5 ms·

> people want a simple model of reality > War is Bad. Come on!

roenxi 3y ago
I dunno. I'm arguing that the media is only going to settle on a simple model of reality and I'm proposing the closest-to-reality model as the one that they'd settle on if not for financially/politically motivated reasoning. The US has pretty much bankrupted itself and achieved not much useful for themselves with their global military expeditions. I think almost everything they've done in the last 50 years has been an embarrassment for them. I dunno, any successes? The worm is even starting to turn on Ukraine as people note the consequence, expense and general lack of good outcomes as the China-Russia-Iran axis gets welded together. They could have shortened the leash of the coup-organisers back in the early 2010s, left Ukraine as a buffer state and avoided the whole situation with better results for ... maybe literally everyone. I mean, it is starting to look like the 2024 Russia-Ukraine border will be the one that could have been settled on pretty early in the conflict with a bit of diplomacy; then everyone digs in and settles for the long stalemate. It beggars belief that a neutrally motivated reporter would still be gung-ho about sending in the troops before thinking. I suppose reporters are a bit slow, but the track record is appalling and the alternatives - some more cooperative diplomacy - so obvious even Trump was talking about it. It was a mistake to demonise that part of his platform. Unless the goal was more war, in which case well done another mission accomplished.
- astrange 3y ago
  The US is very much not bankrupted. I'll forgive conspiratorial thinking but don't be bad at economics too!
  - roenxi 3y ago
    They're at debt levels consistent with fighting in WWII [0]. And interest payments on the debt have overtaken military spending. It is going to get paid back banana-republic style. You can quibble the word choice if you like, but the military policy was a big contributing factor to this outcome. Assuming that the Russia-Ukraine conflict settles down, Iran doesn't act up and the South China Sea stays peaceful. Fingers crossed the US is about to enter a period of peace-by-lacking-affluence rather than something ugly happening. Bonus graph: You can see China unloading their holdings [1] as fast as a trillion dollars can be moved. It makes entertaining viewing. Good luck to Japan who look to be the bag holders on this one. It'll be intriguing to find out who is on the other side of the tax havens too. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_St... [1] https://ticdata.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/slt_table5.html https://ticdata.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-cent... EDIT Occasionally people bring up Japanese debt at this point in the conversation. For reference on that topic, note that on balance they are net creditors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_position https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_p...
    - wewxjfq 3y ago
      It's funny that in a thread with so many unhinged comments (psyop or psychosis), someone notices that China is the lone country dumping its dollars and comes to the tamest, most naive conclusion, that they employ better economists than the rest of the world.
      - roenxi 3y ago
        That wasn't my conclusion. Although I would respect someone arguing that Li Keqiang (RIP) was a great economist.
    - astrange 3y ago
      > They're at debt levels consistent with fighting in WWII [0]. And what happened to the US after WWII? Without looking it up I seem to remember it becoming the only superpower. > It is going to get paid back banana-republic style. Our debt is denominated in our currency and people accept that because they like our currency. We have indicators of whether or not people trust us there and they look OK, unless you thought we were about to collapse in 1990. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/REAINTRATREARAT10Y https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/REAINTRATREARAT10Y > Fingers crossed the US is about to enter a period of peace-by-lacking-affluence rather than something ugly happening. Who's lacking affluence? The 2023 US economy is the best US economy of my or most people's lives. And since the economy isn't a morality play, good performance doesn't automatically mean it's about to fail. I would rather use Argentina as an example. They've done as bad a job as you can possibly do managing their economy, defaulted several times, and even that result is not that bad. Everyone still lends to them even. When you're a country, you don't have to be on your best behavior, because there's no other planet for the lenders to move to.
- me_me_me 3y ago
  Everything aside (i mostly agree), your take on Ukraine is rather naive. It is clear that Putin wanted to occupy Ukraine - the whole lot of it - in some way and anex parts of it. Destroyed convoys with riot gear were biggest tell. The anexation was done according to plan even on lands not controled by ru. There was no room for negotiations there. There is not much room in negotiations with russian anyway. They will take your wallet and then negotiate how much they should give back if you apologize for calling them thieves. Nobody who was serious about geopolitics entertained idea of Ukraine joining nato or eu. Finland didn't join nato as to not provoke russian (but russian had forced their hand and they joined now for obvious reasons). > It beggars belief that a neutrally motivated reporter would still be gung-ho about sending in the troops before thinking. The media is to be used as source of facts, their opinions are not source of anything good. For most parts its either simplistic take or outright propaganda.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    I think everyone agrees that once the Russian army started moving it was to late to stop them invading Ukraine. The issue I have is that "Putin wanted to occupy Ukraine" is too simplistic. We should be asking why he felt forced to occupy Ukraine. Russia can't realistically afford to do what they're doing, it is ruinous for them too and they all know it. The US strategy is to bleed them white while expending Slavic blood on both sides. Which to be honest is a pretty good and cost-effective strategy locally speaking, I'd actually say it was a good idea except Russia has nukes, oil and strategically the US really need to be working on isolating China which this failed spectacularly at. Russia underestimated how active the US was in Ukraine. They weren't expecting the level of resistance they encountered and it is pretty obvious that Ukraine would have folded immediately if the US wasn't backing them. Given that the Russians are probably moving from fear of NATO and it turns out NATO was conspiring against them in Ukraine, I have difficulty accepting that "Putin wanted this". It looks a lot more like "Putin thought he could find a diplomatic solution and realised the only option left was to invade, but it was too late and didn't send enough forces". If their rationale was the obvious one (fear of NATO moving in Ukraine) then the invasion revealed that not only are those fears justified, but they were in fact underestimating the threat.
- Paradigma11 3y ago
  Every conflict that lasts for decades tends to generate its own structures and strategies. And the conflict between Russia and the West has been going on for a long, long time. One strategy of Russia is to say all the things. The West is not a homogenous political entity and in more radicalized nations like the US the opposition will almost always be against the opinion of the governing party. Then there are the isolationists that think sticking your head in the ground will make it all go away. So Russia will always flood the ether with all the things and many western parties will pick those up that fit them and ignore the rest. But lets take a look at the acts Russia did, not the words. It never ceased its occupation of part of Moldovia. It reconquered its Chechen colony. In 2008 it occupied part of Georgia, now it plans to build a military port and there are talks about a "referendum". In 2014 it annexed part of Ukraine and started a proxy war in the east. In 2022 it came back for the rest. And yes, Putin wont attack NATO members right now. Next stop would most likely be Moldovia. But you can be sure that Putin will use his minions like Orban to break up the EU and NATO and wait for an opportune moment to grab another part of the lost Russian empire.
  - happytiger 3y ago
    Here’s a read on Russian doctrine: https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/strategy-policy-the-russian-way-of-war/ https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/strategy-policy-th... Excerpt that’s relevant: Russia’s scheme for war occurs in six stages, beginning before the war actually begins. At the low end—in peacetime and under military threat—Russia will conduct nonkinetic warfare (cyber and psychological operations) against enemies while publicly demonstrating new nuclear weapons, raising overall readiness and alert levels, and deploying weapons for potential use. In a “local war,” Russian strategy calls for “grouped use” of precision strike conventional weapons to inflict damage on enemy territory, strikes on conventional military targets, and threatening to use nuclear weapons. Under “regional war”—war with NATO or China—Russia would employ “massed use” of precision weapons on enemy forces, adding “single or grouped use” of tactical nuclear weapons, possibly to demonstrate that Russia is willing to use them. In “large-scale war,” Russia would make “large-scale use” of nonstrategic nuclear weapons, and conduct both strategic and nonstrategic nuclear strikes on enemy economic targets. Finally, under “nuclear war,” Russia would unleash “mass use” of its nuclear triad against military and nonmilitary targets. The precursor stage to war—setting a favorable atmosphere for Russia to prevail—employs “nonmilitary means,” which broadly include “political, information (both psychological and technical), diplomatic, economic, legal, spiritual/moral, and humanitarian measures,” according to a 2011 Russian defense paper. Overt tactics in this stage include “implementing economic sanctions, imposing economic blockades, forming coalitions and unions, breaking off diplomatic relations, and conducting information warfare,” it said. Prevailing political conditions will determine when and to what extent these means are used, and they must be constantly adapted to the fluid situation, the authors note. Nonmilitary means of war are a “force multiplier,” Russian doctrine holds, which “serve to weaken and reduce an opponent’s forces and capabilities, and even completely eliminating a military threat.” Coordination between military and nonmilitary means are a must. In fact, a 2013 defense article by Russian Army Gen. Valery Gerasimov, head of the military forces, contends that “in a number of cases,” nonmilitary means of coercion “significantly surpassed the power of weapons in their effectiveness.” Gerasimov said the ratio of nonmilitary to military methods of warfare is 4-to-1. It’s important to separate the way that Russia fights from their strategic objectives, especially in light of maskirovka. With Russia, it’s often many levels of intent with hidden objectives.
darkclouds 3y ago
[dead]

I dunno. I'm arguing that the media is only going to settle on a simple model of reality and I'm proposing the closest-to-reality model as the one that they'd settle on if not for financially/politically motivated reasoning. The US has pretty much bankrupted itself and achieved not much useful for themselves with their global military expeditions. I think almost everything they've done in the last 50 years has been an embarrassment for them. I dunno, any successes? The worm is even starting to turn on Ukraine as people note the consequence, expense and general lack of good outcomes as the China-Russia-Iran axis gets welded together. They could have shortened the leash of the coup-organisers back in the early 2010s, left Ukraine as a buffer state and avoided the whole situation with better results for ... maybe literally everyone. I mean, it is starting to look like the 2024 Russia-Ukraine border will be the one that could have been settled on pretty early in the conflict with a bit of diplomacy; then everyone digs in and settles for the long stalemate. It beggars belief that a neutrally motivated reporter would still be gung-ho about sending in the troops before thinking. I suppose reporters are a bit slow, but the track record is appalling and the alternatives - some more cooperative diplomacy - so obvious even Trump was talking about it. It was a mistake to demonise that part of his platform. Unless the goal was more war, in which case well done another mission accomplished.

astrange 3y ago
The US is very much not bankrupted. I'll forgive conspiratorial thinking but don't be bad at economics too!
- roenxi 3y ago
  They're at debt levels consistent with fighting in WWII [0]. And interest payments on the debt have overtaken military spending. It is going to get paid back banana-republic style. You can quibble the word choice if you like, but the military policy was a big contributing factor to this outcome. Assuming that the Russia-Ukraine conflict settles down, Iran doesn't act up and the South China Sea stays peaceful. Fingers crossed the US is about to enter a period of peace-by-lacking-affluence rather than something ugly happening. Bonus graph: You can see China unloading their holdings [1] as fast as a trillion dollars can be moved. It makes entertaining viewing. Good luck to Japan who look to be the bag holders on this one. It'll be intriguing to find out who is on the other side of the tax havens too. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_St... [1] https://ticdata.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/slt_table5.html https://ticdata.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-cent... EDIT Occasionally people bring up Japanese debt at this point in the conversation. For reference on that topic, note that on balance they are net creditors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_position https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_international_investment_p...
  - wewxjfq 3y ago
    It's funny that in a thread with so many unhinged comments (psyop or psychosis), someone notices that China is the lone country dumping its dollars and comes to the tamest, most naive conclusion, that they employ better economists than the rest of the world.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      That wasn't my conclusion. Although I would respect someone arguing that Li Keqiang (RIP) was a great economist.
  - astrange 3y ago
    > They're at debt levels consistent with fighting in WWII [0]. And what happened to the US after WWII? Without looking it up I seem to remember it becoming the only superpower. > It is going to get paid back banana-republic style. Our debt is denominated in our currency and people accept that because they like our currency. We have indicators of whether or not people trust us there and they look OK, unless you thought we were about to collapse in 1990. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/REAINTRATREARAT10Y https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/REAINTRATREARAT10Y > Fingers crossed the US is about to enter a period of peace-by-lacking-affluence rather than something ugly happening. Who's lacking affluence? The 2023 US economy is the best US economy of my or most people's lives. And since the economy isn't a morality play, good performance doesn't automatically mean it's about to fail. I would rather use Argentina as an example. They've done as bad a job as you can possibly do managing their economy, defaulted several times, and even that result is not that bad. Everyone still lends to them even. When you're a country, you don't have to be on your best behavior, because there's no other planet for the lenders to move to.
me_me_me 3y ago
Everything aside (i mostly agree), your take on Ukraine is rather naive. It is clear that Putin wanted to occupy Ukraine - the whole lot of it - in some way and anex parts of it. Destroyed convoys with riot gear were biggest tell. The anexation was done according to plan even on lands not controled by ru. There was no room for negotiations there. There is not much room in negotiations with russian anyway. They will take your wallet and then negotiate how much they should give back if you apologize for calling them thieves. Nobody who was serious about geopolitics entertained idea of Ukraine joining nato or eu. Finland didn't join nato as to not provoke russian (but russian had forced their hand and they joined now for obvious reasons). > It beggars belief that a neutrally motivated reporter would still be gung-ho about sending in the troops before thinking. The media is to be used as source of facts, their opinions are not source of anything good. For most parts its either simplistic take or outright propaganda.
- roenxi 3y ago
  I think everyone agrees that once the Russian army started moving it was to late to stop them invading Ukraine. The issue I have is that "Putin wanted to occupy Ukraine" is too simplistic. We should be asking why he felt forced to occupy Ukraine. Russia can't realistically afford to do what they're doing, it is ruinous for them too and they all know it. The US strategy is to bleed them white while expending Slavic blood on both sides. Which to be honest is a pretty good and cost-effective strategy locally speaking, I'd actually say it was a good idea except Russia has nukes, oil and strategically the US really need to be working on isolating China which this failed spectacularly at. Russia underestimated how active the US was in Ukraine. They weren't expecting the level of resistance they encountered and it is pretty obvious that Ukraine would have folded immediately if the US wasn't backing them. Given that the Russians are probably moving from fear of NATO and it turns out NATO was conspiring against them in Ukraine, I have difficulty accepting that "Putin wanted this". It looks a lot more like "Putin thought he could find a diplomatic solution and realised the only option left was to invade, but it was too late and didn't send enough forces". If their rationale was the obvious one (fear of NATO moving in Ukraine) then the invasion revealed that not only are those fears justified, but they were in fact underestimating the threat.
Paradigma11 3y ago
Every conflict that lasts for decades tends to generate its own structures and strategies. And the conflict between Russia and the West has been going on for a long, long time. One strategy of Russia is to say all the things. The West is not a homogenous political entity and in more radicalized nations like the US the opposition will almost always be against the opinion of the governing party. Then there are the isolationists that think sticking your head in the ground will make it all go away. So Russia will always flood the ether with all the things and many western parties will pick those up that fit them and ignore the rest. But lets take a look at the acts Russia did, not the words. It never ceased its occupation of part of Moldovia. It reconquered its Chechen colony. In 2008 it occupied part of Georgia, now it plans to build a military port and there are talks about a "referendum". In 2014 it annexed part of Ukraine and started a proxy war in the east. In 2022 it came back for the rest. And yes, Putin wont attack NATO members right now. Next stop would most likely be Moldovia. But you can be sure that Putin will use his minions like Orban to break up the EU and NATO and wait for an opportune moment to grab another part of the lost Russian empire.
- happytiger 3y ago
  Here’s a read on Russian doctrine: https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/strategy-policy-the-russian-way-of-war/ https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/strategy-policy-th... Excerpt that’s relevant: Russia’s scheme for war occurs in six stages, beginning before the war actually begins. At the low end—in peacetime and under military threat—Russia will conduct nonkinetic warfare (cyber and psychological operations) against enemies while publicly demonstrating new nuclear weapons, raising overall readiness and alert levels, and deploying weapons for potential use. In a “local war,” Russian strategy calls for “grouped use” of precision strike conventional weapons to inflict damage on enemy territory, strikes on conventional military targets, and threatening to use nuclear weapons. Under “regional war”—war with NATO or China—Russia would employ “massed use” of precision weapons on enemy forces, adding “single or grouped use” of tactical nuclear weapons, possibly to demonstrate that Russia is willing to use them. In “large-scale war,” Russia would make “large-scale use” of nonstrategic nuclear weapons, and conduct both strategic and nonstrategic nuclear strikes on enemy economic targets. Finally, under “nuclear war,” Russia would unleash “mass use” of its nuclear triad against military and nonmilitary targets. The precursor stage to war—setting a favorable atmosphere for Russia to prevail—employs “nonmilitary means,” which broadly include “political, information (both psychological and technical), diplomatic, economic, legal, spiritual/moral, and humanitarian measures,” according to a 2011 Russian defense paper. Overt tactics in this stage include “implementing economic sanctions, imposing economic blockades, forming coalitions and unions, breaking off diplomatic relations, and conducting information warfare,” it said. Prevailing political conditions will determine when and to what extent these means are used, and they must be constantly adapted to the fluid situation, the authors note. Nonmilitary means of war are a “force multiplier,” Russian doctrine holds, which “serve to weaken and reduce an opponent’s forces and capabilities, and even completely eliminating a military threat.” Coordination between military and nonmilitary means are a must. In fact, a 2013 defense article by Russian Army Gen. Valery Gerasimov, head of the military forces, contends that “in a number of cases,” nonmilitary means of coercion “significantly surpassed the power of weapons in their effectiveness.” Gerasimov said the ratio of nonmilitary to military methods of warfare is 4-to-1. It’s important to separate the way that Russia fights from their strategic objectives, especially in light of maskirovka. With Russia, it’s often many levels of intent with hidden objectives.

darkclouds 3y ago

[dead]