5 ms·

the West can no longer make war

3 points by Ambolia 3y ago

h2odragon 3y ago
Could have been written about Korea, Vietnam... probably was.
Ambolia 3y ago
Archive without paywall: https://archive.is/0LyCG https://archive.is/0LyCG
throwawaysleep 3y ago
> Russia was derided as an economy the size of Belgium and the Netherlands at the onset of the war, and experts around the West were certain that such a relatively small economy could not endure a drawn-out conflict. The Russians would run out of missiles, and then they would run out of shells, and then eventually they’d run out of bullets and hand grenades and shovels as well. They nearly had a full fledged armed revolt and clearly lack the soldiers and materiel to hold the land they currently took, yet alone take more. They have underperformed time and time again when it comes to other military objectives, again for lack of materiel. So Russians are not yet all corpses if that is what is meant by "endure" a drawn out war. But a supposed major power struggling to invade a neighbor is not exactly success. > . The recent news that the US would send cluster bombs to Ukraine – a controversial weapon type that has been banned by most Nato countries – was telling. Not so much in moral terms, but for what it told us about the United States: the world’s largest economy was nearly out of conventional ammunition to send to Europe. I suppose one only buys a screwdriver due a shortage of drills? The West has achieved far more than initially hoped for in Ukraine. Supporting a Taliban style insurgency against Russian occupation was the expected result when this started.
senttoschool 3y ago
FFS, I hope the third world war is not coming. Also, the US must know that it cannot win in any conflict with China regarding Taiwan right? Taiwan is idealogical to China. Taiwan is merely a pawn in the game for the US. The US will bow out of a war for Taiwan within years but China will never give up - even if the war lasts 100 years. Lee Kuan Yew (first Singapore PM) said it best: https://youtu.be/q_gr3dtBaic?t=682 https://youtu.be/q_gr3dtBaic?t=682 Therefore, it's in everyone's best interest to maintain status quo and not to disturb the delicate balance of China/Taiwan/US. The Obama administration got it right. The Trump and Biden administrations have not. Nancy Pelosi flying to Taiwan looks great for her career, but terrible for everyone else.
- mbg721 3y ago
  What exactly did Nancy Pelosi gain? It's not like she wasn't going to be re-elected. I perceived that more as a favor to her party than as a career-booster.
- kmos17 3y ago
  Another way to look at Pelosi’s visit is that had the US not shown such a strong stance of support China would have already attempted an invasion, and it certainly looks like had Russia succeeded in their initial invasion plans China would have followed suite. Deterrence is a major diplomatic card to use to avoid open conflict and maintain the status quo.
  - senttoschool 3y ago
    There was no indication that China would go to war now. But the Pelosi visit made war more likely in the next few years. And as mentioned, war would benefit no one except defense stocks. Certainly not American tax payers like myself. So if America isn’t going to win the war, everyone will pay a heavy price, then why disturb the balance? This is a rhetorical question.
    - throwawaysleep 3y ago
      War must benefit the Chinese in some way if they are considering it.
      - dirtyid 3y ago
        This is what people are missing, defeating US / degrading US prescence in East Asia / PRC backyard that put and sustains PRC-TW civil war in stasis is the ultimate PRC strategic vision. I think fundementally PRC (and US) planners understand that historically outside hegemons are not displaced via politics but kinetic war. US isn't going to relinquish East Asian security architecture without a fight - bulk of PLA modernization is directed towards that fight.
      - simonblack 3y ago

3 points by Ambolia 3y ago

h2odragon 3y ago

Could have been written about Korea, Vietnam... probably was.

Ambolia 3y ago

Archive without paywall: https://archive.is/0LyCG https://archive.is/0LyCG

throwawaysleep 3y ago

> Russia was derided as an economy the size of Belgium and the Netherlands at the onset of the war, and experts around the West were certain that such a relatively small economy could not endure a drawn-out conflict. The Russians would run out of missiles, and then they would run out of shells, and then eventually they’d run out of bullets and hand grenades and shovels as well. They nearly had a full fledged armed revolt and clearly lack the soldiers and materiel to hold the land they currently took, yet alone take more. They have underperformed time and time again when it comes to other military objectives, again for lack of materiel. So Russians are not yet all corpses if that is what is meant by "endure" a drawn out war. But a supposed major power struggling to invade a neighbor is not exactly success. > . The recent news that the US would send cluster bombs to Ukraine – a controversial weapon type that has been banned by most Nato countries – was telling. Not so much in moral terms, but for what it told us about the United States: the world’s largest economy was nearly out of conventional ammunition to send to Europe. I suppose one only buys a screwdriver due a shortage of drills? The West has achieved far more than initially hoped for in Ukraine. Supporting a Taliban style insurgency against Russian occupation was the expected result when this started.

senttoschool 3y ago

FFS, I hope the third world war is not coming. Also, the US must know that it cannot win in any conflict with China regarding Taiwan right? Taiwan is idealogical to China. Taiwan is merely a pawn in the game for the US. The US will bow out of a war for Taiwan within years but China will never give up - even if the war lasts 100 years. Lee Kuan Yew (first Singapore PM) said it best: https://youtu.be/q_gr3dtBaic?t=682 https://youtu.be/q_gr3dtBaic?t=682 Therefore, it's in everyone's best interest to maintain status quo and not to disturb the delicate balance of China/Taiwan/US. The Obama administration got it right. The Trump and Biden administrations have not. Nancy Pelosi flying to Taiwan looks great for her career, but terrible for everyone else.

mbg721 3y ago
What exactly did Nancy Pelosi gain? It's not like she wasn't going to be re-elected. I perceived that more as a favor to her party than as a career-booster.
kmos17 3y ago
Another way to look at Pelosi’s visit is that had the US not shown such a strong stance of support China would have already attempted an invasion, and it certainly looks like had Russia succeeded in their initial invasion plans China would have followed suite. Deterrence is a major diplomatic card to use to avoid open conflict and maintain the status quo.
- senttoschool 3y ago
  There was no indication that China would go to war now. But the Pelosi visit made war more likely in the next few years. And as mentioned, war would benefit no one except defense stocks. Certainly not American tax payers like myself. So if America isn’t going to win the war, everyone will pay a heavy price, then why disturb the balance? This is a rhetorical question.
  - throwawaysleep 3y ago
    War must benefit the Chinese in some way if they are considering it.
    - dirtyid 3y ago
      This is what people are missing, defeating US / degrading US prescence in East Asia / PRC backyard that put and sustains PRC-TW civil war in stasis is the ultimate PRC strategic vision. I think fundementally PRC (and US) planners understand that historically outside hegemons are not displaced via politics but kinetic war. US isn't going to relinquish East Asian security architecture without a fight - bulk of PLA modernization is directed towards that fight.
    - simonblack 3y ago