5 ms·

Well the current US Admin seems to be doing its best to hasten this. Already our allies view the US with suspicion.

by jmclnx 2y ago

fastball 2y ago
[flagged]
- esseph 2y ago
  War escalation being reversed? Sounds like we're on track to trade Ukraine for an Israeli-fronted attack on Iran.
  - fastball 2y ago
    Where have you heard the Trump admin wants Israel to attack Iran? I haven't seen that news. And yes, ending the Russian-Ukrainian war is in fact de-escalation, even if giving Russia what they want is the outcome.
    - Loggias 2y ago
      [dead]
    - esseph 2y ago
      https://www.livemint.com/news/israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-says-israel-will-finish-the-job-against-iran-with-us-support-11739721145984.html https://www.livemint.com/news/israeli-prime-minister-benjami... https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-says-israel-working-full-coordination-with-trump-gaza-2025-02-16/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-says-isr... https://archive.ph/M2mhi https://archive.ph/M2mhi Adding more context: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/national-security-presidential-memorandum-nspm-2/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/nati...
      - fastball 2y ago
        Not letting Iran get nukes sounds like a great way to avoid further escalation in the region.
        esseph 2y ago
        I love it when people justify escalation for the purposes of deescalation. I spent too much time in sandy areas with a rifle.
        fastball 2y ago
        None of what I read sounded like escalation. The US' stance has long been that they don't want Iran to have access to nukes.
        esseph 2y ago
        Ok!
    - mcphage 2y ago
      > And yes, ending the Russian-Ukrainian war is in fact de-escalation, even if giving Russia what they want is the outcome. That’s what they said about the Sudentenland, too.
      - fastball 2y ago
        Indeed, sometimes de-escalation is followed by further escalation. By your implied metric, every ceasefire that wasn't permanent was a failure. Sudentenland is the exception that makes the rule. Throughout history, most peace agreements have not been immediately violated by the "winning" side.
        mcphage 2y ago
        > most peace agreements have not been immediately violated by the "winning" side. Most peace agreements are signed when the war is over and one side has given up. Most peace agreements aren’t attempts at appeasement.
        fastball 2y ago
        And this war won't end either, if neither side gives in.
        mcphage 2y ago
        That’s the thing about war—if it goes on long enough, it eventually ends, because one side is unable to continue it. And if it’s the aggressor, then that stops them from continuing their aggression.
    - computerthings 2y ago
      > And yes, ending the Russian-Ukrainian war is in fact de-escalation, even if giving Russia what they want is the outcome. It's siding with the aggressor, and makes the soil more fertile for more such aggression. So if I try to steal your baby, and you catch me and we fight, and it gets really loud and people are inconvenienced and all that, so someone steps in and says "stop fighting, both go on your way", and I leave with your baby, that's de-escalation? Not even in your dreams. You can only stoop to this from the ivory tower of not being affected either way, or thinking you won't be. You can only call this de-escalation when you are not the victim. You wouldn't do it otherwise, ever.
- jjk166 2y ago
  Pissing off allies was part of the first failure mode: "Riding a political tide of disillusionment and despair, a far-right patriot captures the presidency with thundering rhetoric, demanding respect for American authority and threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal."
  - fastball 2y ago
    That isn't the failure mode at all, that was given as the result of the failure (once it was already too late to reverse course). The next line which you forgot to quote was: "The world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence." Which is definitely not how the world is currently treating Trump. Do you not think swelling deficits and an inability to pay the bills (the things actual spelled out as causes in that section of the article) are not something Trump is (ostensibly) trying to reverse more than any other president in recent memory?
    - jjk166 2y ago
      No, it was part of the failure mode. The next line you quoted is the result. > Which is definitely not how the world is currently treating Trump. I don't know what world you're referring to, but the one I'm living on has a bunch of countries disregarding what the US president says and making plans that don't involve America. > Do you not think swelling deficits and an inability to pay the bills (the things actual spelled out as causes in that section of the article) are not something Trump is (ostensibly) trying to reverse more than any other president in recent memory? No, I do not believe Trump is trying to reverse the swelling deficits more than any other president in recent memory. In fact I believe he is doing quite the opposite, just as during his previous term when he swelled the deficit more than any other president in recent memory. Setting up a fake government agency with a joke name then claiming your actions are in the name of deficit reduction when they are obviously not, all the while torpedoing the economy and planning massive tax cuts to boost the deficit is not what I consider "trying to reverse the deficit". Previous presidents, who were actually serious about improving government efficiency, used the real government agency that already exists to do exactly that: the office of management and budget.
roenxi 2y ago
I want to stress this is a bipartisan position in the US - there seems to be consensus that the overall system is in a state of crisis. And from a financial perspective they can't afford the Not-An-Empire spread through Europe and Asia. It is interesting to take a step back and ask how it can end without a USSR style dissolution. If the left wing are genuine in their meme that the right wing supports the 2nd coming of Hitler it is hard to see how the country will hold together. Some sort of painful schism seems likely. Someone is going to have to admit to being wrong, and there isn't a clear path to that. Although democracies do have a tendency to be much more socially robust than they have any right to be; even when the situation comes to literal blows.
- JasserInicide 2y ago
  I don't see any kind of schism/balkanization in our future. The federal government has its tentacles in all states and the states in turn rely heavily on it for big parts of their budgets. Any one that gets to the point of secession (highly unlikely), the federal government will just invade it on grounds of securing their many assets in the state and then proceed to depose of the seditious element.
- motorest 2y ago
  > If the left wing are genuine in their meme that the right wing supports the 2nd coming of Hitler it is hard to see how the country will hold together. It's not "the left wing" making that claim, but the whole world. You have the current Trump administration repeatedly threatening to invade and annex multiple neighboring countries. There is no way around it.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    > You have the current Trump administration repeatedly threatening to invade and annex multiple neighboring countries What a shocking departure from the US's normal mode of operation. Are they finally going after Brazil? https://vividmaps.com/countries-attacked-by-the-us/ https://vividmaps.com/countries-attacked-by-the-us/
    - 2y ago

Well the current US Admin seems to be doing its best to hasten this. Already our allies view the US with suspicion.

by jmclnx 2y ago

Well the current US Admin seems to be doing its best to hasten this. Already our allies view the US with suspicion.

fastball 2y ago

[flagged]

esseph 2y ago
War escalation being reversed? Sounds like we're on track to trade Ukraine for an Israeli-fronted attack on Iran.
- fastball 2y ago
  Where have you heard the Trump admin wants Israel to attack Iran? I haven't seen that news. And yes, ending the Russian-Ukrainian war is in fact de-escalation, even if giving Russia what they want is the outcome.
  - Loggias 2y ago
    [dead]
  - esseph 2y ago
    https://www.livemint.com/news/israeli-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-says-israel-will-finish-the-job-against-iran-with-us-support-11739721145984.html https://www.livemint.com/news/israeli-prime-minister-benjami... https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-says-israel-working-full-coordination-with-trump-gaza-2025-02-16/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-says-isr... https://archive.ph/M2mhi https://archive.ph/M2mhi Adding more context: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/national-security-presidential-memorandum-nspm-2/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/nati...
    - fastball 2y ago
      Not letting Iran get nukes sounds like a great way to avoid further escalation in the region.
      - esseph 2y ago
        I love it when people justify escalation for the purposes of deescalation. I spent too much time in sandy areas with a rifle.
        fastball 2y ago
        None of what I read sounded like escalation. The US' stance has long been that they don't want Iran to have access to nukes.
        esseph 2y ago
        Ok!
  - mcphage 2y ago
    > And yes, ending the Russian-Ukrainian war is in fact de-escalation, even if giving Russia what they want is the outcome. That’s what they said about the Sudentenland, too.
    - fastball 2y ago
      Indeed, sometimes de-escalation is followed by further escalation. By your implied metric, every ceasefire that wasn't permanent was a failure. Sudentenland is the exception that makes the rule. Throughout history, most peace agreements have not been immediately violated by the "winning" side.
      - mcphage 2y ago
        > most peace agreements have not been immediately violated by the "winning" side. Most peace agreements are signed when the war is over and one side has given up. Most peace agreements aren’t attempts at appeasement.
        fastball 2y ago
        And this war won't end either, if neither side gives in.
        mcphage 2y ago
        That’s the thing about war—if it goes on long enough, it eventually ends, because one side is unable to continue it. And if it’s the aggressor, then that stops them from continuing their aggression.
  - computerthings 2y ago
    > And yes, ending the Russian-Ukrainian war is in fact de-escalation, even if giving Russia what they want is the outcome. It's siding with the aggressor, and makes the soil more fertile for more such aggression. So if I try to steal your baby, and you catch me and we fight, and it gets really loud and people are inconvenienced and all that, so someone steps in and says "stop fighting, both go on your way", and I leave with your baby, that's de-escalation? Not even in your dreams. You can only stoop to this from the ivory tower of not being affected either way, or thinking you won't be. You can only call this de-escalation when you are not the victim. You wouldn't do it otherwise, ever.
jjk166 2y ago
Pissing off allies was part of the first failure mode: "Riding a political tide of disillusionment and despair, a far-right patriot captures the presidency with thundering rhetoric, demanding respect for American authority and threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal."
- fastball 2y ago
  That isn't the failure mode at all, that was given as the result of the failure (once it was already too late to reverse course). The next line which you forgot to quote was: "The world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence." Which is definitely not how the world is currently treating Trump. Do you not think swelling deficits and an inability to pay the bills (the things actual spelled out as causes in that section of the article) are not something Trump is (ostensibly) trying to reverse more than any other president in recent memory?
  - jjk166 2y ago
    No, it was part of the failure mode. The next line you quoted is the result. > Which is definitely not how the world is currently treating Trump. I don't know what world you're referring to, but the one I'm living on has a bunch of countries disregarding what the US president says and making plans that don't involve America. > Do you not think swelling deficits and an inability to pay the bills (the things actual spelled out as causes in that section of the article) are not something Trump is (ostensibly) trying to reverse more than any other president in recent memory? No, I do not believe Trump is trying to reverse the swelling deficits more than any other president in recent memory. In fact I believe he is doing quite the opposite, just as during his previous term when he swelled the deficit more than any other president in recent memory. Setting up a fake government agency with a joke name then claiming your actions are in the name of deficit reduction when they are obviously not, all the while torpedoing the economy and planning massive tax cuts to boost the deficit is not what I consider "trying to reverse the deficit". Previous presidents, who were actually serious about improving government efficiency, used the real government agency that already exists to do exactly that: the office of management and budget.

roenxi 2y ago

I want to stress this is a bipartisan position in the US - there seems to be consensus that the overall system is in a state of crisis. And from a financial perspective they can't afford the Not-An-Empire spread through Europe and Asia. It is interesting to take a step back and ask how it can end without a USSR style dissolution. If the left wing are genuine in their meme that the right wing supports the 2nd coming of Hitler it is hard to see how the country will hold together. Some sort of painful schism seems likely. Someone is going to have to admit to being wrong, and there isn't a clear path to that. Although democracies do have a tendency to be much more socially robust than they have any right to be; even when the situation comes to literal blows.

JasserInicide 2y ago
I don't see any kind of schism/balkanization in our future. The federal government has its tentacles in all states and the states in turn rely heavily on it for big parts of their budgets. Any one that gets to the point of secession (highly unlikely), the federal government will just invade it on grounds of securing their many assets in the state and then proceed to depose of the seditious element.
motorest 2y ago
> If the left wing are genuine in their meme that the right wing supports the 2nd coming of Hitler it is hard to see how the country will hold together. It's not "the left wing" making that claim, but the whole world. You have the current Trump administration repeatedly threatening to invade and annex multiple neighboring countries. There is no way around it.
- roenxi 2y ago
  > You have the current Trump administration repeatedly threatening to invade and annex multiple neighboring countries What a shocking departure from the US's normal mode of operation. Are they finally going after Brazil? https://vividmaps.com/countries-attacked-by-the-us/ https://vividmaps.com/countries-attacked-by-the-us/
  - 2y ago