Lessons of the Ukraine war

[mindlight]

It survives only as a puppet regime, and a vicious and bloodthirsty one at that.



It's not a question of whether US hegemony will weaken, it's a question of how much carnage Washington will inflict on the world trying to hold on to it.

The British and Americans had a similar approach to hegemony. Those who disputed their claims generally were no better eg the Kaiser, Nazis, Communists, Islamists. Fighting for freedom, for freedom of trade and for a rule based order is different than fighting for territorial gain.

This war shows clearly the West defends freedom and sovereignty while it's totalitarian rivals do not.

It would be foolish for China or Russia to challenge the West. An isolationist USA divorced from its allies is a whole different ballgame however.

 

[Estrid]

No, it's not, especially if the order the USA is establishing is going to be a bad one and based on it's trajectory I see the current order established by the USA to be a bad one. Thus I don't wish for it's preservation and while that may be chaotic I would prefer that the current Leviathan as represented by Washington.

Except when you go against the USA, the USA will simply invade you and kill you. I don't treat Russia or China as Pariahs and nor do i see going to war with them in order to keep them below the USA to be worth it. We are entering a multipolar world and the USA is simply failing to maintain it's status as hegemon. It deserves then, to lose it. The USA will not be able to stop Russia and I don't care. Ukraine becoming another Western Nation is not a good thing, it will become less Orthodox, it will become less Ukrainian and even more corrupt.


I think it's cute that you think the President is in charge of the world instead of the system itself. I don't think Trump or Biden will be able to preserve American hegemony and that's a good thing.

Ok so you're a ideolog.

You should meet my uncle ( do you speak
Cantonese?). He was in the Red Guard.
All his opinions are right too.

Tho he learned that he wasn't a good prophet.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You are freely posting opinions on a site hosted in the USA and it is doubtful you will die or suffer consequences for that. Post a dissenting view on a Russian or Chinese site and see how long you last.

Guess it depends. US typically outsources censorship of the regime to the firms works with; Google, Microsoft and any number of tech/Media outlets. Perfect free speech cannot exist in any system and allowing complete freedom to criticize and illegitimize the current regime of any state or power is always dangerous.

A major lesson of this war is that the West remains the best defender of freedom and of the sovereignty of nations.

Is defending a nation which has suspended elections and targets Churches really the example of defending freedom you want to use? What of the US allying with regimes like Saudi Arabia and others across the world which don't share your perspective.

A self-centered American hegemony cannot support the weight of a unipolar world but an internationalist America with allies can.

I guess it depends if America can make enough allies/puppets to support it's internationalist order and whether or not is willing to start WW3 in order to maintain the current system. Is it worth the cost of millions, if not billions of lives this time in the effort to maintain the current order? I don't even think it was worth it in WW1 and WW2.

Kyril talks about Christian civilisation like a modern day Rasputin. His hypnotic influence on the weak minded cannot hide the corrupt oligarchy and imperial totalitarian intent that supports his words.

And this is relevant to what I'm saying how?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Ok so you're a ideolog.

You should meet my uncle ( do you speak
Cantonese?). He was in the Red Guard.
All his opinions are right too.

Tho he learned that he wasn't a good prophet.

I tend to think of myself as a realist more than anything. Yes I have an Ideology and a preferred order to things in society (so does everyone) but with respect to the USA I don't think my analysis is wrong. It is a waning hegemony and this isn't a bad thing necessarily. It however can be really bad so long as the USA does everything in it's power to maintain that hegemony.

 

[jacks]

It is a waning hegemony and this isn't a bad thing necessarily. It however can be really bad so long as the USA does everything in it's power to maintain that hegemony.

Many people believe the U.S. would be better off being more isolationists. Would this be reducing their "hegemony"?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Many people believe the U.S. would be better off being more isolationists. Would this be reducing their "hegemony"?

Yes because it would mean retracting the empire and allowing other countries to determine their own foreign policy.

 

[mindlight]

Many people believe the U.S. would be better off being more isolationists. Would this be reducing their "hegemony"?

Yes it would reduce US influence and security. In a dog eat dog world it means it would be weaker and it's position more vulnerable.

Since the US is the main guarantor of the sovereignty of many smaller nations these also would be absorbed into the new empires.

 

[jacks]

Yes because it would mean retracting the empire and allowing other countries to determine their own foreign policy.

Yes it would reduce US influence and security. In a dog eat dog world it means it would be weaker and it's position more vulnerable.

Since the US is the main guarantor of the sovereignty of many smaller nations these also would be absorbed into the new empires.

Maybe there is a compromise that could be made to reduce U.S. influence in some areas, while maintaining it in others. I'm sure this is already the case, though what criteria is used to determine where to use influence or not, I'm not sure. (And as a American I would like to know.) I'm sure it is multifaceted, political, moral, financial, etc. This may be the only peaceful way to go about a lessening of U.S. presence around the world, if that is a desirable goal.

 

[Estrid]

I tend to think of myself as a realist more than anything. Yes I have an Ideology and a preferred order to things in society (so does everyone) but with respect to the USA I don't think my analysis is wrong. It is a waning hegemony and this isn't a bad thing necessarily. It however can be really bad so long as the USA does everything in it's power to maintain that hegemony.

As a citizen of Hong Kong, freed from the Japanese
in WW there's some very real family experience with
US strength and positive role in world stability.

NZ would be part of the co prosperity sphere, otherwise.

USA had the chance, unique to world history, to
rule the world.

Marshall plan, disarmament etc was the choice.

The wealthy and powerful are resented by some.
Some have no gratitude.

If anti imperialism is a topic, then the USA isn't much
of a topic. Russia while diminsisted from ussr days
is an enormous empire.


Of course the USA makes mistakes and has faults.

The league of nations failed, the UN is a failure.

Pie in sky world harmony thro' democracy is not
being realistic.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

As a citizen of Hong Kong, freed from the Japanese
in WW there's some very real family experience with
US strength and positive role in world stability.

NZ would be part of the co prosperity sphere, otherwise.

USA had the chance, unique to world history, to
rule the world.'

The USA did effectively rule the world when the Soviet Union fell. In that effort it has invaded the Middle East multiple times, provoked conflicts and through it's culture and adherence to liberalism destroyed many aspects of traditional life. '

You act as if the only options were USA or Japanese domination. Britain was at one point allied to the Japanese and deliberately chose to forsake such an alliance for one with the USA. Which was a massive mistake because the cost of US help was the British Empire. Roosevelt demanded British Gold, British decolonization and British Assets. New Zealand could have simply prospered under the British Empire which was aligned with the Japanese who had their own sphere of influence in China/Asia.

I reject that the only option is to accept US hegemony.

Marshall plan, disarmament etc was the choice.

The wealthy and powerful are resented by some.
Some have no gratitude.

If anti imperialism is a topic, then the USA isn't much
of a topic. Russia while diminsisted from ussr days
is an enormous empire.

The USA is an empire, with military bases all over the world and a willingness to invade countries which it views as a threat. It may not be an empire which demands direct administration but it nevertheless functions as an empire.

Of course the USA makes mistakes and has faults.

The league of nations failed, the UN is a failure.

Pie in sky world harmony thro' democracy is not
being realistic.

I'm not being unrealistic when I say the USA cannot maintain it's hegemony at this current rate. China, India and Russia will continue to develop and grow. Already Russia doesn't listen to the USA and the measures the USA has used to contain it, largely economic and in the form of military aid, have failed. Do I think there will be world harmony if US hegemony falters? No. But I cannot in good conscience support the USA and it's dominance, not any more.

 

[Estrid]

The USA did effectively rule the world when the Soviet Union fell. In that effort it has invaded the Middle East multiple times, provoked conflicts and through it's culture and adherence to liberalism destroyed many aspects of traditional life. '

You act as if the only options were USA or Japanese domination. Britain was at one point allied to the Japanese and deliberately chose to forsake such an alliance for one with the USA. Which was a massive mistake because the cost of US help was the British Empire. Roosevelt demanded British Gold, British decolonization and British Assets. New Zealand could have simply prospered under the British Empire which was aligned with the Japanese who had their own sphere of influence in China/Asia.

I reject that the only option is to accept US hegemony.


The USA is an empire, with military bases all over the world and a willingness to invade countries which it views as a threat. It may not be an empire which demands direct administration but it nevertheless functions as an empire.

I'm not being unrealistic when I say the USA cannot maintain it's hegemony at this current rate. China, India and Russia will continue to develop and grow. Already Russia doesn't listen to the USA and the measures the USA has used to contain it, largely economic and in the form of military aid, have failed. Do I think there will be world harmony if US hegemony falters? No. But I cannot in good conscience support the USA and it's dominance, not any more.

You can't seriously think I did not mean
to actually rule the world.

Could have been.
Everyone disarms or gets nuked.

Last best chance anyone had.



To say the us ruled post ww2 is not the
words of a realist

"..as if us or Japanese domination..."

As if those were the choices.
Kiwiland gets to dominate itself.
Sans USA, you'd not be so fortunate.

Then you blame the US for Britaain's loss
of empire. As if.

This isn't a serious discussion.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Then you blame the US for Britaain's loss
of empire. As if.

Actually it is. US aid to Britain in WW2 was not cheap and it came at the cost of forfeiture of the Empire. Roosevelt gave more free aid to the Soviet Union than he did to Britain. If you're interested, read Sean McMeekin's book, Stalin's war to see America's actions in WW2. The Idea of an undying loyalty between the USA and Britain is a myth. American's didn't care or want by in large to participate in WW2. Nor did they care for Imperial Britain, Roosevelt especially.

Not that I am excusing the British mind you, they had a choice and they chose war at the cost of their empire because they would not have been able to win against Germany alone. I only point out that there were more options and that it isn't a binary choice between a Japanese regime or the USA.

Now I didn't say the US ruled the world post WW2. It was a multipolar world where the influence was divided between the Soviets and the US. USA hegemony came after the fall of the Soviet Union and what has it used that hegemony for? Pointless wars in the Middle East, pushing Russia towards China and an expansion of a corruptive and corrosive culture of degeneracy. Why should I look at the current hegemony as desirable?

You're free to disregard these points but you're not exactly convincing me of the need for the USA.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

That this thread discussion has switched to covering the USA is telling of the fact that this is not a Russian war against the Ukrainians, but a US proxy war against Russia.

 

[AlexB23]

I am interested to see how the British laser interceptor works out.

DragonFire: UK laser could be used against Russian drones on Ukraine front line

The defence secretary said the laser could be used to take down Russian drones as early as 2027.

www.bbc.co.uk

The recent Iranian attack on Israel shows that drones launched from too far a distance can be intercepted quite easily if you have full battlefield intelligence and visibility. I guess swarming, speed, and stealth capabilities are the next steps in drone evolution but that will probably add to their expense.

The war in Ukraine seems very much like a WW1 war of attrition. It is waiting for either a technological breakthrough, a diplomatic solution, or a surge of resources on either side to break the stalemate.

Even though I do not like participating in war threads (peaceful guy here), that British laser looks so cool. Reminds me of Star Trek's phasers. Hopefully peace between both countries is made before 2027 though.

 

[John G.]

5) West is best - Russian technology has proven inferior but they have more of it.

If anything, the Ukraine war has proven the opposite: the West needs top go back to the drawing board.

 

[Estrid]

Actually it is. US aid to Britain in WW2 was not cheap and it came at the cost of forfeiture of the Empire. Roosevelt gave more free aid to the Soviet Union than he did to Britain. If you're interested, read Sean McMeekin's book, Stalin's war to see America's actions in WW2. The Idea of an undying loyalty between the USA and Britain is a myth. American's didn't care or want by in large to participate in WW2. Nor did they care for Imperial Britain, Roosevelt especially.

Not that I am excusing the British mind you, they had a choice and they chose war at the cost of their empire because they would not have been able to win against Germany alone. I only point out that there were more options and that it isn't a binary choice between a Japanese regime or the USA.

Now I didn't say the US ruled the world post WW2. It was a multipolar world where the influence was divided between the Soviets and the US. USA hegemony came after the fall of the Soviet Union and what has it used that hegemony for? Pointless wars in the Middle East, pushing Russia towards China and an expansion of a corruptive and corrosive culture of degeneracy. Why should I look at the current hegemony as desirable?

You're free to disregard these points but you're not exactly convincing me of the need for the USA.

There's no point discussing your attitude.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

There's no point discussing your attitude.

Well I agree, there is no point discussing my attitude because it's not likely to change, any more than yours is. But there is a point to discussing the topics at hand. Russia/Ukraine, US Hegemony and various other topics.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You think it will be replaced by something
better?

Kremlin paymasters?