Europe at War

[Que]

What facts are this assertion based on?  Modern Chinese history has seen China the victim of aggression more than the aggressor.  The existence of Taiwan is an artifact of aggression against China. 

So you didn't get the memo on longtime wider Chinese aggression in the Indo-pacific. Or on border "conflicts" (land grabbing) with India.

https://2017-2021.state.gov/chinas-military-aggression-in-the-indo-pacific-region/index.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932022_China%E2%80%93India_skirmishes

[Todd]

So you didn't get the memo on longtime wider Chinese aggression in the Indo-pacific. Or on border "conflicts" (land grabbing) with India.

https://2017-2021.state.gov/chinas-military-aggression-in-the-indo-pacific-region/index.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020%E2%80%932022_China%E2%80%93India_skirmishes

Yes, I am very well aware of Chinese actions.  I also distinguish between aggression - war, using your definition provided earlier - and standard saber rattling (which the US does all the time), incremental military expansion, squeezing regional powers (something the US has done since before 1898!), and building military bases overseas (a standard behavior of great powers).  The only thing that has even a whiff of Chinese aggression are the border skirmishes with India, though reports in international press outlets (eg, the BBC) were not quite so conclusive as the US State Department in claiming that all the incidents were caused or initiated by China.  It is almost as though there is more to it.

I also do like the bold and, well, questionable claim made by full-throated Trumpist Mike Pompeo that "[t]he U.S. Champions a Free and Open Indo-Pacific[.]"  It is nice to see people outside the US adopt Bush and Trump era slogans, pronouncements, and policies when it suits.

I also give kudos to the State Department for using the phrase "provoking tension" with respect to India.  The US State Department would of course vociferously deny that NATO expansion likewise provokes tension.  That Doublethink thing again.

[milk]

The existence of Taiwan is an artifact of aggression against China. 

I think you have a lot of good arguments but I don't know what this is an argument for. The people of Taiwan seem to not want to be a part of communist China. That may not be worth fighting WWIII over but no historical fact in this case gives communist China any moral right. I doubt it gives them any other kind of right either.

Yes, I am very well aware of Chinese actions.  I also distinguish between aggression - war, using your definition provided earlier - and standard saber rattling (which the US does all the time), incremental military expansion, squeezing regional powers (something the US has done since before 1898!), and building military bases overseas (a standard behavior of great powers).  The only thing that has even a whiff of Chinese aggression are the border skirmishes with India, though reports in international press outlets (eg, the BBC) were not quite so conclusive as the US State Department in claiming that all the incidents were caused or initiated by China.  It is almost as though there is more to it.

I also do like the bold and, well, questionable claim made by full-throated Trumpist Mike Pompeo that "[t]he U.S. Champions a Free and Open Indo-Pacific[.]"  It is nice to see people outside the US adopt Bush and Trump era slogans, pronouncements, and policies when it suits.

I also give kudos to the State Department for using the phrase "provoking tension" with respect to India.  The US State Department would of course vociferously deny that NATO expansion likewise provokes tension.  That Doublethink thing again.

I think the Vietnamese, Japanese, Philippine people, and others, would claim some more whiffs of aggression. But not much more than whiffs, it's true. I also don't see what difference history makes in terms of what China is doing right now. You may be right that it isn't much different or worse than what the U.S. has always done. On the other hand, "you also" isn't a logical argument. And even if it were, it only works against the U.S. I think there's a general point here that makes sense: is a war with China inevitable, necessary, reasonable, etc.? I really hate the Chinese government, but I don't want to let hate cloud my judgement.
Before Abe was was assassinated, I think it was before, an old Japanese Prime Minister named Hatoyama gave a speech where he said that more effort was needed to forge ties of peace with China. I thought it was interesting partly because his was a completely lone voice; we haven't heard anyone voice such an opinion in Japan in a long time. I think Abe was one of the most cynical politicians Japan has ever had and I think that's one of the reasons he was so successful (and an ironic reason why he was finally targeted by a disaffected nut-job with a huge grudge). Abe turned Chinese "aggression" into fervor for constitutional revision and a bigger military budget. Anyway, no one cares what Hatoyama thinks; he was the PM for one of the only opposition parties (opposition to the LDP) to ever win and lead Japan but he was extremely arrogant and inept (a billionaire and heir to the Bridgestone fortune). Anyway, it does sort of strike one how few and vilified doves are these days. I'm pretty anti-China but I think it probably helps to have a few doves around and it helps to have some relationships with China.

You are definitely the kind of person who can only see the link in the chain that is immediately next to you.

Attack the argument, not the person.

[Madiel]

I am attacking the argument, to the extent that the argument over and over is "America is not affected by this".

It's not really much of an argument. It's an assertion. An assertion that flies in the face of the ways that the USA has, FOR DECADES, acted on the basis that its interests are impacted by events elsewhere in the world. The main reason I don't give more elaborate space to the argument is that it is trite and obvious that it's wrong. A fairly basic understanding of how global supply chains work will tell you that it's wrong.

Telling me not to attack the person when the argument is fundamentally characteristic of the one person who keeps making that "argument" over and over and over is... well it's a bit silly.

What argument do you want me to attack exactly, beyond addressing how Todd seems personally incapable of understanding that the effects of destroying the Ukrainian economy are not limited to when he wants to buy something directly from Ukraine?

The deal that has been brokered on the grain supply is as good an example of any on how the effect of this conflict extends far and wide. That deal isn't focused on the benefit to Ukraine, it exists because not having access to Ukrainian grain threatens to destabilise other countries. Global food security is put at huge risk by a conflict in that part of the world because Ukraine and Russia are MAJOR agricultural exporters.  Keep that process up and eventually you'll disrupt a resource somewhere that Todd actually cares about: the last link in the chain.

[Todd]

I think you have a lot of good arguments but I don't know what this is an argument for...

I think there's a general point here that makes sense: is a war with China inevitable, necessary, reasonable, etc.?

I argue for the same thing I have for years: A non-interventionist US foreign policy.  War with China is not inevitable.  It should be avoided at all costs.  A full-scale war with China - or Russia, for that matter - involves consequences graver than experienced before.  Nothing is worth it.  Certainly not Taiwanese democracy.  Not even TSMC is worth it.  Were China to directly attack the US, then the US should murder all Chinese people in China in retaliation, or at least make the Chinese government think that is what would happen.  In case any people blanch at such a statement, that is precisely what nuclear deterrence promises. 

It is essential to expose the intrinsic dishonesty and hollowness of the proclamations made about Russian perfidy and Chinese duplicity, or whatever other moral judgments may be assigned to these two countries.  Russia and China behave as all great powers have in the past - not just the US, but also the Brits, the Dutch, the Spanish, etc.  Exploitation, warfare, coercion, etc are standard.  In the post-war era, many people have become accustomed to nice ideas and "values" protected by the "international community" or operating within the "rules-based order".  That is, many people, at least in The West and certain places in Asia, complacently accept US hegemony.  That is fading, has been for decades, and has started to accelerate this century.  The expanded deployment of military forces to ever more countries (eg, Djibouti) and the increasing reliance on economic warfare in the wake of 9/11 are signs of decline, not signs of ascent.  As Russia continues to decline in relative significance, and both China and India continue to rise, the US specifically needs to reassess true strategic goals with the primary focus being the avoidance of great power war.  Western conceptions and ideals will remain, but they will decline in importance.  Western values are not universal and The West must adapt.  It will be very difficult for the US to adapt to this, but it must adapt.  Part of that is recognizing the shifts in global power, the rise of multipolarity, and the limits of US power.  Hopefully changes in policies and international institutions can be accomplished without great power war, but the US is extremely warlike, always has been, and may very well resort to what it has relied on so extensively in the past.  That would be a pity.  But if my streets are not being bombed, I should be able to adapt to other negative outcomes, if such things occur in my lifetime.

[milk]

I am attacking the argument, to the extent that the argument over and over is "America is not affected by this".

It's not really much of an argument. It's an assertion. An assertion that flies in the face of the ways that the USA has, FOR DECADES, acted on the basis that its interests are impacted by events elsewhere in the world. The main reason I don't give more elaborate space to the argument is that it is trite and obvious that it's wrong. A fairly basic understanding of how global supply chains work will tell you that it's wrong.

Telling me not to attack the person when the argument is fundamentally characteristic of the one person who keeps making that "argument" over and over and over is... well it's a bit silly.

What argument do you want me to attack exactly, beyond addressing how Todd seems personally incapable of understanding that the effects of destroying the Ukrainian economy are not limited to when he wants to buy something directly from Ukraine?

Ugh.
OK fine. People who opposed the Vietnam War didn't understand the true threat of communism. People who opposed interventions in Indonesia, East Pakistan, Chile and Laos, didn't understand that America is affected wherever communism succeeds. These intervention policies were carried out by Democrats and Republicans alike. It's only a fringe minority that opposed them.
Resolved!
I don't know where I land on this right now. I'd like to see Putin get creamed and I think China is a malevolent force in the world but I think the arguments here against Todd sound very neocon-ish.
If I were the moderator I'd cut ANY personal comments BTW. That's why these threads spin out of control and get frozen. It's nice to have a forum where we can disagree. Looking at North America and Europe from afar, it seems like people can't discuss anything anymore.

[Todd]

I think the arguments here against Todd sound very neocon-ish.

Neoconservatism and liberal interventionism are practically the same.  They are both interventionist ideologies.  Some specific arguments may differ, but both want blood. 

[milk]

I argue for the same thing I have for years: A non-interventionist US foreign policy.  War with China is not inevitable.  It should be avoided at all costs.  A full-scale war with China - or Russia, for that matter - involves consequences graver than experienced before.  Nothing is worth it.  Certainly not Taiwanese democracy.  Not even TSMC is worth it.  Were China to directly attack the US, then the US should murder all Chinese people in China in retaliation, or at least make the Chinese government think that is what would happen.  In case any people blanch at such a statement, that is precisely what nuclear deterrence promises. 

It is essential to expose the intrinsic dishonesty and hollowness of the proclamations made about Russian perfidy and Chinese duplicity, or whatever other moral judgments may be assigned to these two countries.  Russia and China behave as all great powers have in the past - not just the US, but also the Brits, the Dutch, the Spanish, etc.  Exploitation, warfare, coercion, etc are standard.  In the post-war era, many people have become accustomed to nice ideas and "values" protected by the "international community" or operating within the "rules-based order".  That is, many people, at least in The West and certain places in Asia, complacently accept US hegemony.  That is fading, has been for decades, and has started to accelerate this century.  The expanded deployment of military forces to ever more countries (eg, Djibouti) and the increasing reliance on economic warfare in the wake of 9/11 are signs of decline, not signs of ascent.  As Russia continues to decline in relative significance, and both China and India continue to rise, the US specifically needs to reassess true strategic goals with the primary focus being the avoidance of great power war.  Western conceptions and ideals will remain, but they will decline in importance.  Western values are not universal and The West must adapt.  It will be very difficult for the US to adapt to this, but it must adapt.  Part of that is recognizing the shifts in global power, the rise of multipolarity, and the limits of US power.  Hopefully changes in policies and international institutions can be accomplished without great power war, but the US is extremely warlike, always has been, and may very resort to what it has relied on so extensively in the past.  That would be a pity.  But if my streets are not being bombed, I should be able to adapt to other negative outcomes, if such things occur in my lifetime.

I think it's worth taking this seriously and I don't know why people here seem to just sort of sidestep this. What I worry about is if it's a little more complicated in some areas. I don't know enough about how things work out there in the world. I know that we all have to be able to be free to move stuff around, to trade, to make agreements with each other and I wonder if there's anything that gets in the way when you have China making all sorts of claims over the oceans of every country here in Asia. You have some of this covered in your comments, i.e. the U.S. has always exerted it's influence, sometimes in a bloody way, over areas from which it profits. In a lot of ways, China is a sloppy negative, instead of sending rock n' roll and coke (they really have no knack for invention), they build sh*t that countries like Sri Lanka and Laos can't afford and then bankrupt them. Well, whatever. I guess your idea is, really, what is it the U.S.'s business? Again, the Glenn Greenwald's of the world are going to argue that neocons have always been Dems AND Repubs. Now the CIA has also gone woke and flies a rainbow flag.

[Todd]

I guess your idea is, really, what is it the U.S.'s business?

Sometimes, the actions of the Chinese or the Russians are of great consequence to the US.  Often, they are not.  The fate of Ukraine is not relevant from an economic or strategic standpoint, for instance.  Taiwan is currently more important from an economic standpoint, but Congress and interested companies are working feverishly to produce a new corporate welfare package to address this.  Sticking just to your two other cited countries, Sri Lanka is an Indian problem, but Laos could be useful to the US, though it may be more practical to leverage relationships with Myanmar and Vietnam.  The US will have to pay lip service to human rights and democracy and such forth, but maintaining relationships with unsavory sorts, from a US perspective, is just reality. 

Again, the Glenn Greenwald's of the world are going to argue that neocons have always been Dems AND Repubs.

This is embodied in the person of Robert Kagan. 

The post-war order is in the early phases of unwinding.  Hopefully, it takes a while and does not result in war.  Unbridled globalization is now out of favor even among economic elites.  Mercantilism has returned.  (No one mourns the permanent hobbling of the WTO, for instance.)  Certain physical aspects of manufacturing, trade, and shipping will continue - hence the urgency and great strategic importance of control of the South China Sea and the Strait of Malacca - but it is dangerous to suppose that the US will enjoy the type of unfettered control of the seas and trade like it did in the past.  Adaptation and concession are preferable to full-scale war. 

Also, do not think that the Chinese cannot build leading edge goods.  They make the best surveillance systems in the world, for instance.

[Florestan]

Russia has been a great power for centuries.  It is not a game so much as a successful tactic to demonstrate and exercise its power.  An agreement with a toothless international organization that was brokered by a subsidiary NATO member is no substitute for an agreement with the one power that actually matters to the Russians.

A few pages ago you made (correctly) the case for Turkey being a key NATO member. Now you suddenly demoted them to subsidiary status. 

[Todd]

A few pages ago you made (correctly) the case for Turkey being a key NATO member. Now you suddenly demoted them to subsidiary status. 

The US is the primary NATO member.  All others are subsidiary.  The distinction is simple.  If Turkey leaves NATO, NATO could survive.  If the US leaves, it could not.

[Florestan]

Hoo boy. Unmixed Hungarian race? Not a lot of knowledge of history and/or science there.

Of course there is no such thing as a Hungarian race --- but I bet he will blame it on the translation. This has been the tactic of the Hungarian nationalists within Romania for decades. Whenever they say or print something outrageously chauvinistic and revisionist they blame it on the Romanian translation which distorted the original meaning. 

[Florestan]

The US is the primary NATO member.  All others are subsidiary.  The distinction is simple.  If Turkey leaves NATO, NATO could survive.  If the US leaves, it could not.

Neither Turkey nor US will leave NATO and Turkey is a key member of NATO.

[Todd]

Neither Turkey nor US will leave NATO and Turkey is a key member of NATO.

I did not write that either country will leave NATO.  I also did not write that Turkey is not a key member of NATO, only that it is a subsidiary member.  It is more strategicallty important than many NATO countries, such as Romania.

[Florestan]

I did not write that either country will leave NATO.  I also did not write that Turkey is not a key member of NATO, only that it is a subsidiary member.  It is more strategicallty important than many NATO countries, such as Romania.

Well, Romania has huge, as yet unexploited, reserves of gas, both in the Black Sea and in continental underground. Credible calculations have been made according to which, if these reserves were duly exploited, they could ensure both Romania's complete independence from Russian gas (actually, we are already among the European countries which are the least dependent on Russian gas) and a significant surplus that could be provided to other countries needing it. Problem is, we lack the necessary technology to do it ourselves and the incessant political strife and factionalism prevented any coherent and fair legislation from being implemented in order to facilitate the access of foreign companies.

[Todd]

Well, Romania has huge, as yet unexploited, reserves of gas, both in the Black Sea and in continental underground. Credible calculations have been made according to which, if these reserves were duly exploited, they could ensure both Romania's complete independence from Russian gas (actually, we are already among the European countries which are the least dependent on Russian gas) and a significant surplus that could be provided to other countries needing it. Problem is, we lack the necessary technology to do it ourselves and the incessant political strife and factionalism prevented any coherent and fair legislation from being implemented in order to facilitate the access of foreign companies.

That could be helpful for European markets, but it means nothing for the US, which is of course the largest producer of natural gas.  If anything, that means Romania could be seen as an economic foe of the US.  Make no mistake, one of the benefits of the Russo-Ukrainian War is that it has been a boon to multiple US industries, including the gas industry.  Some cynical types even intimate that the economic benefits enjoyed by the US informs policy, but that could never, ever happen; the US would never pursue pro-war policies for economic gain.

US becomes world's largest LNG exporter amid Ukraine war-driven demand, rising gas and power prices

[Florestan]

That could be helpful for European markets, but it means nothing for the US, which is of course the largest producer of natural gas.  If anything, that means Romania could be seen as an economic foe of the US. 

[Todd]

GIF or no GIF, the US federal government is keen on exploiting US energy production for profit.  I would not expect the US to take any direct action against Romania, but rather it could block or more likely stall the sale of certain technologies to Romanian companies, and US companies may require fairly onerous terms from Romanian partners.  When billions in profit are on the line, the US and US domiciled corporations will play rough.

[Madiel]

Ugh.
OK fine. People who opposed the Vietnam War didn't understand the true threat of communism. People who opposed interventions in Indonesia, East Pakistan, Chile and Laos, didn't understand that America is affected wherever communism succeeds. These intervention policies were carried out by Democrats and Republicans alike. It's only a fringe minority that opposed them.
Resolved!
I don't know where I land on this right now. I'd like to see Putin get creamed and I think China is a malevolent force in the world but I think the arguments here against Todd sound very neocon-ish.
If I were the moderator I'd cut ANY personal comments BTW. That's why these threads spin out of control and get frozen. It's nice to have a forum where we can disagree. Looking at North America and Europe from afar, it seems like people can't discuss anything anymore.

Seriously? I talk about global supply chains and you talk about the spread of ideas?

Ugh indeed.

Maybe your petrol/gasoline prices didn't spike when this war started? Despite my petrol not coming from Ukraine or Russia, mine did.

Or maybe you vaguely noticed that a virus outbreak in China affected manufacturing the world over?

I could have sworn I'd heard about inflationary spikes all over the world, but nope, apparently it's stupid to think that the USA is economically linked to events elsewhere.

I said nothing, by the way, about the appropriate American response, despite you talking about neocons. What I challenged was the claim that American security simply wasn't affected.

[71 dB]

Thank you North Macedonia! 
🇲🇰