The point about mathematics and logic also seems to be right. But it does seem that our capacity to learn all those human skills and practices has a biological basis – over-developed cortex, opposable thumb, bipedalism. — Ludwig V

The point that @Patterner also made of our brains being different might be the real difference, but even that might be smaller than we think. Bipedalism and our hands are reason why we can use so extensively tools. Also it has been studied that Homo Sapiens could have more children that lived up to adulthood than our hominid brothers. Yet the real question is hypothetical, could for example the Neanderthal been capable of creating a civilization? They could speak, at least a bit and could make fire, which obviously shows their sophistication. To dismiss the possibility outright based on biological differences we cannot do as it's now purely a hypothetical question.

And let's face the fact that if humans would have remained as hunter gatherers, there simply couldn't be so many of us and we would have molded the Earth as we have now. Without agriculture there wouldn't excess food production and hence there couldn't be division of labor, job specialization. Agriculture and trade and writing are simply crucial for our development to what we are now, especially if it has anything to do with our society or our scientific thought.

Agriculture got started just somewhere around 11000 BC and writing is even a more frequent invention, so what has made us different from the hunter gatherers (whom many of our extinct fellow hominids were too) has happened only a while ago.

Gradual escalation is more predictable and unlikely to lead to erratic behaviour from the other side, so safer. It's a tactic in and of itself. — Benkei

The erratic behaviour for Russia was to believe that they could have a Blitzkrieg victory over Ukraine because the occupation of Crimea had been so easy and bloodless. Yet from that point on, it hasn't been so erratic. After that Putin has been at least partly successful of hindering the support given to Ukraine by saber rattling. If the US would have given all the weapons it has now given from the start, the situation likely would be different.

Russia's nuclear deterrent has done it's job, NATO and the US aren't directly involved in the fighting. Without the nuclear deterrence I'm sure that NATO countries would have declared a "No Fly Zone" over Ukraine. It would have been the likeliest direct intervention that NATO would have done, just like in the Libyan Civil War. I assume that and the military aid would be it. I see no appetite for NATO countries to send their forces in and in NATO countries like Poland wouldn't go their own way.

The idea that Russia would start a nuclear war with NATO because of NATO countries giving military aid to Ukraine is crazy. We went through a Cold War and arming your opponent never was a reason for WW3. But somehow Putin's threats have worked.

I don't know about micromanaging, but for politicians to command the military is only proper.

"War is a continuation of politics by other means," as Clausewitz said. — Tzeentch

For politicians to put down the objectives for the war is proper, to decide to go to war. But politicians shouldn't then become generals themselves and decide what to do. Totalitarian states are perfect examples of where their political leader can have made things worse when not listening to their generals. But when you look at the way Vietnam war was micromanaged by the White House and compare it to WW2, there's a huge difference.

When fighting and winning the war becomes a goal of its own (as is often the type of tunnel vision military leadership suffers from), it is a recipe for disaster. — Tzeentch

And when winning isn't the real objective, then people can believe that the sole objective is just to feed money to the military industrial complex. And hence the turn to defeatism, where no war is ever worth fighting, which also means that there is absolutely no deterrence to keep the peace.

You might ask yourself first why the closest relatives to us are the chimpanzees. The simple answer is: we ourselves.

There's no Neandethals, Denisovans, Homo erectus, Homo rhodiensis, Homo naledi, Homo luzonensis, homo floriensis walking around anymore, even if there were 300 000 years ago. And all because of us, not because of climate change etc. Those that could have children with us, they now are part of our genealogical roots. It's telling when Alexander the Great made his genocidal journey of conquer to the outskirts of India, the Greeks had a brief "battle" with strange little humans that fled to the trees, until someone told them these were actually animals called monkeys and they wouldn't be a threat to them or a population to be subjugated.

Animals do use tools and for example the Neanderthal could make a fire, so the question is that would these other hominids of our tree be able to invent or copy agriculture, have the written word? Very likely, but they are no more.

Hence to your question, why wouldn't any other animal have the social and informational systems than we have, is because if they would, they would have posed a threat to us and we would have exterminated them.

Never underestimate the viciousness and utter cruelty of this species we call Homo Sapiens, mankind. Just look how cruel we can be for our own fellow man, even today. We aren't peaceful Kapybaras, you know.

I'm just saying there is a significant difference between humans and animals. I think this is evidenced by many of the things we do and manufacture. I also think we think about things no other species thinks about. Of course, I can't prove my cat isn't pondering the nature of consciousness, trying to find an easier way to locate prime numbers, or amusing himself with the thought of the cat who shaves all the cats who do not shave themselves. — Patterner

A fetus becomes conscious before being born and early self-conscious emotions appear during at age 15-24 months. Yet ask yourself, if nobody had talked about consciousness to you, you wouldn't have read about it or been taught about it, would you have come to think about the nature of consciousness?

If you answer yes or even perhaps, then how would you talk about it? What level do you think your ideas would be about it if you wouldn't have any reference to science or philosophy about the issue or the basic biological understanding we have now. Just look at this thread and notice how much people refer to biology, science and philosophy. The previous discourse about the issue.

Not only do you need a very complex language to talk about the nature of consciousness, you need a lot of information to talk about it.

Now your cat might not think about Russell's paradox, but it quite likely can count. It could be argued that it has some primitive feline mathematical system, because counting is very important for situational awareness. Logic is also quite important in situational awareness.

Hence the huge difference isn't a biological difference, but a social and informational difference.

Why would he do that, you think? — NOS4A2

I think the option of making "Trump proof" would be close. But again, this is how Biden has worked. First M1 Abrams tanks weren't an option. Too complex! Then few M1 Abrams tanks are given. Then MLRS/HIMARS weren't an option. Then they were. Then NATO states want to give F-16 aircraft. Biden rejects this. Too complex! Then after a long time, Biden accepts these transfers.

This is basically how the White House ran the Vietnam war. Just to give an example, the White House forbid to attack at some time the airbases that North Vietnamese had their few MiG aircraft. Why? Because, the idea went, if the bases were attacked, then North Vietnam might withdraw the to China, where they could be attacked and the threat of China getting involved would increase. Now it should be obvious that the short range MiGs would have a lousy time trying to intercept US fighter bombers from China, hence it would be a great turn for the Americans that the MiGs would be in China. And naturally they didn't a rats ass about what the impact on the crews were on this kind of micromanagement.

This is the absurdity when politicians are let to micromanage warfighting. Yet when you ask the President to answer something, he definitely will then answer these kind of question and then you simply are trapped in the situation where politician just decide on everything and they don't look at the war from the warfighting stance, but from their own political view. Then war becomes "sending messages", not fighting to win the war and defeating the enemy.

This scene from "Thirteen Days" depicts this problem well, even if it perhaps isn't historically accurate. Yet what in the scene McNamara describes as a "new language" between Khrushchev and JFK might have a point here, it really isn't the same issue during the Vietnam war. Yet the tendency for micromanagement of everything continued there too.

Hostile talk against China? Do you mean talk of tariffs? I don’t know; peace through strength comes off as a better principle than war — NOS4A2

Lol. If the US argues that China is a military threat, when it pivots to Asia, opens new bases, brings in new weapon systems like medium range artillery missiles into Phillipines, then that actually is quite hostile from the Chinese point of view. And you don't think 60% tariffs isn't hostile?

Of course, China's claims on the South China Sea are dubious and it put pressure on states like the Phillippines, but it hasn't gone to war with it's neighbors like Russia. Yet if it's peace through strength, then that's quite similar to the reasons for NATO enlargement.

Sure, but this escalation is a complete flip-flop from Biden’s earlier policy. Americans were lied to again, and here we are closer to nuclear war. — NOS4A2

How? I think Biden has backed up Ukraine since the start. He actually made the intel reports public that Russia was going to attack Ukraine. I remember how Biden was ridiculed even in this forum by people who didn't believe that Russia would attack Ukraine. Because why would rational Russia invade Ukraine?

Besides, the Democrat administration knows quite well that Trump would have only threatened to give the weapons system for Ukraine if Russia doesn't budge at all (and let's face it, the ATACMS isn't at all a game changer), hence Ukraine would have been in a weaker position in the peace talks.

What stands as credible critique towards Biden is the idea of giving aid to Ukraine that it wouldn't lose (collapse), but not to win (meaning it gets a victory like Poland got from the Soviets in the 1920's). I'm not sure if this was really what the administration had in mind, but sometimes the micromanagement of what weapon system is given and instructions how to use it makes many feel that this is the underlying if not spoken objective.

And if you are so afraid of WW3, why the fuck then all the hostile talk against China then?

If you want to be a weak dick, then be a weak dick. Then people will understand that you're deterrence doesn't actually mean so much. But simply staying calm shows that you have trust in your the deterrence and that you see through the empty threats of Putin.

I think it's called "spite". — unenlightened

Spite?

I think that Americans were quite unhappy with inflation, that actually was caused by deliberate policies starting with Trump, but effectively finished by Biden. Everything else was given as a reason, except the massive transfer of money to the consumer thanks to the Pandemic.

Brexit actually gives a perfect example of how voters react to bad populist policies. Brexit was said to give frictionless trade and new deals around the world. End rampant immigration. The UK would be finally in charge itself. Above all, it was anti-elitist! Spite, as @unenlightened remarked. And from outside of the country looking at it, it went something like this:

1) First enthusiasm: People won the elites, hooray! Finally somebody is doing something good.
2) Then silence but still waiting for the positive effect: Give some time for it to work!
3) Then denial: Actually, we have gotten something good. It's not so bad.
4) Then amnesia: Look at how awful everything is now. Labor's fault.

I'd bet that if Trump really goes through with kicking out millions from the country, issuing huge sales taxes, sorry, tariffs, prices will go up. Even Elon Musk, who has a brain, understands that it will cause hurt. Well, even if Trump isn't running for re-election, we know his persona.

And let's remember that a populist movement can simply believe that all the bad things have happened because of the evil a) deepstate, b) woke people or c) nasty foreigners. If a political movement transforms to a cult, it doesn't matter if the economy totally collapses. They can blame somebody else. In fact, Trump then can take the punchlines from Maduro, if everything goes to hell in a handbasket:

Supporters of Chávez and Maduro said the problems result from an "economic war" on Venezuela, falling oil prices, international sanctions, and the business elite

While the Venezuelan economy, well:





Of course Venezuela is different. But the policy choices there were populist and horrible. As I said, the impact of millions kicked out of the labor force and out of being consumers, then having trade wars with everybody can be nasty. What is the outcome of +10% tariffs for Haiti? Haiti exports over 80% of all of the meager stuff it produces to the US. Even if the society is on the verge of collapse, will this help? How will then this all show on the US border, especially if (when) other poor Latin American countries have bad economic difficulties?

If this confrontation were on the US border with rockets being launched into the US & there were hostages to rescue the situation would be completely different. — BitconnectCarlos

If hotheads like you would be given the say how to fight the war, sure. The objective would be to get pleasure from seeking revenge, which is an emotional response. Yet professional soldiers are far more logical. War is a continuation of policy and the objectives should be clear from the start. Excessive force creates resentment and one has to take into account how other actors will respond to your actions, if they seem excessive.

Here the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a perfect example of how differently the Azeris were to the Netanyahu's govenment. When the Azerbaijan overran Nagorno-Karabakh, the Azeri president declared that they had no intention of forcing the Armenians out. And Baku made it clear that it would to “reintegrate” the region and its remaining population into Azerbaijan, promising economic development. Baku talked about normalizing relations and reaching a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh did flee to Armenia proper and the actions now show just how hypocrite that talk was from the Azeris, yet the reality is that the Azeris got away with this large part because they talked about a peace and talked about upholding minority rights.

Azerbaijan says it has pledged to ensure all residents’ safety and security, regardless of national or ethnic origin, and that it has not forced ethnic Armenians to leave Karabakh.

Denial works. Yet the Israeli line has been totally different from this. Hardly anytime has somebody be ever so clear with their intent. Talking of evil cities and how every resident in Gaza is culpable because they years ago voted for Hamas is a way to keep that rage up. Then saying after some timeline everyone in Northern Gaza is considered a combatant isn't the way it goes. Simply rule based order or international agreements don't matter. At least they are totally honest in what they want to do.

I remember what a fellow student in the university said to me about the Israeli-Palestine conflict in the 1990's: There will be never peace. He was one of the smartest students and he had been a blue beret in Lebanon. And he was right. The conflict defines people: the Nakba is a crucial part of Palestinian identity as is this conflict for the Israelis too.

You won't hit the broad side of a barn with just '80s INS, — Tzeentch

Ammo dumps are far larger than a side of a barn. Or you mean top of a barn? Besides, as the solid fuel propellants of the missiles go old, old inventories aren't from the 1980's anymore. At least in the US.

We are talking of a 10-50m CEP with ATACMS. Does the job perfectly.

(Just for comparisons: 450m CEP for a SCUD B from the 60's, 4500m CEP for a V2 during WW2.)

Do note what I said: The ATACMS was developed in the 1980's. It has inertial guidance just as nearly all long range missile artillery systems have, even if it can be aided by GPS. All you need is specific coordinates of both the target and your position and some meteorological data. That's it. Even the Tochka missile that Ukraine has (or had) could hit something like a large ammo dump.

Do notice all the drone attacks done by Ukraine, btw. Far earlier Ukraine attacked Dyagilevo and Engels air bases and destroyed TU-22 Backfire and two TU-95 Bear aircraft. So that shows their capability.

Besides, Ammo dumps don't move, they can be only emptied, but that takes time. What is telling that neither side cannot hit moving targets deep inside in the other ones territory. I haven't seen one example of a moving train that has been attacked and destroyed (I may have just missed the occation). Russian aircraft don't dare to venture deep into Ukraine and attack trains and traffic.

So Bibi got a court order:

Today, on 21 November 2024, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (‘Court’), in its composition for the Situation in the State of Palestine, unanimously issued two decisions rejecting challenges by the State of Israel (‘Israel’) brought under articles 18 and 19 of the Rome Statute (the ‘Statute’). It also issued warrants of arrest for Mr Benjamin Netanyahu and Mr Yoav Gallant.

And it seems that Bibi is really willing to take Israel to a dark place. But UN, ICC and other institutions don't matter for Israel, when you have a Trump in your pocket.

As one Israeli put it: the proponents of an Apartheid have been replaced by proponents of a Genocide. Now Israel is talking about the "evacuation" of all people from Northern Gaza, so now it's really does seem that Israel is acting it's own "final solution"-type answer for the Palestinian problem. "The Generals plan" is a kind of final solution.

At the start of this conflict when the "Al-Aqsa Flood" attacked was instigated by Hamas, I was still hoping that Israel would fight like the Americans did against Al Qaeda and Isis in Iraq. Destroy the terrorists, yet try to help the civilians. The Americans had nothing against the Iraqi civilians, which showed in the way they fought the terrorists. In the case of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, it isn't so.

Again I have to say that @Benkei was right. In the present and the near future we will witness an ugly chapter in Western history, because I do see Israel being part of the West.

But hey, Azerbaijan successfully ethnically cleansed Nagorno Karabakh and now is feverishly trying to demolish everything linking or heritage to an Armenian past in the Nagorno Karabakh. So what is called a war crime and genocide worsk in the World. Yes, Israel can be angry that the Azeris seem to get a free pass in it's successful ethnic cleansing operation while they are getting flak from the World. Oh, the anti-semitism in the World!

(Meanwhile, in Nagorno Karabakh)

It requires US or British assistance for virtually every step of the deployment process. The strikes are probably completely planned by American and British operators. — Tzeentch

Again dismissive lies about the Ukrainians.

Ukrainians can use the MLRS system, and why wouldn't the US give them satellite imaginary? And they do have an intelligence service and military intelligence of their own.

Besides, the ATACMS is used by Bahrain, Greece, South Korea, Romania, Poland, Turkey, Qatar, UAE, Ukraine and Taiwan besides the US and is contracted to all the Baltic States and Australia and Morocco. You think all these countries are totally incapable of use ATACMS alone, but need special help from the US? You think they would buy a system they couldn't operate themselves? Or that somehow Ukrainians are so ignorant and stupid that they cannot use them? This weapon system was from the 1980's and is thus is forty years old.

Artillery rockets are far more simple than long range air defence missiles, which have to hit very fast maneuvering targets. And Ukraine has made an equivalent to the S-300 Surface to Air weapon system (the SD-300). The Ukrainian R-360 Neptune cruise missile is famous for sinking the Moskva and also has a land variant. Hence countries like Ukraine that have the capability of creating their own missiles surely can use missile systems that are given to them with training. The idea that Ukrainian couldn't use them, that you would have to have American and British assistance for every step in the operation of the weapon system is just bullshit, simple badmouthing of Ukrainians. That Ukraine could use Soviet era platforms to fire Western weapon systems is quite telling of Ukrainian capabilities.

So Putin talk again.

The situation is totally different if an user has to use some weapons without any logistical trail of spare parts etc, like Iran found itself with American weapon systems after the Iranian revolution. And then Americans in all of their hubris declared that Iranians couldn't use their F-14 Tomcats and their advanced AIM-54 Phoenix missiles without US assistance. Wrong again: Iranians did use the systems all through the Iran-Iraq war and even later, until this day.

The gold price skyrockets to a new all-time high and probably will continue going through the roof for the next several days. — Tzeentch

Commentators always have to give a reason why something goes up and down. A standard line like "market participants try to arbitrage" won't do. In case of the gold price, it's more long term development isn't tied to wars and pandemics as the commentator says, it's that the international debt based fiat monetary system is steadily losing it's value. US is taking more debt, which creates inflation.



The short term changes in the long run don't matter. Likely when Trump leaves office in 2029 (if he survives so long), gold will be far more higher in dollar value than today. But in those four years it surely will bounce up and down.

Putin talk. Also, that Ukraine itself isn't an agent deciding it's own action is straight from the Kremlin narrative.

The manufacturer of a weapon system simply isn't the belligerent. It's the user of the weapon system who is the belligerent. Also, giving intelligence to a party isn't either an act of war. Giving arms to defend for a country to defends itself from outside aggression is quite understandable. And btw Ukraine is using many different weapon systems in Russia as it has troops inside the country.

This part of the discussion should be at the Ukraine thread, even if touches the subject. Or otherwise this presumably is moved to the lounge also.

Well, it can't get any worse than the Biden administration, which is now playing a game of nuclear chicken with Europe as their bargaining chip.

Ten weeks until Trump takes office. Lets see if Europe survives. — Tzeentch

Even if Russia fired a ICBM into Ukraine with a conventional charge (pretty expensive going there), I think that Europe survives. Even Ukraine too.

Honestly I hope he follows through on this since that was what the people voted for. He doesn't really need congress to do either mass deportations or massive tariffs anyways. If people want to flirt with these ideas then give it to them and either they'll love it or they won't. — Mr Bee

I think it's safe to bet that we haven't seen the last of inflation in the US (and the World).

Let's not insult health care workers. The care is fine just not accessible because too many people are uninsured. — Benkei

AND the insurance companies make a profit in everything. That also puts the price up.

Now some might argue that Trumps 10% tariffs on everybody else and 60% tariffs on China is just the negotiating tactic for the start as to wake up other states to notice that Trump is back in town.

But I don't get it how this would work for China. It's a totalitarian state. If Trump poses these difficulties, it's not a difficulty for the Chinese communists, because they're not elected out if the economy hits hard times. And they just can blame it as the imperialist aggression of the US. They (the Chinese) have to have noticed that Trump is a hostile partner when it comes to trade issues. Hence they just have a perfect culprit for all the economies problems with Trump. And then likely there emerges just huge trade around by third countries. Likely Trump's crownies will get exceptions, perhaps Elon can say something about stuff that hurts Tesla to Trump while he's rearranging everything better for himself and his companies in DOGE.

What I don't understand is why Trump voters are so eager to have more inflation.

Talk about the obsession of having more sales taxes and making things more costly to the consumer. I thought Americans didn't like inflation.

Feels like with Trump, assuming he can deliver, the US is up for something as wonderful as the British experienced with their Brexit. I remember how excited the Trumpist were about Brexit. Oh how they made their Island nation independent and great again, with having all the freedom in the World to make prosperous deals in the World without the bureaucratic evil EU.

But perhaps this is in the realm of things like the obsession to pay the most for health care anywhere for a mediocre health care system, something I cannot wrap my mind around.

I was replying to your comment. Of course, literally, no war is forever. But they can be very long, like Korea, which is still ongoing. — Manuel

Well, comes to mind a small curious anecdote: one of the longest conflicts happened between Sweden and San Marino. You see the tiny nation of San Marino, which was on the Catholic side, and protestant Sweden didn't make peace in treaty of Westphalia, hence the two states were technically at war until 1996. I assume that no Swede noticed this belligerent status of his or her country in the 1980's when visiting San Marino.

And even if some artillery duels or North Koreans attacking US soldiers with axes has happened on the DMZ, this has been a frozen conflict, not a conventional war as is now fought in Ukraine. So there's a huge difference between a frozen conflict and a conventional war.

Insurgencies can go far longer and literally fade away. One of the most bizarre event was when the Baltic States were opened for tourism in the Soviet era during the 1960's and Finns rushed to the countries for the cheap alcohol, the last remnants of the "Forest Brothers", the Balts fighting against the Soviet Union, were still hiding in the forests. In Estonia I think the KGB captured the last "Forest Brother" that had evaded them in the 1970's as an old man.

Winning is stopping the killing. What other winning is there? That Russia is defeated- that they go back pre-invasion days? That's not going to happen. — Manuel

Why then didn't the Ukrainians denazify themselves then?

Well, it's about the peace deal they get. Is it so difficult to understand that Russia has lost wars, even if the enemy didn't occupy the country? Russia lost to Japan. Russia (or Soviet Union) against Poland. That one has nuclear weapons doesn't mean you can lose wars.

Hence Ukraine can get / could have gotten a better deal like Japan or Poland. Why is this so difficult to understand? Why the defeatism? There'd be no Finns, we'd be basically Russians just like the Mari people or other Finno-Ugric people in Russia if we would have that kind of defeatist attitude, if we would never had fought for our independence.

I think America underestimated the tactical advantages of their enemy fighting on home turf, with all-or-nothing mentality, and with gorilla-terror tactics; and, as you mentioned, the perception from the US public also plays a huge role. — Bob Ross

To put it simply: Only American soldiers sent to a war on another continent see and feel the war. Many in civilian life in Continental US don't even know about the conflict. In the country the war is fought, usually nobody can distance themselves from the war. For these people, the conflict can surely be marketed as an existential struggle. In the US, the Foreign Policy establishment has to try to conflate everything to be an "existential struggle", which makes Americans very, very skeptical. So skeptical that they can indeed believe that all wars are just forever wars concocted by the Deep state for war profiteering of the military industrial complex.

Not to mention, Biden left billions of dollars of military-grade resources in Afghanistan for the Taliban :roll: It can’t get anymore embarrassing for the US than that. — Bob Ross

It was a double whammy. Trump made a lousy peace deal, Biden went along with it and made it even worse. I feel for the Afghan war vets: they were really betrayed.

I think the US people generally don’t want to spend billions of taxpayers dollars on foreign wars when they have so many problems at home that could be fixed with that money. I do not support sending any aid to Israel nor Ukraine: we need to fix our country first. — Bob Ross

Some thoughts: If military spending is cut, the money simply isn't put somewhere else. Likely you simply take less debt. For example the Global War on Terror was financed basically by taking more debt. You didn't see large tax increases then. Secondly, you are already paying at these interest rates (which are low) more in debt service than in defense spending. The historian Niall Ferguson has said once this happens, no country in the entire span of human history has continued to be the Great Power it was before.

This year, the debt service is higher than defense spending. Something just few years earlier was thought to happen in 2033.


And notice actually from the Soviet example: if you stop defense spending when defense has created a lot of jobs, then the economy goes south. Or in the case of the Soviet Union, simply collapses.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but the US doesn’t actually have any military presence in Ukraine: all we have been doing is funding them. Let them fund their own battles—they aren’t a part of NATO. - The US doesn’t have a formal alliance with Ukraine. I would completely agree with you if they were a part of NATO. If Russia hits a NATO country, then they are going to get their shit rocked. — Bob Ross

Was South Vietnam a treaty ally of the US?
Nope. (Actually, SEATO gave protection to South Vietnam, but the country wasn't a treaty member)
Was Kuwait a treaty ally of the US?
Nope.
Was the Republic of Afghanistan a treaty ally of the US?
Nope.
Is Israel a treaty ally of the US?
Nope! (It's an one way street with Israel. The agreements: Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement (1952); a General Security of Information Agreement (1982); a Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (1991); and a Status of Forces Agreement (1994), all make it so that Israel doesn't have to lift a finger to help the US, but the US will surely help Israel when it is in trouble, or redrawing it's borders. Because thanks to AIPAC and the Evangelists... defending that Judeo-Christian heritage is enough!

Yes, unlike Putin is saying now, the US isn't fighting in Ukraine. It's just supporting the Ukrainians. Yet that there isn't that alliance with Ukraine doesn't make this assistance unimportant.

Just think what happens if the US stops the aid and declares: tough luck, too bad! Well, this will have many effects. Russia has just shown that it can do whatever it wants and if the US opposes it, the US will just bitch for a while and then loose interest and thus it can be defeated.

This will make a crack on NATO, which even if all it's cacophony with so many sovereign states in the alliance, has been on Ukraine quite firm and together. (Even if you have Hungary and Turkey). Everyone told that they were supporting Ukraine, but in the end... no.

Well, the little countries that are replaceable (like mine) will get the memo. Sure, they might act is nothing serious has happened... but the know in their heart just how much are the guarantees actually worth.

"America First" rhetoric may sound good to working people, but deporting millions and erecting high tariff walls is not going to help workers very much. — BC

Deporting millions of working people will simply mean an economic downturn. I mean. this is just Silly-talk from Trump. 11 million is 3,2% of the US population. Just to put into some historical perspective just how big of a population we are talking about: when one famous Austrian rose to power and didn't especially like one ethnic group of Germans, this group was less than 1% of the German population in 1933.

When Idi Amin in 1972 ordered the expulsion of the Indian Minority from Uganda, there were about 80 000 of Indian origin in the country. Of the whole population of Uganda in 1972 (ten million), the Indian minority were just 0,8% and the Ugandan economy went into tailspin (obviously Idi Amin did other insane things too). Now Trump is going to do something totally on a different level in a country were states do have power and where there are democratic institutions still.

How do people believe this kind of lunacy?

Why do people believe this kind of lunacy?

Just look at what happened to UK , and they even left the gates open for other immigrants for replacement as 460 000 or so EU migrants working in various jobs left the UK and went back to mainly Eastern Europe, which countries were actually very happy to get them back.



We have had a whole Brexit-thread and anyone that has read has to come to the conclusion that Brexit, at least economically, SUCKED BIG TIME!

So, 11 million people are from the population of the US 3,2%. Now those EU citizens going away (that were replaced by third world) created huge problems for the UK economy, like many were truckers that are quite essential. And yet 460 000 is peanuts compared even to the UK, something like 0,7% of the population.

Please just think about it: what the hell you think happens to an economy when suddenly 3,2% of people simply just move away from the economy. Even if they aren't the wealthiest people, imagine all the things they are working in now, which a median American worker surely won't take as a job. You really think the US will have a great time after that???

Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. Replace that gun just with a cannon. But seems that nobody has dared to even try to give Trump the series of pictures what this means (ECONOMY -> REALLY, REALLY BAD!).

And then, starting a trade war with EVERYBODY.

How's that going to improve the economy? Serious trade wars have just the same consequence as the pandemic had: trade and logistical systems competed to perfection will just collapse and then things just simply suck. Americans just find later how these brilliant trade wars damage their own economy as they find out just what stuff more has been totally dependent on international trade.

The only thing positive here is that Trump is simply so inept, that in the end he will just have tantrums in the White House on how his loyal team hasn't been able to do anything and thus has betrayed him. Because if this man couldn't build a fucking wall, how can we assume that he can simply kick out every thirty third person living in the US?

Again, this is just silly talk.

Yeah, they will take more land. It might be a forever war. — Manuel

There are no forever wars.

All wars, even the Hundred years war, came to an end. The longest conflict that are going are the Kurdish insurgencies. Another long conflict is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Even they aren't active all the time. But nothing close to forever.

Ukraine simply cannot beat Russia now the numbers don't add up. — Manuel

Yet winning never has been that Victory Parade on the Red Square for Ukraine.

If Trump wants peace, he has to understand that Putin will accept peace only if continuing the war would be far worse, even fatal, than accepting the peace that is offered. There has to be the stick, because just waving carrots won't matter.

History tells something about this. Like the reasons why Stalin chose armstice and peace with Finland than continuing the war.

In 1940: Stalin feared that the UK and France would commit troops to defend Finland.Worse thing if everybody would be at war with the Soviet Union.

In 1944: Stalin feared that continuing the attack into Finland might reduce the strength of Operation Bagration and the Western allies might into Berlin first. Worst thing to pacify a puny country in the North and thus fail to capture the ultimate prize.

Now, what here is the reason that makes it better for Putin to accept peace than continue with the war? Well, if people are against arming Ukraine, that it's a forever war, then he ought just wait before the West defeats itself again and then he can do with Ukraine whatever he wants.

This isn't deterrence. This is provocation and escalation, and it achieves nothing besides those two things. — Tzeentch

What provocation or escalation is attacking ammo dumps? It's totally logical to destroy the ammo dumps of the enemy. It's not that Ukraine is doing pure revenge bombing and shooting missiles into Russia hospitals (as the Russians do in Ukraine). Ukraine is fighting for it's survival in an all out war. Why would it have to fight with one arm tied to it's back. It's simply nonsense to think otherwise.

Putin can talk all he wants about being in a fight with the US. He is in a similar fight that both sides were during the Cold War basically all the time, when they had proxy wars.

But it is US and UK soldiers using US and UK machinery firing into Russia. — Manuel

No, It isn't. Ukrainians are totally capable using those weapon systems themselves. Besides, Ukraine has had cruise missiles and artillery missiles for a long time.

And besides, those U2 planes shot down over Cuba, the air defence was Soviet Army units. Just without their uniforms on. And these "advisors" were also in Vietnam. For example Israeli Air Force fought Soviet Pilots and their aircraft (posed as Egyptians) also.

Imagine Russian missiles being shot with Russian technology from Cuba into the US. What would happen? — Manuel

Imagine the US invading Cuba or Mexico, then these countries attacking Florida Keys or municipalities near the Rio Grande. If they have a possibility to do that, why not?

Sorry, but it would be something that really could happen, if the US chose to invade those countries.

We stood at the precipice of annihilation during the Cuban missile crisis or on the few occasions when a detection error almost set off a nuclear exchange. The current situation doesn't seem remotely close to those situations. — Echarmion

Exactly.

Remember that then in Cuba it was Nuclear weapons themselves in Cuba that caused the uproar. Conventional Scuds (which were new during that time) weren't the problem. And ATACMS and Storm Shadow still have what is considered a short range. It would be different if the systems were medium range and could everywhere west of the Ural mountains. Storm Shadow has a range of 250 km range and ATACMS 300 kilometers. Moscow is about 450 kilometers from the Ukrainian border and it would be very perilous for Ukraine to use either weapon system on the Ukraine-Russian border (and have the launcher, be it on ground or an aircraft in reach of many Russian weapon systems).

This is the same game that Russia has played from the beginning of the war. And in a similar way, we ought have not given Ukraine a) any weapons, b) any missiles be it ATGM/SAM/SSM, c) any tanks, d) any fighter aircraft. And since this micromanaging of the weapon system has been going on with usually with too little too late, Ukraine hasn't been able to use them in a decisive way.

Perhaps Russia would have accepted that Germany gives bodybags to Ukraine.

And anyway, it's quite delusional to accept the Kremlin line. During the Cold War there were no limits on just what would be given to a country fighting the other Superpower. This kind of silly talk that Putin says didn't and wouldn't fly then.

The proper answer when Putin rattles his nuclear sabers is to just comment: "We have nuclear weapons too" and simply leave it there.

How do Europeans sleep, knowing they're the playing chips with which the US and the UK are pursuing these types of escalations? — Tzeentch

People of the UK are Europeans, actually. :wink:

To have peace, simply prepare for war: Si vis pacem, parabellum. Deterrence stops Putin. Appeasement won't.

For example the Swedes sent all of the residents living in Sweden a booklet called "In case of crisis or war" just a few days ago. It is published in many languages and also English, which can be read here:

In case of crisis or war



It's very similar to what the Finnish government educates to it's citizens in the case of war or crisis. And an interesting booklet for the American prepper to view how Europeans think about preparedness. Sweden and Finland both have this thing called "total defense". What I like is that the Swedish government dedicated one page to pets that people have.

If you have pets

You are responsible for the care and wellbeing of
your pet in the event of crisis or war. Make sure you
have supplies at home to last at least a week.
In the event of an air raid, you may bring your pet to protective
structures like cellars, garages and metro stations. If you must leave
your pet at home – and it can manage free access to food – leave
additional food and water.

Yes, I think we Europeans might be genuinely worried about Trump leaving NATO - much like how a fat private fears PT. Yet, PT is the only way to whip said private back into shape. — Tzeentch

Or then just leave the service. Let somebody else do the job that is better capable. Just go to your job at McDonalds or the supermarket. They have no problem of their employees being fat and the PT done on breaks (if there's any PT) are quite easy and meant for everyone.

Have all Europe accept Finlandization and Russia will be no problem.

Now would be the best time, since there is no concrete threat to Europe yet. — Tzeentch

Yes, there's just one hot war in Europe, if you mean that by "no concrete threat". Because the Russian hybrid attacks (last few days ago) and the bellicose rhetoric of Russia sure feels like some kind of a threat.

About NATO being the US' strongest alliance I am not so sure, though. — Tzeentch

You mean there's a stronger alliance around? Russia and North Korea are an alliance, but when it comes to let's say Iran, It doesn't feel like China and North Korea or Russia are allies in the manner of attack on one is an attack on all. China, even if supporting Russia, has officially stayed neutral in the Ukrainian conflict and hasn't liked the nuclear sabre rattling of Russia.

Personally, I think Europe has dropped down on Uncle Sam's priority list, in favor of the Five-Eyes Alliance, Japan and South-Korea. These countries have a far clearer overlap with US strategic goals and challenges. — Tzeentch

Many Americans are what I class as the "Pivot people". America has to Pivot! Well, perhaps not from defending Judeo-Christian heritage in the Middle East, but still, Europe! Bye bye Europe.

But let's just think of how "clear" these goals and challenges are:

- First, there's nothing like the NATO in the Far East. SEATO failed, the countries didn't see eye to eye and the US simply gave up. These countries do train to operate jointly at the level as NATO countries do. They usually hold exercises occasionaly with the US, but not with each other. What is the American solution? AUKUS. Which actually isn't anything new at all as the countries have already defense pacts with each other. How well South-Korea and Japan are doing together? Not so good as Germany and France.

- Which of these Far Eastern allies have the capabilities of the UK or France? None, even if Japan has a big navy. It's one thing to prepare for domestic security and defending in one's own territory, another thing to train for out of the area operations. NATO can do that, Far Asian allies of the US aren't capable of that.

- Which of these Far Eastern countries are rearming to meet the Chinese threat? Nothing like the rearmament in Europe is happening in the Far East, except China.

Hence the real question is, how many would be willing to fight alongside the US if Taiwan would be invaded? Totally different from the question of how many NATO countries would fight if Poland was attacked. Especially when the US policy is "Strategic Ambiguity".

Hence if the US intervenes in a Chinese retaking of Taiwan, likely the American President will scream for the NATO losers to join in.

I guess Russia-EU relations will return to normal now that Trump is taking office. Gas and oil will begin to flow again? The US will lose whatever influence it ever had over Europe. Europeans hate America anyway, so that's probably a good thing for everyone. — frank

No, they won't and no, it's not a good thing for everyone. Democratic values like a justice state are worth defending. And so are things like the UN Charter. If we abandon those ideals of Enlightenment that have given us the present, it won't be better. First of all, Russia will not stop. Finlandization isn't nice. Russia is not a country that will say "Fine, we got what we wanted and now we'll leave you alone." Nope, once they have power, they will then start to meddle in our own domestic politics. The government has then to go after people that have made critique of Russia and Putin and supported the "Nazis" of Ukraine. That's the next step in "Finlandization" if Russia wins. It's an Empire, who just loves to be important.

Yet only a total failure will launch "Finlandization of Europe". But that would mean that Trump and his crew really turn out to be surrender monkeys and force the Ukrainians to sign a surrender deal. Let's be honest: Trump gave the Taleban the key to military victory with the Doha Peace deal, so there is the fear of that. When Trump has declared that he would end the war in 24 hours, then perhaps there's the wanting for a quick peace arrangement. And it's easy to choose just which party is more vulnerable at pressure. European states are looking at who would take the leading role, if a country like Poland would lead a "coalition of the willing" to support Ukraine. But let's remember that this is still the lame duck period of Biden now.

Trump's attack on the "deep state" is just about securing his control over the government. He doesn't share the ideological sentiments of his supporters. Putin's fight against the US is over, I think. Trump and Putin are pals. — frank

For the populist/conspiracy theorist, it's not about ending "deep state" and strengthening the democratic institutions, it's basically having their control over the deep state, because they are the good guys. Would Trump start eradicating the Patriot Act? Of course not! When he's in charge, those kind of acts are just good. And I fear that many Trump followers think this way too.

I think we're entering a new global era. The US will continue to shrink off of the world stage. China will continue to grow and learn. All eyes will turn eastward. — frank

In my view, the likely outcome is that the US will continue to shrink off (voluntarily, actually) and NOTHING will replace it. China isn't going to replace the US. It has only a few allies and then trade ties. We won't start to learn Chinese, English will stay as the universal language for at least a Century, if not two. China doesn't have that ideological ambition that drove the West to conquer the World. They are too satisfied about themselves. Besides, the country faces large problems with it's population growth and likely is too confident about centally controlled economy it has.

It's not going a collapse like during the Bronze Age or something, it likely is a withering away and simply more actors on the global stage, just like more countries have launched satellites into space, not just the two Superpowers as in the 1960's. For example Hungary is sending (few hundred) troops to Chad, not as part of some international mission, but as a bilateral agreement with the Chadian government. Like Russian Africa Corps in the Sahel. I guess that Orban has been bitten by the Imperialism bug.

Russian Africa Corps (ex Wagner) African fighter. Likely in the Sahel region.


When the US loses war in this way, it does have an effect on the US. I've always said that then we just have to enjoy the decadence. Not a bad time to live, actually.

I think Trump might come to the aid of the British, but not the EU. Trump sees the EU as weak and unworthy of respect. — frank

The real fight is about influence. Russian tanks won't be physically occupying West European Capitals. (Theoretically they could go "as peacekeepers" or something hilarious like that to the Baltic States, but even that is unprobable as it might be so that NATO wouldn't chicken out). But Russians can reach their objectives of breaking the Atlantic tie and to severely weaken NATO. That is the real goal of Russia here.

And they can succeed because if Trump really sees that the biggest enemy is the deepstate in the US, that "makes forever wars" and Putin says that he is now fighting the US. Aren't then the objectives totally in line here with the same objectives?

In my view, the populist idea is simply learning the wrong lessons from past conflicts: that sometimes it actually is worth wile to intervene even if Smedley Butler's old ideas are sometimes true, when the war goals are bizarre and a simple reaction to the people's demand for revenge.

Well, Ukraine didn't wait for long. First ATACMs attack on an ammo dump in Karachev. Which Putin says that NATO and the US are fighting Russia (While Trump insists that all the talk of Russia being a danger is "deepstater talk").

These limitations of use of weapons is similar thinking just like during the Vietnam war where the US made limitations for itself. How Joe Biden has been so afraid of Putin, when the other way around Russians haven't been afraid of him.

Cable lines cut in the Baltic Sea. Between Germany and Finland and also Sweden and Lithuanina, so it's that time of the year for some hybrid attacks.

In terms of his thinking, I would guess the key factors would be:

-His role in history/legacy and the relative success of annexing Crimea and the intervention to save Assad in Syria
-The conviction that it would be something like the "three day special military operation," that would quickly topple the government.
-The fact that Belarus had just had a popular revolt, requiring Russian forces to be moved in, and that they also had to send troops into Kazakhstan just a month earlier (and similar events had played out across the old satellites).

Stuff like gas resources and pipelines seem ancillary based on everything written about him. The historical narrative and prestige also takes center stage in his own speeches and writings. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree with this. Putin doesn't care a shit about economics or the economy. He didn't care when the Russo-Georgian war started, he doesn't care now. Command economy is his solution to everything.

However, my point remains that NATO leans completely on the American security apparatus, and at this point in time it is clear that the Americans will not commit to the defense of any nation in Europe, since it must focus on the Pacific and China. — Tzeentch

Don't think that Europeans aren't taking Trump seriously. They genuinely believe that Trump and his gang could take the US out of NATO. It's a genuine possibility that could happen: Americans could be perfectly capable of shooting themselves in the foot and breaking their strongest alliances, then wake up and notice that they aren't anymore the Superpower they used to be. If the US goes into isolationism, it simply will be a richer and larger version of Canada. People don't have anything against Canada, they might even know the name of the Canadian prime minister, but that's it. Who cares about the policies that Canada is pushing in it's foreign policy. It something quite irrelevant for Europeans.

Europe is in fact defenseless. And instead of acting accordingly, we do everything possible to follow Washington's line towards further confrontation with Russia. — Tzeentch

Isn't Poland acting accordingly? They are on the track to have the strongest military in Europe. Finland is arming itself and the military is excercising it's forces on a level not seen since the Cold War.

For Europe, the change happened actually in 2014. Then it change, as can be seen from this chart prior to the 2022 invasion:



From that lowpoint of 2014, the change on defense spending has been dramatic the closer the country is to Russia.



So the idea that lax Europe is just winging isn't current anymore. The change has already happened.

The Russians perceive our behavior as a clear sign that we are no longer interested in peace — Tzeentch

And some do think that Ukraine is lead by drug addicted nazis too! Yes, the propaganda works like a charm.

On the first page of the thread I wrote this post, arguing why America doesn't necessarily lose wars, but instead tends to fight wars in which a decisive military victory is not the goal. — Tzeentch

I'm sorry Tzeentch that I didn't notice your first reply as I guess the pages changed. But here's some comments. First of all, if military victory isn't the goal, then your talking about the "forever war" narrative.

Sorry, but if Osama bin Laden would have been in Sudan, the US would have attacked Sudan. And from Sudan of today, we can see what a similar quagmire it would have been once the US would have taken control of that large heterogenous country with multiple problems. And then I guess you would be making the same argument just why the US wants to disruption in Africa and the resources of Sudan.

But the simple truth is that OBL was in Afghanistan and since so many thousand Americans had been killed in the successful 9/11 attack, it couldn't be a job for the NYPD and the FBI to hunt down the ring of terrorists. As in the earlier bombing of the Twin Towers. Sorry, but that's the reality. That is the reason why the war and occupation of Afghanistan. Otherwise the neocons wouldn't have that opportunity to enlarge US dominance as they intended. Just like the successful operation of Hamas of breaching the wall and creating havoc gave the opportunity for the Netanyahu seemingly go with the "generals plan" in Gaza. Yet without "Al Aqsa flood", there wouldn't be plans to move everybody out from northern Gaza etc.

Hence US policy many times is a reaction to events that were made by others, and only then someone starts to think how this event can be used to further our own objectives and agenda. Still, it's a reaction to an event caused by others. And that is crucial here to understand.

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. — Tzeentch

Yet notice one thing that has been true throughout the entire span of history: transport in trade by water is far more efficient and less costly than transport by land. One cargo ship can carry several cargo trains of produce. Ancient civilizations emerged on large rivers and the Mediterranean was such a lucrative sea for trade. It's just simply physics. Silk road and China's new land routes simply cannot compete with international shipping.

Trying to join NATO was arguably the crudest and most risky way of doing so, and hedging the survival of the country on a distant maritime power was rather naive given the track record of said power, and that is a criticism that applies to virtually all NATO members.

We should know better than to trust Washington. — Tzeentch

Finland and Sweden in my view waited for the right moment. Before 2022 there simply wouldn't have been a consensus to join NATO. If a conservative adminstration would have rammed through NATO membership, it would have become a right-left issue. Now it wasn't. Era of post-Finlandization ended when Putin attacked Ukraine on a wide front.

At least in NATO there are other countries too. Notice how the UK and for example Poland gave security guarantees for Finland during the application process to NATO membership. European NATO members aren't totally irrelevant.

And the "US allies" like South Vietnam, Afghanistan or present day Iraq aren't in the same category. The influencing attempts of the US go through the normal channels, not with some Finns that have lived all their life in the US making great careers in Washington DC then transcending to the country to solve our problems. And the US marines here on training aren't possibly attacked by some fringe Finnish group firing rockets at military bases.

Was then defending South Korea from Northern attack worth it?
— ssu

I don't know. — T Clark

Let's then just think about this.

South Korea produces a lot of stuff. I personally like K-pop. The country is finally a democracy after the 1980's and it's one of the most prosperous countries in the World.

North Korea suffered large scale famine in the 1990's. It's a totalitarian state where family members are prisoned of people who successfully defect. I remember a Finn that actually visited the country. Not only had he a "minder", a person that looked at just what he did and talked with North Koreans, he had TWO minders, who basically were looking at each other and wouldn't talk to the foreigner in fear that they would say something wrong. After all, you cannot leave a member of the security apparatus alone with foreigners. The Juche ideology would still reign and likely the ruling family too even if the whole Peninsula would be part of the People's Democracy.

So would it be better that there wouldn't be a South Korea? You see, if the US wouldn't have raised a finger when North Korea attacked, the whole "South Korea" would be a distant memory as the the Republic of Mahabad in Iranian history. We would happily consider Koreans these inhabitants of the Hermit Kingdom.

And since this war was actually fought by the United Nations and the US, it definitely shows that countries are worth saving from aggressors. Similarly in the case of the Gulf War. Would the World be a better place if Saddam could have simply taken Kuwait and had then equivalent oil reserves to Saudi-Arabia? If this would have been something that the US wouldn't have done anything about, then you likely would have a nuclear armed Iraq with one of the largest armies in the world. Because prior to the Gulf War, Iraq did have a functioning nuclear program. It didn't have after the war that, especially after Clinton's operation Desert Fox in 1998. So yes, the "war is a racket" thing comes to play with the 2003 invasion.

The fact is that sometimes the US does the right thing by intervention. And this is why it's alliance with Europe has survived through the times. Even if it has done things like the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

But you weren't our allies. You were countries that we were friendly with but with which we had no binding military relationships. Do you expect us to send US troops to Finland if Russia decides to invade? — T Clark

Your troops are here today. I saw US marines in the navy garrison I was in last Sunday at the mess hall in the food line. We are now a member of NATO and those marines were taking part in "Freezing Winds" exercise that is now ongoing. We weren't earlier your allies. And I remember the CIA yearbook having a picture of us being "likely allies" of the Soviet Union. So that much trust in our non-alignment. Yes, it was a culture shock for me some years ago (before we were in NATO) to see in the same garrison's soldier home full of young British soldiers waiting for their pizzas. The last foreign troops that you could see in Finnish garrisons were during my grandparents time, they were from the Wehrmacht and the SS. But they were in the North, yet in the summer of 1944 German soldiers camped in my now summer cottage, an old farmhouse built in 1914 by my great grandparents. During the Cold War my father told that the only foreign soldier that he saw in Helsinki was a US Marine in the US Embassy when he renewed his visa to the US. But many then thought there were Soviet soldiers in Finland.

There was never any realistic chance of Russia joining NATO. — T Clark

As I've said, you would have had larger than life politicians on both sides for that to have happened.

It was never realistic that we could somehow keep countries bordering Russia outside the Russian sphere of interest. — T Clark

With Finlandization, we got our everyday life to be out of the Russian sphere of interest. So defending your country and in 1944 preparing to fight an insurgency kept Stalin out. And the Finnish Communists were idiots btw, they couldn't stamp out Finnish democracy without the Red Army in the country. So as @Count Timothy von Icarus put it so well:

You know who thinks Poland should be in Poland's sphere of influence? Poles. And the same sort of thing goes for Czechs, Finns, Ukrainians, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I fully and wholeheartedly agree with this.

It certainly doesn't work that way in the US. We have the Monroe Doctrine and haven't shied away from sticking our noses in our neighbor's affairs. — T Clark

Well, you didn't go to war with the French when they had their adventures in Mexico. In fact, the French intervened in Mexico twice, in the 1830's and then in 1861–1867 again. The Monroe Doctrine was given in 1823, so the French didn't care a shit about your doctrines back then. (And of course, they still are all around the American continent btw, which the Monroe doctrine accepts.) Oh, the US did disapprove the French actions in Mexico during the second intervention. However Abraham Lincoln wouldn't want to go to war with France then, because it would have been too easy for the French then to give overwhelming support to the Confederacy.

So the idea that it's OK for Russia to meddle in affairs because you meddle in affairs isn't a counterargument. State meddles in other states things all the time, actually. But violence is something else than just the typical influencing attempts embassies make.

What is the US's vital national interest in Taiwan? — T Clark

In a larger sense, what is the vital national interest to see China as a threat? Last country it invaded was Communist Vietnam, a country the you had just fought with.

The main problem is that just as Domino Theory or the "We have to occupy this country or otherwise it will be a terrorist safe haven"-theory aren't really discussed. And not explained to those that would (or could) understand a complex politics.

The US should understand that basically it's very crucial for it to have the dollar in the role it has now. Those countries, who aren't friends of the US, aren't keen to use it as a "reserve currency". But those who are your allies are OK with the present system. Why not? They get safety and prosperity. The system works for them. Especially in the age of populists like Trump, it's actually difficult to reason the obvious, that global trade does bring prosperity. That if you cut the alliances, stop globalization, stop trade and so on, you will just create a World that sucks even more than the present.

This is a fair critique. In particular, the widespread looting that occured during the second invasion poisoned public opinion against the US. — Count Timothy von Icarus

From the experience of Bosnia and the Balkans, the US Armed forces understood what it would take. And Chief of Staff of the Army general Eric Shinsheki publicly stated how many troops would be needed in the post-war occupation. This was too high for the great visionary Rumsfeld, who fired Shinseki. Later at the so-called "Surge", the levels came to the level what Shinseki had originally stated. Iraq of course had internal problems being such a divided country with so much bloodshed and internal strife all of it's present history, so Divide et Impera could work. With Americans, this meant basically a Sunni insurgency and a separate Shia insurgency against the Americans. At least the Kurds were friends.

And so the idea was to use the Iraqi army for stabilizing unrest. That was the fatal flaw. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Was there this kind of thinking? Paul Bremer really didn't do so with his CPA order number 2:

After the invasion, several factors contributed to the destabilization of Iraq. On 23 May, L. Paul Bremer issued Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 2, dissolving the Iraqi Army and other entities of the former Ba'athist state. Ba'athists were excluded from the newly formed Iraqi government.

Yes. Why not simply fire tens of thousands of professional soldiers without no thought given to what they would do. It really was the Sunni's themselves that thought that they would at least as bureaucrats be used. But no. So Americans dissolved the security apparatus totally. Then riots ensued. As the great visionary Rumsfeld said in April 2003:

"The task we've got ahead of us now is an awkward one ... It's untidy. And freedom's untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that's what's going to happen here,"

And it did happen: an insurgency and an Civil war ensued. And then happened something that shows just where the reasons lie for the US losing wars: The US forces in Iraq basically won the campaign against Al Qaeda in the Sunni heartlands. Without any direction from Washington politicians and left to their devices, the military itself took the initiative and used the ancient old tactic of simply picking part the insurgency by making deals with some of the groups. Hence there was the "Sunni Awakening" that basically pacified the Sunni areas with "Sons of Iraq", earlier insurgents. But here came the politicians, and not only American politicians to ruin the issue. While Obama had made it a campaign promise to get the pull the forces out, the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose power relied on secterian policies, decided that the "Sons of Iraq" were a threat and disbanded everything that the US military had worked so much to form. So now for the second time, now not Bremer, but al-Maliki, disbanded armed Sunnis and didn't integrate them into the security apparatus they were willing to join (under US military). So again another insurgency. As the US had left, then now just called ISIS emerged from the again unhappy Sunnis, who later rapidly occupied large parts of Iraq and Syria. Because why the Shia officers and soldiers try to fight Sunni insurgents in Sunni towns that weren't friendly places for them in the first place? Hence all that effort had been flushed down the toilet and the US military had to come back to Iraq to fight ISIS.

Something like this usually happens when the politicians don't have a long term answer on how to win an insurgency. It's something that happens so frequently in many places. The West "comes to the rescue" and stabilizes the situation for some time. The enemy regroups. Then the focus wanes, and then finally the Westerners leave. And the place is in worse place. And this then makes the idea of "forever wars" so tempting. But it doesn't have to be like this. Insurgencies can be won, but they aren't won militarily without political insight and dedication. This reminds me of how the British understood how deal with a war where the other side won't surrender: then simply make the insurgents part of your team. If the British put the Boer population into concentration camps, then they also put them into leading positions after the war. Hence it isn't an accident that prime ministers of the new South Africa were for a long time Boer leaders who had fought the British. And hence you got one of history's strangest political friends, Chuchill and Jan Smuts, who the latter had been the Boer interrogator of captured Churchill. Roles change.

(Former prisoner-of-war (Churchill) and his former interrogator (Jan Smuts))


But if the US military had the idea of "Sons of Iraq", did the US do like the British did with the Boers or Russia did in Chechnya and picked a former Taleban leader to lead Afghanistan? Hell no! They chose not only an Afghan that had worked abroad, but basically a person, Ashraf Ghani, that had lived for very long in the US would be a great example of an immigrant to the US, a person that made a great academic career in the right American academic places: studied in American University in Beirut and later in Columbia university, then taught in Berkeley and Johns Hopkins and finally landed on a job in the World Bank. Then after nearly a quarter of Century out of Afghanistan, Ghani landed in the now occupied Afghanistan in an UN position and finally made it through in the Hamid Karzai administration. So this kind of person was seen by American leadership as a person to deal with all the problems that Afghanistan had. Well, the end was exactly what could be assumed from such a person. The Taleban kindly asked him to go away and he kindly responded by quickly leaving Afghanistan with all the millions he could take with him. Which he naturally denies to exist.

Yet Ashraf Ghani isn't the first of these fluent English talking people, who could well survive in the cocktail parties of Washington DC and are seen as a crucial players, yet who would have huge problems in the actual politics of the country the US picks them for. Many can remember the charlatan Ahmed Chalabi, that played an important part for the Americans in Iraq. Didn't stay long in actual Iraqi politics.

(Oregon high school yearbook, places where Afghan presidents start earning their spurs)


(Ahmed Chalabi with the visionary secretary of defense, Paul Bremer behind the two)

Hah! I wanted to use the Hitler card. :grin:

(Ok, sorry, back to having an interesting discussion...)

Yet the issue really is just what for example Ukraine did wrong? You can argue that it did the greatest mistake, as Mearsheimer pointed out, is that it gave it's nuclear weapons back to Russia. But back then I think the West and the US wouldn't have been happy for that. In fact the US was extremely happy that Ukraine also gave an enormous amount of shoulder fired SAMS (MANPADS) away too. Then the threat they posed was to get into the hands of terrorists! Cold war was over, you know. So Ukraine trying to hold on to a nuclear deterrent and put a lot of effort to make them into an effective weapons system (something that is totally possible for Ukraine), would have made Ukraine a pariah state in the eyes of the West. Besides, back then many Ukrainians loved Putin. Russians were brothers.

Baltic countries surely understood the writing on the wall: all of them have Russians / Russian speaking minorities. They are, just like Finland, extremely close to St. Petersburgh and Moscow, hence they are strategically close to the heart of Russia. And then they are tiny nations: Estonia has the population similar to Maine as is a bit bigger than Maryland. The city of Narva is as close to St. Petersburgh as Philadelphia is to Manhattan, New York. Hence without there being NATO, it isn't hard to tell how risky it would be to Estonia.

Even if the negative consequences were very low (or non-existent), are you saying that the West would not be justified in taking over North Korea by force?

I agree that coercion should be the last resort, but it seems to be a resort; and seems to be a valid resort to stop societal structures that are really immoral; and this entails some version of imperialism, even if it is a much weaker version than the standard ones historically. — Bob Ross

When both the US and North Korea have nuclear weapons, then the question would this:

How many Americans and what percentage of North Koreans population is a justifiable sacrifice to erase the North Korean dictatorship out of existence? And if with Americans the death toll less than have died of Covid (less than 1,2 million), let's say just Hawaii and the Bay area were destroyed, then how many North Koreans would it be enough to revenge the lost Americans?

Your countries' motivation was to make things better. The US's should have been not to make them worse. — T Clark

Why say that? You haven't made things worse. They would be far worse without you. Remember that the US is actually very popular in Europe.

I agree that the US had the wrong narrative in Vietnam. It just wasn't worth it. — T Clark

Was then defending South Korea from Northern attack worth it?

Your narrative might have been right for you, but it wasn't right for us. — T Clark

So just where do you put the line for defending democracy and your allies? Is the UK worth then defending? Is Canada? I am personally glad that for example the tiny nations of the Baltic could avoid the present situation of Moldavia, Georgia or Ukraine.

Are you suggesting this is a good reason for expanding NATO? — T Clark

Are you familiar with the actually discourse when NATO expansion happened? It was totally different from where NATO is now when Sweden and Finland joined. Look, there were no plans to defend the Baltics. That was too escalatory or offensive! A NATO member (likely Germany perhaps) saw making actual warplans to defend the Baltic States too escalating for Russia. NATO didn't train it's forces as it does now in the Baltic States. Russia had a special observer status in NATO. And as @frank pointed, people genuinely talked about the prospect of Russia joining NATO. Unfortunately, there is a route of application to the organization, which Russia wouldn't take. It would have to get the blessing from all other nations to join in and face a road the Sweden had. Russia simply then should have been controlled by democrats, not KGB people. In the end, war in Kosovo ended these hypothetical ideas. So in reality the "window of opportunity" to join NATO already ended during the Yeltsin years.

Saying the US should have acted consistent with our own national interest, including to promote stability in Europe, rather than the interests of nations formerly in the Russian sphere is not "going with Kremlin's line." — T Clark

But you did promote stability in Europe. Or do you think that without NATO and US involvement, that Russia would have been peaceful and not tried to get it's empire back? That is naive. This should be easy to understand when Putin says that the fall of Soviet Union was the greatest tragedy in the 20th Century. Russia would have simply far more easily taken back a lot more than it has now attempted. Likely the Baltic States would be Russian satellites and the Ukraine would be a rump satellite state with Novorossiya being a part of Russia (which btw the latter can still happen). Europe simply would be far more unstable than now! Does that help your national interest?

I agree completely. Taiwan is not worth war with a country with a huge military and nuclear weapons. I feel the same way about Taiwan that I do about Finland. No, that's not true, I feel a lot more sympathy and common cause for the people of Europe. Taiwan is a fake country occupied by the losers in the civil war in China with delusions of grandeur. The US should never have staked its "reputation" on supporting it. — T Clark

I think people who want to be independent ought to have their independence and simply the UN charter ought to be respected. It is as simple as that. NATO is an European security arrangement that works and it has created stability in Europe. SEATO and CENTO didn't work and these areas are still volatile. Alliances simply work. They aren't a burden, just as international cooperation isn't a hindrance.

Taiwan is risking war with China. Just like Ukraine was risking war with Russia, South Vietnam was risking war with the North, etc. — Tzeentch

Just like Poland was risking war with Germany in the late 1930's. Just like Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Norway were also risking war with Germany, for that matter. And not only did they risk it, they got the war Hitler. How badly done from them! Especially the Poles, didn't they get the memo (Mein Kampf) that they were Untermenschen and should move away somewhere else and give their lands to the German Übermenschen?

Should the UK have a right to dictate India's military alliances and attack India to prevent new ones? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Would the UK even want that? I don't think so. Britons are past their Empire. They've accepted it. Even can laugh at it like Monty Python. Just like the Spanish understand well that they don't have the Empire they formerly had. But Putin doesn't think so. That's the huge difference.

Also, arguing for "spheres of influence," what is this, 1938? You know who thinks Poland should be in Poland's sphere of influence? Poles. And the same sort of thing goes for Czechs, Finns, Ukrainians, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Exactly. This ought to be the point. And many past Empires have understood this.

Historical spheres are part of history. Those politicians referring to history and historical spheres are usually quite dangerous: when there isn't any current obvious link or relationship, you can then refer to history and things like "historical spheres of influence".

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.


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.

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.