4 ms·

> There are two ways for a war to end: One way is for one side or the other to be basically destroyed. And the Russians are not going to be destroyed. So that m

> There are two ways for a war to end: One way is for one side or the other to be basically destroyed. And the Russians are not going to be destroyed. So that means one way is for Ukraine to be destroyed. > The other way is some negotiated settlement. If there’s a third way, no one’s ever figured it out. The third way is for the war to be too costly to continue for the agressor. I believe the USA is aiming for that by giving massive aid to Ukraine. I am a bit surprised Chomsky forgot about that one since it’s how the USA usually loses the wars it loses.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
Three leads to number two
- more_corn 4y ago
  Not in Afghanistan. Not in Korea. Not in Vietnam. That was all the US deciding to give up and go home. There wasn’t really a negotiated settlement.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Certainly in Afghanistan, there were discussions, a departure date, and agreements
    - akhmatova 4y ago
      But that were pretty much pro forma, after the Occupier pretty much signaled they were ready to throw in the towel. And long after the average Jane and Joe on the street could be expected to care even a whit about about what was happening in that far-off nominal protectorate, or why.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I feel like we're just chasing are tails with definitions. Even countries like North and South Korea have discourse. I guess the original article was a little rigid with its 2 definitions. Since countries have stopped declaring war, formally ending Wars how to become a lot less clear
blub 4y ago
Technically you’re correct and I think he should have mentioned this. Would have been interested to see what kind of arguments he’d bring forth… As I said in another comment though, making war costly is basically just waging war. Maybe it will become too costly in one month, maybe one year, maybe five. Maybe Russia will lob a couple of tactical nukes in the direction of Ukraine. Maybe China and India or India and Pakistan get into a hot war because Russia is distracted. Exhaustion is not a precise strategy and it’s not a short-term or even mid-term strategy when one looks at the Soviet-Afghan war or the Vietnam war. Years of death and destruction can hardly be called a strategy.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

Three leads to number two

more_corn 4y ago
Not in Afghanistan. Not in Korea. Not in Vietnam. That was all the US deciding to give up and go home. There wasn’t really a negotiated settlement.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Certainly in Afghanistan, there were discussions, a departure date, and agreements
  - akhmatova 4y ago
    But that were pretty much pro forma, after the Occupier pretty much signaled they were ready to throw in the towel. And long after the average Jane and Joe on the street could be expected to care even a whit about about what was happening in that far-off nominal protectorate, or why.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I feel like we're just chasing are tails with definitions. Even countries like North and South Korea have discourse. I guess the original article was a little rigid with its 2 definitions. Since countries have stopped declaring war, formally ending Wars how to become a lot less clear

blub 4y ago

Technically you’re correct and I think he should have mentioned this. Would have been interested to see what kind of arguments he’d bring forth… As I said in another comment though, making war costly is basically just waging war. Maybe it will become too costly in one month, maybe one year, maybe five. Maybe Russia will lob a couple of tactical nukes in the direction of Ukraine. Maybe China and India or India and Pakistan get into a hot war because Russia is distracted. Exhaustion is not a precise strategy and it’s not a short-term or even mid-term strategy when one looks at the Soviet-Afghan war or the Vietnam war. Years of death and destruction can hardly be called a strategy.