3 ms·

So according to this principle, Russia can send military aid to the Syrian government to strike the US military bases on its territory and the US should not be

by fuoqi 2y ago

So according to this principle, Russia can send military aid to the Syrian government to strike the US military bases on its territory and the US should not be able to retaliate?

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Or station nukes in Venezuela
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  That would happen under Trump, and make Trump and Rubio look particularly weak at diplomacy.
armchairhacker 2y ago
In that case the US would be allowed to send aid to some other government to strike Russia (they're currently doing this with Ukraine but for a separate reason, for Ukraine's self-defense...) Or in an ideal world, the US pays Syria more to not attack them, maybe even gets them to sign a treaty and commits to building Syria's economy and protecting them so they don't feel compelled to take Russian bribes. Although, it's certainly not so straightforward, prior US involvements in foreign countries have been disasters so it would have to be different somehow... There are many other ways Russia could attack NATO that would be very hard to prove or evenly-counter. Russia could create a culture of NATO hatred and aggression, then set up "rewards" that are given out for obscure reasons, to get Russian NGOs and citizens to attack NATO in their own will. Then NATO can only encourage citizens to attack Russia, which I don't think any treaties forbid anyways, and creating a culture of hate is bad for other reasons. It's not a foolproof system. But like for this event, there's evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the Russian government is directly involved (https://www.newsweek.com/russia-pipeline-gas-patrushev-putin-1984215 https://www.newsweek.com/russia-pipeline-gas-patrushev-putin...). And there are other ways NATO can weaken Russia's influence without even attacking them, like not trading with them, and (indirectly, by having a more liberal government) encouraging Russian citizens to emigrate.
- fuoqi 2y ago
  So you do understand that the world can not work according to your simple tit-for-tat principle of "counterattack with equal force". It's a multi-dimensional game where each player has its own fairly opaque "reward function". "Equal force" from one point of view can become "disproportionate escalation" from another. This is where a proper understanding of your opponent becomes important. Even worse, inside US and Russian governments there are groups with their own interests and agendas. The military-industrial complex can be interested in further escalation and fearmongering (i.e. "good war"), while civilian industry would prefer some kind of compromise as soon as possible (i.e. "poor peace").
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    [flagged]

by fuoqi 2y ago

So according to this principle, Russia can send military aid to the Syrian government to strike the US military bases on its territory and the US should not be able to retaliate?

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Or station nukes in Venezuela

ttyprintk 2y ago
That would happen under Trump, and make Trump and Rubio look particularly weak at diplomacy.

armchairhacker 2y ago

In that case the US would be allowed to send aid to some other government to strike Russia (they're currently doing this with Ukraine but for a separate reason, for Ukraine's self-defense...) Or in an ideal world, the US pays Syria more to not attack them, maybe even gets them to sign a treaty and commits to building Syria's economy and protecting them so they don't feel compelled to take Russian bribes. Although, it's certainly not so straightforward, prior US involvements in foreign countries have been disasters so it would have to be different somehow... There are many other ways Russia could attack NATO that would be very hard to prove or evenly-counter. Russia could create a culture of NATO hatred and aggression, then set up "rewards" that are given out for obscure reasons, to get Russian NGOs and citizens to attack NATO in their own will. Then NATO can only encourage citizens to attack Russia, which I don't think any treaties forbid anyways, and creating a culture of hate is bad for other reasons. It's not a foolproof system. But like for this event, there's evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the Russian government is directly involved (https://www.newsweek.com/russia-pipeline-gas-patrushev-putin-1984215 https://www.newsweek.com/russia-pipeline-gas-patrushev-putin...). And there are other ways NATO can weaken Russia's influence without even attacking them, like not trading with them, and (indirectly, by having a more liberal government) encouraging Russian citizens to emigrate.

fuoqi 2y ago
So you do understand that the world can not work according to your simple tit-for-tat principle of "counterattack with equal force". It's a multi-dimensional game where each player has its own fairly opaque "reward function". "Equal force" from one point of view can become "disproportionate escalation" from another. This is where a proper understanding of your opponent becomes important. Even worse, inside US and Russian governments there are groups with their own interests and agendas. The military-industrial complex can be interested in further escalation and fearmongering (i.e. "good war"), while civilian industry would prefer some kind of compromise as soon as possible (i.e. "poor peace").
- rightbyte 2y ago
  [flagged]