So I support a ceasefire and I oppose sponsorship of insurgency in Russia. But my opinions don’t count.
You opinions count, though most of us disagree with you. Thus, the replies.
Let’s suppose that supporting Ukraine does further empower ‘our globe-spanning military-industrial complex’. But failing to support Ukraine empower the rival globe-spanning military-industrial complex that in addition to Russia includes Iran, Syria, and China.
A ceasefire that results in Russia keeping more Ukrainian land than it started will empower this rival military-industrial complex and set the precedent for rewarding aggression while weakening Ukraine militarily and strategically. Even letting Russia keep Don-Bas and Crimea will leave Ukraine vulnerable to future invasions.
So, which globe-spanning military-industrial complex do you oppose more?
It’s absurd to equate the shaky and informal coalition of Russia, China, Iran, and Syria with the 750+ extraterritorial bases, worldwide naval dominance, and global surveillance network of the US Military.
True. But looking at the expected value of the two, it seems that USA hegemony is less harmful for my values. And it’s also a simple matter of not paying Danegeld, as that tends to not end well.
Currently the west is on top. And will probably stay there. But that’s in part because of these kind of reactions and opportunities to put down the other side. Iran has been under sanctions for ages—whether they’re effective is debatable, but they certainly don’t help. China is now getting kneecapped via the new chip embargoes. Russia had the second largest army so the war in Ukraine is a perfect opportunity to inflict as much damage as possible, virtually for free.
Living in Poland, a lot is said about how bad the Nazis were. A lot is done to remember. But everyone knows the Russians were worse. Currently it turns out that apart from nukes, the Russians aren’t that scary anymore. If they can be neutralized at the cost of drawing out the war in Ukraine for a bit longer, I reckon it’s worth it, cynical as that may sound. Most Ukrainians also think so.
In general, if I have to choose between the NSA snooping in all my data and people getting disappeared, then I’d choose the west. At least I can publicly gripe about how bad they are and even publish methods of circumventing them without worrying about getting arrested (with the obvious caveats). Yes, they play around with starting conflicts, and don’t have a good track record of tidying up after themselves. But they’re also the only thing stopping Russia, China, Iran and Syria from doing the same.
I’m not equating the West and Anti-West in terms of power. I agree that the Anti-West is much weaker. That doesn’t mean it’s incapable of becoming a threat in the future.
One may live under a variety of political orders. Life becomes difficult when you’re caught between two systems fighting each other. As an Australian, I had no problems with the rise of China, until the Trump presidency forced Australia to choose between its economic provider and its security provider.
Actually, while he was campaigning, Trump had an advisor, Carter Page, who proposed an entente between China, Russia, and America. But Page was purged along with all the Russophiles, and Trump wanted his trade war with China, and now under Biden, the idea that all nations should be liberal democracies has been restored to the list of reasons why east and west are at odds. And maybe the odds were always against a LaRouche-style peaceful coexistence of such different powers.
The way I see it, America has had supreme power in the world twice, and has a chance at a third time. First was in 1945, when only the USA has the bomb, and everywhere else was in ruins. Then came 1991, when American information society was suddenly the only serious political and economic model remaining. The third chance is due to artificial intelligence, although perhaps it’s more accurate to say that, whatever posthuman order characterizes the era of AI, it’s most likely to first take shape on the territory of America.
So personal preferences aside, there is a sense in which I judge the meta-alliance of “NATO+Quad” as more likely to win than “SCO+Iran”. But winning only because of AI, and only in the sense that it gets to be ground zero of the AI-driven transformation of the world. If it weren’t for AI, I would not expect America to ever be on top again.
You opinions count, though most of us disagree with you. Thus, the replies.
Let’s suppose that supporting Ukraine does further empower ‘our globe-spanning military-industrial complex’. But failing to support Ukraine empower the rival globe-spanning military-industrial complex that in addition to Russia includes Iran, Syria, and China.
A ceasefire that results in Russia keeping more Ukrainian land than it started will empower this rival military-industrial complex and set the precedent for rewarding aggression while weakening Ukraine militarily and strategically. Even letting Russia keep Don-Bas and Crimea will leave Ukraine vulnerable to future invasions.
So, which globe-spanning military-industrial complex do you oppose more?
It’s absurd to equate the shaky and informal coalition of Russia, China, Iran, and Syria with the 750+ extraterritorial bases, worldwide naval dominance, and global surveillance network of the US Military.
True. But looking at the expected value of the two, it seems that USA hegemony is less harmful for my values. And it’s also a simple matter of not paying Danegeld, as that tends to not end well.
Currently the west is on top. And will probably stay there. But that’s in part because of these kind of reactions and opportunities to put down the other side. Iran has been under sanctions for ages—whether they’re effective is debatable, but they certainly don’t help. China is now getting kneecapped via the new chip embargoes. Russia had the second largest army so the war in Ukraine is a perfect opportunity to inflict as much damage as possible, virtually for free.
Living in Poland, a lot is said about how bad the Nazis were. A lot is done to remember. But everyone knows the Russians were worse. Currently it turns out that apart from nukes, the Russians aren’t that scary anymore. If they can be neutralized at the cost of drawing out the war in Ukraine for a bit longer, I reckon it’s worth it, cynical as that may sound. Most Ukrainians also think so.
In general, if I have to choose between the NSA snooping in all my data and people getting disappeared, then I’d choose the west. At least I can publicly gripe about how bad they are and even publish methods of circumventing them without worrying about getting arrested (with the obvious caveats). Yes, they play around with starting conflicts, and don’t have a good track record of tidying up after themselves. But they’re also the only thing stopping Russia, China, Iran and Syria from doing the same.
I’m not equating the West and Anti-West in terms of power. I agree that the Anti-West is much weaker. That doesn’t mean it’s incapable of becoming a threat in the future.
One may live under a variety of political orders. Life becomes difficult when you’re caught between two systems fighting each other. As an Australian, I had no problems with the rise of China, until the Trump presidency forced Australia to choose between its economic provider and its security provider.
Actually, while he was campaigning, Trump had an advisor, Carter Page, who proposed an entente between China, Russia, and America. But Page was purged along with all the Russophiles, and Trump wanted his trade war with China, and now under Biden, the idea that all nations should be liberal democracies has been restored to the list of reasons why east and west are at odds. And maybe the odds were always against a LaRouche-style peaceful coexistence of such different powers.
The way I see it, America has had supreme power in the world twice, and has a chance at a third time. First was in 1945, when only the USA has the bomb, and everywhere else was in ruins. Then came 1991, when American information society was suddenly the only serious political and economic model remaining. The third chance is due to artificial intelligence, although perhaps it’s more accurate to say that, whatever posthuman order characterizes the era of AI, it’s most likely to first take shape on the territory of America.
So personal preferences aside, there is a sense in which I judge the meta-alliance of “NATO+Quad” as more likely to win than “SCO+Iran”. But winning only because of AI, and only in the sense that it gets to be ground zero of the AI-driven transformation of the world. If it weren’t for AI, I would not expect America to ever be on top again.