Europe at War

[milk]

Once again you're speaking only for the rulers. Everyone under them everywhere wants the same basic human rights and the same freedom from fear.

I suppose this is my fault because this can get very abstract and confusing pretty quickly: I do not think the U.S. has ever really been about projecting power around the world to guarantee human rights or anything like that. Not at all. But that's neither or nor there. The question was why the U.S. should be supporting the Ukraine and places like Taiwan. My assumption that people seemed to disagree with was that resistance to Russia would be impossible without U.S. support and it's obvious Taiwan is gone tomorrow without the United States. Todd's arguments, I've been saying lately here, aren't trolling. Far from it. I'm not even sure why anyone would think that. Again, we can drop that maybe. I'm still very agnostic about Ukraine. It depends on 1. What is the cost in human life of this war? and 2. Can Russia be beaten? And 3. What kind of world is it with a beaten Russia? 4. What's the cost of a negotiated settlement at this point?
I wonder if people on this thread might formulate some good questions to help get their points of view across.
I still wouldn't push a button that eliminates American power from the world.

[Todd]

I still wouldn't push a button that eliminates American an power from the world.

Eliminating American power from the world would be a terrible idea, particularly for America.  I have never advocated that.  I advocate America using its immense power in an interventionist manner only when its economic and strategic interests are at stake.  They are not in Ukraine.  The US can materially reduce its military and treaty commitments around the world and remain secure and maintain a robust economy that includes robust trade.  There will always be wars here and there, and sometimes tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of non-Americans may die.  That does not mean the US should intervene.

The post-war order is eroding, which is fine.  These things happen.  The US needs to navigate these changes in a manner that reduces American involvement in war and avoids war with a great power.  Current US policy is increasing the risk of such a war.  That is bad. 

[Madiel]

I suppose this is my fault because this can get very abstract and confusing pretty quickly: I do not think the U.S. has ever really been about projecting power around the world to guarantee human rights or anything like that. Not at all. But that's neither or nor there. The question was why the U.S. should be supporting the Ukraine and places like Taiwan. My assumption that people seemed to disagree with was that resistance to Russia would be impossible without U.S. support and it's obvious Taiwan is gone tomorrow without the United States. Todd's arguments, I've been saying lately here, aren't trolling. Far from it. I'm not even sure why anyone would think that. Again, we can drop that maybe. I'm still very agnostic about Ukraine. It depends on 1. What is the cost in human life of this war? and 2. Can Russia be beaten? And 3. What kind of world is it with a beaten Russia? 4. What's the cost of a negotiated settlement at this point?
I wonder if people on this thread might formulate some good questions to help get their points of view across.
I still wouldn't push a button that eliminates American power from the world.

You support Todd and say he's not trolling. But you're prepared to say I'm dishonest.

It's one of the few thing you're prepared to say. Otherwise you tend to the "hey, I'm just asking questions" line which frankly doesn't advance the discussion.

[SimonNZ]

I suppose this is my fault because this can get very abstract and confusing pretty quickly: I do not think the U.S. has ever really been about projecting power around the world to guarantee human rights or anything like that.

My reply to Todd had nothing to do with the US. It was his notion that "non-western" countries have "chosen" oppressive regimes, when really its only the oppressors who "believe" in oppression.

[milk]

Eliminating American power from the world would be a terrible idea, particularly for America.  I have never advocated that.  I advocate America using its immense power in an interventionist manner only when its economic and strategic interests are at stake.  They are not in Ukraine.  The US can materially reduce its military and treaty commitments around the world and remain secure and maintain a robust economy that includes robust trade.  There will always be wars here and there, and sometimes tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of non-Americans may die.  That does not mean the US should intervene.

The post-war order is eroding, which is fine.  These things happen.  The US needs to navigate these changes in a manner that reduces American involvement in war and avoids war with a great power.  Current US policy is increasing the risk of such a war.  That is bad. 

Right. But I'm guessing you'd shrink down these bases in Asia, so that the U.S. isn't such a presence? Or have I got that wrong?
It probably deserves another thread if people can take more politics on GMG (I don't know why people can't just ignore a thread if it bothers them so much), but the question with Taiwan is not going to be about money, it's going to be about U.S. lives. I'd like to see if people here come out roughly the same way. Do those that want to see the U.S. and Europe continue to support a war with Russia support the idea of the U.S. directly defending Taiwan? I find myself a bit unsure but nit on the side of wanting to change U.S.
policy just yet and maybe never. But I can be convinced. Your argument will be that the U.S. doesn't make the world safer by its dominance than a world where Russia and China prevail in the areas over which they seek to encroach.

[drogulus]

I suppose this is my fault because this can get very abstract and confusing pretty quickly: I do not think the U.S. has ever really been about projecting power around the world to guarantee human rights or anything like that. Not at all.

    Protecting human rights is part of the deal, not the whole package. But even projecting power around the world isn't a goal in itself. It kind of fell into the US lap in 1945, as it was the strongest power and decided that rebuilding much of the world not only added to US wealth, but also gave us trading partners with a stake in the system. Anything the US can do to keep the membership sweet will be given favorable consideration.

    I don't think anyone has tried this before. It couldn't have happened if the US hadn't produced half the world GDP after the war.

    I wouldn't dismiss the place of human rights in the scheme. While various authoritarians around the world are totally on board with the self loathing of Western intellectuals who try to impose their (heh!) "preversion" of Western values, many people around the world think human rights are pretty OK. I don't think the notion of Western imposition carries much weight for most people. If you like an idea it's yours, right?
     

[milk]

You support Todd and say he's not trolling. But you're prepared to say I'm dishonest.

It's one of the few thing you're prepared to say. Otherwise you tend to the "hey, I'm just asking questions" line which frankly doesn't advance the discussion.

I don't really want to get into it too much and you can have the last word after this on this particular bit of minutia. I'm not a complainer and it was probably my mistake to bring it up. You can do what you want. You're dishonest because you've stalked me across three threads including non-political ones to be a nudnik. I let it go at that point. I lost interest in the way you engage. I don't feel that way about others here and everyone is free to engage with whomever they want. It doesn't bother me though. You can keep kvetching about how you're characterized and about how you dislike the way people argue. I'm no longer a fan of banning anyone for anything unless there are threats. It's all just like bar-talk basically. But yeah, I know what you're up to. That's my opinion. You're not going to change my mind because I let it go for a pretty long while on GMG.

My reply to Todd had nothing to do with the US. It was his notion that "non-western" countries have "chosen" oppressive regimes, when really its only the oppressors who "believe" in oppression.

Is that really a fair representation of Todd's view? I'm not sure it is at all.

[Todd]

Right. But I'm guessing you'd shrink down these bases in Asia, so that the U.S. isn't such a presence? Or have I got that wrong?

Eventually, yes.  There is no reason that Asian countries cannot defend themselves from external threats over time - whether China or any other threat.  More immediately, the highest visibility concern is Taiwan, though access to the South China Sea and the Strait of Malacca is ultimately of at least equal significance.  Partly because the US and the west more broadly succumbed to excessive globalization, Taiwan has outsize importance due to its manufacturing capacity, most pointedly in semiconductors.  South Korea and the US cannot pick up the slack quickly enough in the event of a Chinese invasion, which itself assumes that China would shut down Taiwanese production or at least cut off the rest of the world.  The US needs to refocus efforts to build up domestic capacity, which it is even though the policy is unabashedly mercantilist in nature, but that will take time.  Strategic ambiguity was the best policy the US could come up with, and hopefully the next POTUS fully embraces it.  In the meantime, the incredibly bellicose current POTUS has uttered publicly that the US would defend Taiwan, bypassing nearly half a century of policy.  Yes, the State Department says that policy has not changed, but it is unlikely that everyone sees it that way.

Your argument will be that the U.S. doesn't make the world safer by its dominance than a world where Russia and China prevail in the areas over which they seek to encroach.

It is not the responsibility of the US to make the world safer.  It is the responsibility of the US to safeguard its citizens and its key economic and strategic interests.  Sometimes those broad objectives overlap.  Often they do not. 

[SimonNZ]

Is that really a fair representation of Todd's view? I'm not sure it is at all.

Well, if Todd would reply - and without just the snark and sarcasm you refuse to see - he could clarify. But I've seen him say something like this a dozen times now, so its not just a one-off misreading.

Or did you mean that his provocative posts might not always be what he actually thinks? On that we may agree.

[Madiel]

I don't really want to get into it too much and you can have the last word after this on this particular bit of minutia. I'm not a complainer and it was probably my mistake to bring it up. You can do what you want. You're dishonest because you've stalked me across three threads including non-political ones to be a nudnik. I let it go at that point. I lost interest in the way you engage. I don't feel that way about others here and everyone is free to engage with whomever they want. It doesn't bother me though. You can keep kvetching about how you're characterized and about how you dislike the way people argue. I'm no longer a fan of banning anyone for anything unless there are threats. It's all just like bar-talk basically. But yeah, I know what you're up to. That's my opinion. You're not going to change my mind because I let it go for a pretty long while on GMG. Is that really a fair representation of Todd's view? I'm not sure it is at all.

I can assure you I don't go around on threads looking for where you've posted. I'm not stalking you. If I keep disagreeing with you it's just because you keep saying things I find ridiculous.

 I mean, I don't even know what these other threads are. In the case of this thread, I'm pretty darn sure I was already here when you turned up, so that's a ridiculous definition of stalking right there.

I submit to you that your problem with me is not that I'm dishonest, but that I'm too honest and blunt for your liking.

[milk]

Well, if Todd would reply - and without just the snark and sarcasm you refuse to see - he could clarify. But I've seen him say something like this a dozen times now, so its not just a one-off misreading.

Or did you mean that his provocative posts might not always be what he actually thinks? On that we may agree.

I see the snark and sarcasm. I just vowed to be less emotional about these things. Just imagine everyone you're talking to is drunk.

I can assure you I don't go around on threads looking for where you've posted. I'm not stalking you. If I keep disagreeing with you it's just because you keep saying things I find ridiculous.

 I mean, I don't even know what these other threads are. In the case of this thread, I'm pretty darn sure I was already here when you turned up, so that's a ridiculous definition of stalking right there.

I submit to you that your problem with me is not that I'm dishonest, but that I'm too honest and blunt for your liking.

Ok man. You're too honest and blunt! You win. 

[JBS]

Eventually, yes.  There is no reason that Asian countries cannot defend themselves from external threats over time - whether China or any other threat.  More immediately, the highest visibility concern is Taiwan, though access to the South China Sea and the Strait of Malacca is ultimately of at least equal significance.  Partly because the US and the west more broadly succumbed to excessive globalization, Taiwan has outsize importance due to its manufacturing capacity, most pointedly in semiconductors.  South Korea and the US cannot pick up the slack quickly enough in the event of a Chinese invasion, which itself assumes that China would shut down Taiwanese production or at least cut off the rest of the world.  The US needs to refocus efforts to build up domestic capacity, which it is even though the policy is unabashedly mercantilist in nature, but that will take time.  Strategic ambiguity was the best policy the US could come up with, and hopefully the next POTUS fully embraces it.  In the meantime, the incredibly bellicose current POTUS has uttered publicly that the US would defend Taiwan, bypassing nearly half a century of policy.  Yes, the State Department says that policy has not changed, but it is unlikely that everyone sees it that way.


It is not the responsibility of the US to make the world safer.  It is the responsibility of the US to safeguard its citizens and its key economic and strategic interests.  Sometimes those broad objectives overlap.  Often they do not.

Making the world safer and limiting Russian and Chinese influence directly safeguards US citizens and key US interests.
As does not allowing a country to invade another and overtly claim territory for itself--which Russia has done in Ukraine and U.S. has not done in Syria, Iraq, or any other place since 1898.

[milk]

Making the world safer and limiting Russian and Chinese influence directly safeguards US citizens and key US interests.
As does not allowing a country to invade another and overtly claim territory for itself--which Russia has done in Ukraine and U.S. has not done in Syria, Iraq, or any other place since 1898.

I'm on this thread NOT out-and-out saying we shouldn't support the Ukrainians and the Taiwanese. Still, I have to blush a little at your comment. My opinion would be: it's complicated. It looks so much like the justifications for the horrible policies pursued by Johnson/Kissinger through GWB. But I'm not necessarily disagreeing that this is true in some limited way and cases. I incline towards keeping China off Taiwan but I can't hand-wave away the costs and the question of, "to what benefit?" What if it costs 5,000 American lives lost in a few days? How about 10,000? How about 20,000? And what will it do to the Japanese culture and economy to enter a real war with real loses as well? There is an argument these days that economic sanctions may be enough to cripple China because it's much more vulnerable than Russia, so there's that. Todd will say that there is no interest or little interest in going all in on defending Taiwan, especially if the production of vital technologies can be diversified to other places. And I'm someone who's heartbroken seeing HK students I know personally meet with the Chinese government's fate and I also know Taiwanese students.
If China is in a demographic death-spiral they'll either attack sooner than later or leave off dealing with it at all as their hands are full.

[JBS]

I'm on this thread NOT out-and-out saying we shouldn't support the Ukrainians and the Taiwanese. Still, I have to blush a little at your comment. My opinion would be: it's complicated. It looks so much like the justifications for the horrible policies pursued by Johnson/Kissinger through GWB. But I'm not necessarily disagreeing that this is true in some limited way and cases. I incline towards keeping China off Taiwan but I can't hand-wave away the costs and the question of, "to what benefit?" What if it costs 5,000 American lives lost in a few days? How about 10,000? How about 20,000? And what will it do to the Japanese culture and economy to enter a real war with real loses as well? There is an argument these days that economic sanctions may be enough to cripple China because it's much more vulnerable than Russia, so there's that. Todd will say that there is no interest or little interest in going all in on defending Taiwan, especially if the production of vital technologies can be diversified to other places. And I'm someone who's heartbroken seeing HK students I know personally meet with the Chinese government's fate and I also know Taiwanese students.
If China is in a demographic death-spiral they'll either attack sooner than later or leave off dealing with it at all as their hands are full.

I was dealing with Todd's comment; no need to blush.

[Todd]

Making the world safer and limiting Russian and Chinese influence directly safeguards US citizens and key US interests.

This is not true.  First, US citizens are not at risk from Russia or China.  Any claim that they are is preposterous.  Second, key US interests are not currently at immediate risk from China.  If China invades or blockades Taiwan, or stops traffic in the critical waterways around China, then China can be said to be putting key US interests at risk.  Third, Russia has a limited impact on US interests.  Ukraine is irrelevant to the US in terms of strategic or economic interests.  If Russia conquers Ukraine, the US will not be less safe, nor will its economy be at risk.  Russian actions pertaining to other Eastern European states do not currently threaten any key US interests, except to the extent that the expansionist, imperialist obligations accompanying NATO membership are counted.  (This is one of the primary reasons NATO is very bad and should be reduced in size or eliminated.)  Russia is not a major supplier of critical economic inputs to the US (eg, oil, gas), though they are a competitor in these areas.  This fact plays a role in the current war.  Even if, by some unforeseen series of events, Russia somehow conquered all of the countries in the Soviet sphere of influence, the US would not be less secure than it is now.  (Remember, right now the US is in a proxy war with Russia.)  US territorial integrity would not be threatened.  The damage from reduced trade would be small, even if a new, nearly omnipotent Russia cut off all foreign trade.  (Since the idea of Russia conquering all of Eastern Europe is silly, one can go with a silly idea of Russia cutting off all trade in such circumstances.)  The US Navy would still maintain control of the oceans.  The US Air Force would maintain air superiority.  Space Force would maintain a major lead in space.  And so forth.

The mindset that it is in any way the responsibility of the US to make the world safer is an especially pernicious contemporary manifestation of the reckless and foolish messianic foreign policy that began during the Progressive Era.  It is a fool's errand and a ridiculously expensive one, at that.  It also leads to war. 

As does not allowing a country to invade another and overtly claim territory for itself--which Russia has done in Ukraine and U.S. has not done in Syria, Iraq, or any other place since 1898.

The US does not claim territory to rule in a colonial manner, that is true.  Instead, it destroys governments and engages in regime change, the latter to explicitly install governments that pursue policies directed by the US.  That is imperialism.  That is an exact equivalent of Russian imperialism.  In addition, the US is directly responsible for the deaths of more foreigners than Russia this century, and far, far more in the post-war era.  Tools of US imperialism center around US directed and controlled military alliances (eg, NATO), extensive use of extraterritorial jurisdiction, and control of the most critical elements of international finance, along with dollar dominance.  The US runs a more sophisticated empire than the crude colonial ones that Europeans could manage.  Colonialism is only one form of imperialism.

What if it costs 5,000 American lives lost in a few days? How about 10,000? How about 20,000?

Dead American servicemembers are politically unpopular.

There is an argument these days that economic sanctions may be enough to cripple China because it's much more vulnerable than Russia, so there's that.

There is not a strong argument.  The Chinese government wisely incorporated their economy more fully into the international system than Russia, and they act as a major exporter to the entire world.  Sanctions would boomerang.

Todd will say that there is no interest or little interest in going all in on defending Taiwan, especially if the production of vital technologies can be diversified to other places.

We are 5-10 years out from adequately diversifying production of critical technologies currently centered on Taiwan.  Chinese leaders know this.  If we can diversify before an invasion, then Taiwan should be cut loose.

If China is in a demographic death-spiral they'll either attack sooner than later or leave off dealing with it at all as their hands are full.

Predictions of China's imminent demise are premature.

[JBS]

This is not true.  First, US citizens are not at risk from Russia or China.  Any claim that they are is preposterous.  Second, key US interests are not currently at immediate risk from China.  If China invades or blockades Taiwan, or stops traffic in the critical waterways around China, then China can be said to be putting key US interests at risk.  Third, Russia has a limited impact on US interests.  Ukraine is irrelevant to the US in terms of strategic or economic interests.  If Russia conquers Ukraine, the US will not be less safe, nor will its economy be at risk.  Russian actions pertaining to other Eastern European states do not currently threaten any key US interests, except to the extent that the expansionist, imperialist obligations accompanying NATO membership are counted.  (This is one of the primary reasons NATO is very bad and should be reduced in size or eliminated.)  Russia is not a major supplier of critical economic inputs to the US (eg, oil, gas), though they are a competitor in these areas.  This fact plays a role in the current war.  Even if, by some unforeseen series of events, Russia somehow conquered all of the countries in the Soviet sphere of influence, the US would not be less secure than it is now.  (Remember, right now the US is in a proxy war with Russia.)  US territorial integrity would not be threatened.  The damage from reduced trade would be small, even if a new, nearly omnipotent Russia cut off all foreign trade.  (Since the idea of Russia conquering all of Eastern Europe is silly, one can go with a silly idea of Russia cutting off all trade in such circumstances.)  The US Navy would still maintain control of the oceans.  The US Air Force would maintain air superiority.  Space Force would maintain a major lead in space.  And so forth.

The mindset that it is in any way the responsibility of the US to make the world safer is an especially pernicious contemporary manifestation of the reckless and foolish messianic foreign policy that began during the Progressive Era.  It is a fool's errand and a ridiculously expensive one, at that.  It also leads to war. 


The US does not claim territory to rule in a colonial manner, that is true.  Instead, it destroys governments and engages in regime change, the latter to explicitly install governments that pursue policies directed by the US.  That is imperialism.  That is an exact equivalent of Russian imperialism.  In addition, the US is directly responsible for the deaths of more foreigners than Russia this century, and far, far more in the post-war era.  Tools of US imperialism center around US directed and controlled military alliances (eg, NATO), extensive use of extraterritorial jurisdiction, and control of the most critical elements of international finance, along with dollar dominance.  The US runs a more sophisticated empire than the crude colonial ones that Europeans could manage.  Colonialism is only one form of imperialism.


Dead American servicemembers are politically unpopular.


There is not a strong argument.  The Chinese government wisely incorporated their economy more fully into the international system than Russia, and they act as a major exporter to the entire world.  Sanctions would boomerang.


We are 5-10 years out from adequately diversifying production of critical technologies currently centered on Taiwan.  Chinese leaders know this.  If we can diversify before an invasion, then Taiwan should be cut loose.


Predictions of China's imminent demise are premature.

You have a foolishly limited, self blinding, view of what US interests are. It doesn't help that you use the same canting anti NATO jargon that was already stale flat and unprofitable back in the '70s.
@milk mentioned the prospect of Taiwanese students meeting the fate of Hong Kong students. Keeping that from happening is in the interest of the US. In fact it's in the interest of almost everybody who isn't part of the CCP or the PLA.

But I don't want to be totally antagonistic. You are quite correct about China not being near anything that could qualify as demising.

[Madiel]

Ukraine asked for help. It did not ask anyone to send troops. A discussion about an operation costing American lives is not wholly irrelevant but it is also theoretical in the current context. US soldiers are not on the front lines.

[Todd]

You have a foolishly limited, self blinding, view of what US interests are. It doesn't help that you use the same canting anti NATO jargon that was already stale flat and unprofitable back in the '70s.

Incorrect, as usual.  First, NATO was still necessary and appropriate in the 70s since the USSR still existed.  NATO became obsolete only in 1991.  I have been clear about that before.  It's OK that you did not read those posts.

Second, I have a clear understanding of US interests.  What you and all other pro-war posters offer is a rehashing of neocon dogma whereby the US somehow benefits from democracy around the world, and so forth.  That would only be true if the benefits outweigh the costs, monetary and otherwise.  The costs outweight the benefits.

[Madiel]

Todd's Law, as usual. But admittedly with some extra filling.

[JBS]

Incorrect, as usual.  First, NATO was still necessary and appropriate in the 70s since the USSR still existed.  NATO became obsolete only in 1991.  I have been clear about that before.  It's OK that you did not read those posts.

Second, I have a clear understanding of US interests.  What you and all other pro-war posters offer is a rehashing of neocon dogma whereby the US somehow benefits from democracy around the world, and so forth.  That would only be true if the benefits outweigh the costs, monetary and otherwise.  The costs outweight the benefits.

NATO is not obsolete. If it were, would countries be looking to join it?

The idea that one country should not forcibly seize all or part of another country is quite beneficial to the U.S. Strange you can't understand that