• ssu
    8.6k
    It's really a Paradox

    The strongest armed forces, which is extremely capable and has high morale, has the ability to fight a war in every Continent, adapts well into difficult situations and learns from it's past mistakes, why does it lose conflicts? Americans can (correctly) argue that they haven't been defeated on the battlefield in fixed battle. But the truth is that they have lost wars, there is no credible denial about this. That Afghanistan is an Islamic Emirate today, just shows how the Global War on Terror was lost. Just like the fact that there is no South Vietnam anymore.

    American partisan politics and polarization simply denies the ability to have a real discussion of this last lost war, which happened in the country called "the Graveyard of Empires", something that future historians won't forget. The simple reason is that this lost war happened because the actions of US Presidents from both parties, which then simply makes debate in the highly partisan discourse difficult. And this makes debate simply too painful, perhaps. The debate, just like with the lost war in Vietnam, is put aside and perhaps only later discussed if ever.

    Yet the similarity with South Vietnam and Afghanistan are obvious. In both occasions, the Americans left their past ally on it's own because of the unpopularity of the war (perceived or real), with the result that Afghanistan collapsed even quicker than South Vietnam, but in a similar spectacular fashion, now with Afghans clinging to the undercarriages of US military transports and then falling into their deaths. Something quite similar to the final stages of the withdrawal from Saigon.

    The Idea of "the Forever War"

    A Marine general testifying on Capitol Hill during the War on Terror put it aptly with telling that the country was in war, but it sure didn't feel so at home. Americans simply haven't felt that their country has been in wars, not even with in their taxes. This creates the environment for the idea that all wars are done for the military-industrial complex themselves and lead by a Foreign Policy establishment (called "the Blob" by some) totally separated from American life. It's the the idea of Smedley Butler of "war being a racket" put on steroids. The problem with this is that even if the part of the criticism of Butler and later people is true, if not taken to be the only part of the problem, but that everything is just a racket for the military-industrial complex to prosper, you can make disastrous decisions. Because then the conclusion of simply withdrawing is logical, because the whole conflict was "artificially engineered" by the US itself. This leads to simply Americans looking at their own navel and totally forget that there's the enemy view of the conflict is totally different. Something like the conflict in Vietnam didn't originate from the US and invading a country like Afghanistan because a financier of a terrorist attack happened to stay there does have consequences. If you brake it, you own it, as the saying goes.

    This can see both in the way Vietnam war was lead by the administrations of Johnson and Nixon, but also the in the way that the war in Afghanistan was dealt by Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden. Once the Taliban regime was toppled, Afghanistan never was a focus for any administration, but an inconvenient problem that should be ended as quickly as possible and the troops being withdrawn. How to fight a war when you promise to withdraw your forces at some certain time is in my view, beyond hubris. And this was clear to Pakistan, that successfully played it's cards and averted the hostility of the US while still backing the Taliban. Obviously Pakistanis could burn the candle from both ends. In the Vietnam war, the Americans simply saw the conflict as part of Cold War had their domino theory, not like North Vietnam. That China and North Vietnam had a border war few years after and how Vietnam then invaded Kampuchea to oust Pol Pot's regime shows just how wrong the domino theory was. Yet even more delusional than the domino theory was the reason given to the fighting in Afghanistan: that if Afghanistan was lost, it would become a terrorist haven and attacks on mainland US would continue and increase. This lunatic idea that was simply reurgitated so many times that it seemed to make sense, lead to the peace agreement that then Trump made. Because Trump truly went with this line. Thus Taleban promised not to attack the US or US forces and promised to talk to the Afghan government, which wasn't at all part of the peace treaty. Biden then kept to the agreement made by Trump while the Taleban disregarded the the part of talks with the Afghan Republic and staged a successful offensive to conquer all of Afghanistan. This then encouraged Putin to take Ukraine once and for all in a Blitzkrieg style attack, which didn't go according to plan.

    The Future, the next Forever War to end

    There are worrisome signs that this delusion continues, where the US looks at conflicts just from it's own viewpoint. The war in Ukraine is talked as a "forever war" that ought to be quickly halted. Marco Rubio, the incoming secretary of state, sees the war as stalemate that has to be ended and we all know Trump's campaign promise to end the war immediately. Above all, we already have an example how Trump makes peace agreements with the Taliban example. We have seen what happens, when Trump wants the peace deal to happen... and which side then gives in to get the deal done. What is, again, totally absent is the understanding how Russia and Putin sees this war. Putin has said that Russia is at war with NATO. Hence the US isn't for him a intermediary, but the belligerent, the enemy here. For Trump to say that he's in good relation with both Zelensky and Putin is very difficult to understand. The US isn't an intermediary here. Just think what the reaction would have been if Roosevelt had said how good terms he is with Hitler or the Japanese Emperor and the conflict can be ended. For Russia, the enemy is the US. For Putin this an existential fight politically, where it isn't at all an existential fight for the US and Trump. It's just a campaign promise among others. And this is the real problem here. For Ukraine, it truly is the fight is existential for the whole country, which makes it here the weakest side. Yet when people have the wrongful idea that the conflict is a forever war (that happened because of NATO enlargement) and thus has to be ended with US withdrawal, this will have serious consequences for NATO and the status of US being a Superpower. The idea that now Europe will strongly rearm itself is unlikely. It's a pipe dream. What is likely that "Finlandization" will prevail: European countries will, one by one, try to then to remake the broken ties with Russia. Hungary and Orban, friend of Trump, is showing the way. Russian actions will be "understood" and accepted. It may take as long for Putin to die of natural causes or whatever, but that is the likely outcome if Russia wins this war. And by getting what it has taken already, or perhaps have the border on the Dniepr, Russia will have prevailed. In Russian rhetoric, it will be a victory over NATO. Russia will achieve it's goal of weakening Atlanticism. The inability for Americans to see how this weakens their own alliance is quite telling. Because the alliances are just a symptom of the military establishment that makes forever wars possible. Or so the thinking goes with the "forever war" mentality.

    But that's just my opinion. I would like to hear what others think. Are there other causes for the US to lose wars? Or am I wrong?
  • T Clark
    13.9k

    A really good, comprehensive summary. Discouraging. I can't think of much to say. I don't have anything near an answer. How can we go through Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan and all the chaos and catastrophe associated with them and still think there is value in these types of policies?

    One thing I have thought about a lot, starting in the early 1990s - Gorbachev gave us the gift of a new eastern Europe and western Asia. How did we handle it? Even knowing Russia's historical paranoia about being surrounded and invaded, we immediately started expanding NATO right up to it's borders. Now it's enclosed by hostile countries backed by the US and western European militaries. No wonder Putin is furious. We blew it. We were naive and thoughtless, but then, as your summary shows, we always seem to be.

    The OP brings to mind the ongoing discussion here on the forum - "In Support of Western Supremacy, Nationalism, and Imperialism." That thread displays the US's superpower mania at a scale that dwarfs even our past adventures. The fact that that kind of fantasy still holds power always confounds me. The worst part is that the desire for military solutions to political problems is still strong in mainstream political leadership.
  • DingoJones
    2.8k
    The value of those policies is monetary, in service to the military industrial complex (MIC). The fantasy held by people not directly involved in the service to MIC is a result of successful propaganda disguised, among other things, as nationalism or patriotism.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    Everyone loses wars.
  • Hanover
    12.9k
    To truly win a war requires permanent occupation. We can destroy a government and devastate an economy, but unless we're prepared to colonize and occupy, all we can do is destroy and allow it to rebuild under a new set of leadership.

    France colonized Vietnam and held it until Japan took it over until they lost it to Hiroshima, and then the US didn't want it to go Comminist so the whole wrangling in their politics that was supposed to end with allowing the Vietnamese to democratically choose their course. More US meddling and then war, but the point is the US never wanted to take over Vietnam. They just wanted them to do as they were told. Had the US wanted to annex it for statehood, that'd be a different story, but even then, colonies are hard to hold. The British Empire couldn't hold and neither could the USSR.
  • ssu
    8.6k
    The value of those policies is monetary, in service to the military industrial complex (MIC). The fantasy held by people not directly involved in the service to MIC is a result of successful propaganda disguised, among other things, as nationalism or patriotism.DingoJones
    Perhaps for Dick Cheney and Haliburton, but not for the North Vietnamese soldier fighting the Americans. Or the young Afghan men that we called the Taleban. For them it's not the military industrial complex or profits, it's a war to defend your country against an outside aggressor. The simple fact is that in war the enemy is has different objectives than you and you cannot assume that he has similar aspirations and objectives as you do.

    It was very telling that when Kissenger (of all people) got the Nobel peace prize for "for jointly having negotiated a cease fire in Vietnam in 1973", his North Vietnamese counterpart Lê Đức Thọ refused to take the prize because of a totally logical reason: the war was not finished, it was just an armstice. This just shows the total difference in the thinking of the two belligerents.

    A controversial Nober peace prize:
    henry-kissinger-l-receiving-his-nobel-peace-prize-from-v0-2p6yc7qk5iub1.jpg?width=1080&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=ee7e649f89f8594e6a67530d2e67fe2367b2625f

    This is even more clear in the idea when the tool of sanctions is raised or when the military response is retaliatory and limited in scope. For the US politician an economic slowdown and the voter having economic difficulties will mean losing the next election. For leaders of a country that is attacked or sanctioned by the US, it won't. For them the conflict is usually truly existential, and thus economic hardship won't matter so much. The Houthis in Yemen are a perfect example of this. As the Yemen civil war has now gone on for a decade and the Saudi intervention failed, but did achieve to bomb the country back to being as poor as in the 1970's, the Houthi government can hardly care about some retaliatory bombing of the US when the Houthis attacked international shipping. They know that an US invasion force won't come to fight them in the mountains.
  • jorndoe
    3.6k
    :up:
    "The US" does not refer to a single/uniform/monolithic entity.
    I suppose that's exposed by the nature of democracy.
    Administrations come and go, whatever sentiments come and go, ...
    A weakness of democracy (compared to dictatorships or theocracies for example)?
    Well, if politics are like fashions and impatience a driver, then perhaps.
    We can just hope that voters generally are smart enough.

    Obviously, this (the U.S. setback) is a temporary phenomenon. America will continue its involvement in this conflict, in fact direct involvement. But we have repeatedly said before that according to our forecasts fatigue from this conflict, fatigue from the completely absurd sponsorship of the Kyiv regime, will grow in various countries, including the United States. And this fatigue will lead to the fragmentation of the political establishment and the growth of contradictions.Dmitry Peskov · via Reuters · Oct 2, 2023

    This is what distinguishes a true world leader from the people we call temporary caretakers, who come for five minutes to show off on the international platform, and then disappear just as quietly.Vladimir Putin · via Newsweek · Oct 17, 2023
  • ssu
    8.6k
    Thanks, @TClark.

    One thing I have thought about a lot, starting in the early 1990s - Gorbachev gave us the gift of a new eastern Europe and western Asia. How did we handle it? Even knowing Russia's historical paranoia about being surrounded and invaded, we immediately started expanding NATO right up to it's borders. Now it's enclosed by hostile countries backed by the US and western European militaries. No wonder Putin is furious. We blew it.T Clark
    This is the line that has been discussed again and again especially the Ukraine war thread (which btw started before the large scale Russian invasion started).

    But did you really blow it?

    I can look at this from a different angle as my summer cottage is very close to the Russian border. Please understand that the US isn't almighty, it's just one actor in Europe. The World doesn't circle around the US. Russia itself is the really big actor here. The Soviet leadership avoided the largest wars when the USSR collapsed, but the problem was that Russia knew just one thing, that it was an Empire. It has all these minorities, a large Muslim population and many people who really aren't European. How could this be a nation state? The new leadership especially under Putin couldn't see itself as a "humble" European nation state, because Russia simply isn't a nation state. If there was a theoretical window of opportunity to link Russia into Europe, it would have been immediately when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yet that would have needed larger than life politicians both in Moscow and Washington DC, but those political Houdini's didn't exist. That door closed during the time of Yeltsin, not Putin. And with Putin, the KGB took hold of the power in Russia. With the Kursk accident, Putin's Russia was back in the old ways.

    Yet the self flagellation of the West is only possible when one ignores totally what Putin and the Russian leadership themselves have said to be the reason for war. NATO enlargement is one of Putin's lines, but so is the artificiality of the state of Ukraine and it being natural of Ukraine being part of Russia. Just how delusional this talk would be if the UK prime minister would say similar things about Ireland? That it's an artificial country and should be back in the UK. I think that many Irish would be alarmed of the kind of crazy talk. But it somehow isn't crazy when Putin says it.

    Also please understand that key players in the NATO enlargement were the new countries themselves. And when Putin made the large scale attack on Ukraine, it was the Finnish street, the people, that changed their ideas of NATO in a heartbeat and the politicians followed. Without the invasion, both Finland and Sweden would be happily outside NATO. The Baltic States and Poland (correctly) understood that for Russia, the collapse of Soviet Union was another Times of Troubles and the country could soon get over it as they did once oil prices went up. Hence it was for the "near abroad" countries this brief opportunity to get out of Russia's stranglehold.

    The OP brings to mind the ongoing discussion here on the forum - "In Support of Western Supremacy, Nationalism, and Imperialism." That thread displays the US's superpower mania at a scale that dwarfs even our past adventures. The fact that that kind of fantasy still holds power always confounds me. The worst part is that the desire for military solutions to political problems is still strong in mainstream political leadership.T Clark
    Bob Ross likely wanted to stir up a heated debate, luckily didn't get banned. Yet I don't think there's a US superpower mania. The last true excess were the neocons, who didn't themselves believe at first they got the power. They themselves were encouraged by the last war that the US won: the liberation of Kuwait back from Iraq. That is now the time that I see as the pinnacle of US power, which lead the neocons to go crazy later. Trump actually destroyed them (the neocons) in my view, although he can appoint them into his administration. He simply walked over Jeb Bush and nobody still goes with the line that President Bush "just got bad intel with Iraq". That is something thanks to Trump.

    Yet Trumpism might go overboard too much on the other side. If the US really thinks Russia attacking Ukraine happened because of US actions and hence it's the US that has to "de-escalate", really think twice what you are doing. Luckily Trump has admitted that things have changed. Above all, Ukraine hasn't yet been giving the treatment that the Republic of Aghanistan and South Vietnam got. But this outcome can still happen. A Dolchstoss given to Ukraine with Europe just watching from the side just what the hell happened is the worst outcome. But that hasn't happened.
  • ssu
    8.6k
    The attitude of Putin towards democracy and democratic leadership with term limits is shown perfectly clearly in this comment. Something that people should notice.
  • frank
    15.9k
    The attitude of Putin towards democracy and democratic leadership with term limits is shown perfectly clearly in this comment.ssu

    He's right though, isn't he? The US makes a schizoid global leader when there's no existential threat to keep things on track. The world needs an emperor. Not exactly like a Dune emperor, but similar.
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    I can look at this from a different angle as my summer cottage is very close to the Russian border.ssu

    Do you live in the Baltics?

    Please understand that the US isn't almighty, it's just one actor in Europe. The World doesn't circle around the US. Russia itself is the really big actor here. The Soviet leadership avoided the largest wars when the USSR collapsed, but the problem was that Russia knew just one thing, that it was an Empire. It has all these minorities,ssu

    Living where you do, you may know more about this than I do. I remember back in the early 1990s when Bill Clinton and the rest of NATO started expanding NATO. Even back then I thought it was a graceless response to a world changing action.

    If there was a theoretical window of opportunity to link Russia into Europe, it would have been immediately when the Soviet Union collapsed. Yet that would have needed larger than life politicians both in Moscow and Washington DC, but those political Houdini's didn't exist.ssu

    I don't necessarily think we should have "linked Russia into Europe." I just think it was a big mistake to move NATO right up to Russia's borders. We reacted very aggressively to Russian weapons in Cuba back in the 1960s. Why would we expect to Russia to feel differently? What benefit did the west get out of it?

    NATO enlargement is one of Putin's lines, but so is the artificiality of the state of Ukraine and it being natural of Ukraine being part of Russia.ssu

    It always seemed to me that was just a rationalization for political and propaganda purposes. Maybe I'm wrong.

    Also please understand that key players in the NATO enlargement were the new countries themselves.ssu

    I'm sure that's true, but that's not a good enough, or even very good, reason for us to agree to let them in. For us to tie up our military into riskier entangling alliances made it more likely that we would end up in a war with Russia. That would be a very bad thing. A very, very bad thing.

    Hence it was for the "near abroad" countries this brief opportunity to get out of Russia's stranglehold.ssu

    Again, that's not a good enough reason for us to act. We need to look after our own interests. Expansion of the EU allows for greater cohesion in Europe without getting the military involved.

    Bob Ross likely wanted to stir up a heated debate, luckily didn't get banned.ssu

    I found his logic disturbing. Stronger than disturbing. But I don't see that he violated any of the guidelines. Just espousing unpopular opinions shouldn't be a good enough reason for moderator action.

    The last true excess were the neocons, who didn't themselves believe at first they got the power.ssu

    There are a lot of hawks still around. I kept expecting Israel to attack Iran with strong US military support.

    A Dolchstoss given to Ukraine with Europe just watching from the side just what the hell happened is the worst outcome. But that hasn't happened.ssu

    I have a fantasy that Europe will step up to take a bigger military and political role in the world, especially in Europe.
  • jorndoe
    3.6k
    Even knowing Russia's historical paranoia about being surrounded and invaded, we immediately started expanding NATO right up to it's borders. Now it's enclosed by hostile countries backed by the US and western European militaries. No wonder Putin is furious. We blew it.T Clark

    Something's a bit off ↑ here.

    NATO isn't seeking to take over countries. Countries seek to be part of NATO for defense and have to qualify (which can take some years).

    For a country the size and geography of Russia it might be easy enough to list all kinds of "hostile countries" in the vicinity. It's not like grabbing land resolves the (supposed) situation. But yeah, mistakes were made, things were blown.

    Nov 2, 2024 (should actually have been in the Ukraine Crisis thread)

    If "Putin is furious", it's because the Ukrainians went their own way.

    Russians and Ukrainians will live exactly as befits brothers and good neighbors after the implementation of the goals of the special operation.Sergey Lavrov · Jan 22, 2024

    NATO enlargement is one of Putin's lines, but so is the artificiality of the state of Ukraine and it being natural of Ukraine being part of Russia.ssu

    Some things are imported from Russia straight through sanctions. ;)
  • I like sushi
    4.9k
    Do they? Can you be sure that the objectives of military intervention are what is disclosed publicly?
  • Tzeentch
    3.8k
    There are a few things that ought to be mentioned here:

    1. Waging war is a matter of costs and benefits.

    2. In order to gauge whether a war is lost or won, the conditions for victory must be established.

    3. Countries may lie to foreign and domestic audiences about their reasons for going to war, and their victory conditions for reasons that should be obvious.


    If we look at Afghanistan with that in mind, what were the real reasons for US involvement there? What did the US expect to gain, and at what cost?


    It probably comes to no surprise to you that I am deeply skeptical about the US' stated reasons for going to war: 'the war on terror' and 'spreading democracy'. I think these are both completely unbelievable and clearly fabricated for PR purposes, quite similar to how the US did not invade Iraq over suspected WMDs.


    This leaves us guessing as to what the real reasons were for US involvement in Afghanistan, without which it is impossible to gauge whether the US achieved its goals or not.


    My sense is the following: the US keeps getting into 'forever wars' not by accident, but because forever wars serve US interests. The US goal in Afghanistan and Iraq was a 'forever war' - continued conflict and instability.


    Why would the US be interested in that?

    Simple - the US is a maritime power that must dominate global trade and divide the Eurasian continent in order to maintain global dominance.

    Being the most powerful maritime power and having strong maritime powers as its allies, domination of maritime trade is a given. However, the goal is to dominate global, and not just maritime trade.

    As such, it is of prime strategic interest for the US to disrupt land-based trade routes to keep key rivals from establishing land-based alternatives to US-dominated sea routes.

    The US lacks the means to efficiently invade and occupy large countries overseas, and therefore cannot seek hard, long-term control over vital trade regions. However, to disrupt trade hard control is not necessary - sowing chaos and instability is enough.

    Enter the 'forever war': a (relatively) low-footprint, low-cost method of destabilizing key regions in the world for long periods of time.


    The war in Afghanistan is a continuation of a long-standing US policy of sowing instability in Central Asia and the Middle-East that started with the overthrowing of the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953. The war successfully extended instability in the region for another 20 years.

    When viewed through this lens, the war in Afghanistan was not a defeat at all.


    So why is the US so interested in destabilizing this region? Because Central Asia and the Middle-East connect key US rivals: China, Russia and India (plus potential regional powers that may spring up in the Middle-East in the long-term like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey).

    Note how this bloc of three countries comprises a gigantic portion of the world's population and natural resources.


    To make a long story short, due to the nature of the wars the Americans fight, they often do not have to win decisive military victories in order to reach their goals. However, not winning a decisive victory is not the same as losing.
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    NATO isn't seeking to take over countries. Countries seek to be part of NATO for defense and have to qualify (which can take some years).jorndoe

    Given their history, it's hard to find fault with Russia for not believing that. We didn't when Russia moved it's military into Cuba. Heck, I don't even believe it. It's a political attack on Russia backed up by a massive armed force.

    For a country the size and geography of Russia it might be easy enough to list all kinds of "hostile countries" in the vicinity.jorndoe

    As I noted, Russia is historically paranoid about invasion, but as they say, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. This is from Wikipedia - Invasion of Russia.

    • Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus' (1237–1242), a series of invasions that resulted in the Rus' states becoming vassals of the Golden Horde.
    • Livonian campaign against Rus' (1240–1242), an unsuccessful Teutonic invasion of the Novgorod and Pskov Republics, in order to convert them to Catholicism.
    • Russo-Crimean Wars (1570–1572), an Ottoman invasion that penetrated Russia and destroyed Moscow.
    • Polish–Muscovite War (1609–1618), Poland gained Severia and Smolensk.
    • Ingrian War (1610–1617), a Swedish invasion which captured Novgorod and Pskov.
    • Swedish invasion of Russia (1708–1709), an unsuccessful Swedish invasion, as part of the Great Northern War (1700–1721).
    • French invasion of Russia (1812), an unsuccessful invasion by Napoleon's French Empire and its allies, as part of the Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815).
    • Crimean War (1853–1856), a series of conflicts between the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire, the French Empire, Sardinia, and the Russian Empire, including an Allied invasion of the Crimean Peninsula.
    • Japanese invasion of Sakhalin (1905), an invasion and annexation by the Japanese, as part of the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905).
    • Eastern Front (World War I) (1914–1918), Russia was forced to cede Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states to Germany as the Russian Empire collapsed.
    • Caucasus campaign (1914–1918), a series of conflicts between the Russian Empire, its various successor states, and the Ottoman Empire during World War I.
    • Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War (1918–1925) and the contemporaneous Polish–Soviet War (1918/9–1921), the Polish occupation of Belarus and West Ukraine.
    • Japanese intervention in Siberia (1918–1922), an occupation of the Russian Far East by Japanese soldiers during the Russian Civil War (1917–1923).
    • Operation Barbarossa (1941), an unsuccessful invasion of the Soviet Union led by Nazi Germany that started the Eastern Front (World War II) of 1941–1945.
    • Continuation War (1941–1944), an unsuccessful German-Finnish invasion of the Soviet Union, as part of World War II.
    • Kantokuen (1941), an aborted plan for a major Japanese invasion of the Russian Far East during World War II.
    • Operation Unthinkable (1945), a proposed contingency plan for an Anglo-American invasion of the Soviet Union developed by the British Chiefs of Staff during the later stages of World War II.
    • War in Dagestan (1999), a repulsed Chechen invasion of Dagestan.
    • Kursk Oblast incursion (2024), an ongoing August invasion of Russia's Kursk Oblast by the Ukrainian Armed Forces (AFU).
  • Count Timothy von Icarus
    2.8k
    Well, we can consider the counter-examples: the Gulf War, the US interventions in the Balkans, the US' first intervention in Lebanon under Eisenhower, or even Korea, etc.

    What made these different?

    Certainly not the comparative military strength of the opponents. Saddam had a million men under arms, a military with a wealth of relatively recent combat experience, and Iraq had spent lavishly on high the Soviet and French equipment (and this was before the huge technological/qualitative gap between NATO and Russian equipment widened). But the result was an out and out rout. 147 Coalition servicemen were killed while Iraqi casualties were somewhere between 200,000-300,000, with perhaps 50,000 killed in action.

    A clear difference with the GWOT is the goal of state building and a transition to liberal democracy, but this wasn't the case in Vietnam (where the US backed a coup and the state was far from a liberal democracy) nor in Korea (an authoritarian dictatorship at the time of the war; also, militarily, a draw).



    Ok, but several of those "invasions," are counter invasions in wars Russia started. Particularly, they are former colonies/conquests of Russia fighting for independence or fighting off Russian attempts to recolonize them, and in some cases Russia had carried out sizable genocides against those peoples in living memory. In WWI, Russia mobilized first (Germany last), and invaded Germany first, they just lost. The "Continuation War," is the continuation of the Russian attempt to reconquer Finland, as it reconquered Poland and other lands with its military ally... Nazi Germany. Crimean War? Also kicked off by Russia invading its neighbor.

    Sometimes, if all your neighbors think your the asshole and start buying guns and making alliances against you, you might consider what the common denominator is.

    Also, one of those isn't even an invasion, but contingency planning staff work where a single shot was never fired...

    Second, you could probably generate lists of equal or
    even longer length for Germany or France, on which Russia's name would appear as "invader."
  • ssu
    8.6k
    He's right though, isn't he? The US makes a schizoid global leader when there's no existential threat to keep things on track. The world needs an emperor. Not exactly like a Dune emperor, but similar.frank
    The World definetly doesn't need an Emperor. Centralized powers have their weaknesses. Far better is that there's simply countries that tolerate each other and don't start wars, even if they disagree on matters. That would be the ideal.

    Do you live in the Baltics?T Clark
    Close, but no cigar. I live in Finland.

    Living where you do, you may know more about this than I do. I remember back in the early 1990s when Bill Clinton and the rest of NATO started expanding NATO. Even back then I thought it was a graceless response to a world changing action.T Clark
    The fact is that if the applicant countries themselves wouldn't have been active, NATO enlargement wouldn't have happened. That's the reality which the anti-US narrative (that it was totally Clinton's idea) totally forgets. In fact, behind closed doors the US asked if for example in the case of the Baltic States Finland and Sweden could give them security guarantees. Totally horrified about the prospect, Finland (and likely Sweden) refused and urged the countries to be accepted into NATO. For the applicants their reason to join NATO was Russia. But for NATO especially the 90's were the time when the organization tried to find a purpose (something on the lines that Trump later has talked). One also should understand that in NATO there's Article 1, that member countries refrain from using violence at each other, which is important. Hence for example Greece and Turkey haven't had a border war. NATO is an European security arrangement and there simply is no counterpart for it in the EU realm.

    Remember that actually many European countries really have put their defense 100% in the participation in the joint defense of NATO. It's really an international organization, which was totally evident on just how long Turkey let Sweden to wait to get into NATO. And note how many times US Presidents have been disappointed in NATO, the "No Action, Talk Only" club sometimes when the US wants allies to participate in some endeavor.

    I don't necessarily think we should have "linked Russia into Europe." I just think it was a big mistake to move NATO right up to Russia's borders. We reacted very aggressively to Russian weapons in Cuba back in the 1960s. Why would we expect to Russia to feel differently? What benefit did the west get out of it?T Clark
    You do understand then that many other countries, like the Baltic States, would have been treated the same way as Ukraine and Georgia by Russia and likely Russian military bases would be back in the Baltic states, if these countries wouldn't have used the window of opportunity they had. Just look at Moldova. It has a frozen conflict with Russian "peacekeepers" the example how Russia has meddled also in Georgia:

    The Russian Federation maintains an unknown number of soldiers in Transnistria, an unrecognized breakaway state internationally recognized as part of Moldova. This Russian military presence dates back to 1992, when the 14th Guards Army intervened in the Transnistria War in support of the Transnistrian separatist forces. Following the end of the war, which ended in a Russian-backed Transnistrian victory and in the de facto independence of the region, the Russian forces stayed in a purportedly peacekeeping mission

    The Baltic States wouldn't be independent and so charming that they now are if it wasn't for NATO memership. And is that for you think irrelevant? Well, not for the Balts and not for my country either. Just as I like that there is a South Korea, and not that the whole Peninsula is part of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, I also like that the Baltic States are independent and not under the thumb of Putin.

    It always seemed to me that was just a rationalization for political and propaganda purposes. Maybe I'm wrong.T Clark
    Just look at what the Russians actually do in the occupied territories. Russification of the population is no joke. That they have now publicly annexed territories that they (Russians) even don't control yet. That tells about their objectives quite clearly. It's not just words, it's the actions.

    There are a lot of hawks still around. I kept expecting Israel to attack Iran with strong US military support.T Clark
    Let's see what Trump does. When it comes to Israel, it feels like the US is the ally of Israel, not the other way around. I personally view the reason for this is the large pro-Israeli Evangelist vote in the US. It's not the American Jewish (who can also oppose the policies of Israel), it those waiting for Armageddon and the rapture.

    I have a fantasy that Europe will step up to take a bigger military and political role in the world, especially in Europe.T Clark
    Hate to be the pessimist here, but you are correct. It is a fantasy. Poland is already doing it, and Germany and other Western countries can happily assume that Polish rearmament will be enough. Remember that during the Cold War WW3 was going to be fought out in Germany and very close to the border of France etc. Now there's Poland there, so I don't think that a real turnaround will happen. Here I accept that I'm a bit of a pessimist, as I said.

    Something's a bit off ↑ here.

    NATO isn't seeking to take over countries. Countries seek to be part of NATO for defense and have to qualify (which can take some years).
    jorndoe
    The difference between an organization that is voluntary to join and an organization that you are forced to join (like the Warsaw Pact) should be obvious. But the way many talk of NATO enlargement is if it has been just a plan of the US (or in US, the objective of the Foreign Policy blob) with the applicants being passive "victims". It's always puzzled me, but I think it's the idea that the US treats all countries the same way. That how the US treats and has treated Panama, Guatemala or Haiti is similar how it treats Ireland, Belgium or France. The obvious fact that it doesn't in a similar fashion, just as France has treated differently former colonies in the Sahel and member states in the EU. Another example is how China treats West European countries and compare it to how the act towards the Philippines.
  • ssu
    8.6k
    As I noted, Russia is historically paranoid about invasion, but as they say, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.T Clark
    Well, you could also have a long list of when Russia has attacked it's neighbors. After all, it was Catherine the Great who said "I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.”

    Imperialism is typically argued as a purely defensive action. Just Finland as an independent nation and as part of Sweden has had I guess up to 17 wars or so with Russia since the founding of the state. Yet no denying in what Napoleon and Hitler attempted.
  • ssu
    8.6k
    What made these different?

    Certainly not the comparative military strength of the opponents. Saddam had a million men under arms, a military with a wealth of relatively recent combat experience, and Iraq had spent lavishly on high the Soviet and French equipment (and this was before the huge technological/qualitative gap between NATO and Russian equipment widened). But the result was an out and out rout. 147 Coalition servicemen were killed while Iraqi casualties were somewhere between 200,000-300,000, with perhaps 50,000 killed in action.
    Count Timothy von Icarus
    The last US win, the Gulf War, is very telling here. First, the US created a huge coalition, which had as it's members countries like Syria (one armoured division), Morocco and Pakistan. The US worked in the UN (something that now it doesn't do) and got an OK from the Soviet Union. The US took really seriously the Iraqi army and massed a huge army, that still was around from the Cold War. The huge Reagan build up of an Army intended to fight in Central Europe then liberated Kuwait. Secondly, the objective was clear (liberation of Kuwait) and the US did listen to it's Arab allies. Just listen what Dick Cheney said in 1994:



    Which just makes it all so confusing. You didn't even have different people then Invading Iraq, you had the same guy that gave the above interview just a few years earlier going against his own words. But then I guess, he hadn't been the CEO of Halliburton yet. So yes, I do accept and understand the "war as racket" argument, but not all wars are rackets of Halliburton. Other countries can have agency in wars too.

    A clear difference with the GWOT is the goal of state building and a transition to liberal democracy, but this wasn't the case in Vietnam (where the US backed a coup and the state was far from a liberal democracy) nor in Korea (an authoritarian dictatorship at the time of the war; also, militarily, a draw).Count Timothy von Icarus
    Yet Korea finally did become a democracy in the 1980's and thanks to the Koreans themselves. And if some Americans are quick to say that now the US and Vietnam have good relations, how better would it be if there would be a South-Vietnam? Who knows.

    In fact the "state building" had success in the Balkans. Or has at least until now (as we are talking about the Balkans). But then the forces deployed to for example Bosnia were far bigger to size when compared to the invasion force that went to Iraq, a far larger country with a larger population. But large forces weren't needed because the great Rumsfeld said so. And were is Iraq actually now? Not with the best relations with the US, but it didn't become the Islamic State. Even if that was close.

    Even if there are the examples what are successes, where it has been very beneficial that the US has stood up and has assisted it's allies or fought wars, the view that involvement in foreign conflicts is a swindle persists. And especially in the realm of Trump.
  • frank
    15.9k
    Far better is that there's simply countries that tolerate each other and don't start wars, even if they disagree on matters. That would be the ideal.ssu

    We'd need a global government for that.
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    Ok, but several of those "invasions," are counter invasions in wars Russia started. Particularly, they are former colonies/conquests of Russia fighting for independence or fighting off Russian attempts to recolonize them, and in some cases Russia had carried out sizable genocides against those peoples in living memory. In WWI, Russia mobilized first (Germany last), and invaded Germany first, they just lost. The "Continuation War," is the continuation of the Russian attempt to reconquer Finland, as it reconquered Poland and other lands with its military ally... Nazi Germany. Crimean War? Also kicked off by Russia invading its neighbor.Count Timothy von Icarus

    I didn't claim Russia was an innocent victim, only that they had a well justified fear of invasion. It wasn't a secret. US and NATO policy makers knew about it.

    Second, you could probably generate lists of equal or
    even longer length for Germany or France, on which Russia's name would appear as "invader."
    Count Timothy von Icarus

    Is that true? I doubt it. I'll let you do the homework.
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    Close, but no cigar. I live in Finland.ssu

    That displays my ignorance. I thought Finland was considered one of the Baltic states. Pardon if that is considered an insult. It wasn't intended to be.

    The fact is that if the applicant countries themselves wouldn't have been active, NATO enlargement wouldn't have happened...For the applicants their reason to join NATO was Russia.ssu

    From your point of view, I can see this is important, but from the perspective of US national security it shouldn't have been the main consideration. After the dissolution of the USSR, any expectation that Russia would give up it's influence, even hegemony, in the region was unrealistic. We knew this, but American triumphalism won out over common sense.

    One also should understand that in NATO there's Article 1, that member countries refrain from using violence at each other, which is important. Hence for example Greece and Turkey haven't had a border war.ssu

    That's nice, but not a good enough reason, given the predictable consequences.

    You do understand then that many other countries, like the Baltic States, would have been treated the same way as Ukraine and Georgia by Russia and likely Russian military bases would be back in the Baltic states, if these countries wouldn't have used the window of opportunity they had.ssu

    Again, I don't fault the various countries for making the decisions they did. I just think that thumbing our noses at Russia was a dangerous idea. From the point of view of an American, it seems like results of these actions include the invasion of Ukraine. I'm not certain that's a realistic assumption on my part, but it sure looks that way.

    The Baltic States wouldn't be independent and so charming that they now are if it wasn't for NATO memership. And is that for you think irrelevant?ssu

    Not irrelevant, but not enough.

    I personally view the reason for this is the large pro-Israeli Evangelist vote in the US.ssu

    Yes. What an odd attitude. It's because they see the State of Israel and it's modern wars as signs of the end of days, Armageddon. Pretty creepy. If I were Israel, it would make me nervous.
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    no denying in what Napoleon and Hitler attempted.ssu

    And not just Germany and France. Also the Mongol horde and Ottoman empire. All these were existential threats to the integrity of European Russia.
  • Count Timothy von Icarus
    2.8k


    Is that true? I doubt it. I'll let you do the homework.

    Sure, look up how WWI started and how WWII ended. If starting a war, losing it, and getting invaded counts as "being invaded," then Germany was certainly invaded by Russia (twice in the 20th century), not to mentioned partitioned by it and turned into a puppet state for half a century.

    How do you think the war with Napoleon ended? And the Hundred Days? And it's not like Russia hadn't made it into France proper earlier for lack of trying.

    With Germany, I suppose the question is "when do you count Germany as coming into existence?" If you're looking at the same time frame and the Thirty Years War on, it's easy to generate such a list. And since the list counts even foreign interventions in civil wars, the French Revolution and its aftermath alone create such a list (plus all of Germany and France's wars). Or just England's myriad attempts to conquer France. I mean if the Chechen War is an invasion then the Haitian rebellion, or the US wars with the Sioux, etc. would be too.
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    Sure, look up how WWI started and how WWII ended. If starting a war, losing it, and getting invaded counts as "being invaded," then Germany was certainly invaded by Russia (twice in the 20th century), not to mentioned partitioned by it and turned into a puppet state for half a century.Count Timothy von Icarus

    As I said, previously:

    I didn't claim Russia was an innocent victim, only that they had a well justified fear of invasion. It wasn't a secret. US and NATO policy makers knew about it.T Clark
  • Count Timothy von Icarus
    2.8k


    Well, sure, in the same sense that if you regularly drive black out drunk you might have a "justifiable fear of car crashes."

    I'm not sure if the conclusion that "we blew it," flows from this though. Countries have lobbied hard to get into NATO because of a justifiable fear of Russian invasion and colonization. The counterfactual where NATO doesn't expand and Russia stops invading its neighbors is far from clear, it seems equally plausible that more countries might face invasion otherwise.

    Anyhow, I get your point, and I think it's perfectly valid if it is framed in terms of the traumas of World War I and the Russian Civil War, and then the Second World War. That alone would be enough.
  • BC
    13.6k
    The world needs an emperor. Not exactly like a Dune emperor, but similar.frank

    The Dune Universe had the Bene Gesserit breeding program and Paul Atreides. What have we got? Donald Trump. .
  • jorndoe
    3.6k
    , in more recent history, when Russia looked more like today, the invasions they tend to bring up are France/Napoleon and Germany/Hitler. I suppose the Ottomans might qualify.

    Kursk, on the other hand, doesn't qualify in this context. There's a negligible chance that Ukraine would invade Russia, had they not invaded first. For that matter, Crimea 2014 seems to have taken most by surprise, and the response (until 2022) were mostly sanctions.

    NATO/Europe/China would be reckless to attack Russia; they have the world's largest nuclear weapons arsenal, a fairly straightforward deterrent. It could happen if Russia attacked a NATO member. Europe, Canada, Alaska have bordered Russia for a good while (some over sea), and not threatened with any invasion. Why would they? It's the other way around, defense against Russian encroachment/assault. Just ask the Moldovans, and the Swedes and Finns. Well, and the Ukrainians and Georgians. NATO represents a different kind of threat: the Kremlin can't do as they see fit (which some are thankful for).

    Anyway, don't want to spam here, should probably go to the Ukraine Crisis thread instead.
  • T Clark
    13.9k


    You guys keep ignoring my argument. I’m done with this discussion.
  • ssu
    8.6k
    We'd need a global government for that.frank
    Ever heard of the UN? Something like the Security Council is what humans can possibly do.

    Two nation states can become one (even if that usually is a difficult and painful integration), but not many. Nations states can in the end form only a loose confederacy of states. Even the European Union is a de facto confederacy, even if it desperately tries to act like an federation or an union.

    . I thought Finland was considered one of the Baltic states. Pardon if that is considered an insult. It wasn't intended to be.T Clark
    It wasn't. Finland is seen as part of the Nordic countries. Scandinavian countries are Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Something similar to all the different names for the British Isles.

    From your point of view, I can see this is important, but from the perspective of US national security it shouldn't have been the main consideration.T Clark
    And this really is the crux of my argument.

    US usually acts without at all thinking of the objectives of other actors. They don't matter to you. Hence the US has it's own narrative of what is going on that is different from the reality on the ground. This creates a fundamental inconsistency, when the other side doesn't at all have the objectives the US thinks it has. In the Vietnam war it was the Domino theory and the prevention of Communism spreading in the South East Asia, which isn't the way the Vietnamese saw it. North Vietnam saw the conflict as a war to unite their country. The North Vietnamese soldier wasn't fighting for the spread of Communism, he was fighting for Vietnam. The Marxist-Leninist rhetoric simply hid this from the Americans.

    In Afghanistan it was "War against Terror" and the idea of the country not becoming a haven for terrorists, while the local geopolitics and the objectives of countries like Pakistan was totally ignored. And this was the crucial mistake. American administrations simply choose outright denial of reality as their policy with Pakistan. Pakistan had formed the Taleban, it assisted it all throughout the war. OBL was living basically next to a Pakistani military camp. And in the end it assisted the Taleban to take over the country, a military operation that was a spectacular success. Pakistanis even publicly rejoiced over this. Yet for the US, Pakistani was an "ally in the war on terror" and never went to accuse of Pakistan of anything. Why? Because Pakistan was a nuclear state. Attacking Pakistan and then the situation would be even worse! Hence Americans choose simply denial.

    The Caption from 2007: "President Bush says he gains influence with world leaders by building personal relations with them. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf got a dose of that diplomacy at the White House last fall, when Bush hailed him as a friend and a voice of moderation. "The president is a strong defender of freedom and the people of Pakistan," Bush said that day, side by side with Musharraf.

    071105_bush_hmed_8a.jpg
    This shows how absolutely delusional US leaders can be in believing their own narrative. Yet for Pakistan the real objective with Afghanistan is to keep it out from the Indian sphere of influence. Their (the Pakistanis) main external threat is India. This had nothing to do with "war against a method" the US was proclaiming it all to be about. In Central Asia the US came, had bases everywhere and then withdrew totally.

    NATO enlargement is the same. People forget what the discourse around NATO was in the 1990's was like. I do remember. It was that NATO was an old relic that had to renew itself to basically be a global actor (policeman). The Cold War was over. Having territorial defense and a large reservist army was WRONG, outdated, relic from a bygone era! Yet for the countries applying to NATO is was Russia, Russia and Russia. It never was anything else. Yet for Clinton it wasn't. He got votes from the Polish and Eastern European communities (surprise) and it was all about a new security network. The US also got new allies for the War on Terror when countries like France didn't join (remember Freedom Fries?). This is totally and deliberately forgotten and ignored by those going with Kremlin's line, that the objective was to poke Russia. The US didn't think about Russia. Russia was done, it couldn't fight it's way out of a paper bag as it had severe problems just with Chechnya. That was the thinking at that time.

    Only now the reality is understood in Europe and NATO has gone back to it's roots to be a defensive alliance. Yet Trump during his last administration started with the 90's rhetoric, which showed just how clueless he can be.

    After the dissolution of the USSR, any expectation that Russia would give up it's influence, even hegemony, in the region was unrealistic. We knew this, but American triumphalism won out over common sense.T Clark
    @T Clark, no you didn't know it. This is pure hindsight. Please read what hubris filled ideas were in the US during the Yeltsin era. It wasn't triumphalism, it was the idea that the Cold War had ended. Then you focused on 9/11 and the global war on Terror. All things were looked at from that prism. Hence when Russia occupied Crimea, this came out from nowhere to the US intelligence agencies. There were no assets in the region, the system was focused on hunting muslim terrorists. The denialism can be seen from the many times that the US wanted to "reboot" the relationship with Russia, even if Russia had attacked Georgia with it's "breakaway regions with peacekeepers" masquerade. The attempted reboots are also forgotten in the "US actions did it" narrative.

    The real hubris is that you believe in your own narratives that you have created for your own domestic political consumption. The idea of all the conflicts the US is engaged are "forever wars" to support the military industrial complex is actually one of these ideas. But so was the idea that Pakistan was an ally in the "War on Terror". Or that the Islamo-Fascists like the Taleban hated American democracy and would want to attack you... and that's why you were fighting in Afghanistan. To believe one's propaganda, a narrative that one loves, is pretty damaging when the actual reality is different.

    Again, I don't fault the various countries for making the decisions they did. I just think that thumbing our noses at Russia was a dangerous idea.T Clark
    You get my reasoning, great! But then the next question. Why then thumb your noses at China?

    Just then leave China alone. Why all the fuss about Taiwan? Why not have good relations with China? Is Taiwan a reason to have war with China? They have nuclear weapons too. A lot more than North Korea and are making more of them as we speak.

    There ought to be consistency in your actions. When the political discourse in the US isn't accurate about the situation abroad, then this creates a fundamental problem: what the US president says to be the objectives, will really be the objectives of the state and the US armed forces. Now, if that isn't close to the reality on the ground and is made up propaganda, because it's just something that reaffirms popular beliefs that aren't fixed in the real world, you will continue to lose.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment