10 ms·

What worries me more is that it seems like the post-WW2 order is shaken. Large-scale war is back on European soil. Information and propaganda wars are intensify

What worries me more is that it seems like the post-WW2 order is shaken. Large-scale war is back on European soil. Information and propaganda wars are intensifying. The defense architecture of the Western hemisphere now needs to cope with unpredictable dictators posing a nuclear threat.

dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
I don't think much has really changed except that the scales have fallen from the eyes of most Western countries. The military has always had the same pretty much the same posture towards Russia wrt threats and nuclear deterrents. I see the spread of disinformation and propaganda as something that will inoculate the populace ultimately. I think Russia (and China) has done the West a favor. Hopefully the West will start offering integration into our economies as a reward for democratic reforms instead of as an incentive, because god knows that hasn't produced the desired result.
- javajosh 5y ago
  I like your comment and its practical optimism. I hope you're right about disinformation innoculation; the science works out because it's hard to stay in emotional disequilibrium for so long! And it really does take long time (years) to get a handle on the troll phenomena and your reaction to it, so perhaps these are the growing pains of a bouncing baby information society!
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  "The military has always had the same pretty much the same posture towards Russia wrt threats and nuclear deterrents." That's not my understanding. I'm far from an expert, but from what I've read there was a radical change in the US military from a focus on large-scale warfare to small-scale warfare focused on urban combat and quick responses to multiple small threats. There are also way, way less nuclear weapons (on both sides) than there used to be. I think there were something like 30,000 nuclear weapons in the US at the peak of nuclear proliferation, and now there are closer to 5,000 (and roughly the same in Russia). So the military posture of both countries has definitely changed. Unfortunately, it seems we're headed back towards a Cold War, if not a hot war... so the arms race is likely to heat up and preparations for large-scale combat will likely increase. This will make the world a much more dangerous place.
  - rawgabbit 5y ago
    The change you are referencing is an unwelcome and short-sighted change. After the Vietnam War, the US military focused on confronting a possible armada of Soviet tanks flooding Europe. During the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars, the US military had to relearn how to fight insurgencies and perform nation building. The top military brass have to obey the President of the USA. But I would argue, the US military will readily admit we suck at insurgencies and nation building and would argue against the wisdom of doing so. The US military wants to deter aggression from the likes of Putin and other conventional armies. Having nothing but Special Forces and urban warfare specialists is not going to deter Putin from attacking Poland or Kim Jung Un from attacking South Korea.
    - pmoriarty 5y ago
      I honestly don't understand what the point of having large conventional forces is. We know a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia will lead to nuclear war, and all those conventional forces will be wiped out along with the countries they're supposed to protect. It just wastes money and deludes trigger happy people in to believing a war between nuclear powers can be "won".
      - rawgabbit 5y ago
        It is not about “us”. The aggressor thinks about what he can get away with. Putin knows the US will push the button if the mainland is about to be lost. What about a piece of Poland? Especially if there is no conventional army to counter Putin’s. In his mind, he may think he can get away with it.
javajosh 5y ago
>...unpredictable dictators posing a nuclear threat I'm sorry to say that it makes the most sense to simply not worry about it, unless it's your job to. We tend to forget that dictatorship is the default human civilization. It also happens to be the "normal" structure of the family, even in liberal countries, for the simple reason that kids are, by definition, incompetent. So I'm not sure if it makes sense to "stamp out dictatorship" when so many people legitimately want to live under one. So that leaves getting rid of nukes - a problem most of us assumed would solve itself over time after the fall of the Soviet Union. This backsliding is worrisome, but the path to success remains the same. But when the next Soviet Union falls, we should pursue denuclearification much much more seriously.
- margalabargala 5y ago
  To further expand on "don't worry about it unless it's your job to": Unless you are able to directly exercise nonzero control over the foreign policy of a nuclear power, the threat of a nuclear apocalypse is sufficiently far removed from anything you can do anything about, that it's tantamount to worrying about a large asteroid impacting the earth. It would be devastating, sure, but it's not productive to genuinely concern yourself with it, because it's unlikely you'll survive and there's not much you can do to change the likelihood of the event or your survival.
  - NateEag 5y ago
    You can't change the likelihood of the event, but you can change the likelihood of your survival. New Zealand will probably not be hit in an exchange. It would be a safer place to live in event of nuclear war.
  - spunker540 5y ago
    There are certain areas more likely to be vaporized than others though. I know in NYC at least there were some who felt moving to a less populated area (ie rural Midwest) might lower their risk of nuclear death.
    - 5y ago
Melatonic 5y ago
We have circled back to robber barons running things and hoarding wealth again
- JacobThreeThree 5y ago
  Pretty much. https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/214857-who-rules-america https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/214857-w... https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
jjtheblunt 5y ago
> Large-scale war is back on European soil. Is it really, despite being horrific? One essentially mobster is accosting another country with soldiers seemingly reluctant, in what might be no more complex than a clear mobster survival ploy in a country plagued by poverty for all but his cronies. I ask that because it seems reminiscent of Slobodan Milosevic 23 years ago in Serbia.
- jmfldn 5y ago
  I disagree. This is Russia we're talking about. The whole post-war western security policy was, in no small part based around Russia / USSR. Russia declaring war in Europe is a MAJOR event in European history whatever the outcome of this. It changes things geopolitically forever. This moment is at least as big as 1989. I suspect we'll look back on this later in the C21 as a major step towards a multipolar world, with China at the helm of one of those poles. That's super significant even if this war is just a chapter in that bigger story. Maybe the effect will be something else but this is part of a game-changing narrative playing itself out. I'm certain history is being written before our eyes.
  - jjtheblunt 5y ago
    I wanted to say that i really respect all you responded, of course hope things don't turn out so dire, but agree every one of your points is entirely plausible. thanks for the thoughtful response.
    - jmfldn 5y ago
      Perhaps it won't turn out dire but I think things will change a lot at the very least.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    I don't think the world has ever not been multi-polar, although the poles change; while America had "top nation" power from the 1990s, it was never entirely hegemonic.
lumost 5y ago
The parallels to WW1 are fairly strong. The World economy may simply be too broad relative to the power structures that sustain it. China and Russia do not want to participate in a global free economy that they do not dominate. The risk here is that the Russia and China will use their military power to stamp out democracy for an undefined sphere of client states. History through the cold war shows that tolerating this behavior simply invites further escalation.
bsder 5y ago
> The defense architecture of the Western hemisphere now needs to cope with unpredictable dictators posing a nuclear threat. So pull the damn manufacturing back to your own shores and start having a bit a self-sufficiency! Shifting things halfway around the world to save 2 pennies was never a good idea. And, we have learned NOTHING. How many hospitals are back to buying masks from solely from Asian suppliers again?
GoodJokes 5y ago

dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago

I don't think much has really changed except that the scales have fallen from the eyes of most Western countries. The military has always had the same pretty much the same posture towards Russia wrt threats and nuclear deterrents. I see the spread of disinformation and propaganda as something that will inoculate the populace ultimately. I think Russia (and China) has done the West a favor. Hopefully the West will start offering integration into our economies as a reward for democratic reforms instead of as an incentive, because god knows that hasn't produced the desired result.

javajosh 5y ago
I like your comment and its practical optimism. I hope you're right about disinformation innoculation; the science works out because it's hard to stay in emotional disequilibrium for so long! And it really does take long time (years) to get a handle on the troll phenomena and your reaction to it, so perhaps these are the growing pains of a bouncing baby information society!
pmoriarty 5y ago
"The military has always had the same pretty much the same posture towards Russia wrt threats and nuclear deterrents." That's not my understanding. I'm far from an expert, but from what I've read there was a radical change in the US military from a focus on large-scale warfare to small-scale warfare focused on urban combat and quick responses to multiple small threats. There are also way, way less nuclear weapons (on both sides) than there used to be. I think there were something like 30,000 nuclear weapons in the US at the peak of nuclear proliferation, and now there are closer to 5,000 (and roughly the same in Russia). So the military posture of both countries has definitely changed. Unfortunately, it seems we're headed back towards a Cold War, if not a hot war... so the arms race is likely to heat up and preparations for large-scale combat will likely increase. This will make the world a much more dangerous place.
- rawgabbit 5y ago
  The change you are referencing is an unwelcome and short-sighted change. After the Vietnam War, the US military focused on confronting a possible armada of Soviet tanks flooding Europe. During the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars, the US military had to relearn how to fight insurgencies and perform nation building. The top military brass have to obey the President of the USA. But I would argue, the US military will readily admit we suck at insurgencies and nation building and would argue against the wisdom of doing so. The US military wants to deter aggression from the likes of Putin and other conventional armies. Having nothing but Special Forces and urban warfare specialists is not going to deter Putin from attacking Poland or Kim Jung Un from attacking South Korea.
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    I honestly don't understand what the point of having large conventional forces is. We know a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia will lead to nuclear war, and all those conventional forces will be wiped out along with the countries they're supposed to protect. It just wastes money and deludes trigger happy people in to believing a war between nuclear powers can be "won".
    - rawgabbit 5y ago
      It is not about “us”. The aggressor thinks about what he can get away with. Putin knows the US will push the button if the mainland is about to be lost. What about a piece of Poland? Especially if there is no conventional army to counter Putin’s. In his mind, he may think he can get away with it.

javajosh 5y ago

>...unpredictable dictators posing a nuclear threat I'm sorry to say that it makes the most sense to simply not worry about it, unless it's your job to. We tend to forget that dictatorship is the default human civilization. It also happens to be the "normal" structure of the family, even in liberal countries, for the simple reason that kids are, by definition, incompetent. So I'm not sure if it makes sense to "stamp out dictatorship" when so many people legitimately want to live under one. So that leaves getting rid of nukes - a problem most of us assumed would solve itself over time after the fall of the Soviet Union. This backsliding is worrisome, but the path to success remains the same. But when the next Soviet Union falls, we should pursue denuclearification much much more seriously.

margalabargala 5y ago
To further expand on "don't worry about it unless it's your job to": Unless you are able to directly exercise nonzero control over the foreign policy of a nuclear power, the threat of a nuclear apocalypse is sufficiently far removed from anything you can do anything about, that it's tantamount to worrying about a large asteroid impacting the earth. It would be devastating, sure, but it's not productive to genuinely concern yourself with it, because it's unlikely you'll survive and there's not much you can do to change the likelihood of the event or your survival.
- NateEag 5y ago
  You can't change the likelihood of the event, but you can change the likelihood of your survival. New Zealand will probably not be hit in an exchange. It would be a safer place to live in event of nuclear war.
- spunker540 5y ago
  There are certain areas more likely to be vaporized than others though. I know in NYC at least there were some who felt moving to a less populated area (ie rural Midwest) might lower their risk of nuclear death.
  - 5y ago

Melatonic 5y ago

We have circled back to robber barons running things and hoarding wealth again

JacobThreeThree 5y ago
Pretty much. https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/214857-who-rules-america https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/214857-w... https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

jjtheblunt 5y ago

> Large-scale war is back on European soil. Is it really, despite being horrific? One essentially mobster is accosting another country with soldiers seemingly reluctant, in what might be no more complex than a clear mobster survival ploy in a country plagued by poverty for all but his cronies. I ask that because it seems reminiscent of Slobodan Milosevic 23 years ago in Serbia.

jmfldn 5y ago
I disagree. This is Russia we're talking about. The whole post-war western security policy was, in no small part based around Russia / USSR. Russia declaring war in Europe is a MAJOR event in European history whatever the outcome of this. It changes things geopolitically forever. This moment is at least as big as 1989. I suspect we'll look back on this later in the C21 as a major step towards a multipolar world, with China at the helm of one of those poles. That's super significant even if this war is just a chapter in that bigger story. Maybe the effect will be something else but this is part of a game-changing narrative playing itself out. I'm certain history is being written before our eyes.
- jjtheblunt 5y ago
  I wanted to say that i really respect all you responded, of course hope things don't turn out so dire, but agree every one of your points is entirely plausible. thanks for the thoughtful response.
  - jmfldn 5y ago
    Perhaps it won't turn out dire but I think things will change a lot at the very least.
- pjc50 5y ago
  I don't think the world has ever not been multi-polar, although the poles change; while America had "top nation" power from the 1990s, it was never entirely hegemonic.

lumost 5y ago

The parallels to WW1 are fairly strong. The World economy may simply be too broad relative to the power structures that sustain it. China and Russia do not want to participate in a global free economy that they do not dominate. The risk here is that the Russia and China will use their military power to stamp out democracy for an undefined sphere of client states. History through the cold war shows that tolerating this behavior simply invites further escalation.

bsder 5y ago

> The defense architecture of the Western hemisphere now needs to cope with unpredictable dictators posing a nuclear threat. So pull the damn manufacturing back to your own shores and start having a bit a self-sufficiency! Shifting things halfway around the world to save 2 pennies was never a good idea. And, we have learned NOTHING. How many hospitals are back to buying masks from solely from Asian suppliers again?

GoodJokes 5y ago