4 ms·

Neutrality is support for might makes right. Choosing to be neutral is to say that the strongest party should win. Not being prepared to be violent makes you h

Neutrality is support for might makes right. Choosing to be neutral is to say that the strongest party should win. Not being prepared to be violent makes you harmless. Having the capacity for violence and choosing not to use it makes you peaceful. If you speak softly, but don't carry a big stick, then you are just speaking softly. Might might not make right, but it determines who gets to make the rules.

petre 3y ago
Then you get something like the KPA (North Korean army): not very good at fighting wars but quite good at construction work. In order to have a capable military, it needs to fight wars. Hence all the countries joining the US in Afghanistan to achieve valuable on the field training. What use is a big stick, other than intimidation, when you just carry it around, not knowing how to actually use it? Future recruits will also need to be good at E-sports, as they'll increasingly be in charge of drone operations.
- paganel 3y ago
  The drone thing is just a fantasy some of us nerds like to tell ourselves, I've seen it in some reddit subs, too. As per North Korea, they were able to come up with 1 million artillery shells for their friends the Russians, while the West couldn't do the same for their friends the Ukrainians [1], I'd say that North Korea got the better of the West here. [1] https://unn.ua/en/news/it-seems-that-north-korea-is-a-more-effective-partner-for-russia-than-friends-who-supply-ukraine-with-artillery-ammunition-kuleba https://unn.ua/en/news/it-seems-that-north-korea-is-a-more-e...
  - Krasnol 3y ago
    We'll see about that when the war is over. At the moment it's not NKs shells that keep the war rolling but the huge Russian population which allows for a seemingly endless supply of corpses to be.
    - graphe 3y ago
      They're not Russian. A large part of the Russian population of Russia was taken from China in the early 1900s, and even then I think they're sending many foreigners of russia. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/russias-ethnic-minorities-disproportionately-conscripted-to-fight-the-war-in-ukraine https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/russias-ethnic-minorities-...
      - Krasnol 3y ago
        Just because they've been "taken from China" over a century ago doesn't mean they're not "Russian" today. They surely have Russian documents and were allowed to vote in Russia for their president. They might be ethnic minorities, but this fact comes with the size of this country. And yes, I'm aware of the point you want to make. I do know that there is a huge racist issue at play. They're still Russians, though. Those foreigners are negligible compared to all those actual Russians.
        graphe 3y ago
        Thank you. When people say "Russian" they have an expectation. What is the difference between these foreigners and there ethnic groups in your eyes? >They surely have Russian documents and were allowed to vote in Russia for their president. I'm not sure if you were trying to be funny but you are.
        petre 3y ago
        Between Tartarstan and Buryatia and Moscow and St. Petersburg? Quite a lot of difference. Ethnicity, religion, income, education etc. They are also throwing Central Asian migrants towards the frontline after a short trip to prison. You'll find largely the same ethnic groups in North-Western Kazahstan and Orenburg oblast.
        Krasnol 3y ago
        > When people say "Russian" they have an expectation. What is the difference between these foreigners and there ethnic groups in your eyes? Their nationality, obviously. Additionally, in this conflict, often the fact that the foreigners have a choice to join the war. > I'm not sure if you were trying to be funny but you are. I'm aware of the diplomatically said, "flawed democracy" which is the Russian political system, but the fact remains valid.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > I'd say that North Korea got the better of the West here. Depends what's the most important missing item on Ukraine's wish list; Ukraine did get rocket artillery, SAM systems, tanks, and a whole bunch of other stuff. To me, it suggests that shells are something that NK knows it can spare (and the same for all the stuff everyone else collectively is providing Ukraine, it's stuff the donors know they can spare).
- cpursley 3y ago
  Afghanistan was not really a war in the traditional sense, it was more of what is known as a policing operation. Not sure there was a lot of valuable lessons there in terms of potential high intensity conflicts with near peers.
libomi6052 3y ago
[dead]
roenxi 3y ago
> Neutrality is support for might makes right. Choosing to be neutral is to say that the strongest party should win. I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Are you saying that the US has historically been taking a neutral position? I suppose they haven't been prosecuting any particular vision with their pointless wars, but that seems a bit weird. But no question not having any power to back up their whims will defang the US and make them victims of external actors. Hopefully the threat of this happening is enough to reign in the warmongers in the US government and make them negotiate towards a pro-US policy instead of the anti-random-victims strategy to date.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
paganel 3y ago
> Choosing to be neutral is to say that the strongest party should win. In a war the strongest party also usually wins, so it's totally rational to not incur the opportunity costs of risking one's life by joining a war.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
unnamed76ri 3y ago
US foreign policy for the second half of the 20th century was basically: "Communism is real bad and causing millions of people to suffer and die, so let's go start a war that will cause millions of people to suffer and die. Except now a lot of those people get to be our people! Hurray!" Left alone, communism eventually fails in almost every case. China being the main exception but that's because we pump a half a trillion dollars into their economy every year buying cheap goods.
- graphe 3y ago
  Cold war was detente, and they were strangely fighting the fear of nuclear armament from these communists too.
- FredPret 3y ago
  China has had a weird mix of free market and political totalitarianism since they liberalized in 1990. Before that their economy was a complete non-event. All of their rapid growth really started in the mid-90’s, and the West started paying attention even later.

petre 3y ago

Then you get something like the KPA (North Korean army): not very good at fighting wars but quite good at construction work. In order to have a capable military, it needs to fight wars. Hence all the countries joining the US in Afghanistan to achieve valuable on the field training. What use is a big stick, other than intimidation, when you just carry it around, not knowing how to actually use it? Future recruits will also need to be good at E-sports, as they'll increasingly be in charge of drone operations.

paganel 3y ago
The drone thing is just a fantasy some of us nerds like to tell ourselves, I've seen it in some reddit subs, too. As per North Korea, they were able to come up with 1 million artillery shells for their friends the Russians, while the West couldn't do the same for their friends the Ukrainians [1], I'd say that North Korea got the better of the West here. [1] https://unn.ua/en/news/it-seems-that-north-korea-is-a-more-effective-partner-for-russia-than-friends-who-supply-ukraine-with-artillery-ammunition-kuleba https://unn.ua/en/news/it-seems-that-north-korea-is-a-more-e...
- Krasnol 3y ago
  We'll see about that when the war is over. At the moment it's not NKs shells that keep the war rolling but the huge Russian population which allows for a seemingly endless supply of corpses to be.
  - graphe 3y ago
    They're not Russian. A large part of the Russian population of Russia was taken from China in the early 1900s, and even then I think they're sending many foreigners of russia. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/russias-ethnic-minorities-disproportionately-conscripted-to-fight-the-war-in-ukraine https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/russias-ethnic-minorities-...
    - Krasnol 3y ago
      Just because they've been "taken from China" over a century ago doesn't mean they're not "Russian" today. They surely have Russian documents and were allowed to vote in Russia for their president. They might be ethnic minorities, but this fact comes with the size of this country. And yes, I'm aware of the point you want to make. I do know that there is a huge racist issue at play. They're still Russians, though. Those foreigners are negligible compared to all those actual Russians.
      - graphe 3y ago
        Thank you. When people say "Russian" they have an expectation. What is the difference between these foreigners and there ethnic groups in your eyes? >They surely have Russian documents and were allowed to vote in Russia for their president. I'm not sure if you were trying to be funny but you are.
        petre 3y ago
        Between Tartarstan and Buryatia and Moscow and St. Petersburg? Quite a lot of difference. Ethnicity, religion, income, education etc. They are also throwing Central Asian migrants towards the frontline after a short trip to prison. You'll find largely the same ethnic groups in North-Western Kazahstan and Orenburg oblast.
        Krasnol 3y ago
        > When people say "Russian" they have an expectation. What is the difference between these foreigners and there ethnic groups in your eyes? Their nationality, obviously. Additionally, in this conflict, often the fact that the foreigners have a choice to join the war. > I'm not sure if you were trying to be funny but you are. I'm aware of the diplomatically said, "flawed democracy" which is the Russian political system, but the fact remains valid.
- ben_w 3y ago
  > I'd say that North Korea got the better of the West here. Depends what's the most important missing item on Ukraine's wish list; Ukraine did get rocket artillery, SAM systems, tanks, and a whole bunch of other stuff. To me, it suggests that shells are something that NK knows it can spare (and the same for all the stuff everyone else collectively is providing Ukraine, it's stuff the donors know they can spare).
cpursley 3y ago
Afghanistan was not really a war in the traditional sense, it was more of what is known as a policing operation. Not sure there was a lot of valuable lessons there in terms of potential high intensity conflicts with near peers.

libomi6052 3y ago

[dead]

roenxi 3y ago

> Neutrality is support for might makes right. Choosing to be neutral is to say that the strongest party should win. I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Are you saying that the US has historically been taking a neutral position? I suppose they haven't been prosecuting any particular vision with their pointless wars, but that seems a bit weird. But no question not having any power to back up their whims will defang the US and make them victims of external actors. Hopefully the threat of this happening is enough to reign in the warmongers in the US government and make them negotiate towards a pro-US policy instead of the anti-random-victims strategy to date.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

paganel 3y ago

> Choosing to be neutral is to say that the strongest party should win. In a war the strongest party also usually wins, so it's totally rational to not incur the opportunity costs of risking one's life by joining a war.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

unnamed76ri 3y ago

US foreign policy for the second half of the 20th century was basically: "Communism is real bad and causing millions of people to suffer and die, so let's go start a war that will cause millions of people to suffer and die. Except now a lot of those people get to be our people! Hurray!" Left alone, communism eventually fails in almost every case. China being the main exception but that's because we pump a half a trillion dollars into their economy every year buying cheap goods.

graphe 3y ago
Cold war was detente, and they were strangely fighting the fear of nuclear armament from these communists too.
FredPret 3y ago
China has had a weird mix of free market and political totalitarianism since they liberalized in 1990. Before that their economy was a complete non-event. All of their rapid growth really started in the mid-90’s, and the West started paying attention even later.