|
stealie72 posted:Throwing money and arms at Ukraine to help them spend lives weakening a major US geopolitical rival is such a dead simple bargain on every level that I'm not surprised millions of American dipshits are against it. Many people believe that the US's unilateral hegemony does more harm then good. The idea that a loss in Ukraine would weaken it and give other small countries better negotiating positions is one of the few non-stupid arguments against supporting Ukraine. It was one of the main arguments for many eastern European countries to stay out of Nato. Though I personally don't think it applies in this specific instance as I don't believe that this argument applies the Ukraine war. Because the US is not actually that invested, Russia sucks too hard to be more then a regional power, Russia sucks morally and is even worse then the US, and there are quite a lot of Ukrainians suffering.
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
VictualSquid posted:Many people believe that the US's unilateral hegemony does more harm then good. The idea that a loss in Ukraine would weaken it and give other small countries better negotiating positions is one of the few non-stupid arguments against supporting Ukraine. It was one of the main arguments for many eastern European countries to stay out of Nato. How exactly would a loss in Ukraine increase the bargaining power of smaller countries? Like if Ukraine loses, Russia's suddenly going to stop messing around in Moldova?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 15:35
|
|
|
psydude posted:How exactly would a loss in Ukraine increase the bargaining power of smaller countries? Like if Ukraine loses, Russia's suddenly going to stop messing around in Moldova? That argument isn't expressed as being about European countries only. It's that if the US and Western Block in general loses power, there is less ability/will for them to mess around in the global south, Asia, etc. Basically an argument that having Russia and China and the US/west all weakened by loving around witth one another means there's not one big power tto push around smaller nations. Or, alternately, sometimes it's just "I want the PRC to be the one big power," but that's another topic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
psydude posted:How exactly would a loss in Ukraine increase the bargaining power of smaller countries? Like if Ukraine loses, Russia's suddenly going to stop messing around in Moldova? I don't think it would, for the reasons I stated. In fact I also suspect that they are better off while able to negotiate with Russia under the embargo, and would want the war to remain a stalemate. But, some people do believe that a loss would weaken the US hegemony enough to give other countries better negotiating positions. Not by accepting the other offers, but having more ability to negotiate favourable deals with the US. We are talking about countries like India or Chile, not about countries that are actually threatened by Russian expansion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
This presumes subsequent US administrations will have the self awareness to realize that relative power has been diminished. This hasn't been the case for any former hegemon, though: France, Russia, and the UK have all variously failed to internalize their weakened contemporary posture. The result has been that countries formerly under their grasp have just gone to deal with China - another hegemon - instead. e: I know neither of you is arguing that. I'm just kind of thinking out loud. psydude fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Jun 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
psydude posted:This presumes subsequent US administrations will have the self awareness to realize that relative power has been diminished. This hasn't been the case for any former hegemon, though: France, Russia, and the UK have all variously failed to internalize their weakened contemporary posture. The result has been that countries formerly under their grasp have just gone to deal with China - another hegemon - instead. Point is that nobody wants an unilateral hegemony, unless you live in it's core maybe. So you got countries where the US acts as a unilateral hegemony supporting anything that weakens them. But, you also got countries seeing china acting as a local unilateral hegemony in where they are and supporting their enemies despite normally hating them. Like Vietnam for example. But china is still mostly a local power, so an african country would not care. Russia has also been acting as if they were a local unilateral hegemony, which is one of the reasons the war got hot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:Many people believe that the US's unilateral hegemony does more harm then good. The idea that a loss in Ukraine would weaken it and give other small countries better negotiating positions is one of the few non-stupid arguments against supporting Ukraine. It was one of the main arguments for many eastern European countries to stay out of Nato. I dunno, a bunch of my chud veteran friends just hate it since Biden is in charge. Plus they're drinking straight from the Russian propaganda tap
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 19:16
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:Many people believe that the US's unilateral hegemony does more harm then good. The idea that a loss in Ukraine would weaken it and give other small countries better negotiating positions is one of the few non-stupid arguments against supporting Ukraine. It was one of the main arguments for many eastern European countries to stay out of Nato. Nah, it is a completely stupid argument. Because if the US bloc vanishes, surprise, now you're getting bullied by the Chinese bloc or whatever bloc an ascendant Russia would form. The only way for small countries to have some kind of bargaining power is to join larger blocs, like the EU or something like it. Even if all national power and militaries vanished, congratulations now you're getting bullied by multinational megacorporations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
Yeah we literally had the cold war as a trial run and it turns out being on the boundary between two superpowers vying for supremacy loving sucks for the imperial periphery. E: for all of the issues with US unilateral hegemony it is also in aggregate the best period in history humanity has ever had
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
One of the critical differences between the US and the USSR and a prospective PRC-led bloc is that in the former there is at least the ability to express dissent and to effect positive changes through discussion both internally and between members of the bloc itself, even if that pace of change is glacially slow. That capacity was almost entirely absent in the USSR and is in the PRC as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 20:15
|
|
|
There have been many points in history where there was no one one supreme power in the world and that just meant small nations got invaded or jerked around by their neighbors. A world where Russia, China, and the US are all on equal levels just means they get three chances to get hosed.
Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Jun 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:There have been many points in history where there was no one one supreme power in the world and that just meant small nations got invaded or jerked around by their neighbors. A world where Russia, China, and the US are all on equal levels just means they get three chances to get hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 21:00
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:Throwing money and arms at Ukraine to help them spend lives weakening a major US geopolitical rival is such a dead simple bargain on every level that I'm not surprised millions of American dipshits are against it. Because Russia is GOOD! Fox news told me so! Biden likes Ukraine, so Ukraine must be bad!
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 21:40
|
|
|
The US losing its hegemony will probably coincide with WW3 so I think that theory is a bit cavalier. Regardless if you hate foreign fascists it seems that you should be concerned with the ones committing genocide in Ukraine and threatening all of their neighbors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2023 23:28
|
|
|
Hot loving take: right now aligning with the US hegemony is your best option, because the Chinese and Russian aren’t great to be allied with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 01:33
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:Many people believe that the US's unilateral hegemony does more harm then good. The idea that a loss in Ukraine would weaken it and give other small countries better negotiating positions is one of the few non-stupid arguments against supporting Ukraine. It was one of the main arguments for many eastern European countries to stay out of Nato. If it requires a ton of caveats about how it doesn't apply to the current situation in Ukraine, then I would posit that "allow Ukraine to be genocided in order to pwn the USA" is, in fact, a stupid argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 02:04
|
|
|
carrionman posted:I'm pretty anti war and generally left wing. That's unfortunate because almost every large progressive or socialist victory has been via strength of arms
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 02:35
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:That's unfortunate because almost every large progressive or socialist victory has been via strength of arms Oh yeah, I remember when FDR implemented the New Deal by having the Secret Service storm the Capitol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 02:45
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUkI69Rp53A So Simon Whistler a.k.a. that guy who is involved with like a quarter of factual and historical YouTube made a video about Ukrainian reconstruction prospects.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 03:13
|
|
|
EasilyConfused posted:Oh yeah, I remember when FDR implemented the New Deal by having the Secret Service storm the Capitol. Well, he did have to squash a coup
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 03:18
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:But, you also got countries seeing china acting as a local unilateral hegemony in where they are and supporting their enemies despite normally hating them. Like Vietnam for example. But china is still mostly a local power, so an african country would not care. If I were Vietnam, I'd be stocking up on ATGM, MANPADS, and HIMARS-like systems like it was my job. Because it would be. Their capitol is almost as close to the border with China as Kyiv is to the Russian border. 135 miles is probably outside of China's single-bound logistical ability, but the road network between Hanoi and the border is extensive. They'd have to defend on a lot of axes so they'd need a lot of materiel. e. And drones. So very many drones. mllaneza fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Jun 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 03:47
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:If I were Vietnam, I'd be stocking up on ATGM, MANPADS, and HIMARS-like systems like it was my job. Because it would be. Their capitol is almost as close to the border with China as Kyiv is to the Russian border. 135 miles is probably outside of China's single-bound logistical ability, but the road network between Hanoi and the border is extensive. They'd have to defend on a lot of axes so they'd need a lot of materiel. The Vietnamese Military History museum gives me the confidence that they can deal with any invasion. For the past two millennia they have undergone a cycle of invasion, occupation, resistance, independence, repeat. Vietnam is historically like Afghanistan, it's just a whole culture of people ingrained with a sense of independence and resistance. Granted, it would be nice for them if they could break the cycle and remain un-invaded. Their military is definitely trying to modernize and their government is building a lot stronger ties to other countries (America). The government isn't the best, but no people deserve to under go that cycle. I would be curious to see how they end up playing a South China Sea crisis. If China made a move on the islands/sea the Philippines claims, Vietnam would probably see them as next. Course Vietnam might be the first on the receiving end right after Taiwan of any Chinese territorial grabs. Funny thing about that museum, it's run by the military and it's closed during lunchtime. Peak joe stuff. Between the Ho Chi Minh Museum and the Military History Museum, they understandably omit the US involvement in their resistance against the Japanese. The Ho Chi Minh Museum has a Zenith radio built in the 1940s, data plate and all, that he used to coordinate his forces no doubt provided by the OSS. drat, I gotta go back there sometime. Cheapest vacation I took.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 04:08
|
|
|
"Surely invading Vietnam will be different when we do it" belies such unbelievable hubris that I want to live in the world where nobody is that stupid, but history would suggest that watching a series of colonizers get bled dry before withdrawing has never deterred the next.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 04:59
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:That's unfortunate because almost every large progressive or socialist victory has been via strength of arms No poo poo. And here was me thinking just voting and making some tumbler posts would sort the world out. I'm not anti violence, I feel it absolutely has its place, as the defence of Ukraine is showing. I'm leftist, not a loving lib.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 06:48
|
|
|
plenty of people have invaded vietnam succesfully, it's the holding onto it part that is hard. also the human toll of pretty much every occupation of vietnam has been completely loving horrific before even getting into the human toll of the respective fights for liberation and occupation caused famines. idk it's hard to feel much bravado on vietnam's behalf when the reality has been that they were fighting against seemingly impossible odds because the alternative was continued subservience to regimes that literally did not care if they lived or died. it's certainly impressive what they accomplished, but jesus gently caress the cost of it all Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Jun 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 06:50
|
|
|
Yeah no country is ever going to be happy that historically speaking they have good odds of resisting invasion if they are willing to sacrifice 1/4 to 1/3 of their population. That's the kind of victory you desperately seek an alternative to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 07:35
|
|
|
carrionman posted:I'm not anti violence, I feel it absolutely has its place, as the defence of Ukraine is showing.  Meanwhile us on the left who ardently support Ukraine's self-determination are struggling not to be overshadowed by a small but extremely vocal minority of tankie loons. in conclusion libya is a land of contrasts thank you
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 07:44
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:That's unfortunate because almost every large progressive or socialist victory has been via strength of arms Seems like you preemptively put the goal posts on wheels so you can move them around when someone comes up with an example where no armed conflict took place. Are you intending to argue that the various worker strikes of the past couple centuries were not progressive, socialist, or "large"? Sure some of them involved "strength of arms" (whatever that even means), but many didn't. What about the civil rights movement, or women's suffrage?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 07:59
|
|
|
Leaving aside the posting war, I was thinking about something with regards to the example of Vietnam. Vietnam has a relatively narrow border with China, doesn't it? I assume fortifications would be possible if maybe not easy. Did Ukraine have any fortifications on the approach to Russia, or was that just not feasible between their large-scale trade and commerce with Russia and the fact that they didn't want to give Putin an excuse?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 08:03
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Seems like you preemptively put the goal posts on wheels so you can move them around when someone comes up with an example where no armed conflict took place. The stock response here is that The Liberals are ignoring the violent aspects of any movement (which really got the job done) and play up the nonviolent part to discourage change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 08:04
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Leaving aside the posting war, I was thinking about something with regards to the example of Vietnam. they had some defenses and in some areas quite a lot of defenses, but the Russia-Ukraine border is ~1500 miles. Russia also had the opportunity to infiltrate a significant amount of people and supplies in the weeks leading up to the invasion, too, so the fight wasn't even just at the border. fights were happening in the cities before the pushes from the border were anywhere even near the cities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 08:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/statu...-odesa-official The last bullet point stands out, and is consistent with the anecdotal evidence coming in from Western news outlets interviewing Russian PoWs. I guess the burning question is how long Russia can withstand taking Bakhmut levels of casualties on the defensive before their lines collapse. e: I know their doctrine involves first line troops absorbing the assault to allow reserves to counter-attack, but at a certain point they're going to run out of cannon fodder. psydude fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Jun 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 08:43
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Leaving aside the posting war, I was thinking about something with regards to the example of Vietnam. They certainly built a lot of fortifications on likely approaches after 2014's invasion of Crimea, and have been well rewarded for that effort.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 09:05
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:Seems like you preemptively put the goal posts on wheels so you can move them around when someone comes up with an example where no armed conflict took place. These movements succeeded not necessarily because they did any damage, but because they implied that if concessions weren't made, damage might happen. Not necessarily explosions, but at the very least economic damage. A strike is absolutely a form of violence against the wallets of certain sectors of society, which is something they dread. Also slightly more on topic for the thread: https://kyivindependent.com/us-lawmakers-submit-bill-to-purchase-atacms-for-ukraine/ Considering that the Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles have close to the same range, would ATACMS, while no doubt nice for the Ukrainians to have, add anything major to their capabilities at this point?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 09:12
|
|
|
psydude posted:https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/statu...-odesa-official Massicot had a good thread yesterday I think about southern reserves, tldr being that reserves in the south are pretty good and relatively fresh as far as Russian units go, but also Russian morale as a whole is pretty drat low and it's going to be hard to escape the manpower and materiel shortages russians are facing. actual thread here https://twitter.com/MassDara/status/1669811749602701315 Herstory Begins Now fucked around with this message at 09:17 on Jun 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 09:13
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:These movements succeeded not necessarily because they did any damage, but because they implied that if concessions weren't made, damage might happen. Not necessarily explosions, but at the very least economic damage. A strike is absolutely a form of violence against the wallets of certain sectors of society, which is something they dread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 09:19
|
|
|
And since when are pacifists against strikes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 09:21
|
|
|
When I think "leftist causes achieved through the strength of arms," I think of the USSR, the PRC, the DPRK, Cambodia. It's almost like vibrant democracy born through partisan violence tends to die a premature death, regardless of which side of the political spectrum you claim is in the right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 09:31
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:These movements succeeded not necessarily because they did any damage, but because they implied that if concessions weren't made, damage might happen. Not necessarily explosions, but at the very least economic damage. A strike is absolutely a form of violence against the wallets of certain sectors of society, which is something they dread. There are 3 main differences: 1) Availability. Normally I'd write price in here, but they're being provided as aid. Attack'ums are simply going to be easier to provide to Ukraine than Stormshadow due to unit cost. 1) Rapidity with which they can service a target. The HIMARS can put rounds on target much more rapidly than any missile that has to be air launched, meaning that Storm Shadow isn't useful for targets of opportunity, while ATACMS will be about as useful as regular GMLRS for pop up targets. 3) Stealth, and yes, you read that correctly. While the Storm Shadow itself is semi stealthy and the ATACMS is not, the launch platforms are very different. Presumably, Russia can see everything in the air over Ukraine, but their ability to detect the HIMARS on the ground is very limited. Simply put, it's harder for Russia to know that an ATACMS strike is about to happen than it is to detect that a Storm Shadow might be imminent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 11:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:
Considering how much easier it has been for Ukraine to incorporate ground launched weapons into their forces compared to air launched ones, ATACMS would definitely add a lot of much needed flexibility. The Russians would have to consider just about any patch of land capable of launching a long range strike, instead of just the handful of runways capable of launching Su-24Ms. Hats off if the US finally relents. The UK has consistently been the first western party to introduce modern, high capability weapons systems. The fact that this has dissolved mental roadblocks for other nations, chiefly the US and Germany, has made the systems far more consequential than their relatively tiny quantities would suggest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2023 11:39
|
|
