Europe at War

[Madiel]

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

Well... the US has historically benefited from doing some forcible seizure. *cough* Hawaii *cough*. But we're past all that now.

[JBS]

Well... the US has historically benefited from doing some forcible seizure. *cough* Hawaii *cough*. But we're past all that now.

Hawaii is small potatoes compared to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago

With its army's defeat and its capital's fall in September 1847, Mexico entered into negotiations with the U.S. peace envoy, Nicholas Trist, to end the war. On the Mexican side, some factions did not concede defeat or seek to engage in negotiations. The treaty called for the United States to pay US$15 million to Mexico and to pay off the claims of American citizens against Mexico up to US$5 million. It gave the United States the Rio Grande as a boundary for Texas and gave the U.S. ownership of California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado, as well as an area comprising most of New Mexico, and approximately two-thirds of Arizona. Mexicans in those annexed areas could relocate within Mexico's new boundaries or receive American citizenship with full civil rights.

[Wikipedia]

[Madiel]

Now see, if I'd ever been to Texas or Mexico I might be more aware of that.

As it stands, I've visited Iolani Palace...

[milk]

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.

They aren't all-powerful either. Manufacturing will decline there - it looks like. Yes, they've built a big military but they've also built a big propaganda machine that has been in overdrive, especially online, over-selling. I'm not saying the prospect of a conflict over Taiwan is not a worry, it is a huge worry and a hot war should be avoided. But China does a lot of things poorly and the government is basically disliked around Asia. It's almost comical the way Vietnamese people reacted when they were told they were on line for a Chinese Vaccine instead of an American one, just anecdotally. But China is badmouthed not least by countries that make deals with them. Their soft power isn't good will, but maybe they don't need it since they fund a lot of things around the world and have some important allies. But I don't think they can make up for their demographics the way Japan half-way has. Again, my idea of things could be totally wrong. I'm aware I know very little about this topic. I'm open to being converted. But I remember the 80s when Japanese were full of themselves and people thought they had the secrets to economic success. Is China just the same or worse or much worse?

[Fëanor]

Incorrect, as usual. ...

@Todd's definition of "incorrect" is he doesn't agree.

So to condense what he deems "correct" a bit:

• The USA is grasping, controlling, militaristic, imperialist power.  NATO is best understood as one instrument of America's desire for world domination;
• Russia is benign nation & culture seeking an alternative to a US dominated world; and its "military operation" in Ukraine is merely a defensive response to the USA and its NATO surrogate.

I rest my case.  Todd doubtless will correct whatever nuance of the above he doesn't agree with.

Todd, we must acknowledge, will cherry-pick all the world's media with huge confirmation bias to support his case.  Doesn't matter though, because it remains delusional and "incorrect".

[Todd]

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

It is obsolete for the US.  It does not enhance US security and it depletes the US Treasury.  I fully understand why small, weak countries want to rely on the US for security.  It is rational for small, weak countries to want to join NATO.  It is irrational for the US to want to remain.

The idea that one country should not forcibly seize all or part of another country is quite beneficial to the U.S.

You need to explain how it benefits the US with concrete examples.  Include economic benefits that the US receives and how US security is enhanced.  If you offer profits earned by defense contractors as one of the benefits, perhaps you could explain how that benefits Americans in terms of governance and income equality.

But I remember the 80s when Japanese were full of themselves and people thought they had the secrets to economic success. Is China just the same or worse or much worse?

China is not all-powerful and manufacturing started to leave China in some industries years ago.  Lower wage countries like Cambodia or Vietnam became destinations for lower value-added companies, as have some South American and African countries.  It is worth noting, though, that in some cases it is the Chinese themselves who are offshoring.  Made in Mozambique may very well mean Made in China.  China has also seen substantial increases in relative wages for some higher value-added industries. For the US, for some industries, it may be cheaper to shift manufacturing to Mexico now.  With mercantalism on the rise around the world*, pressure is building to near-shore or "friend-shore", and when combined with the tired realties of the economics of location, you can expect to see more production shift to geographically proximate countries.  During the original debates about NAFTA, one of the more fashionable group of arguments used to center around the concept of the growing power of trade blocs and an accompanying shift of focus on not only trade relations, but also security matters.  The basic framework was it would be NAFTA, the EU, and an Asian bloc combining Japan and ASEAN, and that these blocs would control trade and establish the basis for new security relationships.  Obviously, today terminology and analysis has shifted, and the Indo-Pacific, a very buzzy phrase, may see the rise of multiple blocs.  Hopeful types may still preach the possibilities of Mercosur and AfCFTA, and both have potential.

China faces unique challenges, and in addition to the demographic "crisis" as premature triumphalists will call it, there is also the real estate bubble, some signs of bubbles in certain sectors of the financial markets, and of course Chinese GDP growth has slowed.  It would nice to think that maybe China will enter an extended period of stagnation like Japan, neutralizing the country.  I have doubts.  Economic slowdown is most directly attributable to the pandemic, and financial bubbles may not represent the same threat to China that they present to countries with free capital flows and a central government less prone to dictatorial solutions.  You will also likely read or hear how China will fall into the middle income trap, but from a geopolitical standpoint, with a country the size of China (or India or Brazil or Nigeria or Indonesia) the middle income trap is not necessarily a impediment to growing in power.  China still has a lot of room to grow, and most of their growth can and will come from shifting from export led growth to domestic consumption led growth.  Not only do Chinese leaders know this, they started making adjustments in the 2010s.  In short, maybe China enters a death spiral now; I would not bet on it.


* One of the better quips I heard recently was that the Biden Administration took the Trump Administration tariff policy and just ran it through a grammar checker.  Mercantalism is the thing now. 

[Todd]

@Todd's definition of "incorrect" is he doesn't agree.

So to condense what he deems "correct" a bit:

• The USA is grasping, controlling, militaristic, imperialist power.  NATO is best understood as one instrument of America's desire for world domination;
• Russia is benign nation & culture seeking an alternative to a US dominated world; and its "military operation" in Ukraine is merely a defensive response to the USA and its NATO surrogate.

I rest my case.  Todd doubtless will correct whatever nuance of the above he doesn't agree with.

The first point is clumsily worded, but correct in spirit.  The second point is incorrect.  You are applying your preferred, simplistic, moralistic assessment.  The US and Russia, and China, and soon India, are great powers that engage in predictable forms of (immoral) behavior. 

Todd, we must acknowledge, will cherry-pick all the world's media with huge confirmation bias to support his case.  Doesn't matter though, because it remains delusional and "incorrect".

GMG is rotten with confirmation bias.  It is also largely factless.

You have no case to rest.

[milk]

It is obsolete for the US.  It does not enhance US security and it depletes the US Treasury.  I fully understand why small, weak countries want to rely on the US for security.  It is rational for small, weak countries to want to join NATO.  It is irrational for the US to want to remain.


You need to explain how it benefits the US with concrete examples.  Include economic benefits that the US receives and how US security is enhanced.  If you offer profits earned by defense contractors as one of the benefits, perhaps you could explain how that benefits Americans in terms of governance and income equality.


China is not all-powerful and manufacturing started to leave China in some industries years ago.  Lower wage countries like Cambodia or Vietnam became destinations for lower value-added companies, as have some South American and African countries.  It is worth noting, though, that in some cases it is the Chinese themselves who are offshoring.  Made in Mozambique may very well mean Made in China.  China has also seen substantial increases in relative wages for some higher value-added industries. For the US, for some industries, it may be cheaper to shift manufacturing to Mexico now.  With mercantalism on the rise around the world*, pressure is building to near-shore or "friend-shore", and when combined with the tired realties of the economics of location, you can expect to see more production shift to geographically proximate countries.  During the original debates about NAFTA, one of the more fashionable group of arguments used to center around the concept of the growing power of trade blocs and an accompanying shift of focus on not only trade relations, but also security matters.  The basic framework was it would be NAFTA, the EU, and an Asian bloc combining Japan and ASEAN, and that these blocs would control trade and establish the basis for new security relationships.  Obviously, today terminology and analysis has shifted, and the Indo-Pacific, a very buzzy phrase, may see the rise of multiple blocs.  Hopeful types may still preach the possibilities of Mercosur and AfCFTA, and both have potential.

China faces unique challenges, and while in addition to the demographic "crisis" as premature triumphalists will call it, there is also the real estate bubble, some signs of bubbles in certain sectors of the financial markets, and of course Chinese GDP growth has slowed.  It would nice to think that maybe China will enter an extended period of stagnation like Japan, neutralizing the country.  I have doubts.  Economic slowdown is most directly attributable to the pandemic, and financial bubbles may not represent the same threat to China that they present to countries with free capital flows and a central government less prone to dictatorial solutions.  You will also likely read or hear how China will fall into the middle income trap, but from a geopolitical standpoint, with a country the size of China (or India or Brazil or Nigeria or Indonesia) the middle income trap is not necessarily a impediment to growing in power.  China still has a lot of room to grow, and most of their growth can and will come from shifting from export led growth to domestic consumption led growth.  Not only do Chinese leaders know this, they started making adjustments in the 2010s.  In short, maybe China enters a death spiral now; I would not bet on it.


* One of the better quips I heard recently was that the Biden Administration took the Trump Administration tariff policy and just ran it through a grammar checker.  Mercantalism is the thing now. 

Yes, I've been hearing that quip too.
Here's a pundit show I watch sometimes that I was surprise to find basically repeating much of Todd's perspective on Ukraine, based on Wikileaks cables between the U.S. and Russia. I think I've got that right but it's been a long day:

[Todd]

Yes, I've been hearing that quip too.
Here's a pundit show I watch sometimes that I was surprise to find basically repeating much of Todd's perspective on Ukraine, based on Wikileaks cables between the U.S. and Russia. I think I've got that right but it's been a long day:

One can go back and read Kennan's warnings from the 90s about NATO expansion more broadly, Robert Gates' response to Bush's invitation of Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO, Mearsheimer's analysis, the Carnegie Endowment piece I linked previously, and so forth.  The risks of NATO expansion are well known and have been known for a long time.  But people who want war want war.  People who believe pro-war propaganda believe pro-war propaganda.

[Karl Henning]

Now see, if I'd ever been to Texas or Mexico I might be more aware of that.

As it stands, I've visited Iolani Palace...

Nearer home, for but one thing.

[Madiel]

Nearer home, for but one thing.

Indeed. I actually went to Hawaii on the way back. After California, Illinois, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, DC, Washington State and Oregon... and parts Canadian.

[Karl Henning]

Indeed. I actually went to Hawaii on the way back. After California, Illinois, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, DC, Washington State and Oregon... and parts Canadian.

That sounds a very nice trip!

[JBS]

@Todd
If it's okay for Putin to send in an army to grab Ukrainian territory, it's also okay for anyone to walk into your house, grab whatever they want, and keep it for themselves.
The same principle is involved.

Not all costs and benefits can be reduced to amounts transcribable on a financial ledger.

[Todd]

@ToddThe same principle is involved.

Incorrect.

Not all costs and benefits can be reduced to amounts transcribable on a financial ledger.

The important ones can.

I guess ampersands are in this week.

[Todd]

From AP: NATO warns of Russia's long war in Ukraine, vows to be ready

A long Russo-Ukrainian War is the narrative now.  Sucks to live in Ukraine.

On an entirely unrelated note, I called up Lockheed Martin's investor relations line to inquire about prospective dividend increases, and the hold music was:

[Madiel]

That sounds a very nice trip!

One of the most fun parts was explaining to Americans how I could get 3 months off work full pay, or 6 months half pay which was the option I took.

I've accumulated that again, actually...

[Madiel]

Note that Todd did not dispute we could walk into his house and take stuff.

I have of course already offered his actual house for sale. I'm thinking I ought to advertise more widely. It'll cost a bit but I'm sure I can recoup my costs from the sale. Heck, I can probably even put some aside to get Todd a caravan to live in. It'll be fine.

[SimonNZ]

TThe US and Russia, and China, and soon India, are great powers that engage in predictable forms of (immoral) behavior. 

Predictable how? Are you using historical analogies?

[Todd]

I think it would be refreshing to see the words of senior leaders regarding this war.  It could offer a refreshing perspective on the non-bellicose nature of Western leadership.

As long as we help Ukraine with the weapons they need and economic support, they will fight to the last person.

This is from last August and is available on C-SPAN.  It is noteworthy that so many pro-war posters on this board are in bed ideologically with Lindsey Graham.

I think the only message that we need to send is that we will support Ukraine as long as needed. One year, two years, five years, 10 years, 15 years

Ms Marin's bold statement, delivered just yesterday at Davos, provides proof positive about just how different women are as leaders.  They are more peaceful and just.  Also, it is worth pointing out that not just the continuity of policy but the escalation is a thing of beauty.  Sticktoitiveness is especially attractive when civilians die by the thousands.

We have always been at war in West Eurasia.

[drogulus]

     When your country is attacked there may be little Tucker Carlson can say to dissuade you from defending it. There are more immediate motives to action.

     Putin has made it clear that he wants to de-exist Ukraine. Ukes are either dead Russians or ( best case) live ones.

     I note that Ukraine has developed a strong national identity fairly recently. A few years ago, around 2007, Michael Palin took a trip through Ukraine and talked to someone who explained how things had changed since the last time they had talked about 14 years earlier. When the Soviet Russian empire fell Ukraine was discovering its identity. It was no longer Russian but didn't have a clear view of what it meant to be Ukrainian from a geopolitical perspective. By 2007 that had changed. Ukraine had a national identity and a European one.

     That's what Russia is trying to destroy, and I judge they have damn good reasons for doing it, as good as the Ukrainian determination to prevent their national destruction. The stakes are high in both countries. It isn't easy for Russia to accept its reduced status in the world. Nukes can't help them.

     For Palinists I refer to the Ukraine segments of Pole to Pole (Russian Steps) and New Europe (Danube to Dneiper).