Kiev Is Burning

[glenn239]

26 minutes ago, Josh said:

NATO has no interest in a war Russia: there is nothing to gain. But Russia has made it clear that neither economic or military costs will keep it from potentially invading its neighbors. So NATO will prepare for that fight.

Invading NATO territory is not on the menu in the Kremlin.  Putin's aim is to reconstruct some sort of cypher of the old Soviet Union, less the Baltic States.

[Strannik]

34 minutes ago, Josh said:

NATO has no interest in a war Russia: there is nothing to gain. But Russia has made it clear that neither economic or military costs will keep it from potentially invading its neighbors. So NATO will prepare for that fight.

Strawmen abound.  Security (even perceived)  always trumps ecomony says IR realism school.  US Iraq war proves it as well.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Invading NATO territory is not on the menu in the Kremlin.  Putin's aim is to reconstruct some sort of cypher of the old Soviet Union, less the Baltic States.

No one trusts Putin’s ambition to end there anymore. Regardless of what the desired end state may be, Russia made it clear that it will invade a peer military power and suffer as many economic sanctions as it has to in order to achieve its goals.

ETA: You state that Russia can build an army that will overcome NATO. Why wouldn’t NATO prepare for that? There seems to be a weird intersection of people who say Russia is more powerful than ever and that there is nothing to fear from Russia…

Edited November 30, 2023 by Josh

[Josh]

33 minutes ago, Strannik said:

Strawmen abound.  Security (even perceived)  always trumps ecomony says IR realism school.  US Iraq war proves it as well.

Russia is one who started the biggest war in Europe since WWII. Why would anyone in in NATO prepare for anything less than additional Russian aggression? Glenn is busy telling us that even the U.S. cannot possibly prevail against Russia.

[Strannik]

30 minutes ago, Josh said:

Russia is one who started the biggest war in Europe since WWII. Why would anyone in in NATO prepare for anything less than additional Russian aggression? Glenn is busy telling us that even the U.S. cannot possibly prevail against Russia.

Who I am to stop Europe digging, err arming itself.  It's just not in a terrible hurry it seems despite your proclamations.

[Josh]

9 minutes ago, Strannik said:

Who I am to stop Europe digging, err arming itself.  It's just not in a terrible hurry it seems despite your proclamations.

Oh Europe definitely not, despite its claims. Actual reinvestment in defense industries and organizations has lagged pretty far behind the rhetoric. The U.S. on the other hand seems to have take issue of munitions stockpiles quite seriously, admittedly probably because it is more concerned with China. But the current war made it clear how many munitions get used in a modern war if isn’t just a few weeks or months as the IS is used to.

[mkenny]

59 minutes ago, Josh said:

Russia is one who started the biggest war in Europe since WWII. 

Nice dodge.

[Josh]

12 minutes ago, mkenny said:

Nice dodge.

I dodge nothing. Unlike Stuart, I take no moral high ground for the US, just its practical geopolitical concerns. My biggest gripe with the pointless US war in Iraq is that it wasted U.S. and blood and treasure to no good effect, and on top of that was a tragedy for those who lived there. What is your dodge for Ukraine? Is it beneficial for Russia or Ukraine right now? Will it ever be?

[Strannik]

31 minutes ago, Josh said:

Oh Europe definitely not, despite its claims. Actual reinvestment in defense industries and organizations has lagged pretty far behind the rhetoric.

So if we are to believe actions not words then EU is not as worried as you are about Russia attack.

 

[Strannik]

10 minutes ago, Josh said:

What is your dodge for Ukraine? Is it beneficial for Russia or Ukraine right now? Will it ever be?

Remains to be seen, but I hope it will be. For both.

Unlike Libya who can't recover from Western democratization for how long now?

Edited November 30, 2023 by Strannik

[mkenny]

10 minutes ago, Josh said:

I dodge nothing. Unlike Stuart, I take no moral high ground for the US, just its practical geopolitical concerns. My biggest gripe with the pointless US war in Iraq is that it wasted U.S. and blood and treasure to no good effect, and on top of that was a tragedy for those who lived there. What is your dodge for Ukraine? Is it beneficial for Russia or Ukraine right now? Will it ever be?

I have no dodge. I simply pointed out that the club you used to attack Russia was carefully crafted so as to make her out to be a major war-monger when, compared to the competition, she is a rank amateur. 

[mkenny]

3 minutes ago, Strannik said:

Unlike Libya who can't recover from Western democratization fir howvlong now?

Libya, Iraq and Syria. States destroyed  by nut-cases who believed 'gawd'  spoke to them personally and told them they had his blessing..

[Strannik]

1 hour ago, mkenny said:

I have no dodge. I simply pointed out that the club you used to attack Russia was carefully crafted so as to make her out to be a major war-monger when, compared to the competition, she is a rank amateur. 

Because it's Europe who is now made feel insecure.  Of course never mind they sponsored/supported coups/interventions.

As for the rest of the world - who cares when we fuck them up for generations.  Because we meant well. Or so is the crafted narrative.

Edited November 30, 2023 by Strannik

[Josh]

3 hours ago, Strannik said:

So if we are to believe actions not words then EU is not as worried as you are about Russia attack.

 

I’m not worried about a Russian attack and I don’t know why you would think that. I don’t think Putin could organize a two car funeral. Glenn seems to think he is the second coming. I think the U.S. with its NATO allies could smack what’s left of the Russian armed forces as an afterthought while having a full on war with China.

[Josh]

3 hours ago, Strannik said:

Remains to be seen, but I hope it will be. For both.

Unlike Libya who can't recover from Western democratization for how long now?

I think some Libyans benefited, though I don’t think the U.S. or NATO should have gotten involved. I definitely can’t make a case for Iraq; that was the biggest US foreign policy mistake since Vietnam, and I would argue Vietnam actually achieved more.

the benefit for Ukraine or Russia in this war seems like the U.S. and Iraq: pointless slaughter. The biggest difference is that Iraq was a much smaller strategic, economic, or military drain for the U.S. than Ukraine is for Russia. And that is saying a lot, considering Iraq was perhaps the biggest example of the US tripping over its dick in its entirety of its two and an half centuries of existence.

[Josh]

3 hours ago, mkenny said:

I have no dodge. I simply pointed out that the club you used to attack Russia was carefully crafted so as to make her out to be a major war-monger when, compared to the competition, she is a rank amateur. 

Only for lack of opportunity, IMO. Russia has been killing people in NATO nations for awhile now. It was only a matter of time before the Western World decided nerve agents and polonium had no place inside their borders and that the Russians needed to be pushed on.

[ink]

13 minutes ago, Josh said:

 I definitely can’t make a case for Iraq; that was the biggest US foreign policy mistake since Vietnam

According to what criteria are you characterising Iraq as a mistake? The stated aims of the invasion? Surely we can all agree they couldn't possibly be more bogus.

[seahawk]

6 hours ago, Josh said:

NATO has no interest in a war Russia: there is nothing to gain. But Russia has made it clear that neither economic or military costs will keep it from potentially invading its neighbors. So NATO will prepare for that fight.

Why did it start the war in the Ukraine then?

[Stuart Galbraith]

4 hours ago, mkenny said:

I have no dodge. I simply pointed out that the club you used to attack Russia was carefully crafted so as to make her out to be a major war-monger when, compared to the competition, she is a rank amateur. 

Largest war monger in Europe since Nazi Germany. Good enough for me.👍

In the end its more whataboutism. What about Iraq, what about Afghanistan, what about Libya? If one is outraged by any of those, and in one or more of those you may have a right to be, then you have no right to say that Ukraine is any less of an outrage. 

Judge it on its own terms. Does Russia have any right to be a neo imperialist in Ukraine? No. So the others are wholly irrelevant examples, except so far as they are used to justify Russia's actions. And frankly I dont believe for a second Russia is avenging Gadaffi in Ukraine, do you?

Edited November 30, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith

[urbanoid]

1 hour ago, ink said:

According to what criteria are you characterising Iraq as a mistake? The stated aims of the invasion? Surely we can all agree they couldn't possibly be more bogus.

I'd say effects, stated aims are stated aims, they may have something to do with real aims or not, it's not really that relevant. 

The US got itself into a prolonged war/COIN bullshit that became a drain of its resources with not just zero geopolitical gain in the region, but a net loss, as it strengthened Iran by allowing their influence in Iraq*. And while it was merely an unitended side effect, ISIS also emerged from there, it was Saddam's people that were behind its creation, led by this general that looked like Mongtomery. The other thing is that shitshow, with nothing to show for it, became a factor strengthening isolationist tendencies in the US.

*exactly why Saudis didn't want to finish Saddam off in 1991 and why them and most of the rest of the Gulfies were against 2003 invasion in the first place, turns out they were right

 

[urbanoid]

30 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Largest war monger in Europe since Nazi Germany. Good enough for me.👍

In the end its more whataboutism. What about Iraq, what about Afghanistan, what about Libya? If one is outraged by any of those, and in one or more of those you may have a right to be, then you have no right to say that Ukraine is any less of an outrage. 

Judge it on its own terms. Does Russia have any right to be a neo imperialist in Ukraine? No. So the others are wholly irrelevant examples, except so far as they are used to justify Russia's actions. And frankly I dont believe for a second Russia is avenging Gadaffi in Ukraine, do you?

Russia as dead Gaddafi's proxy...

[ink]

I don't know. On the back of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the US has had bases and significant troop numbers in the ME for 30+ years. Since 2003, the Iraqis have handed US companies tens (or hundreds?) of billions of contracts. The US has had some strategic control of Iraqi oil (denying said control, for example, to the Chinese). The presence in Iraq has extended to a presence in Syria, which may not have been possible otherwise. New and closer relatioships with key allies have been forged. The US military industrial complex got a shot in the arm (that it wouldn't have got from Afghanistan alone... Or, going back further, that it desperately needed in a post Cold War world).

It hasn't all been for naught.

In a way, if there hadn't been an Iraq, you would have had to invent one 😉

[urbanoid]

4 minutes ago, ink said:

I don't know. On the back of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the US has had bases and significant troop numbers in the ME for 30+ years. Since 2003, the Iraqis have handed US companies tens (or hundreds?) of billions of contracts. The US has had some strategic control of Iraqi oil (denying said control, for example, to the Chinese). The presence in Iraq has extended to a presence in Syria, which may not have been possible otherwise. New and closer relatioships with key allies have been forged. The US military industrial complex got a shot in the arm (that it wouldn't have got from Afghanistan alone... Or, going back further, that it desperately needed in a post Cold War world).

It hasn't all been for naught.

In a way, if there hadn't been an Iraq, you would have had to invent one 😉

I don't see any advantage from having significant troop numbers in the region alone, especially that they already had the same in the Gulf States anyway. 

Those billions in contracts were likely coming from the US taxpayer. I can vaguely recall a bid for some oil fields where the US companies lost to... the French and the Russians, two of three of the most vocal opponents of the invasion. 

The presence in Syria accounted for basically nothing.

New and closer relationships were forged with... Central Europeans/new NATO members, who took US side in 2003 for their own reasons (and were right to do so IMHO). With the regional allies - quite the contrary.

US MIC got the 'wrong' kind of shot in the arm, the ability to wage a conventional war suffered because of the US military concentrating largely on COIN. Meanwhile countries like Russia and China became a lot more bold while the US was playing in the sandbox.

[ink]

Quote

 

Quote

 

38 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

I don't see any advantage from having significant troop numbers in the region alone, especially that they already had the same in the Gulf States anyway. 

I don't think the pre-Gulf War and post-Gulf War presence are even comparable. And surely having a presence in the world's premier oil-producing region is a cornerstone of US geopolitical policy post-Cold War. Can't see anything that was more important than that (though I'll possibly concede that post-USSR involvement in Russian politics is a close second).

Quote

Those billions in contracts were likely coming from the US taxpayer. I can vaguely recall a bid for some oil fields where the US companies lost to... the French and the Russians, two of three of the most vocal opponents of the invasion. 

Some of the money certainly came from US taxpayers - just one of the fun elements of capitalism... But actual tens/hundreds of billions came from Iraqi oil and debt.

The contracts for Russian and French companies came later. And probably as part of broader backroom deals with those countries.

Quote

The presence in Syria accounted for basically nothing.

Yet it is still an ongoing presence that changes outcomes in that country and the region. 

 

Quote

US MIC got the 'wrong' kind of shot in the arm, the ability to wage a conventional war suffered because of the US military concentrating largely on COIN. Meanwhile countries like Russia and China became a lot more bold while the US was playing in the sandbox.

The wrong kind of shot in the arm still keeps companies going and shareholders happy 😎

[Stuart Galbraith]

America was already present in the Gulf Pre Desert Storm, its just nobody remembers it. They came damn close to a war with Iran in 1987/88, till both sides decided to back off.

Interesting thing, the Soviets didnt press their presence in the Gulf, because they calculated if they didnt, the Americans wouldnt, and that would suit their strategic interests. Then Saddam invaded Iran, and it demanded a permament US presence to maintain maritime trade. The Soviets never quite forgave Saddam for that.

The point is, the US didnt foist its presence on the region. In fact it armed Iran to the teeth so it DIDNT have to be present there. Which of course worked out fantastically...

If the Middle east stopped falling apart for a couple of decades, im sure the US would happy pack up and use the money to face down China. Its the arabs inablity to live with one another, or Iran and Israel, that is proving an insurmountable problem to that end.

Edited November 30, 2023 by Stuart Galbraith