6 ms·

South Korea is a bad example because there's an enormous amount of physical and human capital on that peninsula that is actually critical to our interests. The

South Korea is a bad example because there's an enormous amount of physical and human capital on that peninsula that is actually critical to our interests. The Korean War also had nothing to do with NATO. >With only a few dozen billion/year being spent on this, I don't see any reason why USA should think of stopping. In a nutshell, that's my problem here. There really is no end game. We could evaporate 25% of Ukrainian and Russian fighting age men in this conflict, and you could still make the argument that "we just gotta test that new weapons system" or "to Sevastopol, or Moldova will be next, I promise". We just got out of a pointless 20 year conflict, and now the best steelman we can come up with is "this time a forever war is good actually".

lisasays 3y ago
There really is no end game. And elsewhere: What is the stop? No one can really say. This seems like a strange thing to say, given this war has a very clear and obvious metric (apart from people or materiel). Which has been, since after the 3rd week or so, moving monotonically in Ukraine's favor; sometimes slowly like now, at other times very quickly; but never oscillating or swinging back in Russia's favor. There's also the matter of Putin's own impending demise or convalescence, not too far off -- and the inevitable consequences this will bring. So not only does the war have a clear "stop" -- it has a built-in expiration date. There are still unknowns, and things could go either way. But it's not like there's no very clearly defined "goal", especially for Ukraine. Or no way to measure velocity towards that goal.
- remarkEon 3y ago
  What is this metric? The line on the map, I assume? What is this "built-in expiration date"? I don't doubt that you seriously believe these numbers exist, but I think you're imagining that they're tied to a specific event you want to see (Putin dropping dead of a heart attack or something). People have been predicting both the Russian and Ukrainian military "collapse" to be "any day now" for almost a year. Indeed, they also predicted that the Russian government itself would collapse not 3 weeks ago. As an aside, one thing I learned from the Afghanistan war is that when your leaders - political and military - are not giving you clear, concise, specific, and measurable objectives in a conflict (e.g. amorphous bullshit like "increase host nation capacity") it's a recipe for nothing getting done for a long time. I see a similar phenomenon here, but the stakes are dramatically higher.
  - lisasays 3y ago
    Yup, something to do with that line on the map. The one that never applied to Afghanistan. I definitely concur about non-measurable metrics. But the metrics in Ukraine are very specific and absolutely measurable. Essentially the exact opposite of the situation in that conflict, in this regard. Putin's croaking soon isn't a requirement for this thing to stop. The main point is that not something that's going to happen in the far off future. Which means that most likely this conflict has similar bounds time-wise as well. If by "people" you mean random Youtubers -- yeah, "people" have been predicting all kinds of stuff. But very few of the analysts with actual expertise in these things have been making catastrophic predictions of the sort you're talking about (not even about the mutiny, or whatever it was 3 weeks ago). They've been quite level-headed and consistent in what they've been saying, actually. With that - I think we can find our own "stop", also. We don't have to agree about where this thing is ultimately heading. For my own part, I'll leave deliberations on that topic -- to those who are actually fighting it or living through it.
    - remarkEon 3y ago
      You went from declaring that you knew a specific date and quantifiable metric back to a fuzzy interpretation of numerous, dynamic factors for reaching a conclusion about when the war would end. With respect, you don't know. That's the problem here, you are arguing deliberately for a forever war and writing it off as "no trust me this time it's actually a good idea". You aren't even developing that justification from first principles ("democracy good, Russians bad" would at least be consistent if not repetitive and circular) I think that's at a minimum unusual, and at maximum downright crazy because deliberately seeking to maximize a war a) obviously maximizes the human cost and b) in this case edges very close to an actual World War.
      - lisasays 3y ago
        I absolutely did not say I knew a specific date. Only that the goal itself is easily quantifiable. And no, just because one doesn't know the end date (or even a range) doesn't put a conflict in the "forever" category. Do you think the Western powers knew how long it would get that job finished, back around '41-'42? So, no, I don't need to take the "forever war" bait. This is getting boring. You can keep on playing that game if you like. Just not with me.

lisasays 3y ago

There really is no end game. And elsewhere: What is the stop? No one can really say. This seems like a strange thing to say, given this war has a very clear and obvious metric (apart from people or materiel). Which has been, since after the 3rd week or so, moving monotonically in Ukraine's favor; sometimes slowly like now, at other times very quickly; but never oscillating or swinging back in Russia's favor. There's also the matter of Putin's own impending demise or convalescence, not too far off -- and the inevitable consequences this will bring. So not only does the war have a clear "stop" -- it has a built-in expiration date. There are still unknowns, and things could go either way. But it's not like there's no very clearly defined "goal", especially for Ukraine. Or no way to measure velocity towards that goal.

remarkEon 3y ago
What is this metric? The line on the map, I assume? What is this "built-in expiration date"? I don't doubt that you seriously believe these numbers exist, but I think you're imagining that they're tied to a specific event you want to see (Putin dropping dead of a heart attack or something). People have been predicting both the Russian and Ukrainian military "collapse" to be "any day now" for almost a year. Indeed, they also predicted that the Russian government itself would collapse not 3 weeks ago. As an aside, one thing I learned from the Afghanistan war is that when your leaders - political and military - are not giving you clear, concise, specific, and measurable objectives in a conflict (e.g. amorphous bullshit like "increase host nation capacity") it's a recipe for nothing getting done for a long time. I see a similar phenomenon here, but the stakes are dramatically higher.
- lisasays 3y ago
  Yup, something to do with that line on the map. The one that never applied to Afghanistan. I definitely concur about non-measurable metrics. But the metrics in Ukraine are very specific and absolutely measurable. Essentially the exact opposite of the situation in that conflict, in this regard. Putin's croaking soon isn't a requirement for this thing to stop. The main point is that not something that's going to happen in the far off future. Which means that most likely this conflict has similar bounds time-wise as well. If by "people" you mean random Youtubers -- yeah, "people" have been predicting all kinds of stuff. But very few of the analysts with actual expertise in these things have been making catastrophic predictions of the sort you're talking about (not even about the mutiny, or whatever it was 3 weeks ago). They've been quite level-headed and consistent in what they've been saying, actually. With that - I think we can find our own "stop", also. We don't have to agree about where this thing is ultimately heading. For my own part, I'll leave deliberations on that topic -- to those who are actually fighting it or living through it.
  - remarkEon 3y ago
    You went from declaring that you knew a specific date and quantifiable metric back to a fuzzy interpretation of numerous, dynamic factors for reaching a conclusion about when the war would end. With respect, you don't know. That's the problem here, you are arguing deliberately for a forever war and writing it off as "no trust me this time it's actually a good idea". You aren't even developing that justification from first principles ("democracy good, Russians bad" would at least be consistent if not repetitive and circular) I think that's at a minimum unusual, and at maximum downright crazy because deliberately seeking to maximize a war a) obviously maximizes the human cost and b) in this case edges very close to an actual World War.
    - lisasays 3y ago
      I absolutely did not say I knew a specific date. Only that the goal itself is easily quantifiable. And no, just because one doesn't know the end date (or even a range) doesn't put a conflict in the "forever" category. Do you think the Western powers knew how long it would get that job finished, back around '41-'42? So, no, I don't need to take the "forever war" bait. This is getting boring. You can keep on playing that game if you like. Just not with me.