5 ms·

> Even if Ukraine prevails (far from certain), the country may never be the same. You can also say: Yes it has never before been as pro-West as it is today. I

> Even if Ukraine prevails (far from certain), the country may never be the same. You can also say: Yes it has never before been as pro-West as it is today. I agree completely with you that China has enough weight to do plenty of damage in the short term. In the long term, I paraphrase something Stephen Kotkin said: The West has gained more and more friends over time. After the second world war, Japan, Germany, South Korea and Taiwan have become friends. Maybe the relationships are not perfect, but they are pretty good if you ask me. Some healthy back and forth and discussing without major drama. Finland has joined NATO and Sweden will soon also. Maybe one day even Ukraine. And maybe India one day?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
graemep 3y ago
> Yes it has never before been as pro-West as it is today. On the other hand Russia has never been more in China's camp than it is now, and I think that loss is far greater than the possible gain of Ukraine and the NATO expansion. > After the second world war, Japan, Germany, South Korea and Taiwan have become friends. Yes, over that period, but that is no longer happening. Power is shifting to other countries - China, India, etc. and they are not "friends". Quotes because I think the idea of friendship in international relations is mistaken. > and maybe India one day? India has very different values and interests to the west, and while it is likely to ally with the west against China, I cannot see it in anything else. It is not backing the west over Ukraine, for example.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  > I think that loss is far greater than the possible gain of Ukraine and the NATO expansion. That wasn't a loss. Russia was never in the western camp. The "loss" is the loss of the hope that they would become so. I'm not sure how realistic that hope ever was.
  - graemep 3y ago
    That is true, but Russia getting closer to (or dependent on) China is a loss anyway.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    The Western camp has never invented any framework that would let Russia be in it. What it could offer was: you sit here and sell us cheap oil and gas, while we court all your neighbours to stop associating with you and associate with us instead. But it did not have any meaningful participation format for Russia, only that it should be increasingly lonely. Not to mention stuff like visa waiver or student exchange programmes. In the end even at the best of relations the integration was actually tiny. When confronted with this, the West will usually deflect and blame it all on Putin, which is also not constructive: This does not offer any plan to a regular Russian, especially seeing how close EU politicians were to Putin at that time and how they did not care if he stays for as many terms as he wanted to.
    - hmmmcurious1 3y ago
      And yet all of Russias neighbours are now courting China, Kazakhstan especially. And also Russia is content with becoming a vassal gas station for China as long as it gets to play as a faux empire and slaughter both its citizens and its brother nation's citizens in an industrial meat grinder. 5D chess as the youngsters say these days
      - thriftwy 3y ago
        China is not so dangerous in this regard because it is not appealing. It has great amount of economic power, but culturally it is very insular, plus the story of Chinese Uighurs, making people (in Central Asia especially) wary of fully embracing the Chinese Way. Not so with Europe, which is culturally dominant, and many countries around Russia would love to fully embrace the EU, if EU is willing to take effort. But this is shitty deal for Russia since it was never invited to any such schemes and will lose cultural and economic influence. It's also not all rosy for target countries' population, but it's acceptable and Europe can make it look great. For Russians it will always look that they cut family bonds for sugar daddy, though. That has sufficient stigma that would explain why Russian population still does not mind the war. Russia has the Snow White's Evil Queen role assigned here, who is uninvited to the party but crashes it. And boy does Russia embraces this role, unfortunately. "5D checkers" is the term.
maxglute 3y ago
If anything UKR (and Gaza) war has shown, global south, the dominant reservoirs for future growth, which PRC is courting (and now constitute plurarity of trade) is decidely not pro west. What west is doing is consolidating the elite clique amoung a powerful but increasingly stagnant friends. Which is fine, but it's also matter of relative size of the group. The Chinese "family" i.e just PRC itself, is pumping out comparable human capita and industrial potential than all of the west, their family and her friends. Don't be surprised a well run family business + some acquaintances eventually outcompete tight friend groups that are still connected based on artificial affiliations. Also most of global android users would be on Chinese phones if US sanctions didn't ban access to Huawei and reduce appetite for PRC firms to continue expansion into western markets. Sanctions / tech control are every bit as top-down economic planning. Once PRC indigenizes their own tech stack, there's a good chance rest of world will drive PRC cars, and fly on PRC planes, and use PRC chips. I think only long durable term competitive advantage of west, and really we're talking about anglo countries like US/CA/AU is being net food/mineral exporters due to resource abundance.
- wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
  These positive relationships are not artficial. Japanese and Taiwanese people really genuinely like the USA in a way that runs deep in the culture. Im from texas, and live in japan. I was surprised to find this out.
  - maxglute 3y ago
    The relationships aren't artificial in feeling but artificial in construction - took generations/decades of postwar political purging in US influenced countries to cultivate local compradors to develop good people to people relations over time. But alliances between countries are still political arrangement are ultimate subject to domestic geopolitical interests and whims. Peoples in democracies still have very little control of their foreign policy. The other consideration we don't speak is you can absolutely massacre a people and still have their kids love you with enough elite capture and control over culture. That's also the story of modern PRC, you can slap the shit out one generation and mold their grandkids into patriotism. Or the story with US/JP, except with atom bombs. Regardless alliances will last, until they're tested. Then they can break or get stronger. I would not be surprised if they break if tested violently enough. That's usually how these things go. Remember Canada was originally a British possession designed to contain America. Then US got kicked out of North America and Canada, a fundmentally anti American project, are very friendly with US, and even the most antiAmerican politician in Canada won't seriously consider moves that would undermine US interests.
nradov 3y ago
There is zero chance of India joining NATO in our lifetimes. They have an entirely different set of priorities. At most we might see some limited defense cooperation agreements between India and other maritime powers to secure their sea lines of communication and contain Chinese expansionism.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

graemep 3y ago

> Yes it has never before been as pro-West as it is today. On the other hand Russia has never been more in China's camp than it is now, and I think that loss is far greater than the possible gain of Ukraine and the NATO expansion. > After the second world war, Japan, Germany, South Korea and Taiwan have become friends. Yes, over that period, but that is no longer happening. Power is shifting to other countries - China, India, etc. and they are not "friends". Quotes because I think the idea of friendship in international relations is mistaken. > and maybe India one day? India has very different values and interests to the west, and while it is likely to ally with the west against China, I cannot see it in anything else. It is not backing the west over Ukraine, for example.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
> I think that loss is far greater than the possible gain of Ukraine and the NATO expansion. That wasn't a loss. Russia was never in the western camp. The "loss" is the loss of the hope that they would become so. I'm not sure how realistic that hope ever was.
- graemep 3y ago
  That is true, but Russia getting closer to (or dependent on) China is a loss anyway.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  The Western camp has never invented any framework that would let Russia be in it. What it could offer was: you sit here and sell us cheap oil and gas, while we court all your neighbours to stop associating with you and associate with us instead. But it did not have any meaningful participation format for Russia, only that it should be increasingly lonely. Not to mention stuff like visa waiver or student exchange programmes. In the end even at the best of relations the integration was actually tiny. When confronted with this, the West will usually deflect and blame it all on Putin, which is also not constructive: This does not offer any plan to a regular Russian, especially seeing how close EU politicians were to Putin at that time and how they did not care if he stays for as many terms as he wanted to.
  - hmmmcurious1 3y ago
    And yet all of Russias neighbours are now courting China, Kazakhstan especially. And also Russia is content with becoming a vassal gas station for China as long as it gets to play as a faux empire and slaughter both its citizens and its brother nation's citizens in an industrial meat grinder. 5D chess as the youngsters say these days
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      China is not so dangerous in this regard because it is not appealing. It has great amount of economic power, but culturally it is very insular, plus the story of Chinese Uighurs, making people (in Central Asia especially) wary of fully embracing the Chinese Way. Not so with Europe, which is culturally dominant, and many countries around Russia would love to fully embrace the EU, if EU is willing to take effort. But this is shitty deal for Russia since it was never invited to any such schemes and will lose cultural and economic influence. It's also not all rosy for target countries' population, but it's acceptable and Europe can make it look great. For Russians it will always look that they cut family bonds for sugar daddy, though. That has sufficient stigma that would explain why Russian population still does not mind the war. Russia has the Snow White's Evil Queen role assigned here, who is uninvited to the party but crashes it. And boy does Russia embraces this role, unfortunately. "5D checkers" is the term.

maxglute 3y ago

If anything UKR (and Gaza) war has shown, global south, the dominant reservoirs for future growth, which PRC is courting (and now constitute plurarity of trade) is decidely not pro west. What west is doing is consolidating the elite clique amoung a powerful but increasingly stagnant friends. Which is fine, but it's also matter of relative size of the group. The Chinese "family" i.e just PRC itself, is pumping out comparable human capita and industrial potential than all of the west, their family and her friends. Don't be surprised a well run family business + some acquaintances eventually outcompete tight friend groups that are still connected based on artificial affiliations. Also most of global android users would be on Chinese phones if US sanctions didn't ban access to Huawei and reduce appetite for PRC firms to continue expansion into western markets. Sanctions / tech control are every bit as top-down economic planning. Once PRC indigenizes their own tech stack, there's a good chance rest of world will drive PRC cars, and fly on PRC planes, and use PRC chips. I think only long durable term competitive advantage of west, and really we're talking about anglo countries like US/CA/AU is being net food/mineral exporters due to resource abundance.

wegfawefgawefg 3y ago
These positive relationships are not artficial. Japanese and Taiwanese people really genuinely like the USA in a way that runs deep in the culture. Im from texas, and live in japan. I was surprised to find this out.
- maxglute 3y ago
  The relationships aren't artificial in feeling but artificial in construction - took generations/decades of postwar political purging in US influenced countries to cultivate local compradors to develop good people to people relations over time. But alliances between countries are still political arrangement are ultimate subject to domestic geopolitical interests and whims. Peoples in democracies still have very little control of their foreign policy. The other consideration we don't speak is you can absolutely massacre a people and still have their kids love you with enough elite capture and control over culture. That's also the story of modern PRC, you can slap the shit out one generation and mold their grandkids into patriotism. Or the story with US/JP, except with atom bombs. Regardless alliances will last, until they're tested. Then they can break or get stronger. I would not be surprised if they break if tested violently enough. That's usually how these things go. Remember Canada was originally a British possession designed to contain America. Then US got kicked out of North America and Canada, a fundmentally anti American project, are very friendly with US, and even the most antiAmerican politician in Canada won't seriously consider moves that would undermine US interests.

nradov 3y ago

There is zero chance of India joining NATO in our lifetimes. They have an entirely different set of priorities. At most we might see some limited defense cooperation agreements between India and other maritime powers to secure their sea lines of communication and contain Chinese expansionism.