5 ms·

You’re a very smart guy. You can’t seriously be wondering how allowing a major power to wage and win a war of aggression in Europe might be contrary to American

You’re a very smart guy. You can’t seriously be wondering how allowing a major power to wage and win a war of aggression in Europe might be contrary to American interests? He’ll surely be appeased by the Donbas and stop there, right?

rayiner 2y ago
I am a smart guy—which is why even as a college student I knew the Iraq War was going to be a monumental cluster fuck. To me, it seems like the people supporting American involvement in Ukraine are throwing about the same vague platitudes about “dictators” and “interests” without anything concrete to back them up. At least Iraq and its neighbors had oil—there was a credible narrative that what happened there would directly hit Americans in their pocket books. American interest in Europe seems even more attenuated. It seems to be nothing more than romantic sympathy.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  Fundamentally different situation. A more appropriate comparison would be the first Gulf War, when the US helped to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. Equating the later Iraq war with the situation in Ukraine is a category error.
  - smallmancontrov 2y ago
    Don't let Mr /r/iamverysmart duck the question about Donbas by diverting into a conversation about Iraq.
    - kristjansson 2y ago
      On your aside: I'll admit, I said that completely sincerely, they've had pretty informative and well-informed things to say in other discussions around here. Coming back with "Yes I am" has caused me to update my beliefs a bit.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - rayiner 2y ago
    I agree the first gulf war is a better comparison. In our household we thought Bush was wrong about that too, and I recall my dad being quite happy he lost reelection over it. I’d argue it set us up to get roped in for Round 2.
    - smallmancontrov 2y ago
      Crimea is the better comparison. The US appeased Russia on Crimea in 2014 (the sanctions were too weak) and it caused the Ukraine invasion in 2022. Why would appeasing on Donbas in 2025 work better?
    - anigbrowl 2y ago
      Bush didn't lose re-election over the first Gulf War, which on the whole went swimmingly for the US in a very short timeframe. He lost because he looked out of touch in his electioneering and didn't know the price of milk during a debate with Bill Clinton. There was a recession underway that drained some of the froth out of the irrationally exuberant 1980s. Of course it didn't help him that he was basically a CIA policy wonk whereas Clinton was the most charismatic candidate since Kennedy.
- lostdog 2y ago
  The U.S. is strong because of our own power, but also because of our many many friends with a shared worldview. We use the word "interests" to cover how our friends help us in every situation, big or small. For example, the US needs many raw materials and manufactured goods. Our economy is extremely strong because we get these easily and with little friction. Other countries trust our trade deals so they enter into them willingly. And so whenever the US needs a new import, we get it quickly and cheaply. As a concrete example, NVidia gets prime access to foundries and components. Sure, they spend money on it, but our "interests" ensure that the process is frictionless. Any other country would have a harder time. We also have near universal military access. No other country even comes close. We nearly have permission in advance to go anywhere. If US shipping is interrupted, no one complains when our navy goes and uninterrupted it. In fact we are welcomed. If a US citizen is taking hostage, governments from the area want to help us. Also, maybe you've noticed that no one is even close to attacking the US. We are so strong that it would be suicide, and that's partly because of our own strength, but also because of our many allies who would back us up. Finally, we have moral interests. I believe everyone should live in a system based on laws, should elect their own leaders, and should have basic freedoms. The more we spread liberalism and democracy the better the world is. Sure, you can nitpick about counterexamples. The Iraq war is a perfect example of messing this up. And not every country loves us. But if you cannot see that the majority of countries are overwhelmingly friendly towards the US, and that we get enormous military and economic benefits, then you are blind.
  - smallmancontrov 2y ago
    You shouldn't let someone bait you into tangent town like rayiner just did. He was posed a sharp question ("Will Putin stop at Donbas?") and he ducked it for a reason.
    - lostdog 2y ago
      I know rayiner is a troll who misunderstands things on purpose. Defining "interests" seemed like a fun exercise.
      - 2y ago
- kristjansson 2y ago
  Iraq is not the correct analogy. Iraq put us a bit over our skis attempting to enforce our desired norms while entertaining some acquisitive impulses against an inferior opponent with ultimately limited aims. i.e. Saddam wasn’t interested in taking over the world. The conclusion to draw from that is not that all conflict and cruelty outside the New World is irrelevant to Americans and their interests. You’re a bit older than me, but neither of us have experienced a world with a truly aggressive near-peer power. We’ve lived our entire lives on the laurels of our grandfathers’ victories in Europe and Asia. The resulting international system organized around fixed borders, the rule of law, and low barriers has allowed to flourish the multitude of mutually beneficial trade relationships that support literally the entirety of the only way of life either of has ever known. It’s an unstable equilibrium. To not defend order against might risks knocking the whole thing down - and then who knows? Maybe we carry on with China and the rest of APAC while Russia dominates Europe? Maybe we live a decade or a generation of poorer, meaner, more isolated lives confined to the New World? Maybe the expansionary impulse brings them, eventually, to our shores?
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Iraq wasn’t a mistake. Iraq exemplified the type of error you make and will continue to make when you commit the U.S. to enforcing “rule of law” around the world. Heck, the very concept of international “rule of law” is repugnant-that means there must be some country enforcing the law. The US has among the lowest levels of trade dependency of any country in the world. In 1960, which is remembered as a Golden Age, trade was just 10% of GDP. We would be just fine, probably better, living in a world where regional powers kept their back yards clean and the occasional border skirmish broke out. Even if that meant somewhat reduced trade. Empire also imposes a demographic cost on america. Every time we destroy a country in a war trying to maintain the “rules based order” we have to accept a massive influx of refugees. In the long run these people will not be able to maintain the american system the founding population created.
- danielovichdk 2y ago
  It should perhaps be of american interest to support its allies. As its allies did to support the so-called war on terrorism with Afghanistan and Iraq. Those two wars imo changed USA and put the country in debt and misalignment internally. Bush was an absolute catastrophy. You can't point the fingers at the leaders. Even though the country is not a democracy, but a business club with only two parties, being funded by companies. USA is no longer, and hasn't been for decades, very far from Russia in its cribbled walk towards war and destruction. I can't see how the country can uphold its stance with their allies and when China makes their move, it will leave US on its own. As for Europe, it might be a slow starter, but rather that than having to fight for even then smallest equality rights and options. Wow, how I really dislike american politics and leadership, and its not just its current government.
- jacquesm 2y ago
  > I am a smart guy ...

rayiner 2y ago

I am a smart guy—which is why even as a college student I knew the Iraq War was going to be a monumental cluster fuck. To me, it seems like the people supporting American involvement in Ukraine are throwing about the same vague platitudes about “dictators” and “interests” without anything concrete to back them up. At least Iraq and its neighbors had oil—there was a credible narrative that what happened there would directly hit Americans in their pocket books. American interest in Europe seems even more attenuated. It seems to be nothing more than romantic sympathy.

anigbrowl 2y ago
Fundamentally different situation. A more appropriate comparison would be the first Gulf War, when the US helped to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. Equating the later Iraq war with the situation in Ukraine is a category error.
- smallmancontrov 2y ago
  Don't let Mr /r/iamverysmart duck the question about Donbas by diverting into a conversation about Iraq.
  - kristjansson 2y ago
    On your aside: I'll admit, I said that completely sincerely, they've had pretty informative and well-informed things to say in other discussions around here. Coming back with "Yes I am" has caused me to update my beliefs a bit.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- rayiner 2y ago
  I agree the first gulf war is a better comparison. In our household we thought Bush was wrong about that too, and I recall my dad being quite happy he lost reelection over it. I’d argue it set us up to get roped in for Round 2.
  - smallmancontrov 2y ago
    Crimea is the better comparison. The US appeased Russia on Crimea in 2014 (the sanctions were too weak) and it caused the Ukraine invasion in 2022. Why would appeasing on Donbas in 2025 work better?
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    Bush didn't lose re-election over the first Gulf War, which on the whole went swimmingly for the US in a very short timeframe. He lost because he looked out of touch in his electioneering and didn't know the price of milk during a debate with Bill Clinton. There was a recession underway that drained some of the froth out of the irrationally exuberant 1980s. Of course it didn't help him that he was basically a CIA policy wonk whereas Clinton was the most charismatic candidate since Kennedy.
lostdog 2y ago
The U.S. is strong because of our own power, but also because of our many many friends with a shared worldview. We use the word "interests" to cover how our friends help us in every situation, big or small. For example, the US needs many raw materials and manufactured goods. Our economy is extremely strong because we get these easily and with little friction. Other countries trust our trade deals so they enter into them willingly. And so whenever the US needs a new import, we get it quickly and cheaply. As a concrete example, NVidia gets prime access to foundries and components. Sure, they spend money on it, but our "interests" ensure that the process is frictionless. Any other country would have a harder time. We also have near universal military access. No other country even comes close. We nearly have permission in advance to go anywhere. If US shipping is interrupted, no one complains when our navy goes and uninterrupted it. In fact we are welcomed. If a US citizen is taking hostage, governments from the area want to help us. Also, maybe you've noticed that no one is even close to attacking the US. We are so strong that it would be suicide, and that's partly because of our own strength, but also because of our many allies who would back us up. Finally, we have moral interests. I believe everyone should live in a system based on laws, should elect their own leaders, and should have basic freedoms. The more we spread liberalism and democracy the better the world is. Sure, you can nitpick about counterexamples. The Iraq war is a perfect example of messing this up. And not every country loves us. But if you cannot see that the majority of countries are overwhelmingly friendly towards the US, and that we get enormous military and economic benefits, then you are blind.
- smallmancontrov 2y ago
  You shouldn't let someone bait you into tangent town like rayiner just did. He was posed a sharp question ("Will Putin stop at Donbas?") and he ducked it for a reason.
  - lostdog 2y ago
    I know rayiner is a troll who misunderstands things on purpose. Defining "interests" seemed like a fun exercise.
    - 2y ago
kristjansson 2y ago
Iraq is not the correct analogy. Iraq put us a bit over our skis attempting to enforce our desired norms while entertaining some acquisitive impulses against an inferior opponent with ultimately limited aims. i.e. Saddam wasn’t interested in taking over the world. The conclusion to draw from that is not that all conflict and cruelty outside the New World is irrelevant to Americans and their interests. You’re a bit older than me, but neither of us have experienced a world with a truly aggressive near-peer power. We’ve lived our entire lives on the laurels of our grandfathers’ victories in Europe and Asia. The resulting international system organized around fixed borders, the rule of law, and low barriers has allowed to flourish the multitude of mutually beneficial trade relationships that support literally the entirety of the only way of life either of has ever known. It’s an unstable equilibrium. To not defend order against might risks knocking the whole thing down - and then who knows? Maybe we carry on with China and the rest of APAC while Russia dominates Europe? Maybe we live a decade or a generation of poorer, meaner, more isolated lives confined to the New World? Maybe the expansionary impulse brings them, eventually, to our shores?
- rayiner 2y ago
  Iraq wasn’t a mistake. Iraq exemplified the type of error you make and will continue to make when you commit the U.S. to enforcing “rule of law” around the world. Heck, the very concept of international “rule of law” is repugnant-that means there must be some country enforcing the law. The US has among the lowest levels of trade dependency of any country in the world. In 1960, which is remembered as a Golden Age, trade was just 10% of GDP. We would be just fine, probably better, living in a world where regional powers kept their back yards clean and the occasional border skirmish broke out. Even if that meant somewhat reduced trade. Empire also imposes a demographic cost on america. Every time we destroy a country in a war trying to maintain the “rules based order” we have to accept a massive influx of refugees. In the long run these people will not be able to maintain the american system the founding population created.
danielovichdk 2y ago
It should perhaps be of american interest to support its allies. As its allies did to support the so-called war on terrorism with Afghanistan and Iraq. Those two wars imo changed USA and put the country in debt and misalignment internally. Bush was an absolute catastrophy. You can't point the fingers at the leaders. Even though the country is not a democracy, but a business club with only two parties, being funded by companies. USA is no longer, and hasn't been for decades, very far from Russia in its cribbled walk towards war and destruction. I can't see how the country can uphold its stance with their allies and when China makes their move, it will leave US on its own. As for Europe, it might be a slow starter, but rather that than having to fight for even then smallest equality rights and options. Wow, how I really dislike american politics and leadership, and its not just its current government.
jacquesm 2y ago
> I am a smart guy ...