5 ms·

The popular answer I've seen over the past few weeks is to just blame everything on the US, but that kind of thinking and lack of agency is exactly why countrie

by preommr 5mo ago

The popular answer I've seen over the past few weeks is to just blame everything on the US, but that kind of thinking and lack of agency is exactly why countries like the UK are in the position they are. Just constant burying heads in the sand, and believing in models where the prior assumptions are from a bygone era.

ceejayoz 5mo ago
Why would one not blame the US for this situation?
- credit_guy 5mo ago
  I think the OP is saying that it's ok to blame, but it is not ok to just blame. It is preferable to also act in some sort.
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    For decades the world has very reasonably operated on the assumption that the world’s primary superpower wouldn’t be dumb enough to do this without a proper plan. Everyone except the Iranians and maybe the Israelis were flat-footed by this, and the things that can be done about it are largely on the years/decades scale.
- mrcsharp 5mo ago
  Because a competent country/government should plan ahead for shortages of any vital resource it depends on.
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    Within reason. Until quite recently, “the US sticks its dick in the chainsaw” wasn’t a “within reason” scenario.
    - bawolff 5mo ago
      The middle east explodes is an eventuality that is within reason to prepare for. Its famously a geopolitical powder-keg.
    - testing22321 5mo ago
      To be fair this is not the first time a US President stuck their dock in something and got bitten
    - mrcsharp 5mo ago
      > Within reason Reason dictates having redundancy in place. Having prepared scenarios for what to do. A lot of countries clearly don't have that and they are operating on the assumption that no major disruption is going to happen. Depending on resources coming from historically unstable locations and not having plans to prepare for such instability is just foolish.
      - ceejayoz 5mo ago
        > Reason dictates having redundancy in place. The UK doesn’t have a strategic oxygen reserve in case the atmosphere disappears. It’s both implausible and not really something they can do much about. Trump is that sort of scenario.
- hughlomas 5mo ago
  The only state preventing free commerce through the strait is Iran.
  - ceejayoz 5mo ago
    The only reason Iran is playing that sole card they hold is their two core enemies launched a war of aggression.
  - stavros 5mo ago
    Yes, as retaliation of a US/Israel invasion that is against international law.
    - bawolff 5mo ago
      Which in turn is also against international law (international law would let them retaliate against israel & usa. It doesn't let them target neutral shipping [edit: to clarify i mean neutral shipping going to neutral ports]). Of course international law is not worth the paper its written on.
      - ceejayoz 5mo ago
        No, defensive blockades are explicitly permitted under international law, including neutral parties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade > Blockades restrict the trading rights of neutrals, who must submit for inspection for contraband, which the blockading power may define narrowly or broadly, sometimes including food and medicine.
        mpyne 5mo ago
        Did you miss the part about contraband? You quoted it, after all. Firing on neutral shipping is not the same as intercepting it and inspecting it for war materiel or other contraband. Preventing shipping from reaching or leaving Kuwaiti ports is not the same as inspecting it for war materiel or other contraband.
- mothballed 5mo ago
  USA is proximally to blame, but Iran in its current borders is an entity that is largely the brain child of Britain. It ended up encompassing the Baloch and Kurds, who could have helped check Persian power and make Persian borders more penetrable, which was probably a geopolitical mistake.
  - fsckboy 5mo ago
    the Baloch and the Kurds are ethnic Persians, they speak Persian languages.
    - mothballed 5mo ago
      >the Baloch and the Kurds are ethnic Persians, Wut > they speak Persian languages As a lingua franca, sure. By some very twisted semantics maybe, but really, no.
- bawolff 5mo ago
  The way i read the parent post, is that the uk decided to invest in other things than military. As a result they are at the whims of USA foreign policy and can't really do much about it. In an alternate world where UK spent more on hard power, they might not be subject to the whims of america to the same extent. [To be clear, i dont 100% agree with this argument. I think there is a little truth to it but also things are much more complicated than that and it ignores the geopolitical tension in the region that was going to explode one way or another even without usa]
OgsyedIE 5mo ago
Not only do those particular prior assumptions date to 1957 in a way that makes deviating from them structurally dangerous, they involve very low military spending in a way that makes deviating from them politically dangerous. Fixing the budget hole to pay for that spending without resorting to giving many people living in Monaco the Eichmann treatment as a side effect (which is untenable on account of French security guarantees to Monaco) would need some kind of government of hardcore believers who could also do math.
varispeed 5mo ago
You have Russian asset as president who acts like chaos monkey for the Putin's entertainment. One thing is correct though that UK security services have not anticipated such outcome and politicians have not done anything about it.
- OgsyedIE 5mo ago
  The Soviet Union gave the equivalent of about 80-100 million USD in support to the ANC in South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s. As soon as they got power, the ANC turned around and aligned with the west, wasting every rouble Moscow spent. Since the inauguration Trump has supported physical seizures of many different kinds of Russia-aligned merchant shipping and the economic degradation of Russia's allies. Given all of this, we can assume that the Russian asset angle is a much less accurate explanation for Trump's behavior than the alternative theory where he is highly suggestible to the most recent person to heavily compliment him in-person which used to be Putin and has subsequently changed to some mix of Rubio, Vance, Hegseth, Netanyahu and the Trump family.
  - varispeed 5mo ago
    [flagged]
vrganj 5mo ago
We in Europe negotiated the JCPOA. Read its terms. Understand its lead negotiatior was the EU representative. That was our codified relationship with Iran. Now compare that to the best case after what you geniuses started. Own up to it. This is solely on the US. The rest of us had it handled until you came along.
FridayoLeary 5mo ago
Couldn't agree more. Our Navy is a joke. We can barely muster a single destroyer. Burning goodwill with Trump is foolish when europe is completely dependant on the US to defend them from Russia. I don't know what the strategic thinking is here. Demonstrate to the entire world that we are pathetic weaklings and the us that we're useless dependants? This war might be dumb but it was also predictable. Why were these no contingencies? Or to quote Churchill "If you want peace you have to prepare for war".
beAbU 5mo ago
The US is 100% without a doubt responsible for the shitshow we're in now. We had a good thing going, and you fucked it up.

by preommr 5mo ago

ceejayoz 5mo ago

Why would one not blame the US for this situation?

credit_guy 5mo ago
I think the OP is saying that it's ok to blame, but it is not ok to just blame. It is preferable to also act in some sort.
- ceejayoz 5mo ago
  For decades the world has very reasonably operated on the assumption that the world’s primary superpower wouldn’t be dumb enough to do this without a proper plan. Everyone except the Iranians and maybe the Israelis were flat-footed by this, and the things that can be done about it are largely on the years/decades scale.
mrcsharp 5mo ago
Because a competent country/government should plan ahead for shortages of any vital resource it depends on.
- ceejayoz 5mo ago
  Within reason. Until quite recently, “the US sticks its dick in the chainsaw” wasn’t a “within reason” scenario.
  - bawolff 5mo ago
    The middle east explodes is an eventuality that is within reason to prepare for. Its famously a geopolitical powder-keg.
  - testing22321 5mo ago
    To be fair this is not the first time a US President stuck their dock in something and got bitten
  - mrcsharp 5mo ago
    > Within reason Reason dictates having redundancy in place. Having prepared scenarios for what to do. A lot of countries clearly don't have that and they are operating on the assumption that no major disruption is going to happen. Depending on resources coming from historically unstable locations and not having plans to prepare for such instability is just foolish.
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      > Reason dictates having redundancy in place. The UK doesn’t have a strategic oxygen reserve in case the atmosphere disappears. It’s both implausible and not really something they can do much about. Trump is that sort of scenario.
hughlomas 5mo ago
The only state preventing free commerce through the strait is Iran.
- ceejayoz 5mo ago
  The only reason Iran is playing that sole card they hold is their two core enemies launched a war of aggression.
- stavros 5mo ago
  Yes, as retaliation of a US/Israel invasion that is against international law.
  - bawolff 5mo ago
    Which in turn is also against international law (international law would let them retaliate against israel & usa. It doesn't let them target neutral shipping [edit: to clarify i mean neutral shipping going to neutral ports]). Of course international law is not worth the paper its written on.
    - ceejayoz 5mo ago
      No, defensive blockades are explicitly permitted under international law, including neutral parties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade > Blockades restrict the trading rights of neutrals, who must submit for inspection for contraband, which the blockading power may define narrowly or broadly, sometimes including food and medicine.
      - mpyne 5mo ago
        Did you miss the part about contraband? You quoted it, after all. Firing on neutral shipping is not the same as intercepting it and inspecting it for war materiel or other contraband. Preventing shipping from reaching or leaving Kuwaiti ports is not the same as inspecting it for war materiel or other contraband.
mothballed 5mo ago
USA is proximally to blame, but Iran in its current borders is an entity that is largely the brain child of Britain. It ended up encompassing the Baloch and Kurds, who could have helped check Persian power and make Persian borders more penetrable, which was probably a geopolitical mistake.
- fsckboy 5mo ago
  the Baloch and the Kurds are ethnic Persians, they speak Persian languages.
  - mothballed 5mo ago
    >the Baloch and the Kurds are ethnic Persians, Wut > they speak Persian languages As a lingua franca, sure. By some very twisted semantics maybe, but really, no.
bawolff 5mo ago
The way i read the parent post, is that the uk decided to invest in other things than military. As a result they are at the whims of USA foreign policy and can't really do much about it. In an alternate world where UK spent more on hard power, they might not be subject to the whims of america to the same extent. [To be clear, i dont 100% agree with this argument. I think there is a little truth to it but also things are much more complicated than that and it ignores the geopolitical tension in the region that was going to explode one way or another even without usa]

OgsyedIE 5mo ago

Not only do those particular prior assumptions date to 1957 in a way that makes deviating from them structurally dangerous, they involve very low military spending in a way that makes deviating from them politically dangerous. Fixing the budget hole to pay for that spending without resorting to giving many people living in Monaco the Eichmann treatment as a side effect (which is untenable on account of French security guarantees to Monaco) would need some kind of government of hardcore believers who could also do math.

varispeed 5mo ago

You have Russian asset as president who acts like chaos monkey for the Putin's entertainment. One thing is correct though that UK security services have not anticipated such outcome and politicians have not done anything about it.

OgsyedIE 5mo ago
The Soviet Union gave the equivalent of about 80-100 million USD in support to the ANC in South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s. As soon as they got power, the ANC turned around and aligned with the west, wasting every rouble Moscow spent. Since the inauguration Trump has supported physical seizures of many different kinds of Russia-aligned merchant shipping and the economic degradation of Russia's allies. Given all of this, we can assume that the Russian asset angle is a much less accurate explanation for Trump's behavior than the alternative theory where he is highly suggestible to the most recent person to heavily compliment him in-person which used to be Putin and has subsequently changed to some mix of Rubio, Vance, Hegseth, Netanyahu and the Trump family.
- varispeed 5mo ago
  [flagged]

vrganj 5mo ago

We in Europe negotiated the JCPOA. Read its terms. Understand its lead negotiatior was the EU representative. That was our codified relationship with Iran. Now compare that to the best case after what you geniuses started. Own up to it. This is solely on the US. The rest of us had it handled until you came along.

FridayoLeary 5mo ago

Couldn't agree more. Our Navy is a joke. We can barely muster a single destroyer. Burning goodwill with Trump is foolish when europe is completely dependant on the US to defend them from Russia. I don't know what the strategic thinking is here. Demonstrate to the entire world that we are pathetic weaklings and the us that we're useless dependants? This war might be dumb but it was also predictable. Why were these no contingencies? Or to quote Churchill "If you want peace you have to prepare for war".

beAbU 5mo ago

The US is 100% without a doubt responsible for the shitshow we're in now. We had a good thing going, and you fucked it up.