3 ms·

>The question now is what’s the USA end game here and how do we go there without backing Russia to much into a corner so they don’t feel they have to use the nu

>The question now is what’s the USA end game here and how do we go there without backing Russia to much into a corner so they don’t feel they have to use the nuclear option. The most convincing argument I've heard in favor of continued US involvement in the war is that the objective is primarily about degrading Russian combat power such that, should a hot war kick off in the Pacific (over the Spratlys, over Taiwan, etc), Russia does not enter as a co-belligerent with CCP against the US + Japan. This implies that there is indeed some limit where we decide that there isn't much left in the tank for Russia to leverage in that theater. However, determining what exactly that limit is is a separate question, and this is some rather cold-hearted calculus because it admits that NATO's involvement doesn't have much to do with Ukrainian "democracy", which to me seems to be true. Edit: bad grammar

WastingMyTime89 4y ago
It has always seemed pretty clear to me from the USA involvement in various conflicts since WW2 that they don’t really give a rat ass about democracy. I do find your argument convincing but I now wonder what the main NATO allies are getting out of it. After all it costs them dearly and they don’t really care about the Pacific.
- remarkEon 4y ago
  The main NATO allies get what they've always gotten out of this arrangement: the outsourcing of their continental security to the United States.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    True for Eastern Europe and the Baltic states but France has always been somewhat of a reluctant member and Germany is not generally a proponent of extreme measure when it comes to Russia yet they are collaborative right now.
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      I think part of what you’re seeing is that a) Trump sort of trolled the other major NATO partners into at least thinking about investing in their own defense, but it’s too little and way too late, so they’re still completely dependent[1]; b) the intricacies of the dependence on Russian fossil fuels, which needs no elaboration here since it’s a weekly feature on the HN front page at this point. Germany’s collaboration, such as it is, might be more tied to her own acknowledgment of bad energy policy and represents fleeting efforts to apologize. Major industry is at risk of shutdown or idling over this, so they definitely feel the pain. [1] during the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan it become clear that non-US NATO partners were actually unable to run their own air operations without American military support and management. That’s more or less a tacit admission that you can’t do anything in a real 21st century war, which is also a lesson Russia has been painfully learning the hard way.
- sportslife 4y ago
  If you look at work from Bueno de Mesquita, Smith and others, you might become convinced that Americans force their leaders to support democracy despite the cost to the interests of the people and the leaders. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227458612_The_Logic_of_Political_Survival https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227458612_The_Logic...
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    That’s not the same issue. Americans like democracy at home. They don’t care about it abroad. See Costa Rica in 1948, Syria in 1949, Iran in 1953, the Philippines in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Lebanon in 1957, Brazil in 1964, Indonesia in 1965, Chili in 1973, Argentina in 1976, Haiti in 1991, Palestine in 2006 and I’m probably forgetting some. And that’s just the coups toppling democratically elected leaders by the way. If you add support for authoritarian regimes and meddling in elections the list is far longer.
    - sportslife 4y ago
      I wasn't clear; the argument of the authors above is that American voters force American leaders to support democracies abroad. That is, absent voter pressure, American leaders would support dictators and autocrats at a rate as high as and support free elections as little as Putin. Instead, they support and encourage free and fair elections in countries, like some you've listed, where the outcomes are sure to be bad for American interests. If the outcomes are bad enough to American leaders' eyes, then the leaders may use covert action, but they cannot use overt actions to install a dictator abroad without risking severe electoral damage at home. Just think about the effort put into trying to create democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, and how much easier and more stable (for American interests or at least Cheney's) installing an friendly military dictator with 97.7% support in a sham election would have been. Of course, many Americans believe other Americans don't care enough about democracy abroad, but that suggests at least some do.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

It has always seemed pretty clear to me from the USA involvement in various conflicts since WW2 that they don’t really give a rat ass about democracy. I do find your argument convincing but I now wonder what the main NATO allies are getting out of it. After all it costs them dearly and they don’t really care about the Pacific.

remarkEon 4y ago
The main NATO allies get what they've always gotten out of this arrangement: the outsourcing of their continental security to the United States.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  True for Eastern Europe and the Baltic states but France has always been somewhat of a reluctant member and Germany is not generally a proponent of extreme measure when it comes to Russia yet they are collaborative right now.
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    I think part of what you’re seeing is that a) Trump sort of trolled the other major NATO partners into at least thinking about investing in their own defense, but it’s too little and way too late, so they’re still completely dependent[1]; b) the intricacies of the dependence on Russian fossil fuels, which needs no elaboration here since it’s a weekly feature on the HN front page at this point. Germany’s collaboration, such as it is, might be more tied to her own acknowledgment of bad energy policy and represents fleeting efforts to apologize. Major industry is at risk of shutdown or idling over this, so they definitely feel the pain. [1] during the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan it become clear that non-US NATO partners were actually unable to run their own air operations without American military support and management. That’s more or less a tacit admission that you can’t do anything in a real 21st century war, which is also a lesson Russia has been painfully learning the hard way.
sportslife 4y ago
If you look at work from Bueno de Mesquita, Smith and others, you might become convinced that Americans force their leaders to support democracy despite the cost to the interests of the people and the leaders. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227458612_The_Logic_of_Political_Survival https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227458612_The_Logic...
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  That’s not the same issue. Americans like democracy at home. They don’t care about it abroad. See Costa Rica in 1948, Syria in 1949, Iran in 1953, the Philippines in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Lebanon in 1957, Brazil in 1964, Indonesia in 1965, Chili in 1973, Argentina in 1976, Haiti in 1991, Palestine in 2006 and I’m probably forgetting some. And that’s just the coups toppling democratically elected leaders by the way. If you add support for authoritarian regimes and meddling in elections the list is far longer.
  - sportslife 4y ago
    I wasn't clear; the argument of the authors above is that American voters force American leaders to support democracies abroad. That is, absent voter pressure, American leaders would support dictators and autocrats at a rate as high as and support free elections as little as Putin. Instead, they support and encourage free and fair elections in countries, like some you've listed, where the outcomes are sure to be bad for American interests. If the outcomes are bad enough to American leaders' eyes, then the leaders may use covert action, but they cannot use overt actions to install a dictator abroad without risking severe electoral damage at home. Just think about the effort put into trying to create democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, and how much easier and more stable (for American interests or at least Cheney's) installing an friendly military dictator with 97.7% support in a sham election would have been. Of course, many Americans believe other Americans don't care enough about democracy abroad, but that suggests at least some do.