3 ms·

When all your military spending can't help you win against a third-world country (USA in Afghanistan) or a single country 1/3 your size (Russia in Ukraine), it

by oezi 1y ago

When all your military spending can't help you win against a third-world country (USA in Afghanistan) or a single country 1/3 your size (Russia in Ukraine), it really makes you wonder if all that spending is justified to uphold one big bluff.

vaidhy 1y ago
Winning is different from taking over.. Russia wants to rule over Ukraine, not destroy it. US was all into destroying Afghanistan and Iraq. They had no intention of being there long term.
- duxup 1y ago
  I'll nitpick here and say that Russia's plan was more likely to topple the government and put a puppet in place and then leave, but they botched that.
- lostlogin 1y ago
  > Russia wants to rule over Ukraine, not destroy it. Can’t it be both? It’s hard to argue they aren’t trying to destroy it. It has been attempted in the past during the Holodomor. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
  - vkou 1y ago
    The context of post-civil war stalinism and food/industrial policy was a little different from modern Russian empire-building. Russia's end goal here is a cultural genocide.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- watwut 1y ago
  Russia destroys its colonies. It wants to destroy ukraine. And it wants cultural genocide.
  - peoplefromibiza 1y ago
    [dead]
AnimalMuppet 1y ago
We aren't pointing "all our military spending" against Russia in Ukraine. Not by a long shot (no pun intended).
- notahacker 1y ago
  Of course not. But I think it's also true to say if the US hasn't been willing or able to effectively use its military power at the margin to stop a historic enemy from annexing its neighbours with impunity, your average regional power doesn't have to worry about the US using its military power to dominate world trade.
  - Alupis 1y ago
    Nothing will change in the US if Ukraine falls tomorrow. People love to cry foul when the US flexes it's might... then cry foul when the US takes a back seat... literally cry foul no matter what the US does. If Ukraine is so important to the world order, why has Europe (you know, Ukraine's actual neighbors) not stepped up with their full military power? Why is Europe not threatening troops, missiles, aircraft, tanks, etc... even nuclear obliteration if Putin doesn't yield? Why is it the US has to swoop in, from half a world away, and save the day (again, and again, and again...)? The US is not currently willing to send our citizens to die in Ukraine. Maybe Europeans should?
    - alfiedotwtf 1y ago
      > The US is not currently willing to send our citizens to die in Ukraine The US is currently not wanting Ukraine to win for a single reason - it’s personal to Trump. So much has happened that we’ve collectively forgotten that it was Zelensky said “No” to Trump on the phone when wanting to find any dirt on Joe Biden helping Hunter in business deals.
      - Alupis 1y ago
        > The US is currently not wanting Ukraine to win for a single reason - it’s personal to Trump That totally explains why Biden kept slow-walking support packages...
tick_tock_tick 1y ago
I mean we rolled over Afghanistan the problem is fighting a war "humanely". Hard to accomplish anything with both hands tied behind your back. Just like in Vietnam the USA's ability to wage war is only limited by what it's local population thinks is "fair".
msabalau 1y ago
The Bush administration was looking to "win" in the Afghanistan by doing nation building, which was never going to work, and certainly wasn't going to be accomplished by military means. Obama and Trump both chose to kick the can the road, to not pay the political cost for "losing", Biden ended the conflict, and paid the political price. But if the US had a different objectives, every human settlement in Afghanistan could have have been radioactive ash by September 12, 2001. Or, more realistically, the US could have gone in, killed all (for some value of all) the local elites as a warning to leaders elsewhere about the costs of harboring terrorists, and then immediately left the country in the same sort of chaos that they eventually did a couple of decades later. Kabul delenda est was always accomplishable. The only people who should be ashamed of the their performance in Ukraine are the Russians, and the Europeans, for failing to be able deter or respond to the Russia on their own despite having an economy five times the size. US interests are perfectly well served by seeing the Russian military mauled for a generation at the cost of aid, much of it material that was going to be decommissioned anyway, that costs roughly what Americans spend on golf in a given year (Once you throw in the costs of drinks on the 19th hole.) Anyway, US arms sales are up since the start of the conflict, Russian sales have cratered.

by oezi 1y ago

vaidhy 1y ago

Winning is different from taking over.. Russia wants to rule over Ukraine, not destroy it. US was all into destroying Afghanistan and Iraq. They had no intention of being there long term.

duxup 1y ago
I'll nitpick here and say that Russia's plan was more likely to topple the government and put a puppet in place and then leave, but they botched that.
lostlogin 1y ago
> Russia wants to rule over Ukraine, not destroy it. Can’t it be both? It’s hard to argue they aren’t trying to destroy it. It has been attempted in the past during the Holodomor. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
- vkou 1y ago
  The context of post-civil war stalinism and food/industrial policy was a little different from modern Russian empire-building. Russia's end goal here is a cultural genocide.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
watwut 1y ago
Russia destroys its colonies. It wants to destroy ukraine. And it wants cultural genocide.
- peoplefromibiza 1y ago
  [dead]

AnimalMuppet 1y ago

We aren't pointing "all our military spending" against Russia in Ukraine. Not by a long shot (no pun intended).

notahacker 1y ago
Of course not. But I think it's also true to say if the US hasn't been willing or able to effectively use its military power at the margin to stop a historic enemy from annexing its neighbours with impunity, your average regional power doesn't have to worry about the US using its military power to dominate world trade.
- Alupis 1y ago
  Nothing will change in the US if Ukraine falls tomorrow. People love to cry foul when the US flexes it's might... then cry foul when the US takes a back seat... literally cry foul no matter what the US does. If Ukraine is so important to the world order, why has Europe (you know, Ukraine's actual neighbors) not stepped up with their full military power? Why is Europe not threatening troops, missiles, aircraft, tanks, etc... even nuclear obliteration if Putin doesn't yield? Why is it the US has to swoop in, from half a world away, and save the day (again, and again, and again...)? The US is not currently willing to send our citizens to die in Ukraine. Maybe Europeans should?
  - alfiedotwtf 1y ago
    > The US is not currently willing to send our citizens to die in Ukraine The US is currently not wanting Ukraine to win for a single reason - it’s personal to Trump. So much has happened that we’ve collectively forgotten that it was Zelensky said “No” to Trump on the phone when wanting to find any dirt on Joe Biden helping Hunter in business deals.
    - Alupis 1y ago
      > The US is currently not wanting Ukraine to win for a single reason - it’s personal to Trump That totally explains why Biden kept slow-walking support packages...

tick_tock_tick 1y ago

I mean we rolled over Afghanistan the problem is fighting a war "humanely". Hard to accomplish anything with both hands tied behind your back. Just like in Vietnam the USA's ability to wage war is only limited by what it's local population thinks is "fair".

msabalau 1y ago

The Bush administration was looking to "win" in the Afghanistan by doing nation building, which was never going to work, and certainly wasn't going to be accomplished by military means. Obama and Trump both chose to kick the can the road, to not pay the political cost for "losing", Biden ended the conflict, and paid the political price. But if the US had a different objectives, every human settlement in Afghanistan could have have been radioactive ash by September 12, 2001. Or, more realistically, the US could have gone in, killed all (for some value of all) the local elites as a warning to leaders elsewhere about the costs of harboring terrorists, and then immediately left the country in the same sort of chaos that they eventually did a couple of decades later. Kabul delenda est was always accomplishable. The only people who should be ashamed of the their performance in Ukraine are the Russians, and the Europeans, for failing to be able deter or respond to the Russia on their own despite having an economy five times the size. US interests are perfectly well served by seeing the Russian military mauled for a generation at the cost of aid, much of it material that was going to be decommissioned anyway, that costs roughly what Americans spend on golf in a given year (Once you throw in the costs of drinks on the 19th hole.) Anyway, US arms sales are up since the start of the conflict, Russian sales have cratered.