4 ms·

> - USSR voluntarily disbanded. That's a stretch. Several of the constituent republics declared independence prior to the final dissolution, and these were mil

> - USSR voluntarily disbanded. That's a stretch. Several of the constituent republics declared independence prior to the final dissolution, and these were militarily (if ineffectually) contested. The final dissolution itself was instigated by a failed coup that saw the Soviet president lose all political capital in favor of the Russian president. > Sole claim to global relevancy for Moscow is the soviet era nuclear arsenal. They retain a permanent, veto-wielding seat on the UN Security Council. They are one of the largest suppliers of troops to foreign countries--I believe the largest if you exclude those countries who would get squeamish about raping the local civilian populace or the like. Again, one of the largest supplies of arms to other countries, and you have only to look at UN resolutions to confirm that that does convey an amount of soft power. They are also one of the largest energy exporters in the world, and (with German acquiescence) that has given them a noose tied around Europe's neck that may prove painful indeed in the 2023-2024 winter. > The US dollar is used for international trade and the people who move off it get invaded for unrelated reasons. Who? Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran haven't been invaded... Oh right, you're talking about those countries which didn't move off of it but talked about it like once a decade before the unrelated invasion.

roenxi 4y ago
I don't feel any need to argue any particular point because I could abandon 90% of my points and it still wouldn't be a contest. Of the 3, if we ask "which of these is closest to being an imperial nationalist power?" the answer is the US. It isn't remotely close. There is no Russian empire. There is no Chinese empire. They are struggling mightily to promote their interests abroad because of all the US bases people keep tripping over, and US-based systems of global governance. Their armies are struggling to move more than a few hundred kilometres from the borders that the US recognises. The US military goes where it wants and does what it wants. A dictatorship just couldn't sustain a global empire the way a democracy like the US does (or the British before them). Dictatorships don't have the economic and military nous. If Russia wanted to win more wars it'd need to use a political system more like the US's - China too. Fun fact: I didn't actually know what nationalism meant before today's article so I looked it up in Wikipedia. The definition is something like "nationalism tends to promote the interests of a particular nation".
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > Of the 3, if we ask "which of these is closest to being an imperial nationalist power?" the answer is the US. It isn't remotely close. Of the 3 countries, one of them is currently engaged in a war which is explicitly about achieving its imperial ambitions, which is actually the fourth or fifth such war (depends on what you consider separate wars) it has conducted in my lifetime. Instead, you have picked one of the two countries that has yet to conduct one such war in my lifetime (the invasion of Panama was before I was born). > They are struggling mightily to promote their interests abroad because of all the US bases people keep tripping over, and US-based systems of global governance. Their armies are struggling to move more than a few hundred kilometres from the borders that the US recognises. The US military goes where it wants and does what it wants. If you're focusing on the results of attempted wars, even classifying all US military actions in recent decades as imperialistic wars (which is a mistake), you'll find that the US has been less successful than even Russia (which is actually 3-for-5 in its recent wars). The idea that the US (/US-allied) bases are deterring Chinese and Russian influence is also pretty laughable--see, for example, Mali, Djibouti, Solomon Islands for things I can think of the top of the head. > A dictatorship just couldn't sustain a global empire the way a democracy like the US does (or the British before them). The Roman Empire lasted about 270 years as a dictatorship, which is longer than the combined British/US hegemony [1], even if you take the charitable view that the period of British global hegemony starts from the end of the Seven Years' War. Of course, individually, our two model democracies each don't manage to last 100 years before fissures in their hegemony appear. > If Russia wanted to win more wars it'd need to use a political system more like the US's Why should Russia learn from a country that has a worse win rate than it? The US hasn't been successful in its recent military escapades, whereas Russia has had moderate success. [1] The US does not have an empire, it has a hegemony. Yes, there is a difference, and it matters.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    > The US does not have an empire, it has a hegemony. Yes, there is a difference, and it matters. So what, if Russia was asserting hegemony over Ukraine instead of a Special Military Operation that'd be cool? Or is it more that the US invasion of Iraq was seceretly welcomed by Iraqis because the US was only invading hegemonically rather than imperialistically? If I were going to chose who is in charge I'd much rather have Americans because they tend to be competent. But sending in the army is sending in the army, and starting a war is starting a war. > Of the 3 countries, one of them is currently engaged in a war which is explicitly about achieving its imperial ambitions, which is actually the fourth or fifth such war (depends on what you consider separate wars) it has conducted in my lifetime... You must be what, in your 20s? Late teens? If you were over 30 you'd note that Russia's progress on imperial ambitions have undergone a startling shrinkage. It isn't feasible for them to reform to their 1989 expanse and nobody is claiming they can. You'll note Putin's justifications spend a lot of time talking about NATO. I haven't seen any evidence of 'imperial ambition' more serious than my ambitions to become King of Everything. Sure they'd like that outcome, they don't have a plan to get to it. There recent activity looks a lot more like desperate panic from being hemmed in by NATO. That is what makes sense from the sidelines, justifies the mobilisation a lot better and it lines up with what the Russians are saying.

roenxi 4y ago

I don't feel any need to argue any particular point because I could abandon 90% of my points and it still wouldn't be a contest. Of the 3, if we ask "which of these is closest to being an imperial nationalist power?" the answer is the US. It isn't remotely close. There is no Russian empire. There is no Chinese empire. They are struggling mightily to promote their interests abroad because of all the US bases people keep tripping over, and US-based systems of global governance. Their armies are struggling to move more than a few hundred kilometres from the borders that the US recognises. The US military goes where it wants and does what it wants. A dictatorship just couldn't sustain a global empire the way a democracy like the US does (or the British before them). Dictatorships don't have the economic and military nous. If Russia wanted to win more wars it'd need to use a political system more like the US's - China too. Fun fact: I didn't actually know what nationalism meant before today's article so I looked it up in Wikipedia. The definition is something like "nationalism tends to promote the interests of a particular nation".

jcranmer 4y ago
> Of the 3, if we ask "which of these is closest to being an imperial nationalist power?" the answer is the US. It isn't remotely close. Of the 3 countries, one of them is currently engaged in a war which is explicitly about achieving its imperial ambitions, which is actually the fourth or fifth such war (depends on what you consider separate wars) it has conducted in my lifetime. Instead, you have picked one of the two countries that has yet to conduct one such war in my lifetime (the invasion of Panama was before I was born). > They are struggling mightily to promote their interests abroad because of all the US bases people keep tripping over, and US-based systems of global governance. Their armies are struggling to move more than a few hundred kilometres from the borders that the US recognises. The US military goes where it wants and does what it wants. If you're focusing on the results of attempted wars, even classifying all US military actions in recent decades as imperialistic wars (which is a mistake), you'll find that the US has been less successful than even Russia (which is actually 3-for-5 in its recent wars). The idea that the US (/US-allied) bases are deterring Chinese and Russian influence is also pretty laughable--see, for example, Mali, Djibouti, Solomon Islands for things I can think of the top of the head. > A dictatorship just couldn't sustain a global empire the way a democracy like the US does (or the British before them). The Roman Empire lasted about 270 years as a dictatorship, which is longer than the combined British/US hegemony [1], even if you take the charitable view that the period of British global hegemony starts from the end of the Seven Years' War. Of course, individually, our two model democracies each don't manage to last 100 years before fissures in their hegemony appear. > If Russia wanted to win more wars it'd need to use a political system more like the US's Why should Russia learn from a country that has a worse win rate than it? The US hasn't been successful in its recent military escapades, whereas Russia has had moderate success. [1] The US does not have an empire, it has a hegemony. Yes, there is a difference, and it matters.
- roenxi 4y ago
  > The US does not have an empire, it has a hegemony. Yes, there is a difference, and it matters. So what, if Russia was asserting hegemony over Ukraine instead of a Special Military Operation that'd be cool? Or is it more that the US invasion of Iraq was seceretly welcomed by Iraqis because the US was only invading hegemonically rather than imperialistically? If I were going to chose who is in charge I'd much rather have Americans because they tend to be competent. But sending in the army is sending in the army, and starting a war is starting a war. > Of the 3 countries, one of them is currently engaged in a war which is explicitly about achieving its imperial ambitions, which is actually the fourth or fifth such war (depends on what you consider separate wars) it has conducted in my lifetime... You must be what, in your 20s? Late teens? If you were over 30 you'd note that Russia's progress on imperial ambitions have undergone a startling shrinkage. It isn't feasible for them to reform to their 1989 expanse and nobody is claiming they can. You'll note Putin's justifications spend a lot of time talking about NATO. I haven't seen any evidence of 'imperial ambition' more serious than my ambitions to become King of Everything. Sure they'd like that outcome, they don't have a plan to get to it. There recent activity looks a lot more like desperate panic from being hemmed in by NATO. That is what makes sense from the sidelines, justifies the mobilisation a lot better and it lines up with what the Russians are saying.