Europe at War

[Todd]

I'm not ready to say that the U.S. should pull itself out of everywhere, should cede the world to tyrants, yet I can't dismiss out of hand the argument that the U.S. is beholden to militarists and war profiteers and that U.S. "mistakes" are gigantic, bloody, frequent and predictable.

True isolationists who wish to remove the US from all foreign engagement more or less died out on December 7, 1941.  Non-interventionism is very different, though people lazily and dishonestly confuse the two all the time.  (Some people may very well not know the difference.)  The US should massively scale back its military commitments around the world, and should focus its commitments on countries that matter, economically and geographically.  US geography, so benign and helpful for the country, requires that the US must maintain a large expeditionary military, with a large navy and large air force the primary means of power projection.  The US should not abandon that, though that can likewise be massively scaled back.  The US can always pick and choose which conflicts to engage in, as it always does.  It should choose to engage in far fewer conflicts.  In can engage indirectly, funding other countries' war efforts when material interests are at stake, it can bribe foreign officials and entire governments (the bribes can be called "aid" if that makes people feel better about it), it can use economic incentives and disincentives, and so on.  The US can do a lot with a much smaller military footprint.

The US would not be able to stop all monsters.  That's OK.  It is not the job of the United States to defend countries or to save people at all times in all places, and certainly not using military power.  The US need not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.

However, with huge economic interests involved - literally trillions of dollars are on the line each biennium - and with a crusader mentality informing liberal interventionist and neo-con policy along with more cynical motivations, the US will continue to maintain an oversized, unnecessarily large military, which it will use.  Sometimes, the US may even do the right thing.  That is not happening now.

If it turns out that Ukraine falls this year, I will be wondering why the U.S. was there. If it succeeds, I think it will be a great triumph and a foothold for something (democracy?) in the 21st century.

It is not the responsibility of the United States to promote democracy through either direct use of force or through arming select, potential allies.  The US can and should offer other support for burgeoning democracies, though this should take the form of diplomatic and economic support.

In the Russo-Ukrainian War, Ukrainian democracy is of secondary importance.  Russia is the enemy, and the stated objective is to weaken Russia.  Regime change in Russia may be an/the ultimate goal, but that appears unattainable.  The second-best option would be to expand the American Empire yet further, adding a country on Russia's border, where the US can station or threaten to station American forces.  This, in theory, could neutralize one of America's two greatest foes.  But it will require additional resources be expended - permanently. 

How far the U.S. should go in Asia is a conundrum. It's never answered clearly in the U.S. policy as far as I know, which is weird. They keep hinting, winking, etc. Does China think the U.S. will actually got to war over it?

US policy toward Taiwan is purposely ambiguous, precisely to keep the Chinese guessing and off-balance.  No one in the US knows what the US will do, though alternate plans are formulated regularly.  The US should not go to war with China over Taiwan.  It is not worth it.  The US may go to war.

[Herman]

This reads rather like telling people they're grieving wrongly.

And a celebration of confirmation bias.

[LKB]

This opinion piece is somewhat obvious and simplistic, but it also includes some useful reminders.

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3599121-why-vladimir-putin-must-be-humiliated/

[milk]

This opinion piece is somewhat obvious and simplistic, but it also includes some useful reminders.

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/3599121-why-vladimir-putin-must-be-humiliated/

"It is delusional to think that he is winning the war." Interesting.
"A leader who dwells amid delusional fantasies and delights in atrocities cannot be permitted to save face. His army must be defeated, his regime must be dismantled, and he must be humiliated — completely and totally — for some Russians to come to their senses and for peace to have a chance." It begs the question: would the professor see his children or grandchildren risk their lives for this cause? Would I, would you? I'd like to see Putin gone but I doubt much good can come of U.S. fingerprints being all over it.

[Madiel]

U.S. fingerprints are only all over it if we develop some new standard of how supporting others puts your "fingerprints" in place, that we simply haven't used in the past. Whether for the U.S. or Russia or China or Iran or any other country that is big enough to have some kind of ability to provide support to others.

Sure, there's some kind of exerting influence. Sure, in the moment there are comments about that support. But in the longer term? The history books don't spend a great deal of time discussing who was kind of sympathetic from the sidelines but didn't get directly involved.

All of the talk of how the U.S. is doing things (coming almost entirely from you-know-who) is a way of infantilising Ukraine and diminishing the agency of the Ukrainian government to make its own decisions about wanting to respond to an invasion of Ukraine. Frankly at times it seems crazy, to talk about the U.S. response to the invasion of Ukraine rather than talk about the Ukrainian response to the invasion of Ukraine, bypassing the country that is most likely to be unhappy with such an invasion. It isn't the U.S. that has made a military move to turn Ukraine into a puppet state with no independent agency. It's Russia.

[Todd]

Go tell it to the World Bank. And NATO. They don't seem to have a problem with the figures.

But I had, of course, reckoned without Toddian exceptionalism.

It absolutely makes sense to exclude material expenditures that reveal the true extent of US spending. 

"It is delusional to think that he is winning the war." Interesting.
"A leader who dwells amid delusional fantasies and delights in atrocities cannot be permitted to save face. His army must be defeated, his regime must be dismantled, and he must be humiliated — completely and totally — for some Russians to come to their senses and for peace to have a chance." It begs the question: would the professor see his children or grandchildren risk their lives for this cause? Would I, would you? I'd like to see Putin gone but I doubt much good can come of U.S. fingerprints being all over it.

Motyl's piece is a cheap potboiler.  He's purportedly an academic, but he succumbs to Godwin's Law.  The headline alone should garner a good number of clicks. 

[Florestan]

It isn't the U.S. that has made a military move to turn Ukraine into a puppet state with no independent agency. It's Russia.

Yeah, but you see, they've been provoked into it by the US/NATO. So, it's the US/NATO that is to be blamed, ultimately. Just ask John Mearsheimer or Pope Francis.   

[Todd]

So, it's the US/NATO that is to be blamed, ultimately.

For establishing the conditions for war, yes.  Russia is responsible to launching the full-scale invasion in 2022, and for the initial incurions in 2014. 

See, it's actually easy to get.

[Florestan]

For establishing the conditions for war, yes. 

How did the US establish the conditions for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, pray tell?

[Todd]

How did the US establish the conditions for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, pray tell?

You know because it has been covered hundreds of times before.

[Florestan]

You know because it has been covered hundreds of times before.

I could have safely bet my life on getting precisely this answer.

Anyway, if you refer to the NATO expansion towards Eastern Europe (read: Eastern European countries being only too eager to join voluntarily and as quickl as possible), I'd like to know how Ukraine not being even an official candidate for, let alone on the shortcut path to, NATO membership could have set up the necessary and sufficient conditions for the Russian invasion.

[Todd]

I could have safely bet my life on getting precisely this answer.

Anyway, if you refer to the NATO expansion towards Eastern Europe (read: Eastern European countries being only too eager to join voluntarily and as quickl as possible), I'd like to know how Ukraine not being even an official candidate for, let alone on the shortcut path to, NATO membership could have set up the necessary and sufficient conditions for the Russian invasion.

Yes, you can pretend this has not been covered before.

[Florestan]

Yes, you can pretend this has not been covered before.

Oh, sure, my bad. John Mearsheimer wrote extensively about it. Pope Francis uttered a word or two as well. Heck, even Cyril Ramaphosa talked about it. Not to mention Margarita Simonyan.

One last question, if I may: do you think that Russians are justified in their invasion of Ukraine and that none of their own actions prior to that contributed in any way to setting up the conditions for it, ie the US/NATO is the sole and only responsible for it? Okay, two questions.

[Todd]

Oh, sure, my bad. John Mearsheimer wrote extensively about it. Pope Francis uttered a word or two as well. Heck, even Cyril Ramaphosa talked about it. Not to mention Margarita Simonyan.

One last question, if I may: do you think that Russians are justified in their invasion of Ukraine and that none of their own actions prior to that contributed in any way to setting up the conditions for it, ie the US/NATO is the sole and only responsible for it? Okay, two questions.

Again, you can pretend this has not been covered before.

[Florestan]

Again, you can pretend this has not been covered before.

Not by you, in any case. You routinely lay the blame on the US door but never utter a word about Russia's own actions and responsibility.

Actually, never mind. I should have known better than trying to get you to answer a question with something more than a snide one-liner.

[Todd]

Not by you, in any case. You routinely lay the blame on the US door but never utter a word about Russia's own actions and responsibility.

Incorrect.  You can continue pretending otherwise, and you will.

[drogulus]

     It's remarkable that the US can get away with spending only 3.74% compared to the world figure of 2.5%.

     The US figure represents a world wide defense network that makes it possible for network players to keep their own spending lower than otherwise. US spending is not only efficient in terms of how much lower current spending is than at any time since WWII, or how much it contributes to the civilian technology base, but also how much it frees up resources in many other countries that could not spend as efficiently if they had to. By allocating the burden where it is most efficiently carried, the world is more prosperous. Countries can make what they are good at making, not aircraft carriers or stealth fighters.

[Todd]

If Ukraine wins it will get the credit definitely.

What does victory look like?

[Florestan]

This reads rather like telling people they're grieving wrongly.

And a celebration of confirmation bias.

I just reported a fact. And I was not the only one to notice a certain discrepancy between those people's presumed status (war refugees) and their carefree behaviour. Once again: I am sure that none of those people entered Romania in the numerous km-long queues of walking people carrying luggages on their back and children in their hand for whom they often had no papers at all. They must have entered Romania by car (lots of Ukraine-registered luxurious cars in the streets of Romania as of late) and they certainly have enough money to live by.

Look, I was and remain a staunch supporter of receiving every single Ukrainian person who ask for our help and flees the war but my deepest sympathy lies with the people in the queues rather than with the people I reported on.

[milk]

What does victory look like?

I don't really know. I guess Zelenski stays and Russias loses ground and influence? Whatever Russia wants they don't get? They lose control militarily, they have to pull back and they are too broken militarily to return. Ukraine can recover previously lost territory? You could probably tell me what Russia is fighting to hold onto.
ETA I might have deleted my previous comment by mistake.

U.S. fingerprints are only all over it if we develop some new standard of how supporting others puts your "fingerprints" in place, that we simply haven't used in the past. Whether for the U.S. or Russia or China or Iran or any other country that is big enough to have some kind of ability to provide support to others.

Sure, there's some kind of exerting influence. Sure, in the moment there are comments about that support. But in the longer term? The history books don't spend a great deal of time discussing who was kind of sympathetic from the sidelines but didn't get directly involved.

All of the talk of how the U.S. is doing things (coming almost entirely from you-know-who) is a way of infantilising Ukraine and diminishing the agency of the Ukrainian government to make its own decisions about wanting to respond to an invasion of Ukraine. Frankly at times it seems crazy, to talk about the U.S. response to the invasion of Ukraine rather than talk about the Ukrainian response to the invasion of Ukraine, bypassing the country that is most likely to be unhappy with such an invasion. It isn't the U.S. that has made a military move to turn Ukraine into a puppet state with no independent agency. It's Russia.

I was thinking of the hyperbolic Hill article. Ukraine definitely gets credit if it survives as an independent country that gets to make its own allies and destiny and remains free of Russian influence. But it seems like a bigger task to humiliate Putin and the Russian political establishment, to destroy it. Americans might have to get their hands dirty for that? I don't know. The Hill says we can't negotiate for Russia to save face. Is this wise? I mean, if we're going to compare everything to WW2 then we can also say that humiliated countries don't make nice neighbors?