|
Majorian posted:It seems incredibly unlikely to me that China would invade Russian territory and thus risk nuclear war to keep Russia from propping up North Korea. You're going to have to show your work. They don't need to invade Russian territory, they just need to block the rail line within North Korea. Additionally, North Korea currently relies quite heavily on trade with China. Russia gave up propping up North Korea when the USSR was collapsing, they're in no state to do it now if China doesn't agree with it. Majorian posted:He does it to try to assert superiority and demean the people he's arguing with. He does it a lot in this thread in particular. Because you keep saying really stupid things like "China doesn't have ultimate control of what happens in North Korea" in this thread, this thread you made for your stupid ramblings.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:They don't need to invade Russian territory, they just need to block the rail line within North Korea. How would they be able to do that without invading Russian territory? Also, why would they risk going to war with Russia over Moscow propping up Pyongyang? quote:Additionally, North Korea currently relies quite heavily on trade with China. Russia gave up propping up North Korea when the USSR was collapsing, they're in no state to do it now if China doesn't agree with it. Again, you're going to have to show your work. Your word isn't good enough; back up your claims that Russia cannot support North Korea with proof, please. quote:Because you keep saying really stupid things like "China doesn't have ultimate control of what happens in North Korea" in this thread, this thread you made for your stupid ramblings. When you make claims like "Russia is not a powerful country," your calling other people "child" or "kid" kind of loses its punch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Majorian posted:When you make claims like "Russia is not a powerful country," your calling other people "child" or "kid" kind of loses its punch.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:How would they be able to do that without invading Russian territory? By going into North Korea, and placing a barricade across the North Korean side, you complete clown. How is this so hard for you to get? You could do it with like 3 PLA helicopters and an empty shipping container. The bridge between North Korea and Russia is less than a mile from China at that too.  Majorian posted:Also, why would they risk going to war with Russia over Moscow propping up Pyongyang? How does blocking the railroad line risk war? Other than Russia being insane and violent, of course. Go read anything about North Korea, for starters the CIA factbook states that China receives of 63% North Korean exports and provides 73% of their imports. Russia ain't a powerful country, everyone who isn't Russia knows this. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Mar 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Physically it's possible for Russia to prop up North Korea, but anything that destabilizes the Koreas will affect China negatively as well. Even without challenging Russia with troops, though, China would probably be able to respond in a manner that it's not worthwhile for Russia to do so.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:This implies it had any punch in the first place. fishmech certainly thinks it does.  Adventure Pigeon posted:Physically it's possible for Russia to prop up North Korea, but anything that destabilizes the Koreas will affect China negatively as well. Even without challenging Russia with troops, though, China would probably be able to respond in a manner that it's not worthwhile for Russia to do so. No, I agree - I just think it's worthwhile to recognize that there are things Russia can do to undermine our efforts with North Korea. Nintendo Kid posted:By going into North Korea, and placing a barricade across the North Korean side, you complete clown. China would risk war with Russia by invading North Korea to keep it from getting propped up by the Kremlin? Seems kind of unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
Russia can't do jackshit with North Korea, that's China's realm. There is no way Russia could afford to take over as much of North Korea's import/export as China provides, and without that North Korea straight collapses. China would not risk war with Russia because Russia's not stupid enough (yet) to go to war over the rail line being blocked. Christ why do you not get this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Russia can't do jackshit with North Korea, that's China's realm. That's just silly. Russia is one of the six parties in the Six-Party Talks and a UNSC member. Those in and of themselves give it a lot of leverage over how the US' policy towards North Korea is shaped (and it also gives them lots of leverage over the US' geopolitical interests worldwide). Face it, fishmech - Russia is a powerful country that can do a lot of stuff to mess up the US' worldwide interests. You may not like them, but we have to work with them if we want to pursue our future interests effectively.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's just silly. Russia is one of the six parties in the Six-Party Talks and a UNSC member. Those in and of themselves give it a lot of leverage over how the US' policy towards North Korea is shaped (and it also gives them lots of leverage over the US' geopolitical interests worldwide). Russia is just that, one of 6 parties. They hold no special power. China meanwhile has the North Korean economy by the short hairs, and Russia can't do jackshit about that. I would LOVE to hear your plan for how Russia can take control of North Korea against China's wishes. Russia is weak and can't do jackshit to mess up "our" interests. All you've managed to claim is that they'll make things that are already a problem slightly worse, which they've already done. They're weak, and you should learn to accept it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
You can quibble with my examples all you like - Russia is a powerful country. Every world leader and scholar of international relations knows it. We will have to cooperate with them to pursue our interests in a multilateral 21st century.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You can quibble with my examples all you like - Russia is a powerful country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
I think the past 15 years or so has fairly well proven that you don't have to be a powerful country to mess with America's interests abroad. Can we compromise and say that Russia is not a powerful country but cannot be successfully ignored?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I think the past 15 years or so has fairly well proven that you don't have to be a powerful country to mess with America's interests abroad. Can we compromise and say that Russia is not a powerful country but cannot be successfully ignored? Sure, whatever. I mean, I'm pretty sure most people, particularly world leaders and scholars, would agree that Russia is a powerful nation. But I can agree to disagree on that with fishmech. My point is simply that the US needs Russia's cooperation on a host of issues, and a new Cold War with them wouldn't serve our interests because of this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:My point is simply that the US needs Russia's cooperation on a host of issues, and a new Cold War with them wouldn't serve our interests because of this. Your point is wrong, we've operated without just fine for quite some time. A new Cold War would be a war against global conservatism, which would be excellent for the common people globally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Your point is wrong, we've operated without just fine for quite some time. Threats and objectives evolve; they've evolved significantly over the past twenty-four years as it stands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Physically it's possible for Russia to prop up North Korea, but anything that destabilizes the Koreas will affect China negatively as well. Even without challenging Russia with troops, though, China would probably be able to respond in a manner that it's not worthwhile for Russia to do so. Russia does have some interests in North Korea, and North Korea very much sees Russia as the only potential power they could use to "balance" Chinese domination (at least a tiny bit). From the Chinese perespective, they dont actually want to "dominate" North Korea because then they would own it, and that (due to being loving expensive and probably futile) something they would rather avoid. Having Russia around to share the (economic, political and diplomatic) costs of North Korea is seen as an on balance good thing in the Zhongnanhai. The chief Chinese goal is to keep the USA away from the Yalu, this is a goal Russia shares. Russia and China going to war over North Korea is pretty much the most insane thing I heard this month, and I hear a lot. The best Chinese metaphor for the North Korean situation I heard went like this: "North Korea is a deeply troubled patient with a number of profound psychological and physical problems. While we may indeed be able to ameliorate some of them, we dont mind North Korea seeking out other "doctors" to attempt ameliorate other issues, and would enthusiastically welcome cooperation and coordination with others in the "international medical profession"." The Russians recognize that North Korea is far more important to China then it is to them, and that it is an asset of highly dubious value in general. Them picking a fight with China over it would be completely bonkers. Now, there are countries were Russia and China are indeed competing. Vietnam, India, to an extent Pakistan and central Asia spring to mind. However, especially concerning Vietnam, India and Pakistan (credible powers of their own, and in "internal control" of their own foreign policy), Russian weakness vis a vis China is actually a strength. Hanoi has much to fear from Beijing, it has nothing to fear from Moscow. The same is true for Pakistan and India. While this does not settle the issue, cooperating with Russia is, for anyone not bordering Russia, safe. If you are bordering China but not Russia, then Russia becomes the by far "safer" if economically less attractive partner. They are also much less "demanding" then the Americans. Needless to say, Russia doesnt precisly enjoy this advantadge in Central Asia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
I was under the impression that China already owned North Korea and they were looking for creative ways to get out from under that toxic asset.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I was under the impression that China already owned North Korea and they were looking for creative ways to get out from under that toxic asset. They can indeed be perceived as "owning it" from the outside but it isnt that simple. North Korea is really (and intentionally) opaque, even for the Chinese. They are occassionally purging people with too many Chinese ties, and there isnt a whole lot (other then letting North Korea collapse, and China wont benefit from that) that the Chinese can do about it. NKs negotiation position is kind of like "give me a payrise or I shoot myself in your office, before your colleages". It works (kind of). If anything, a peresepective in which Russia is theoretically able to offer life support instead of China (at a much lower level then China) in a way that still comparably hurts the NK elites, but keeps NK from collapsing (common North Koreans would be in for some pain), actually enchances Beijings leverage because it makes threats of economic ruptures from them be more realistic. If you want a comparison, various cliques in Saigon did whatever the gently caress they wanted while tens of thousands of US troops were in the country, fighting their enemy. The Kims can make people like Diem look like honest and loyal vasalls in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You can quibble with my examples all you like - Russia is a powerful country. Every world leader and scholar of international relations knows it. We will have to cooperate with them to pursue our interests in a multilateral 21st century. Russia is weak with nukes as its one very important trump card. If America lost its nukes nothing would change. Anyone trying to invade would fail. If Russia lost its nukes America and some of the EU would be in ukraine now smashing the gently caress out of the Russian forces and then pushing on Moscow. Russia has tech that rivals NATO equipment but not the funds to field it. They are weak. You yourself constantly affirm that ukraine is not worth a potential nuclear war. This is what Russia has become. A brutish nation using nuclear Armageddon as a stick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Russia is weak with nukes as its one very important trump card. Where, exactly, is your delineation for what country is weak and what country is strong, though? No one's suggesting that Russia is anywhere near as powerful as the US, but it certainly has a large economy, a huge conventional military, and produces a lot of energy upon which Europe depends. They have a permanent UNSC veto, and their airspace is so vast that it's difficult for countries like the US to navigate the globe efficiently without flying through their territory. To me, those are all features of a powerful country. Not a superpower in those areas, certainly, but powerful nonetheless. quote:You yourself constantly affirm that ukraine is not worth a potential nuclear war. This is what Russia has become. A brutish nation using nuclear Armageddon as a stick. I honestly don't think that the nukes play as big of a role as you think they do, though. Given Russia's proximity to Ukraine, the size of its conventional army, its regional advantages in knowing Ukraine much better than we do, and the fact that they just flat-out want it so much more than we do, all work together to create a significant deterrent against Western intervention as well. No one wants another Vietnam or Iraq, and Russia wouldn't need nukes to turn Ukraine into that for us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Where, exactly, is your delineation for what country is weak and what country is strong, though? No one's suggesting that Russia is anywhere near as powerful as the US, but it certainly has a large economy, a huge conventional military, and produces a lot of energy upon which Europe depends. They have a permanent UNSC veto, and their airspace is so vast that it's difficult for countries like the US to navigate the globe efficiently without flying through their territory. To me, those are all features of a powerful country. Not a superpower in those areas, certainly, but powerful nonetheless. In that sense, Moscow could be considered a "secondary pole" not comparable to Washington or Beijing but strong enough to dominant its neighborhood. In that sense, I don't think the current chill is actually a second Cold War, the Russian Federation is simply not a threat to Western interests (for a variety of reasons) like the USSR was. It isn't powerless but it isn't a superpower either. quote:I honestly don't think that the nukes play as big of a role as you think they do, though. Given Russia's proximity to Ukraine, the size of its conventional army, its regional advantages in knowing Ukraine much better than we do, and the fact that they just flat-out want it so much more than we do, all work together to create a significant deterrent against Western intervention as well. No one wants another Vietnam or Iraq, and Russia wouldn't need nukes to turn Ukraine into that for us. To be honest, I seriously doubt the goal is actually to "conquer" Ukraine in any traditional sense either but rather to weaken it until it comes it agrees to more Russian demands. In this sense, military action is in many ways more secondary to financial and economic damage. Obviously there is a real front line, but much of what is going on is a war of irritation to drain Ukrainian resources and conquer specific economic centers of importance to hurt Kiev. Mariupol is a target because of its massive steel mill, the loss of it would be a cruel blow to the already hobbled Ukrainian economy. Other Pro-Russian targets have included strategic coal mines. A certain point you could say nukes would be in the equation if NATO openly intervened and started airstriking pro-Russian positions (including Russian soldiers) but NATO isn't going to do that. Ultimately, the question is what is going to be the ultimate agreement that comes out of this, rather than WW3 and in that sense, I think it very well be Ukraine won't be joining NATO or the EU for a while if ever. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Russia is weak with nukes as its one very important trump card. If America lost its nukes nothing would change. Anyone trying to invade would fail. If Russia lost its nukes America and some of the EU would be in ukraine now smashing the gently caress out of the Russian forces and then pushing on Moscow. Russia has tech that rivals NATO equipment but not the funds to field it. They are weak. this is a stupid point and you should feel bad for making it
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
Yeah NATO doesn't want to touch Ukraine period, we are barely putting in any real financial aid much less be willing to actually spend troops into fight the Russians.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:Russia is weak with nukes as its one very important trump card. If America lost its nukes nothing would change. Anyone trying to invade would fail. If Russia lost its nukes America and some of the EU would be in ukraine now smashing the gently caress out of the Russian forces and then pushing on Moscow. Russia has tech that rivals NATO equipment but not the funds to field it. They are weak. This whole idea of Russia weak is betrayed by our response. We invade/bomb weak countries who are doing things we don't like. We send strongly worded messages to more powerful ones. Also powerful countries sort of just getting their way is how the world has always worked. What was the worlds response to the non-UN sanctioned invasion of Iraq? Ardennes posted:To be honest, I seriously doubt the goal is actually to "conquer" Ukraine in any traditional sense either but rather to weaken it until it comes it agrees to more Russian demands. In this sense, military action is in many ways more secondary to financial and economic damage. Obviously there is a real front line, but much of what is going on is a war of irritation to drain Ukrainian resources and conquer specific economic centers of importance to hurt Kiev. Mariupol is a target because of its massive steel mill, the loss of it would be a cruel blow to the already hobbled Ukrainian economy. Other Pro-Russian targets have included strategic coal mines.  I think everyone posting that this is just going to drive Ukraine closer to the EU/NATO forgets Ukraine is going to be a complete mess for the foreseeable future. tsa fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:In that sense, Moscow could be considered a "secondary pole" not comparable to Washington or Beijing but strong enough to dominant its neighborhood. In that sense, I don't think the current chill is actually a second Cold War, the Russian Federation is simply not a threat to Western interests (for a variety of reasons) like the USSR was. It isn't powerless but it isn't a superpower either. Right, I don't think we're there yet either. I do think that if we mess up our response to this, though, we'll likely be a lot closer. Even so, I think it's good to remember that states don't have to have economic or military parity to be in a cold war. We're pretty much in a state of cold war with North Korea (and in a legal sense, we're actually still technically in a state of hot war, since we only signed an armistice with them - never a treaty!), and they're enough of a fly in our ointment as it is. While Russia is unlikely to get as nutty as North Korea anytime soon, it does underline the fact that less powerful states can still mess up the US' interests. Russia's not as powerful as the USSR is, but it's still pretty powerful, and certainly powerful enough to undermine our objectives. quote:To be honest, I seriously doubt the goal is actually to "conquer" Ukraine in any traditional sense either but rather to weaken it until it comes it agrees to more Russian demands. In this sense, military action is in many ways more secondary to financial and economic damage. Obviously there is a real front line, but much of what is going on is a war of irritation to drain Ukrainian resources and conquer specific economic centers of importance to hurt Kiev. Mariupol is a target because of its massive steel mill, the loss of it would be a cruel blow to the already hobbled Ukrainian economy. Other Pro-Russian targets have included strategic coal mines. I definitely agree with you on all of this - "permanent crisis in the Donbas" is still the name of the game for Putin. I doubt WW3 is going to happen anytime soon myself, but that's largely contingent upon how sure I am that the US and Western Europe aren't going to intervene militarily. (unless circumstances change drastically on the ground) But it makes me laugh a little when I see people lambasting Merkel for not ordering in the troops. There are a lot of things to criticize her over, but that's not one of them. Majorian fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I definitely agree with you on all of this - "permanent crisis in the Donbas" is still the name of the game for Putin. I doubt WW3 is going to happen anytime soon myself, but that's largely contingent upon how sure I am that the US and Western Europe aren't going to intervene militarily. (unless circumstances change drastically on the ground) But it makes me laugh a little when I see people lambasting Merkel for not ordering in the troops. There are a lot of things to criticize her over, but that's not one of them. I think Putin hopes to "fine tune" the Donbass, eventually restore it to Ukraine but have more than enough influence in it to give leverage over Ukraine as a whole and it wouldn't be that difficult considering Ukrainian opinion is still rather split on many issues (as I said before) and is struggling to stay afloat as it is. Ultimately, for the US, Russia only one of many headaches and if anything we seem like we are trying to juggle more and more crises at the same time, look at the Middle East. There is a major crisis in Yemen and it barely gets talked about much less Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya etc etc. It isn't so much Russia can stand against the US it can't on its own, but Russia can leverage those other distractions against us and thats what they are doing. If does speak to the fact that the US is being stretched thin even if it is at the same time the most powerful power on earth. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:26 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I think Putin hopes to "fine tune" the Donbass, eventually restore it to Ukraine but have more than enough influence in it to give leverage over Ukraine as a whole and it wouldn't be that difficult considering Ukrainian opinion is still rather split on many issues (as I said before) and is struggling to stay afloat as it is. I actually hadn't considered that possibility, but it makes sense. That would be clever PR on his part. Underhanded as hell, but I'm sure we're all shocked, shocked, that Putin would act underhandedly and manipulate public opinion. Still, clever bastard. quote:Ultimately, for the US, Russia only one of many headaches and if anything we seem like we are trying to juggle more and more crises at the same time, look at the Middle East. There is a major crisis in Yemen and it barely gets talked about much less Syria/Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya etc etc. It isn't so much Russia can stand against the US it can't on its own, but Russia can leverage those other distractions against us and thats what they are doing. If does speak to the fact that the US is being stretched thin even if it is at the same time the most powerful power on earth. Yeah, and it fits all very neatly into Russia's narrative about the U.S. too - short-sighted, moralizing crusaders who overextend themselves and fall on their faces. That's a big part of why I've so vehemently opposed direct intervention in Ukraine, though; if your enemy expects you to shoot from the hip, don't. Thwart his expectations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, and it fits all very neatly into Russia's narrative about the U.S. too - short-sighted, moralizing crusaders who overextend themselves and fall on their faces. That's a big part of why I've so vehemently opposed direct intervention in Ukraine, though; if your enemy expects you to shoot from the hip, don't. Thwart his expectations. Ultimately I think the thing that would hurt Putin the most would be counter-intuitively is stability. Putin's popularity feeds off of crisis and paranoia, Putin was at his weakness (2011-2012) in a period of relative economic and geopolitical calm and may very well again. That said, oil prices are the unpredictable variable in that equation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
It's easy to say that Russia's willingness to wage a war of conquest is unique in the current era, but I have to ask if that's really true. I don't think that the U.S. and its allies sending military forces into Iraq or Afghanistan (or Syria, Libya, Egypt, etc...) to force regime changes has the same greedy or exploitative motivation that Russia does with its military aggression towards its neighbors... but is that really true? We couch U.S. invasions in terms of how unstable regimes are a threat to local (or global) security, or on humanitarian grounds, but we inevitably try and back democratic pro-Western governments that will be friendly to us after the dust settles. Russia is using the same terms in its military policy. We say that our intentions are genuine and Russia is using that language dishonestly as a smoke screen to seize territory (either directly or by proxy). I feel like this isn't examining our own U.S./NATO bias well enough. What part of our foreign policy justifies our military action that wouldn't justify Russia's?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:It's easy to say that Russia's willingness to wage a war of conquest is unique in the current era, but I have to ask if that's really true. From the "Russian pov", it is indeed accepted that a number of decision makers in the west believe their own propaganda, despite all clear and consistent evidence to the contrary. When it comes to the Russian high state, this does not generate understanding or compassion, it generates contempt and disdain and not taking such people serious. This actually is where Putins KGB socialisation comes into play. The lowest rank and file KGB were the dudes who believed the official party line, the ones that rose where those adept in double speak. By approaching the KGB/FSB guys with bullet point "western propganda" statements, one is in a way commiting a double faux pax. Not only does the approaching guy belittle his own intelligence (in the eyes of the FSB guy) by spouting of Propaganda, he also insults the intelligence of the FSB guy by expecting him to believe it. If he simply expects that the FSB guy pretends to believe it, he still insults the FSB guy because: KGB/FSB hierarchy was in some way based on who had to drink whose coolaid. You had to do "doublespeak", patriotic exaltations etc. to your superiors, but not as much to your subordinates. This means that, by doing the "talking points routine" some western guy who may just be doing the talking points in order to not get flak at home for being unsufficiently commited to human rights or whatever, assumes authority over his Russian partner by expecting him to engage in doublespeak with him. Rules are different for Lavrovs guys, these guys enjoy those kinds of games, but the actual former spooks have another culture. There is a bit of a difference between ex SVR and ex FSB here, SVR is a bit more open minded and realist then the FSB, but the spectra are overlapping. The best Russian description of this I heard was "Western Propganda apparates are like drug dealers, with really good drugs and a far better delivery system then what we have, who nevertheless catastrophically got high on their own supply. Our own drug operation is pretty tame in comparison, because we are actually pretty bad at it, but we dont smoke our own stuff (often), and if we do we dont inhale." . In response to your question: 1: the current Hegemon gets more rights then anyone who is not the hegemon. Thats a part of the deal. The US can invade, occupy or regime change and arbitrary number of minor countries (this distinction is important), and nations like Russia or China will not do much about it. 2: The crisis in Ukraine happened because Ukraine is not "minor" to Russia, and Russia is prepared to respond. The Russians did draw plently of red lines, which the US choose to ignore. There are some elements in Russia that see such a response as a way of creating costs for US antics elsewhere and thus lessening the risk of further US interventions elsewhere, but frankly thats a pretty dumb view to take. Nearly noone powerfull in Russia is truely interested in being the "protector of the rest of the world from the evil USA", because that would mean Russia incurs costs without much benefits in return, and it probably couldnt pull that off without major backing from more than just China. 3: A number of ambitious nations are quite strongly displeased with the USA in private, but they dont really have a plan to reduce US hegemony, US hegemony isnt that odious if you are moderatly powerfull, and in any account the extreme expense of reigning in the USA is something which creates immense incentives to pass that buck, preferably to some other ambitious country in your neighbourhood. The US is playing with fire by going after a pretty powerfull nation (if Ukraine isnt "safely Russian", what does that say of Indias sphere over Bangladesh?), and by weaponizing the finance elements on which its hegemony relies. Paradoxically, the ineptitude of the US political class makes the US hegemony a bit less odious too, since a view persists that "that clown car cannot into world conquest".
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Not sure where I might get the best response for this, so I'll ask here: was watching Dr. Strangelove and wargames last night and got me thinking, any of you know some good reading on US nuclear strategy? Past, present, books, articles, whatever. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
site posted:Not sure where I might get the best response for this, so I'll ask here: was watching Dr. Strangelove and wargames last night and got me thinking, any of you know some good reading on US nuclear strategy? Past, present, books, articles, whatever. Personally I found "The Wizards of Armageddon" to be a pretty good read, silly title notwithstanding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 16:10 |
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Personally I found "The Wizards of Armageddon" to be a pretty good read, silly title notwithstanding.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 00:01
|
|