[RD] Surrender Summit

[Verbose]

Eh, Putin's no Hitler. He doesn't take over other countries, he just lops off little pro-Russian pieces of the ones that annoy him and has them declare independence as otherwise unrecognized puppet statelets.

How quickly we forget...

The Ukranian situation was originally a MUCH more ambitious ploy attemped by Moscow. They spent a year talking it up as "Novorossiya", this entirely new political entity that would be created by half of Ukraine erupting in rebellion against the central government in Kiev. It just turned out that there were nowhere near enough takers in Ukraine for that kind of project when they tried it. It really was only the two ethnic-Russian-majority provinces in the east that proved pliable. The ambitions was for all of eastern and southern Ukraine, all the way to Odessa, to go the same way. It's just that it didn't.

It nowhere near worked, and so the whole embarrassing project has been quietly dropped by the Russian government. It's not a thing anymore. It was a dud. So completely so, someone like you has apparently already plum forgotten about. Which is how they like it. The "Novorossiya" gambit however was really fascinating enough, for what it says about how the Kremlin regards borders and nations, to not be forgotten too soon.

Putin et al. still insists on occasion that there's no such thing as a Ukranian nation.

 

[red_elk]

The ambitions was for all of eastern and southern Ukraine, all the way to Odessa, to go the same way. It's just that it didn't.

Syrian rebels had ambitions too, but something went wrong for them. See the point?

Putin et al. still insists on occasion that there's no such thing as a Ukranian nation.

That's imaginary Putin existing in your head only.
Real one never said Ukrainian nation doesn't exist.

 

[Hehehe]

Not if that trust and goodwill means they rely on us for their security. If Trump shocks allies into action on that front, good.

Are you pushing this Trumpian narrative about how European countries are "taking advantage" of US security guarantees? On some level, I get where you're coming from. I don't think Europeans should count on US security guarantees. But on the other hand, what good would a military build-up do for Europeans? Russian army is a shadow of its former self, and I don't think that Russia is a military threat worthy of a massive military build-up (at least not for Central and Western Europeans). And besides Russia, who would Europeans fight with their beefed up armies? Each other? I simply fail to see how more European military expenditure would help the US or Europe

No. You're wrong. It's Hitler. The Crimea thing was straight out of Hitler's playbook. Crimea and Sudetenland are about as close as historical parallels ever get. Putin is fascist, not communist. It's all about robbing the country for the benefit of the country's masters, and it's all about the masters rule, and the workers work.

Neither of course can admit it. But neither deviates from it in any meaningful way.

I'm not trying to defend Putin here anymore than I need to. I'm about as anti-Russian as it gets. Without delving too deep into the geopolitics of Russia, and the place Georgia and Crimea play in that, I don't think the Hitler comparison is called for. Putin may be an aggressive kleptocrat, but he's more like a Russian Czar. Terrible by Western standards, but above-average by Russian standards. If Putin ever goes down, then the Russian political system is perfectly capable of producing leaders much, much worse than Putin. Also, the comparison between Crimea and Sudetenland seems contrived at best. If we put our collective intelligence to it, I'm sure we could also come up with a few example scenarios where annexation of territory has not lead to WW2.

 

[metalhead]

Are you pushing this Trumpian narrative about how European countries are "taking advantage" of US security guarantees? On some level, I get where you're coming from. I don't think Europeans should count on US security guarantees. But on the other hand, what good would a military build-up do for Europeans?

Here's what makes no goddamned sense to me. A military build-up makes no sense for them. And from the U.S.' perspective, we want to be the ones with all the military! It gives us greater authority and heft in directing how military might will be used throughout the world.

Pushing NATO countries to up their military spending gives us less influence. There is zero logic to the notion that NATO countries spending more is in the U.S.' national interests. It is actually against them, as it reduces our clout in international realpolitik.

I really do not have a clue how anyone ever got on board with the notion that it is bad to have other countries reliant on us for their security. That gives us a TON of leverage.

 

[Berzerker]

were the Korean and Vietnam wars good for us?

If we weren't spending trillions on the military we might be able to fund health care and infrastructure better

 

[metalhead]

Both points are irrelevant to mine.

 

[red_elk]

I don't understand why France or Germany would either need to rely on US for security or increase their own military spending. There are no threats to justify maintaining a million-strong military for them. Regardless if they spend 1% or 5% of their GDP on defense, US leverage on them will stay roughly the same and threat from Russia will remain non-existent.

 

[Berzerker]

Both points are irrelevant to mine.

I really do not have a clue how anyone ever got on board with the notion that it is bad to have other countries reliant on us for their security.

I cited 2 wars we fought because other countries were reliant on us and what we could do with the money we save if other countries were not reliant on us

 

[metalhead]

It's not just about current threats. We don't know what will happen in the future. We're in the middle of a geopolitical moment where the West is being consumed by a far-right nationalistic fervor, and it's far from clear how that will shake out. Russia by itself may not be a threat. But if they form a bloc with Turkey, Poland, other far-right governments in Eastern Europe? That would be a serious threat.

I cited 2 wars we fought because other countries were reliant on us and what we could do with the money we save if other countries were not reliant on us

I said nothing about fighting wars, and the money argument is stupid because we could afford to do those things even with our current military spending levels. The lack of spending on health care and infrastructure has nothing to do with military spending.

 

[Lexicus]

Cuz we're better to have as allies than enemies. I think US security is undermined by weak allies who give us trust and goodwill instead of military might. Lots of allies is nice, lots of powerful allies is nicer.

Which current allies are "giving us military might" and making us stronger in your view?

 

[red_elk]

It's not just about current threats. We don't know what will happen in the future. We're in the middle of a geopolitical moment where the West is being consumed by a far-right nationalistic fervor, and it's far from clear how that will shake out. Russia by itself may not be a threat. But if they form a bloc with Turkey, Poland, other far-right governments in Eastern Europe? That would be a serious threat.

Hypothetical threats can be used to justify anything. I mean, Russia currently has better relations with Germany and France than with Poland and Turkey, so suggesting it can form a block with Poland is somewhat like suggesting that Japan will team up with China and Australia to attack US. Risk and threats must be assessed so that response to them is adequate. There's no need to keep huge army just in case.

 

[metalhead]

Of course there is. You can't just build up a capable military overnight. It takes a long time, and it takes maintenance to ensure your military is ready in case it is needed.

Few people really would have foreseen in 1995 that there would be the need for readiness for NATO to invade Afghanistan in 2001. But, there was. You can never know every threat, and good relations today in no way guarantee good relations tomorrow. That is why long-term planning for military readiness is necessary.

 

[red_elk]

Of course there is. You can't just build up a capable military overnight.

There is a difference between adequate capable military and "huge military" I was talking about.
If France decides to react to potential threats by building large army and spending 20% of GDP for its training and maintenance, it will achieve nothing except wearing down its economy.

 

[Lexicus]

Of course there is. You can't just build up a capable military overnight. It takes a long time, and it takes maintenance to ensure your military is ready in case it is needed.

Few people really would have foreseen in 1995 that there would be the need for readiness for NATO to invade Afghanistan in 2001. But, there was. You can never know every threat, and good relations today in no way guarantee good relations tomorrow. That is why long-term planning for military readiness is necessary.

The US doesn't need to maintain its current military posture to defend the US. The reason the US has the military it has with bases around the world is to maintain its empire.

If you're actually arguing that the US should maintain its empire, that's one thing, but you shouldn't conflate defensive readiness with the kind of readiness required to maintain an empire and maintain the capability to strike anywhere in the world.

 

[Verbose]

Syrian rebels had ambitions too, but something went wrong for them. See the point?


That's imaginary Putin existing in your head only.
Real one never said Ukrainian nation doesn't exist.

Yes, the wanted reforms and democracy in Syria. But Assad wanted none of that, and started killing them instead to make it stop.

What followed was a gradual spiraling down from that starting point.

Though I'm sure Russians will take pride in the possible eventual restoration of the Syrian police state and its torture chambers.

Leave it to Russia, and it will make the world safe for autocracy again. In Ukraine and Syria.

 

[Lexicus]

Though I'm sure Russians will take pride in the possible eventual restoration of the Syrian police state and its torture chambers.

"Restoration"? You mean it went somewhere?

 

[Cheetah]

Well, it, specifically, didn't have full control over all of Syria for a while at least...

 

[red_elk]

But Assad wanted none of that, and started killing them instead to make it stop.

Right, Assad stopped rebellion by killing rebels, while Ukraine did it merely by using kind words and patting their backs.

 

[Cheetah]

Assad started rebellion by killing protesters.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, it, specifically, didn't have full control over all of Syria for a while at least...

Yeah but iirc it maintained control all along of almost all of Syria that's actually worth having (ie, not just an expanse of empty desert).