what he said he would do before the invasion started. This is a
> special military operation, not an invasion. The sooner Ukraine folds up
> the better for everyone, and especially the Ukranians, since it's the US
> and UK who are stoking the fires for their own selfish (war mongering
> defence industry) interests.  And interestingly the Muslim world is lining
> up behind the Russia-China axis as nobody really trusts the US and UK
> anymore over there.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 9:57 PM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com>
> wrote:
>
> EricS writes:
>
>
>
> < It seems to me that Mearsheimer’s argument does do an induction for what
> to do next, and it is a 19th-century induction, in which a small number of
> actors simply dictate what the world will do, and there should be some kind
> of US retreat [..] >
>
>
>
> There’s another option, possibly within reach, to create the conditions to
> have the current Russian government implode and give Russia the opportunity
> to join NATO.  It’s not like it hasn’t happened before.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *David Eric Smith
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 9, 2022 3:58 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam at redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Enamine
>
>
>
> It’s a good list of wrongdoings, Roger, and no argument can be sound that
> doesn’t keep it present and active.  Facts are facts.
>
>
>
> I wasn’t saying I can’t follow Mearsheimer’s frame or its reasoning.  I
> was saying that the adequacy of working within the frame seems questionable
> and bothers me. To put in a metaphor where I am sure it would be better if
> I stuck to the particulars, it seems like a Baconian error to me: to
> suppose that (a subset of) the facts are self-interpreting.
>
>
>
> You mention:
>
> Mearshimer's point of view is not pretty, and fairness is not part of its
> calculus, but it's the way of the world that we, the United States of
> America, have made.  And when we screw up in our enthusiasm for truth,
> justice, and the amurkan way, we should not blame others for the
> consequences.
>
>
>
> I agree, and I also understand that you didn’t say my summary included
> either the word or the theme of blaming anybody (while acknowledging that
> both the political and media rhetoric is full of that).  But I want to
> reiterate that apportioning blame and with it responsibility is the opening
> part of a discussion, but not obviously enough to say what to do next.  It
> seems to me that Mearsheimer’s argument does do an induction for what to do
> next, and it is a 19th-century induction, in which a small number of actors
> simply dictate what the world will do, and there should be some kind of US
> retreat, after which we can conclude (?) that the Russian government will
> pull back and return directly to what they were prioritizing in 2012
> (broader-based prosperity, certain conditional integrations, etc., while
> still operating mainly as a partly-kleptocratic petro-state, an economic
> model that is not universal and that does bring in other biases in what
> kind of governance and social structure are most robust).  I guess also
> that Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia will recognize that they were duped and
> quickly withdraw from NATO to become more Finland-like buffer states, and
> that an even easier decision of that kind can be reached with respect to
> Poland and Hungary, since they were backsliders anyway.  (I am being
> absurdist here because, even if one thought Mearsheimer’s analysis of the
> optimal decisions in the past are different from those taken, I don’t see
> what paths to comparable outcomes are available now.)
>
>
>
> Here’s one take, on whether there are other dimensions outside
> Mearsheimer’s frame that bear on its adequacy.  A mock-dialogue:
>
>
>
> QUESTION: Does the Russian (either) annexation or destruction of Ukraine
> at this time move the world toward or away from a rules-based system of
> international constraint?  How does an analytic answer to that serve as a
> criterion for valuing the event and deciding what to do in response to it?
>
> REJOINDER: Does not exist as a question because the U.S. has taken many
> actions that, by not being constrained, undermined the role of constraint,
> whether they were taken by being misguided or by being cynically
> self-interested.
>
>
>
> QUESTION: There are these patches of geography, often referred to by
> non-IR-specialists as “countries”.  We believe there are people who live
> there, and by a kind of abduction, we imagine those people have
> preferences, about engaging in trade relations or military alliances.
> Should decisions they adopt, through various internal negotiations — yes,
> in contexts also shaped by external actors — have some right of persistence?
>
> REJOINDER: Does not exist as a question because the U.S. haas taken
> actions that undermine rules-based international relations.
>
>
>
> One can try to make the argument that there really are no other questions,
> because there is only ONE QUESTION, which is the one on which Mearsheimer’s
> frame settles.  But I think that is a hard argument to make analytically.
> I recognize the possibility that, with short-term and blunt-force choices,
> the identities of actors and their lack of trustworthiness may make this
> frame so dominant that it overshadows most else.
>
>
>
> But in any case, if those other questions do exist, even in a world where
> the U.S. haas taken actions that undermine rules-based international
> relations, I imagine a discussion of them would include elements that arise
> in this:
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/08/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-fiona-hill.html
>
>
>
> I don’t even know how to reason about the simplest things.  One could just
> baldly assert that a unipolar world has been inherently unstable, because
> there is no adequate force either within a country, or through diplomatic
> and economic alliances that a country can marshal, to stop US incursions
> and force this country to reverse some of its adventures.  That somehow a
> hoped-for era when China fills that role, through a combination of internal
> strength and diplomatic and economic influence, will be a less destructive
> one.  But when I look back to the geopolitical trampling, in Eastern Europe
> and Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Americas during the
> US-NATO/Soviet-Union struggles, they seem damaging in similar ways and
> degrees to what the US was the main actor doing in many places during the
> unipolar era.  So it is not obvious to me that the rise of China brings us
> to a better place with a more constrained US, as opposed to just returning
> us to a destructive model that organized the NATO/Soviet bipolarity.
>
>
>
> And of course, technology and ecology are both different now.
>
>
>
> So, I don’t know.
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2022, at 2:02 PM, Roger Critchlow <rec at elf.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> I found Mearshimer's argument a persuasive point of view.   What else has
> the US done that might make other countries anxious?   Engineered regime
> changes in Iran and Chile, supported failed regime changes in Cuba and
> Nicaragua, fought wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, intervened in Panama,
> Grenada, and Somalia, no-fly-zones in the Balkans and Syria, pursued
> economic sanctions against Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia,
> expanded NATO twice into eastern europe, training police and
> counter-insurgency forces god knows where.  That's just in my lifetime
> working from my eroding memory.  If you want to live in the US sphere of
> influence, you'd best not poke the eagle in the eye, you'd best adapt or
> mask your aspirations to the ones the US approves.
>
>
>
> We protest that our interests are supporting democracy and providing
> humanitarian aid, because that feels good.  Pay no attention to those cozy
> contracts between occupied Iraq and the western oil companies.  That tasty
> piece of kleptocracy wasn't in any way a motivation for the completely made
> up reasons for invading Iraq.  (Rumsfeld knew that he knew that Iraq had
> oil reserves, it was a known known.)  And don't get all tedious counting
> the collateral casualties from our drone wars, we only bomb wedding
> celebrations when it's absolutely necessary, and we are sincerely sorry for
> your losses, so, please, stop crying over spilt milk, it really harshes the
> vibe.
>
>
>
> Good for the goose is good for the gander.  Putin is enforcing Russian
> approved aspirations in Ukraine.   And Mearshimer's point is that Putin
> isn't making up his reasons, he's stated them often.  Until the Ukrainians
> capitulate, he will continue to level the country, one apartment block,
> school, hospital, university, police station, city hall, and factory at a
> time.  We can hope there won't be any accidents with nuclear power plants
> or hydroelectric dams.  There will be no Ukrainian ports on the Black Sea
> for British destroyers to visit in the future while flashing their bums at
> Sebastapol.  And we're going to fight him to the last Ukrainian standing,
> like we fought the Sandinistas to the last Contra standing, and we fought
> Cuba to the last Cuban exile standing on the beach at the Bay of Pigs.
>  There wasn't any air cover there, either.
>
>
>
> Mearshimer's point of view is not pretty, and fairness is not part of its
> calculus, but it's the way of the world that we, the United States of
> America, have made.  And when we screw up in our enthusiasm for truth,
> justice, and the amurkan way, we should not blame others for the
> consequences.  And most especially when blaming the other is both
> politically expedient and a way of escalating the conflict that our
> enthusiasms created in the first place.  And mostest especially when we're
> escalating toward a tactical nuclear war in europe.
>
>
>
> Broadwell's rebuttal was so ironic that I couldn't listen to it.  "We
> didn't do that.  We couldn't do that.  We would never do that."   Sure,
> Ray, we're pure as the driven snow, and anything we did or didn't do that
> helped "that coup" happen was an innocent mistake, which Putin should have
> laughed off.  But Putin isn't laughing.  In fact, he looks awful.
>
>
>
> Marcus' observation that "what's the point of a huge defense budget if all
> you can do is cower?" might well be Putin's mantra.
>
>
>
> -- rec --
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 6:37 AM David Eric Smith <desmith at santafe.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Yes, Mearsheimer’s POV is a hard one for me to get my head around, and to
> describe in some way that would be “fair”.
>
>
>
> I don’t want to say it is entirely amoral or immoral.  I think, within his
> view that certain conclusions are foregone, he has a sense that ordinary
> people can work out some conditions of living under several different
> systems, with compensations that they decide work for them, of several
> different kinds.  And within that constraint, a first priority should be to
> avoid conflicts that kill them, destroy places to live and ways of living,
> etc.
>
>
>
> But I also have a structural problem with the way he makes arguments.  In
> a way, one could use argument of that form to say that any time when any
> powerful actor is motivated and capable of impact, that motive takes on
> some kind of legitimacy simply by existing.  So legitimacy gets written out
> of the framing of questions.  On shorter, tactical timescales, I can see
> that in a way.  But on longer timescales, when structure can change, it
> seems like an inadequate and foreshortened frame.
>
>
>
> I should try to say this by way of an example, to try to be more explicit
> about what I mean by “the structure of that kind of argument”.
>
>
>
> CEOs like to piously worry about instability as a risk to their workers.
> I largely view that as manipulation.  Workers can be retrained, as the
> Swedish mining industry has nicely illustrated.  To the extent that they
> have basic competence, some skills, and productive attitudes, they can move
> laterally among industries and be about as well off after the move as
> before.  Not exactly, not in all cases; but overall there is not a good
> argument that industries need to be locked forever into one form in order
> for workers to survive.  A society and economy that seeks to protect
> workers rather than specific job-roles can largely do so.  The ones whom
> there is not a need to transfer laterally are the CEOs.  Once, in the past,
> maybe they competed in some fair field, and by whatever combination of luck
> or skill or talents, won something.  But the river moves on, and someone
> who is very successful and lucky in one fair, novel event has no reason to
> expect to be comparably lucky in regular events afterward.  What changes is
> that they can dig into positions and become rentiers, as the 19th century
> economists used to cast it.  It is, as the Aesop fable says of the goat
> taunting the wolf, not they, but the roof on which they stand, that is the
> source of their safety.  So the main ones threatened by industry change are
> the ones who are shielded from competition and don’t want to go back.
>
>
>
> Yet the Mearsheimer framing would say that, because the CEOs are highly
> motivated, because their motives can be articulated, and because they have
> the capacity for impact, that gives a kind of tautological legitimacy to
> their wishes to stay in power and freeze industries in place, no matter
> what the cost to those who wouldn’t share that choice.
>
>
>
> A country is not one thing.  Russia has clearly identifiable four large
> groups (at least).  There are the former KGB, not necessarily ultra-wealthy
> but accumulating wealth to try to re-establish a past government where
> agency remains with them.  There are the oligarchs, who live as a kind of
> parasitic outgrowth of oligarchs worldwide, but in a less productive
> society.  Then there are the populist nationalists going around wearing Zs
> on their shirts.  And then there are the other several layers of society
> who could consider Boris Nemtsov a spokesman for them.  Mearsheimer’s
> expressions “Russia wants XYZ” are, in the sense of decision makers, "the
> KGB-cabal of Russia wants XYZ", and it can solidify a network of oligarchs
> and Zs to backstop and facilitate the decisions in which the KGB-cabal are
> the decisionmakers and prime movers.  That, to me, seems like a
> foreshortened notion of what “Russia wants”.
>
>
>
> Of course, there is another sort of bizarre Louis XIV disease that has
> bothered me in those who love power and live in academic places as long as
> I have got to experience them directly.  Even if one wanted to fully adopt
> Mearsheimer’s frame, it is only sequitur if the next 100 years,
> ecologically and climatologically, will look more or less like the past
> 100.  That that will not be the case is the thing we can be surest of, in
> all this conversation.  But the power brokers, I think, haven’t
> internalized the view that there are things in the world bigger than them.
> In some superficial cognitive way they have, maybe, but I feel like not
> really.
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2022, at 5:05 PM, Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I guess Mearsheimer would say this poor guy is brainwashed by his Western
> puppet masters, or an elite acting against the interests of his (non)
> countrymen?
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Jon Zingale
> *Sent:* Monday, March 7, 2022 1:15 PM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* [FRIAM] Enamine
>
>
>
>
> https://enamine.net/news-events/press-releases/1333-the-official-appeal-of-enamine-founder-and-ceo-andrey-tolmachov-to-the-drug-discovery-and-scientific-community
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fenamine.net%2fnews-events%2fpress-releases%2f1333-the-official-appeal-of-enamine-founder-and-ceo-andrey-tolmachov-to-the-drug-discovery-and-scientific-community&c=E,1,7_zuyurFyFe4I5VmXYseRz4O1YKW2dXzJUpMFUJ1uKzGzmiajeukuIw86vhfy544XC4ZzJBEG8h2kU7I0OK47-XzUD_mq3Cq3wydLhJscA,,&typo=1>
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2f%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,JLjh8X90xz70EtDOohswP8Ksged8LDrlujTQQTTxOgzkkMS652bcScdWhUcsUpXKRmDr4YAdlPmSF_9u0ngHsiDknrxOKYNDU0FzZE6vgA,,&typo=1
> un/subscribe
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,dDnSbJ_DEfNoagBC5P0kk0kshJ67xY4LaFE5-goO2-CJXFMUuDezuSL62QNuvggOANw_qDlKyzqB1EaMHShRemmmfJ3z1qPExLuVor03QQ,,&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,pIxqNs246xWgEFmILAFDb1ShZQhsNkQEKE9jpvcymsjMv8UDdmDMOcaIld_J1_0zfWRGs9NPDvm2KXwvCqcaiqHiYAFTYCZ-VYRI8w0z0FfOjoTs&typo=1
> archives:
> 5/2017 thru present
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,6pwWdYPRvpzE2aeMda2SGtzo4gePZwM2TB9GVr_FbdpfwYPi-6Wh-CjzjLUuP-8ZYd8rEdsKsZ07oh1PnTYIYlMM-ix6tsyePFh0dSvGliq1uXW3&typo=1
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
>
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,ZZV9uNx3GgXgn2DqYekEUt_mEoNe-wL4Sv2JW0p3L_Zt-Ru-5QQDlzncMTpuTaNEs7DYjhphfpYv1ax55mn2K0l4gz8MQT2M4ZhnonOQV4wMlXOq&typo=1>
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,9PddDY3liolKtWfzSAYFlJEXGVOmlNGiJg9weFOs-J4TmhUF5nyNsQjiZMMBa0JuqiAaByzgwb_d35GrHvQ9DpTMIG0nQYB2UYnxWX1EQU_HGfU,&typo=1>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,8dDBV3rQN8ImUQze8A964QKjksMdCXkLhY-BsOtrBg4NpaDvlRQEyGODlxKK2MXhxvgXtEaXEpUIv0_UFnN1PXVCeGKu5MLEeCyShzNUcZ8xZakM&typo=1>
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,hMw_Qhtxg2Y84SnPc8A9b7htG1HoBPt2VIsaFkosr3JOVUu4G6mzPM8lYqTMQI0792wDwnESlpLwaBaXPRyWpnyTsgYqEazxPCR8OzwVpXuFb7E,&typo=1>
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2f%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,R9rZ8SxSgE0_RGeDg3YSMtWbYw2gOHeUuwE6MaiJNTwUPHcW32I8Xtn36iWJxyb66xDjKIvcBHd2ynYOsCoR8YTCSZZw4efNDdjTe5WVHak1tI1mF5QSjA,,&typo=1
> un/subscribe
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,hu4OMMhcdORxWwnIt3t4Dip6JyvG6HXyEFWoc-5fyRIob4F6UDJ7EWzM9v3fLsbS3RSYPzBArylXlLRqJ28hLOoF_vRJpRYgq9MVeDOXvcb7&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,l484PbmWO9CNufei2Yi25ufvxfs1ck38xi0LPPvS7BDGypSHVmEygUiXuKEXPtoouBOF4KMN9dKgCnM1qJRfy_utXd9lrXPhyeR5BZKzj5g,&typo=1
> archives:
> 5/2017 thru present
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,HK7o_ZHfviQzu6ARvMhIVqPYzpmrjOFDu_UqPszB4mvXa4KnLjngdsDOZNK3KJZI7ZLPFw-w7TdT2uw5hdPW2vr-_M-IwvaX5ln-Wx-4LlxeerG3WVDwpQ7Btg,,&typo=1
> 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
>
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
>
> .-- .- -. - / .- -.-. - .. --- -. ..--.. / -.-. --- -. .--- ..- --. .- - .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn UTC-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:
>  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220309/d9d4f772/attachment-0001.html>