7 ms·

Not until 2023 at the earliest. Seems like a deathrattle for the increasingly irrelevant military cult. Systemic R&D deficits like this take decades to fully ad

Not until 2023 at the earliest. Seems like a deathrattle for the increasingly irrelevant military cult. Systemic R&D deficits like this take decades to fully address.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> increasingly irrelevant military cult This was a relevant line about ten years ago. I stopped hearing it in D.C. after Russia invaded Crimea and Xi tore up Hong Kong.
- pphysch 5y ago
  * Russia did not invade Crimea, it joined Russia via popular referendum. Virtually no one died and there is no internal movement to rejoin Ukraine (who clearly cares about Crimean "citizens" because it cut off their water supply). That is not an "invasion". These are all easily verifiable facts. * Hong Kong is part of China since it was decolonized. This is indisputable. I'm curious, have you actually studied the historical context of Crimea and Hong Kong? Beyond just taking headlines from NATO-aligned tabloids as absolute fact?
  - jeffdn 5y ago
    A popular referendum that was held _after_ the Russian military, with their national insignia removed, occupied Crimea en masse, just to be clear. If Mexico invaded Southern California, and then held a referendum with suspiciously high levels of voter turnout and a nearly 90% yes vote, don’t you think people would find that suspicious? Can’t you imagine why Ukraine and its allies think this was an illegal conquest?
    - pphysch 5y ago
      To make your analogy historically correct, it would have to be preceded by the United States having loaned San Diego to Mexico for decades of military use and the vast majority of San Diegans being ethnically "Mexican". Then notorious anti-Mexican racist Donald Trump is installed as the governor of California by NATO via coup d'etat. https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2011/S00116/how-the-western-press-lied-about-the-2014-coup-in-ukraine-pretending-that-it-was-instead-a-real-democratic-revolution.htm https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2011/S00116/how-the-wester...
      - jeffdn 5y ago
        Well, Ukraine loaned the use of port facilities — they did not loan the entire land area and its citizenry. I think you’ll find a difference of opinion on whether or not 2014 was a coup d’etat.
        pphysch 5y ago
        Of course there is a difference of opinion. This is natural for any political issue. The facts, however, are very clear cut in this particular situation. And you don't have to blindly believe conspiracy theories or NATO/Kremlin propaganda to get those facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnicities_and_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnici... Try to move beyond the puerile "Russia/China bad, NATO good" worldview and view geopolitical issues from both sides.
        jeffdn 5y ago
        I don’t believe I’ve ever advocated for that viewpoint. I’ve only been speaking about Crimea, and in that case, Russia is very clearly the aggressor. Yes, there are historical complexities, there is regional context. It is not cut and dry, black and white. At the end of the day, however, regardless of the ethnic makeup of Crimea, it was sovereign Ukrainian territory, seized in violation of international law and norms. I don’t live in Eastern Europe, or anywhere near it. I have nuanced opinions about international affairs, and I’ll readily acknowledge that the United States and its NATO allies have done more than their share of bad in this world, including sponsoring multiple coup d’etats. I just think that in this case, on balance, Ukraine is the aggrieved party.
        pphysch 5y ago
        Claiming that Russia is the unilateral aggressor in 2014 is a crystal clear exposition of the naive "Russia bad" worldview that selectively omits crucial details. If Ukraine had any semblance of "sovereignty" post-USSR, it was totally crushed by NATO's 2014 coup. Recognizing the unpredictable hybrid aggression of NATO, Russia decisively reinforced its long-standing strategic position on Crimea and the Black Sea. It was fundamentally a defensive, pragmatic reaction forced by NATO's aggression. You can see similar narratives regarding the recent military escalation in the region. Ukraine unilaterally declared an intent to militarily invade Crimea, and Russia mobilized forces on the border as a reaction. Yet the Western media totally ignored the virtual declaration of war by Ukraine and painted Russia once again as the sole aggressor. Fortunately, Russia was able to deescalate the situation. Yes, Ukraine as a sovereign nation is the aggrieved party. But the aggressor is NATO!
- VictorPath 5y ago
  When Russia invaded Crimea, there were still British red coats stationed in New York City. The Russian military has been there ever since. Speaking of the British empire, only an upper middle class westerner can nod their head when they see the British, who oversaw a massacre of Chinese in Hong Kong in 1967, pontificating over China's obligations to the British empire vis a vis Hong Kong. They even have former commander in chief of British Forces Overseas Hong Kong Chris Patten on Sky News lecturing the Chinese. The reason the UK took hold of Hong Kong was they went to war with the Chinese in order to push heroin and opium on a Chinese population they were trying to turn into drug addicts.
VWWHFSfQ 5y ago
How long do you think Taiwan remains an independent country if USA Navy leaves the South China Sea?
- FredPret 5y ago
  Also, Europe would speak Russian if the US left
  - theflyinghorse 5y ago
    I highly doubt this. Historically speaking the invasion dynamic is going the other way - FROM Europe INTO Russia. Russians are scared of the European invasion, not the other way around.
    - FredPret 5y ago
      Yes and how did those invasions go? Russia is a fortress due to its size and weather. But when Russia invaded Europe towards the end of WW2, they grabbed all of Poland, half of Germany, and more. They could have gone all the way until the English channel if they wanted, if the US wasn’t there.
      - pphysch 5y ago
        Russia did not literally invade Europe. This is ridiculous revisionism. The Red Army singlehandedly defeated Hitler's eastward invading campaign and pushed it all the way to Berlin.
        FredPret 5y ago
        Soooo… the Russian army beat a European one and marched several hundred km’s into Europe, but it’s not an invasion? Yes, the European nation attacked first, and the Russian response was 100% justified. The point is that Russia struck back against one of the strongest armies in history, broke its back, and then counter-invaded. They only stopped when they ran into the Allies.

Not until 2023 at the earliest. Seems like a deathrattle for the increasingly irrelevant military cult. Systemic R&D deficits like this take decades to fully address.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> increasingly irrelevant military cult This was a relevant line about ten years ago. I stopped hearing it in D.C. after Russia invaded Crimea and Xi tore up Hong Kong.

pphysch 5y ago
* Russia did not invade Crimea, it joined Russia via popular referendum. Virtually no one died and there is no internal movement to rejoin Ukraine (who clearly cares about Crimean "citizens" because it cut off their water supply). That is not an "invasion". These are all easily verifiable facts. * Hong Kong is part of China since it was decolonized. This is indisputable. I'm curious, have you actually studied the historical context of Crimea and Hong Kong? Beyond just taking headlines from NATO-aligned tabloids as absolute fact?
- jeffdn 5y ago
  A popular referendum that was held _after_ the Russian military, with their national insignia removed, occupied Crimea en masse, just to be clear. If Mexico invaded Southern California, and then held a referendum with suspiciously high levels of voter turnout and a nearly 90% yes vote, don’t you think people would find that suspicious? Can’t you imagine why Ukraine and its allies think this was an illegal conquest?
  - pphysch 5y ago
    To make your analogy historically correct, it would have to be preceded by the United States having loaned San Diego to Mexico for decades of military use and the vast majority of San Diegans being ethnically "Mexican". Then notorious anti-Mexican racist Donald Trump is installed as the governor of California by NATO via coup d'etat. https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2011/S00116/how-the-western-press-lied-about-the-2014-coup-in-ukraine-pretending-that-it-was-instead-a-real-democratic-revolution.htm https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2011/S00116/how-the-wester...
    - jeffdn 5y ago
      Well, Ukraine loaned the use of port facilities — they did not loan the entire land area and its citizenry. I think you’ll find a difference of opinion on whether or not 2014 was a coup d’etat.
      - pphysch 5y ago
        Of course there is a difference of opinion. This is natural for any political issue. The facts, however, are very clear cut in this particular situation. And you don't have to blindly believe conspiracy theories or NATO/Kremlin propaganda to get those facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnicities_and_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnici... Try to move beyond the puerile "Russia/China bad, NATO good" worldview and view geopolitical issues from both sides.
        jeffdn 5y ago
        I don’t believe I’ve ever advocated for that viewpoint. I’ve only been speaking about Crimea, and in that case, Russia is very clearly the aggressor. Yes, there are historical complexities, there is regional context. It is not cut and dry, black and white. At the end of the day, however, regardless of the ethnic makeup of Crimea, it was sovereign Ukrainian territory, seized in violation of international law and norms. I don’t live in Eastern Europe, or anywhere near it. I have nuanced opinions about international affairs, and I’ll readily acknowledge that the United States and its NATO allies have done more than their share of bad in this world, including sponsoring multiple coup d’etats. I just think that in this case, on balance, Ukraine is the aggrieved party.
        pphysch 5y ago
        Claiming that Russia is the unilateral aggressor in 2014 is a crystal clear exposition of the naive "Russia bad" worldview that selectively omits crucial details. If Ukraine had any semblance of "sovereignty" post-USSR, it was totally crushed by NATO's 2014 coup. Recognizing the unpredictable hybrid aggression of NATO, Russia decisively reinforced its long-standing strategic position on Crimea and the Black Sea. It was fundamentally a defensive, pragmatic reaction forced by NATO's aggression. You can see similar narratives regarding the recent military escalation in the region. Ukraine unilaterally declared an intent to militarily invade Crimea, and Russia mobilized forces on the border as a reaction. Yet the Western media totally ignored the virtual declaration of war by Ukraine and painted Russia once again as the sole aggressor. Fortunately, Russia was able to deescalate the situation. Yes, Ukraine as a sovereign nation is the aggrieved party. But the aggressor is NATO!
VictorPath 5y ago
When Russia invaded Crimea, there were still British red coats stationed in New York City. The Russian military has been there ever since. Speaking of the British empire, only an upper middle class westerner can nod their head when they see the British, who oversaw a massacre of Chinese in Hong Kong in 1967, pontificating over China's obligations to the British empire vis a vis Hong Kong. They even have former commander in chief of British Forces Overseas Hong Kong Chris Patten on Sky News lecturing the Chinese. The reason the UK took hold of Hong Kong was they went to war with the Chinese in order to push heroin and opium on a Chinese population they were trying to turn into drug addicts.

VWWHFSfQ 5y ago

How long do you think Taiwan remains an independent country if USA Navy leaves the South China Sea?

FredPret 5y ago
Also, Europe would speak Russian if the US left
- theflyinghorse 5y ago
  I highly doubt this. Historically speaking the invasion dynamic is going the other way - FROM Europe INTO Russia. Russians are scared of the European invasion, not the other way around.
  - FredPret 5y ago
    Yes and how did those invasions go? Russia is a fortress due to its size and weather. But when Russia invaded Europe towards the end of WW2, they grabbed all of Poland, half of Germany, and more. They could have gone all the way until the English channel if they wanted, if the US wasn’t there.
    - pphysch 5y ago
      Russia did not literally invade Europe. This is ridiculous revisionism. The Red Army singlehandedly defeated Hitler's eastward invading campaign and pushed it all the way to Berlin.
      - FredPret 5y ago
        Soooo… the Russian army beat a European one and marched several hundred km’s into Europe, but it’s not an invasion? Yes, the European nation attacked first, and the Russian response was 100% justified. The point is that Russia struck back against one of the strongest armies in history, broke its back, and then counter-invaded. They only stopped when they ran into the Allies.