Europe at War

[Todd]

I'm not claiming the size of one's military budget is deterministic. That's you making stuff up again.

Incorrect.  You used the word "madness" in your poorly conceived rhetorical question pertaining to defense budget disparities and the influence that has or should have on waging war.  The clear implication is that a significantly larger budget necessarily confers some insurmountable benefits and power to the country with the larger budget, that victory is all but assured, that such financial disparity is in practice deterministic.  Yet now you yourself post another example of a much smaller country with a much smaller budget taking on a much more powerful and much wealthier foe and winning.  Clearly, it is not madness to go to war with a country with an order of magnitude larger (or even larger) military budget.  Countries with smaller military budgets can win wars.  That may include Russia in the current war.

[LKB]

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


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.

As you're obviously not shy about dismissing Mr. Motyl, I'll assume you have comparable professional expertise in the same fields: political science and specialist knowledge on Ukraine, Russia, and the Soviet Union.

So, here's your opportunity to enumerate your qualifications, Todd: Please provide one or more links to periodicals, research or other academic products concerning the above for which you can claim authorship.

[Todd]

As you're obviously not shy about dismissing Mr. Motyl, I'll assume you have comparable professional expertise in the same fields: political science and specialist knowledge on Ukraine, Russia, and the Soviet Union.

So, here's your opportunity to enumerate your qualifications, Todd: Please provide one or more links to periodicals, research or other academic products concerning the above for which you can claim authorship.

The article you linked is a clickbait op-ed published in The Hill.  At least try to link to a red-meat piece in The New York Times.

[LKB]

The article you linked is a clickbait op-ed published in The Hill.  At least try to link to a red-meat piece in The New York Times.

Another evasion... shocker.

[Todd]

Another evasion... shocker.

You do remember that you yourself wrote that the piece is simplistic, yes?

[Florestan]

You do remember that you yourself wrote that the piece is simplistic, yes?

You conspicuously evaded the last paragraph of his post and you know it alright. You can go on pretending you didn't. You will go on pretending you didn't.

[Todd]

You conspicuously evaded the last paragraph of his post and you know it alright. You can go on pretending you didn't. You will go on pretending you didn't.

Still smarting over your Taliban goof?

[Florestan]

Still smarting over your Taliban goof?

Tbh, I do fear I won't be sleeping well for a few coming days.

[Todd]

Tbh, I do fear I won't be sleeping well for a few coming days.

That is unfortunate.

[Florestan]

That is unfortunate.

I survived far worse situations. Thanks for your compassion anyway.

[Todd]

But in the long run, on the average, and with a combatant who's prepared to stick it out long enough, anyone thinking they can compete with someone outspending them 10 to 1 is indeed mad.

So spending doesn't matter but it does.

And just what does "on the average" mean? 

[Gurn Blanston]

So spending doesn't matter but it does.

And just what does "on the average" mean?

His meaning is crystal clear to everyone here except you,  apparently.  Let's just move along,  shall we? 

GB 

[Florestan]

the most despicable bunch heading Germany since 1945

Woa, woa, woa! That's quite the claim, guys --- I'm flabbergasted nobody noticed it!

Please, care to elaborate on this, Jo? What is it that makes Scholz and his team the most despicable German government since Hitler?

[Madiel]

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.   

She was asking for it when she wore that dress.

[Madiel]

Or maybe this is better. Russia is the husband, of course. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51122841_Victim_Blaming_and_Exoneration_of_the_Perpetrator_in_Domestic_Violence_The_Role_of_Beliefs_in_a_Just_World_and_Ambivalent_Sexism

[BasilValentine]

And just what does "on the average" mean?

I read it as "all else being equal" or something to that effect.

[milk]

No one does.  And of course Ukraine can't really win in any real sense.  It has already absorbed more than a trillion dollars in damage and suffered tens of thousands of deaths.  The 2020s are lost, and if the war lasts much longer, the 2030s may be as well.  Ukraine could become the next Japan, with multiple lost decades, though of a much worse sort than what Japan faced. 

Then again, post-war reconstruction could herald a new age - not only Ukrainian rebirth, but a Greater Black Sea Renaissance, where arts and culture and science and economies thrive as the region joins the world's elite regions, Russia remains pacified, China stays uninvolved, and the mighty and beneficent United States of America welcomes Ukraine into the brotherhood of nations as an equal partner in the promotion of democracy, liberalism, and justice.

Perhaps true for the Ukraine. Still, I look ahead to the region where I make my home, east Asia, and can see the other side. You can hate the U.S. folly. But the Chinese folly is no better. 5000 years of civilization for what? I don't say that as a "crusader" but seeing what the government apologists are on about. The people here will only agree to live under it, such as it is, at the point of a gun. So much for China. Others here can speak to whether Russia is much the same or not.

[Todd]

But the Chinese folly is no better.

It appears worse.  That in no way means the US should involve itself in Asian affairs as much as it does, let alone more.

[milk]

It appears worse.  That in no way means the US should involve itself in Asian affairs as much as it does, let alone more.

I agree it doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. should involve itself. I have to think about it but that alone isn't enough.

[Todd]

I agree it doesn't necessarily mean that the U.S. should involve itself. I have to think about it but that alone isn't enough.

The US should only involve itself to the extent that treaty allies face actual, direct military threats from China, and to the extent that key economic interests are threatened.  Here, I mean the free flow of trade involving US domiciled companies must not be impeded.  Chinese control of sea lanes in the region might not threaten the free flow of trade involving US domiciled companies.  Also, it is always worth mentioning that the US does not have a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. 

It is not the responsibility of the United States to defend democracy or institutions in countries that are not treaty allies, nor is it the responsibility of the United States to protect or promote human rights in the region.  Asian countries should determine their own paths, and if it makes strategic or economic sense for the US to partner with said countries, then the US should do so, but if it does not make strategic or economic sense, then the US can offer diplomatic support and perhaps write a few checks, but otherwise it should stay uninvolved. 

All security relationships should be constantly assessed.  It may be appropriate to expand, reduce, or even eliminate some security relationships over time.  Treaties do not and should not last forever.