18 ms·

The dominance of the US military, for all its faults (and there are plenty), is the reason there's a mostly peaceful world. Deterrence has been an absurdly powe

The dominance of the US military, for all its faults (and there are plenty), is the reason there's a mostly peaceful world. Deterrence has been an absurdly powerful force towards that goal, and we have the military-industrial companies in the US to thank for that. Yes, they're also profiting from it. That's a win-win, in my opinion. In my 20+ years in software engineering, I've yet to meet a Chinese or Russian colleague who thinks it would be better if China or Russia had more military/political power. I've even argued in favor of that position in the past (that the world would be better off if there was more multipolarity), and they fervently opposed my position. They are keenly aware of the kind of crimes their ex-governments engage in. US military dominance is hegemonic, yes, but it would be far worse to have it any other way currently.

VoodooJuJu 3y ago
Absolutely this. This comment [1] hit me hard when I read it: >I never understood the good effects of American hegemony until they started breaking down. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a harbinger of what a world without American hegemony looks like. In that world, you're going to have a very bad time. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27565836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27565836
- myshpa 3y ago
  Did you heard about americans in humvees running around ukraine-russian border and provoking russians, few years before the conflict ? How would your government react to russians trying to establish military bases in mexico, on your border? Oh, we know ... we can look what you did to Cubans. Are they still in blockade? I don't endorse what Russians are doing. But somebody was helping them to decide to attack. If it was successfull or not, we'll never know.
  - anonuser123456 3y ago
    To make your argument symmetric, we need to imagine Mexico inviting Russia after we 1) poison their President with polonium, 2) seize the Baja peninsula and 3) arm and support border incursions from Texas separatists and 4) have those separatists shoot down a civilian airliner. So kinda not the same.
    - myshpa 3y ago
      Your country does immoral things, Russians do immoral things, Chinese too, every big "power" does. That's not the point. Point is, how would you react to the foreign powers on your border ? Would you go south or not?
      - foo-bar-bat 3y ago
        [flagged]
  - NAG3LT 3y ago
    Please, stop repeating russian propaganda. They wanted to control and reconquer their former imperial colonies. Their claimed Casus Belli were just lame excuses, not actual reasons.
    - myshpa 3y ago
      I don't have it from russians, I'm not pro-russia, far from it. But those concerns that US (maybe) wants war on european continent were pretty often repeated in all EU media then.
    - cpursley 3y ago
      God forbid we use a little empathy, nuance and historical perspective in our opinions. And I know I'm a bit out there, but perhaps the people in the disputed territories should get a vote?
      - archagon 3y ago
        Perhaps the time to discuss this was before the 2014 invasion. I doubt Ukraine would acquiesce to it now.
      - kibwen 3y ago
        Russia would be happy to put it to a vote, now that they've relocated over a million Ukrainians from the Donbas to "filtration camps". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_filtration_camps_for_Ukrainians https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_filtration_camps_for... God forbid we react to the utterly inhumane invasion of Ukraine with the disgust it deserves. Stop trying to make cover for Putin behind a veil of insincere civility.
      - bombolo 3y ago
        but… What if they vote russia?
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        > And I know I'm a bit out there, but perhaps the people in the disputed territories should get a vote? You mean just like the vote in Crimea in 2014 right? With a gun pointed at their backs under the supervision of the military?. There’s no way that, any vote like that is in anyway shape or form fair and will result in any outcome other than what the people pointing the guns want.
  - RadixDLT 3y ago
    US will react the same way they did to cuba .. the bigger problem is that Russia is a backwards country with caveman ideology modeled on the strong Mongolian empire who wants to oppress everybody around them because they have narcissistic tendencies
  - darkerside 3y ago
    Are you implying that the US would react to that situation by annexing parts of Mexico and eventually declaring war on it?
    - herewulf 3y ago
      The US would never declare war on Mexico! Nor annex any part of it!
      - darkerside 3y ago
        Not in 100 years
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  Russia's power also came from American hegemony and its military was built in direct reaction to it. Or how the middle east is a mess in huge part because of the US. Or Latin America after all the meddling. I really don't see an argument for US influence being better than the status quo, except for the US. It didn't stop wars or ethnic cleansings either when it was at its peak.
- jltsiren 3y ago
  I'm not so sure about that. From my Finnish perspective, the invasion of Ukraine is much like a repetition of the 90s. The cold war was a very stable period for Europe. When the old order collapsed, wars started in the former Yugoslavia and Caucasus and raged on for years. The 90s was also the decade of American hegemony. The hegemony started breaking down in the aftermath of 9/11, when the US decided that they care more about revenge than soft power.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    > The hegemony started breaking down in the aftermath of 9/11, when the US decided that they care more about revenge than soft power. I would diagnose it differently. If all the US looked for was revenge, we could have been in and out of Afghanistan much more quickly and accomplished the mission. The mistake in Afghanistan was to engage in a poorly conceived twenty year experiment in nation building. If anything the problem is that Americans are too isolationist to take the duties of hegemony seriously. There’s really no reason we couldn’t occupy Afghanistan in perpetuity if we actually cared to bother, but it became politically unpopular for some reason. Maybe because we were never honest with ourselves about what we were doing.
    - jltsiren 3y ago
      From my point of view, the US wasted its hegemony on poorly planned unilateral actions in the early 2000s. The invasion of Afghanistan was clearly motivated by revenge, as the US invaded quickly without a proper plan or debate. It wasn't that catastrophic in itself, as the world generally considered the invasion justified. But it made it easier to invade Iraq without a proper plan or debate, which was catastrophic. Among other things, the invasion of Iraq taught the world that invading other countries with false justifications was perfectly fine. Putin certainly learned that. Then the US went on to alienate its traditional European allies that refused to participate in the charade. To many European politicians at that time, Putin didn't look much worse than Bush. When the US tried to warn Europe against tighter economic integration with Russia, those politicians refused to listen. When Putin turned out to be much worse, there were too many vested interests to reverse the course.
- runarberg 3y ago
  This comment reminds me of people warning about the perils of communism by posting photos of empty store shelves during the pandemic. In other words they used a failure of capitalism to exemplify communism. If American hegemony brings peace, why are you using an example where there this supposed peace effect obviously failed? American hegemony did not prevent the Russian invasion into Ukraine as we all know. It is not an example of a world without American hegemony, it is clearly and example of the world with American hegemony.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    Russia invaded Ukraine because the US wasn’t being hegemonic enough. The first invasion in 2014 happened under a dovish, non-interventionist president elected due to public dissatisfaction with his interventionist predecessor. That administration refused to send aid to Ukraine at all, a policy that has been gradually reversed by the two successive administrations, then reversed more dramatically after the second invasion in 2022. Had the US taken the crisis more seriously, it could have likely deterred the 2022 invasion entirely. If you want an example of the world with American hegemony, consider that the longest sustained period of peace in Western European history began when Western Europe was first occupied by American troops in 1945.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      Surely you must realize the fallacy of your argument. I can apply this logic to literally everything. - X means we don’t have Y. - But a Y just happened. - It’s because we didn’t have enough X. But also you are wrong on you historic counts here. Western Europe hasn’t been entirely peaceful since 1945. First of all, Europe had colonies and colonial warfare well into the 1980s, colonial wars include Angola, Algeria, Kenya, the Falkland Islands and many more. Second many countries were dictatorship in Western Europe, including Spain, Portugal and Italy. There was a war in Cyprus, civil war in Northern Ireland, as well as terrorist insurgencies in Germany and Spain well into the 90s and 2000s. Neither did USA have hegemony in Western Europe during this period. USSRs influence spread across the continent. There were actually two Germanies until the late 1980s, there still are two Cypruses (despite both Turkey and Greece being NATO members), Communist and Socialist parties remained popular and quite often as part of coalition governments e.g. in Scandinavia, France, Belgium, etc.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  The invasion of Ukraine was about the breakdown of multipolarity and loss of Russian strength, not the growth of Russian strength. This is obvious if you answer the following questions: 1) Was Russian influence and power in Ukraine increasing or decreasing prior to the invasion? 2) Was Russian economic and military power increasing or decreasing in Europe prior to the war? 3) Is Russia stronger or weaker relative to NATO than the USSR was? I dont see how you can claim US and NATO power is in decline and was challenged more by Russia in 2022 than it was in the 20th century. To the contrary, the war in Ukraine is the result of growing hegemony in Europe, as hegemony expands outward and more Nations fall into the orbit of the US. Russia is fighting to preserve it's sphere of influence and prevent further collapse of its influence. I'm not saying that makes Russia a 'good guy", but I don't think there is any other way to interpret the shifting power balance leading up to the war.
  - thx-2718 3y ago
    Question is though did Russia have to choose to be anti-west? Putin has been but Russia could have gone a different route rather than keep Putin in power all these years. Russia really doesn't win keeping itself xenophobic of the West. Japanese, Korean, & German culture are all very popular here in American entertainment today. Russia could have continued to preserve, celebrate, and expand her culture around the world through Western entertainment and alliances. Instead out of fear to preserve it Russia has become isolated from people that otherwise would have happily bought her stuff.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      So that is a completely different question than if Russian global power and influence was rising prior to the war, which I was arguing against. It is possible that Russia could have gone a different way. Japan, Korea, and Germany all gave up significant autonomy by falling into the US alliance, but also reaped significant rewards. I think it is debatable if the west would want Russia in alliance. I think the really interesting question is what a country like Russia or China would have to give up to be on good terms with the US. For one, I think they would have to give up any ability to militarily defend themselves against the US. They would also probably have to give up any allies that the US doesn't approve of. Last, they would probably have to share control over any countries are territories currently in their sphere of influence with the West.
cpursley 3y ago
Do you think hegemonic mono-culture mono-ideal is preferable to a multi-polar world of competing ideas and systems? If so, how do you prevent the hegemon from transmutating to the very thing we feared in the first place?
Animatronio 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana
- moffkalast 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
morby 3y ago
That doesn’t excuse the crimes committed, nor does it negate the need to control the MIC. The Vietnam and Iraq wars should never have happened, among many other things. We shouldn’t have PMCs running about committing crimes, either. Edit: nor does any of what you’ve said negate the sentiment Eisenhower was advocating, which relates directly back to the Vietnam and Iraq wars. Having power and wielding it responsibly are not the same.
- goatlover 3y ago
  What makes the justification for the Korean War different from Vietnam?
  - oblio 3y ago
    I think the Vietnam War was more obviously neocolonial.
    - refurb 3y ago
      How? Korea was a Japanese colony from 1901-1945. Why would we not argue that the Korean War was an attempt by Koreans aligned with Japan to maintain their colony?
      - foo-bar-bat 3y ago
        Because that would be false on its face. I'm sorry that you have no idea what you're talking about? The Korean war began when the communists invaded from the north, equipped and trained by the Soviets. It continued until the communists by then actually from China not North Korea, stopped trying. At no point during the entire Korean War was there a Japanese colony anywhere on the Korean peninsula. Or, for that matter, anywhere on earth. If you're arguing the South Korean government whose sovereignty the UN went to war to defend, was somehow "aligned" with their former occupier Japan which was itself then occupied by the US after its unconditional surrender to end WW2... sorry, you're just woefully ill informed. There are dozens of good books on this topic.
7sidedmarble 3y ago
well that's convenient
myshpa 3y ago
Killing people with drones based on metadata, in foreign countries, without fair trial, is extremely immoral. With every killed father you'll make several more enemies. "In 2016, America dropped at least 26,171 bombs authorized by President Barack Obama. This means that every day in 2016, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day" https://old.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/x332z8/in_2016_america_dropped_at_least_26171_bombs/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/x332z... Black sites, extraordinary renditions, torturing people in third countries ... that's deterrence? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... (Read it all, I dare you) Imagine foreign power's drones over your own country, over your city. Imagine hearing exploding homes in your town, maybe few homes away. Imagine unmarked millitary men going through your street and home with their rifles scaring your children. Imagine that your children would refuse to play outside when it isn't cloudy, because they're afraid of blue skies. You cannot, can you? Would you feel safe and glad? Imagine foreign powers overturning your democraticaly elected leaders and instead putting in their puppets, all for profit again, of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CIA_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CIA_controversies I'll now let Carl Sagan talk on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/embed/BYdxFKTYJIQ https://www.youtube.com/embed/BYdxFKTYJIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWPFmdAWRZ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWPFmdAWRZ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KcoPODwvW4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KcoPODwvW4 And Charlie Chaplin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8HdOHrc3OQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8HdOHrc3OQ With 5+millions of millitary contractors and many more employees, many of them here, maybe this quote will fit. "It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It"
kornhole 3y ago
One thing to consider about your anecdotal encounters with people of those countries is that they were probably in your country. They were probably emigres. If you spoke to people within those countries who are happy with their country, the sentiment would probably be quite different.
- golergka 3y ago
  Immigration, especially to us, is the best thing a typical person in these countries could do from quality of life perspective, and what most talented usually do. So selection bias here is based mostly on ability and intelligence, not political opinion.
boredpeter 3y ago
What an embarrassingly privileged comment. The US funds terror around the world for their own benefit. Millions die because of the actions of the US or are effectively enslaved for the benefit of US capitalists to sell overpriced products to wealthy consumers such as yourself. The CIA regularly destabilizes 3rd world countries for the benefit of US corporations (see United fruit company and Guatemala). To suggest the world is a “peaceful” place simply because you live in a country that has never seen war in its homeland during your lifetime is ludicrous especially given the wars the US has started and participated in. Frankly this comment reeks of propaganda, I wouldn’t be surprised if you worked for the fed or a company profiting from the military industrial complex.
- goatlover 3y ago
  Please provide sources for the millions of deaths. Your post sounds like an anti-capitalist screed more than an argument against US military hegemony. Consider that alternative of world war and Russian or Chinese imperialism.
  - makeitdouble 3y ago
    It's weird to set Chinese imperialism as the worst alternative, when the US is China's most prominent provider of technology, and first consumer of manufacturing and services. In exchange China is of course also the biggest holder of US dollar.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      > China is of course also the biggest holder of US dollar. Not any more, Japan is. China has been reducing it's dollar holdings at breakneck speed once it saw the US freeze dollars held by Russia. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/holdings-of-us-treasury-securities/holdings-of-us-treasury-securities https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/holdings-of-us-treasury-se... https://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt https://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
dirtyid 3y ago
>mostly peaceful world Except it hasn't been. Pinker's "long peace" theory with respect to global conflict is bad statistics - 20th-21st century under US military hegemony had a comparable if not higher number of conflicts, see Max Roser’s work documenting global conflicts over the past 600 years. What has changed is that war now is generally shorter and less deadly especially towards combatants, but that's more reflective of the pace of modern war enabled by modern weapons. High intensity wars don't last for 20+ years anymore because you can pretty much destroy nations in 1-5, and belligerents are quicker to exhaust and forced to settle. In aggregate war fatalities is down, but not # of conflicts. US hegemony didn't stop USSR and RU from warring in their periphery, nor PRC border skirmishes pre 90s when US had vast more naval power asymmetry. When countries want to fight for their interests, especially regional, they still do. His conjectures on QoL indicators around the world are improving, and we can credit some of that to US/western innovation, but it’s also a byproduct of technology disseminating as societies develop. As for the opinion of your colleagues, consider some sort of self-selection bias happening - I've not met many from PRC that don't think China needs better military and regional hegemony to forward her interests the same way US does hers, especially post Belgrade embassy bombing in 99 by US/NATO. And frankly even among PRC diasporas, most people I know except very liberal types are increasingly unabashedly pro PRC military power - they’re just too polite to say so. See how PRC students in the west generally become more pro China the more they’re exposed to western society. Many are smart enough to not voice "objectionable" opinions.I can't speak for RUs. Ultimately, US military dominance is good for US+LIO interests, but hard to extrapolate anything more. IMO multipolarity will increase the chance of "smaller" conflicts as poles assert their own interests for sure, but it's going to be around the baseline of conflicts that's consistently been simmering throughout history. The fear is increasing large-scale conflict between poles/blocks - ending the cyclic gap between major wars among major powers - but that's what happens when declining hegemon pushes their interests to the exclusion of others too intensely for too long.
inconceivable 3y ago
> I've yet to meet a Chinese or Russian colleague who thinks it would be better if China or Russia lmao the ones who live in america? yeah, of course. they don't want to get deported. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee <-- taiwanese lolol
- illumin8 3y ago
  Wen Ho Lee was a PRC spy and was caught exfiltrating secrets. Hardly a reasonable example of unjust persecution. Are you serious? No US person seriously believes we will deport a Chinese national on a legitimate visa for their political views. Can you point to a single example of this happening?
  - runarberg 3y ago
    Isn’t that exactly what happened to Emma Goldman and Charles Chaplin?
    - illumin8 3y ago
      Were they Chinese nationals?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - inconceivable 3y ago
        you know, it's funny, the only person caught up by the china initiative was a white guy too.
      - runarberg 3y ago
        There are famous cases of USA deporting a Polish-Lithuanian Jew and a British Actor because of their political views. Is there a reason to believe they wouldn’t deport a Chinese national for the same reason? Particularly since “having been a member of the Communist party” (a requirement for any Chinese citizen seeking a job in the public sector) is a question they ask before issuing a green card.
somesortofthing 3y ago
A unipolar world order is a local optimum by its very nature. Regardless of who's in charge, conflict arises from parties thinking they have a chance to secure leverage against another power via violence. If there's a sole power with an overwhelming military advantage against their next-largest competitor, people aren't going to go off and die in hopeless wars. Russia and China's actions can't be separated from the fact that their existence in anything like their present form is a challenge to the US and its sphere of influence. Even then, the US government and economy is organized in ways that make it disturb the trivial-to-maintain peace its position as hegemon affords it(see Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and various covert operations that succeeded before escalating to direct intervention) to secure itself minor advantages or even for entirely domestic reasons. If you account at all for the inherent advantages of a unipolar world, the US's record is shockingly poor. I'm fine with rolling the dice on multipolarity in hopes of a less irrational hegemon emerging.
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  A multi-polarity framed discussion is fundamentally a might makes right framed discussion rather than a justice framed discussion. The problem is that multipolarity is often meant to mean spheres of influence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence). Which is just imperialism by another name. I agree that the power the US can exercise should be checked by other powers (the desired "benefit" of multi polarity), but I also think the idea of promoting "rule of law" needs to be the frame of conversation. "What pole of power do you belong to" is a very different question than "what is justice?" > If you account at all for the inherent advantages of a unipolar world, the US's record is shockingly poor. I think this statement isn't very well thought out or at least not well founded or self evident. It's also important to understand that peace is not the absence of physical violence, but the presence of justice. Justice sometimes cannot be achieved without a fight. > disturb the trivial-to-maintain peace The "peace" between African slaves and American plantation owners was probably fairly easy to maintain. That doesn't make it a good "peace". China is exercising coercive power over Taiwan. Are they at peace?
- philwelch 3y ago
  > If you account at all for the inherent advantages of a unipolar world, the US's record is shockingly poor. I'm fine with rolling the dice on multipolarity in hopes of a less irrational hegemon emerging. Who? If you look at past hegemons—Rome, the Mongols, Britain—the US has the best record of them all. And, incidentally, if you look at past periods of multipolarity, you get a series of progressively more deadly and destructive wars.
nradov 3y ago
Ironically, China has probably benefited from US hegemony more than any other major country. They are highly dependent on imports of food, fertilizer, energy, and raw materials. The US Navy has kept their sea lines of communication open for free since the end of WW2. Imagine a scenario where the US pulls back and another country like, let's say, India decided to close down China's trade routes. China would be in an economic crisis within months. China is now working to build up a blue water navy and they have other ways to retaliate against threats, but still they are in a very precarious strategic position.
BSEdlMMldESB 3y ago
[flagged]
Aeolun 3y ago
Not that I’d ever like to see it, but I’m really curious what would happen in a conflict with China. I’m half inclined to believe the US populace would revolt before any meaningful military confrontation because all their stuff is made in China. No more toilet paper, no more TV, no more phone. No more… everything! Kind of wonder how much military components are sourced/built in China.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  These are two nations with H bombs and ICBMs. Lack of new iPhones would never even cross our minds. By the time the populace had formed an opinion it would likely be too late.
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    Any war would be conventional for that exact reason.
    - mattmaroon 3y ago
      That’s the exact opposite of what every military in the world has thought for the last 70 years. If you were China, you would not wait for the American military to dominate yours. If you were the US, you would know this, and not wait for them to launch their nukes at your silos.
illumin8 3y ago
Thank you for bringing a voice of reason to this discussion. Far too many pilloried the US over the decades for unjust wars. Perhaps there are some, like Vietnam, Iraq, etc, but a far worse outcome would be to have the global security situation be controlled by China and Russia. We know what happens when non-democratically elected leaders rise to global power and decide to exert their will, and it is not pretty (world wars, basically). The US military industrial complex is incredibly complex and somewhat corrupt - it is a revolving door between industry and government, but the alternative is far worse and leads to genocide on a scale unimaginable since WW2.
- peterashford 3y ago
  I don't think the only alternative is "replace the US with a different (evil) power". An alternative is that the UN plays more of a policing role and we move away from power and justice being applied unilaterally and capriciously. In no way am I suggesting that this is an easy thing to do, or even neccessarily to be desired, but the idea that the world being run by China-Russia is the only alternative to US hegemony is a false dichotomy.
peterashford 3y ago
Is your sample of Chinese and Russians limited to those who have had reason to leave their homes and move to the US? Because if it is, I suspect there's an element of selection bias there.
rektide 3y ago
For sake of argument let's say the US military is a fine institution & let's say corporations making a profit supporting it is fine. But my god, the inefficiency & fleecing being done by corporations is ghastly. It's an absurd detriment that the system is robustly categorically fucked, incapable of getting effective help to aid/drive/support the cause. The US taxpayer pays out the nose, when we could be bettering ourselves greatly, because of this systematic incompetence that we suffer. I don't see your comment as replying to anything whatsoever topical here. You've paved over concerns with jingoism. We can debate that jingoism, but - at a minimum - I don't feel like America should suffer itself to keep getting fleeced by an ineffective & ghastly expensive defense industry. We could do this without it being such a racket.
kamaal 3y ago
As an Indian, I can tell you this is how everyone thinks about their country. Everybody thinks they stand for for good, others stand for evil. And by that definition their order must be spread in the world. And for that they are ok with them having overwhelming military power, and they are vehemently against others having it. Its just how it is.

VoodooJuJu 3y ago

Absolutely this. This comment [1] hit me hard when I read it: >I never understood the good effects of American hegemony until they started breaking down. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a harbinger of what a world without American hegemony looks like. In that world, you're going to have a very bad time. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27565836 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27565836

myshpa 3y ago
Did you heard about americans in humvees running around ukraine-russian border and provoking russians, few years before the conflict ? How would your government react to russians trying to establish military bases in mexico, on your border? Oh, we know ... we can look what you did to Cubans. Are they still in blockade? I don't endorse what Russians are doing. But somebody was helping them to decide to attack. If it was successfull or not, we'll never know.
- anonuser123456 3y ago
  To make your argument symmetric, we need to imagine Mexico inviting Russia after we 1) poison their President with polonium, 2) seize the Baja peninsula and 3) arm and support border incursions from Texas separatists and 4) have those separatists shoot down a civilian airliner. So kinda not the same.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    Your country does immoral things, Russians do immoral things, Chinese too, every big "power" does. That's not the point. Point is, how would you react to the foreign powers on your border ? Would you go south or not?
    - foo-bar-bat 3y ago
      [flagged]
- NAG3LT 3y ago
  Please, stop repeating russian propaganda. They wanted to control and reconquer their former imperial colonies. Their claimed Casus Belli were just lame excuses, not actual reasons.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    I don't have it from russians, I'm not pro-russia, far from it. But those concerns that US (maybe) wants war on european continent were pretty often repeated in all EU media then.
  - cpursley 3y ago
    God forbid we use a little empathy, nuance and historical perspective in our opinions. And I know I'm a bit out there, but perhaps the people in the disputed territories should get a vote?
    - archagon 3y ago
      Perhaps the time to discuss this was before the 2014 invasion. I doubt Ukraine would acquiesce to it now.
    - kibwen 3y ago
      Russia would be happy to put it to a vote, now that they've relocated over a million Ukrainians from the Donbas to "filtration camps". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_filtration_camps_for_Ukrainians https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_filtration_camps_for... God forbid we react to the utterly inhumane invasion of Ukraine with the disgust it deserves. Stop trying to make cover for Putin behind a veil of insincere civility.
    - bombolo 3y ago
      but… What if they vote russia?
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > And I know I'm a bit out there, but perhaps the people in the disputed territories should get a vote? You mean just like the vote in Crimea in 2014 right? With a gun pointed at their backs under the supervision of the military?. There’s no way that, any vote like that is in anyway shape or form fair and will result in any outcome other than what the people pointing the guns want.
- RadixDLT 3y ago
  US will react the same way they did to cuba .. the bigger problem is that Russia is a backwards country with caveman ideology modeled on the strong Mongolian empire who wants to oppress everybody around them because they have narcissistic tendencies
- darkerside 3y ago
  Are you implying that the US would react to that situation by annexing parts of Mexico and eventually declaring war on it?
  - herewulf 3y ago
    The US would never declare war on Mexico! Nor annex any part of it!
    - darkerside 3y ago
      Not in 100 years
makeitdouble 3y ago
Russia's power also came from American hegemony and its military was built in direct reaction to it. Or how the middle east is a mess in huge part because of the US. Or Latin America after all the meddling. I really don't see an argument for US influence being better than the status quo, except for the US. It didn't stop wars or ethnic cleansings either when it was at its peak.
jltsiren 3y ago
I'm not so sure about that. From my Finnish perspective, the invasion of Ukraine is much like a repetition of the 90s. The cold war was a very stable period for Europe. When the old order collapsed, wars started in the former Yugoslavia and Caucasus and raged on for years. The 90s was also the decade of American hegemony. The hegemony started breaking down in the aftermath of 9/11, when the US decided that they care more about revenge than soft power.
- philwelch 3y ago
  > The hegemony started breaking down in the aftermath of 9/11, when the US decided that they care more about revenge than soft power. I would diagnose it differently. If all the US looked for was revenge, we could have been in and out of Afghanistan much more quickly and accomplished the mission. The mistake in Afghanistan was to engage in a poorly conceived twenty year experiment in nation building. If anything the problem is that Americans are too isolationist to take the duties of hegemony seriously. There’s really no reason we couldn’t occupy Afghanistan in perpetuity if we actually cared to bother, but it became politically unpopular for some reason. Maybe because we were never honest with ourselves about what we were doing.
  - jltsiren 3y ago
    From my point of view, the US wasted its hegemony on poorly planned unilateral actions in the early 2000s. The invasion of Afghanistan was clearly motivated by revenge, as the US invaded quickly without a proper plan or debate. It wasn't that catastrophic in itself, as the world generally considered the invasion justified. But it made it easier to invade Iraq without a proper plan or debate, which was catastrophic. Among other things, the invasion of Iraq taught the world that invading other countries with false justifications was perfectly fine. Putin certainly learned that. Then the US went on to alienate its traditional European allies that refused to participate in the charade. To many European politicians at that time, Putin didn't look much worse than Bush. When the US tried to warn Europe against tighter economic integration with Russia, those politicians refused to listen. When Putin turned out to be much worse, there were too many vested interests to reverse the course.
runarberg 3y ago
This comment reminds me of people warning about the perils of communism by posting photos of empty store shelves during the pandemic. In other words they used a failure of capitalism to exemplify communism. If American hegemony brings peace, why are you using an example where there this supposed peace effect obviously failed? American hegemony did not prevent the Russian invasion into Ukraine as we all know. It is not an example of a world without American hegemony, it is clearly and example of the world with American hegemony.
- philwelch 3y ago
  Russia invaded Ukraine because the US wasn’t being hegemonic enough. The first invasion in 2014 happened under a dovish, non-interventionist president elected due to public dissatisfaction with his interventionist predecessor. That administration refused to send aid to Ukraine at all, a policy that has been gradually reversed by the two successive administrations, then reversed more dramatically after the second invasion in 2022. Had the US taken the crisis more seriously, it could have likely deterred the 2022 invasion entirely. If you want an example of the world with American hegemony, consider that the longest sustained period of peace in Western European history began when Western Europe was first occupied by American troops in 1945.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    Surely you must realize the fallacy of your argument. I can apply this logic to literally everything. - X means we don’t have Y. - But a Y just happened. - It’s because we didn’t have enough X. But also you are wrong on you historic counts here. Western Europe hasn’t been entirely peaceful since 1945. First of all, Europe had colonies and colonial warfare well into the 1980s, colonial wars include Angola, Algeria, Kenya, the Falkland Islands and many more. Second many countries were dictatorship in Western Europe, including Spain, Portugal and Italy. There was a war in Cyprus, civil war in Northern Ireland, as well as terrorist insurgencies in Germany and Spain well into the 90s and 2000s. Neither did USA have hegemony in Western Europe during this period. USSRs influence spread across the continent. There were actually two Germanies until the late 1980s, there still are two Cypruses (despite both Turkey and Greece being NATO members), Communist and Socialist parties remained popular and quite often as part of coalition governments e.g. in Scandinavia, France, Belgium, etc.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
The invasion of Ukraine was about the breakdown of multipolarity and loss of Russian strength, not the growth of Russian strength. This is obvious if you answer the following questions: 1) Was Russian influence and power in Ukraine increasing or decreasing prior to the invasion? 2) Was Russian economic and military power increasing or decreasing in Europe prior to the war? 3) Is Russia stronger or weaker relative to NATO than the USSR was? I dont see how you can claim US and NATO power is in decline and was challenged more by Russia in 2022 than it was in the 20th century. To the contrary, the war in Ukraine is the result of growing hegemony in Europe, as hegemony expands outward and more Nations fall into the orbit of the US. Russia is fighting to preserve it's sphere of influence and prevent further collapse of its influence. I'm not saying that makes Russia a 'good guy", but I don't think there is any other way to interpret the shifting power balance leading up to the war.
- thx-2718 3y ago
  Question is though did Russia have to choose to be anti-west? Putin has been but Russia could have gone a different route rather than keep Putin in power all these years. Russia really doesn't win keeping itself xenophobic of the West. Japanese, Korean, & German culture are all very popular here in American entertainment today. Russia could have continued to preserve, celebrate, and expand her culture around the world through Western entertainment and alliances. Instead out of fear to preserve it Russia has become isolated from people that otherwise would have happily bought her stuff.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    So that is a completely different question than if Russian global power and influence was rising prior to the war, which I was arguing against. It is possible that Russia could have gone a different way. Japan, Korea, and Germany all gave up significant autonomy by falling into the US alliance, but also reaped significant rewards. I think it is debatable if the west would want Russia in alliance. I think the really interesting question is what a country like Russia or China would have to give up to be on good terms with the US. For one, I think they would have to give up any ability to militarily defend themselves against the US. They would also probably have to give up any allies that the US doesn't approve of. Last, they would probably have to share control over any countries are territories currently in their sphere of influence with the West.

cpursley 3y ago

Do you think hegemonic mono-culture mono-ideal is preferable to a multi-polar world of competing ideas and systems? If so, how do you prevent the hegemon from transmutating to the very thing we feared in the first place?

Animatronio 3y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana

moffkalast 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana

morby 3y ago

That doesn’t excuse the crimes committed, nor does it negate the need to control the MIC. The Vietnam and Iraq wars should never have happened, among many other things. We shouldn’t have PMCs running about committing crimes, either. Edit: nor does any of what you’ve said negate the sentiment Eisenhower was advocating, which relates directly back to the Vietnam and Iraq wars. Having power and wielding it responsibly are not the same.

goatlover 3y ago
What makes the justification for the Korean War different from Vietnam?
- oblio 3y ago
  I think the Vietnam War was more obviously neocolonial.
  - refurb 3y ago
    How? Korea was a Japanese colony from 1901-1945. Why would we not argue that the Korean War was an attempt by Koreans aligned with Japan to maintain their colony?
    - foo-bar-bat 3y ago
      Because that would be false on its face. I'm sorry that you have no idea what you're talking about? The Korean war began when the communists invaded from the north, equipped and trained by the Soviets. It continued until the communists by then actually from China not North Korea, stopped trying. At no point during the entire Korean War was there a Japanese colony anywhere on the Korean peninsula. Or, for that matter, anywhere on earth. If you're arguing the South Korean government whose sovereignty the UN went to war to defend, was somehow "aligned" with their former occupier Japan which was itself then occupied by the US after its unconditional surrender to end WW2... sorry, you're just woefully ill informed. There are dozens of good books on this topic.

7sidedmarble 3y ago

well that's convenient

myshpa 3y ago

Killing people with drones based on metadata, in foreign countries, without fair trial, is extremely immoral. With every killed father you'll make several more enemies. "In 2016, America dropped at least 26,171 bombs authorized by President Barack Obama. This means that every day in 2016, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day" https://old.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/x332z8/in_2016_america_dropped_at_least_26171_bombs/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/x332z... Black sites, extraordinary renditions, torturing people in third countries ... that's deterrence? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... (Read it all, I dare you) Imagine foreign power's drones over your own country, over your city. Imagine hearing exploding homes in your town, maybe few homes away. Imagine unmarked millitary men going through your street and home with their rifles scaring your children. Imagine that your children would refuse to play outside when it isn't cloudy, because they're afraid of blue skies. You cannot, can you? Would you feel safe and glad? Imagine foreign powers overturning your democraticaly elected leaders and instead putting in their puppets, all for profit again, of course. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CIA_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CIA_controversies I'll now let Carl Sagan talk on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/embed/BYdxFKTYJIQ https://www.youtube.com/embed/BYdxFKTYJIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWPFmdAWRZ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWPFmdAWRZ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KcoPODwvW4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KcoPODwvW4 And Charlie Chaplin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8HdOHrc3OQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8HdOHrc3OQ With 5+millions of millitary contractors and many more employees, many of them here, maybe this quote will fit. "It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It"

kornhole 3y ago

One thing to consider about your anecdotal encounters with people of those countries is that they were probably in your country. They were probably emigres. If you spoke to people within those countries who are happy with their country, the sentiment would probably be quite different.

golergka 3y ago
Immigration, especially to us, is the best thing a typical person in these countries could do from quality of life perspective, and what most talented usually do. So selection bias here is based mostly on ability and intelligence, not political opinion.

boredpeter 3y ago

What an embarrassingly privileged comment. The US funds terror around the world for their own benefit. Millions die because of the actions of the US or are effectively enslaved for the benefit of US capitalists to sell overpriced products to wealthy consumers such as yourself. The CIA regularly destabilizes 3rd world countries for the benefit of US corporations (see United fruit company and Guatemala). To suggest the world is a “peaceful” place simply because you live in a country that has never seen war in its homeland during your lifetime is ludicrous especially given the wars the US has started and participated in. Frankly this comment reeks of propaganda, I wouldn’t be surprised if you worked for the fed or a company profiting from the military industrial complex.

goatlover 3y ago
Please provide sources for the millions of deaths. Your post sounds like an anti-capitalist screed more than an argument against US military hegemony. Consider that alternative of world war and Russian or Chinese imperialism.
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  It's weird to set Chinese imperialism as the worst alternative, when the US is China's most prominent provider of technology, and first consumer of manufacturing and services. In exchange China is of course also the biggest holder of US dollar.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    > China is of course also the biggest holder of US dollar. Not any more, Japan is. China has been reducing it's dollar holdings at breakneck speed once it saw the US freeze dollars held by Russia. https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/holdings-of-us-treasury-securities/holdings-of-us-treasury-securities https://www.ceicdata.com/en/china/holdings-of-us-treasury-se... https://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt https://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

dirtyid 3y ago

>mostly peaceful world Except it hasn't been. Pinker's "long peace" theory with respect to global conflict is bad statistics - 20th-21st century under US military hegemony had a comparable if not higher number of conflicts, see Max Roser’s work documenting global conflicts over the past 600 years. What has changed is that war now is generally shorter and less deadly especially towards combatants, but that's more reflective of the pace of modern war enabled by modern weapons. High intensity wars don't last for 20+ years anymore because you can pretty much destroy nations in 1-5, and belligerents are quicker to exhaust and forced to settle. In aggregate war fatalities is down, but not # of conflicts. US hegemony didn't stop USSR and RU from warring in their periphery, nor PRC border skirmishes pre 90s when US had vast more naval power asymmetry. When countries want to fight for their interests, especially regional, they still do. His conjectures on QoL indicators around the world are improving, and we can credit some of that to US/western innovation, but it’s also a byproduct of technology disseminating as societies develop. As for the opinion of your colleagues, consider some sort of self-selection bias happening - I've not met many from PRC that don't think China needs better military and regional hegemony to forward her interests the same way US does hers, especially post Belgrade embassy bombing in 99 by US/NATO. And frankly even among PRC diasporas, most people I know except very liberal types are increasingly unabashedly pro PRC military power - they’re just too polite to say so. See how PRC students in the west generally become more pro China the more they’re exposed to western society. Many are smart enough to not voice "objectionable" opinions.I can't speak for RUs. Ultimately, US military dominance is good for US+LIO interests, but hard to extrapolate anything more. IMO multipolarity will increase the chance of "smaller" conflicts as poles assert their own interests for sure, but it's going to be around the baseline of conflicts that's consistently been simmering throughout history. The fear is increasing large-scale conflict between poles/blocks - ending the cyclic gap between major wars among major powers - but that's what happens when declining hegemon pushes their interests to the exclusion of others too intensely for too long.

inconceivable 3y ago

> I've yet to meet a Chinese or Russian colleague who thinks it would be better if China or Russia lmao the ones who live in america? yeah, of course. they don't want to get deported. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee <-- taiwanese lolol

illumin8 3y ago
Wen Ho Lee was a PRC spy and was caught exfiltrating secrets. Hardly a reasonable example of unjust persecution. Are you serious? No US person seriously believes we will deport a Chinese national on a legitimate visa for their political views. Can you point to a single example of this happening?
- runarberg 3y ago
  Isn’t that exactly what happened to Emma Goldman and Charles Chaplin?
  - illumin8 3y ago
    Were they Chinese nationals?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - inconceivable 3y ago
      you know, it's funny, the only person caught up by the china initiative was a white guy too.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      There are famous cases of USA deporting a Polish-Lithuanian Jew and a British Actor because of their political views. Is there a reason to believe they wouldn’t deport a Chinese national for the same reason? Particularly since “having been a member of the Communist party” (a requirement for any Chinese citizen seeking a job in the public sector) is a question they ask before issuing a green card.

somesortofthing 3y ago

A unipolar world order is a local optimum by its very nature. Regardless of who's in charge, conflict arises from parties thinking they have a chance to secure leverage against another power via violence. If there's a sole power with an overwhelming military advantage against their next-largest competitor, people aren't going to go off and die in hopeless wars. Russia and China's actions can't be separated from the fact that their existence in anything like their present form is a challenge to the US and its sphere of influence. Even then, the US government and economy is organized in ways that make it disturb the trivial-to-maintain peace its position as hegemon affords it(see Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and various covert operations that succeeded before escalating to direct intervention) to secure itself minor advantages or even for entirely domestic reasons. If you account at all for the inherent advantages of a unipolar world, the US's record is shockingly poor. I'm fine with rolling the dice on multipolarity in hopes of a less irrational hegemon emerging.

hayst4ck 3y ago
A multi-polarity framed discussion is fundamentally a might makes right framed discussion rather than a justice framed discussion. The problem is that multipolarity is often meant to mean spheres of influence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence). Which is just imperialism by another name. I agree that the power the US can exercise should be checked by other powers (the desired "benefit" of multi polarity), but I also think the idea of promoting "rule of law" needs to be the frame of conversation. "What pole of power do you belong to" is a very different question than "what is justice?" > If you account at all for the inherent advantages of a unipolar world, the US's record is shockingly poor. I think this statement isn't very well thought out or at least not well founded or self evident. It's also important to understand that peace is not the absence of physical violence, but the presence of justice. Justice sometimes cannot be achieved without a fight. > disturb the trivial-to-maintain peace The "peace" between African slaves and American plantation owners was probably fairly easy to maintain. That doesn't make it a good "peace". China is exercising coercive power over Taiwan. Are they at peace?
philwelch 3y ago
> If you account at all for the inherent advantages of a unipolar world, the US's record is shockingly poor. I'm fine with rolling the dice on multipolarity in hopes of a less irrational hegemon emerging. Who? If you look at past hegemons—Rome, the Mongols, Britain—the US has the best record of them all. And, incidentally, if you look at past periods of multipolarity, you get a series of progressively more deadly and destructive wars.

nradov 3y ago

Ironically, China has probably benefited from US hegemony more than any other major country. They are highly dependent on imports of food, fertilizer, energy, and raw materials. The US Navy has kept their sea lines of communication open for free since the end of WW2. Imagine a scenario where the US pulls back and another country like, let's say, India decided to close down China's trade routes. China would be in an economic crisis within months. China is now working to build up a blue water navy and they have other ways to retaliate against threats, but still they are in a very precarious strategic position.

BSEdlMMldESB 3y ago

[flagged]

Aeolun 3y ago

Not that I’d ever like to see it, but I’m really curious what would happen in a conflict with China. I’m half inclined to believe the US populace would revolt before any meaningful military confrontation because all their stuff is made in China. No more toilet paper, no more TV, no more phone. No more… everything! Kind of wonder how much military components are sourced/built in China.

mattmaroon 3y ago
These are two nations with H bombs and ICBMs. Lack of new iPhones would never even cross our minds. By the time the populace had formed an opinion it would likely be too late.
- Aeolun 3y ago
  Any war would be conventional for that exact reason.
  - mattmaroon 3y ago
    That’s the exact opposite of what every military in the world has thought for the last 70 years. If you were China, you would not wait for the American military to dominate yours. If you were the US, you would know this, and not wait for them to launch their nukes at your silos.

illumin8 3y ago

Thank you for bringing a voice of reason to this discussion. Far too many pilloried the US over the decades for unjust wars. Perhaps there are some, like Vietnam, Iraq, etc, but a far worse outcome would be to have the global security situation be controlled by China and Russia. We know what happens when non-democratically elected leaders rise to global power and decide to exert their will, and it is not pretty (world wars, basically). The US military industrial complex is incredibly complex and somewhat corrupt - it is a revolving door between industry and government, but the alternative is far worse and leads to genocide on a scale unimaginable since WW2.

peterashford 3y ago
I don't think the only alternative is "replace the US with a different (evil) power". An alternative is that the UN plays more of a policing role and we move away from power and justice being applied unilaterally and capriciously. In no way am I suggesting that this is an easy thing to do, or even neccessarily to be desired, but the idea that the world being run by China-Russia is the only alternative to US hegemony is a false dichotomy.

peterashford 3y ago

Is your sample of Chinese and Russians limited to those who have had reason to leave their homes and move to the US? Because if it is, I suspect there's an element of selection bias there.

rektide 3y ago

For sake of argument let's say the US military is a fine institution & let's say corporations making a profit supporting it is fine. But my god, the inefficiency & fleecing being done by corporations is ghastly. It's an absurd detriment that the system is robustly categorically fucked, incapable of getting effective help to aid/drive/support the cause. The US taxpayer pays out the nose, when we could be bettering ourselves greatly, because of this systematic incompetence that we suffer. I don't see your comment as replying to anything whatsoever topical here. You've paved over concerns with jingoism. We can debate that jingoism, but - at a minimum - I don't feel like America should suffer itself to keep getting fleeced by an ineffective & ghastly expensive defense industry. We could do this without it being such a racket.

kamaal 3y ago

As an Indian, I can tell you this is how everyone thinks about their country. Everybody thinks they stand for for good, others stand for evil. And by that definition their order must be spread in the world. And for that they are ok with them having overwhelming military power, and they are vehemently against others having it. Its just how it is.