American Politics Discussion Thread

[Mjmd]

I even told you to read slow. He specifically mentions the Baltics, but I more suspect other non NATO former Soviet States as well as you mentioned other areas. But yes I would suspect continued pressure to get proxy parties in power in various countries (including allies ones) as well, but probably not just for trade deals......

I disagree (get to in a second), but your logic is heh since we can't have the most useful allies the solution is to have none??? To say the logic doesn't follow doesn't begin to express my confusion. Is the most extensive alliance system in history of humankind better than nothing? Its a real head scratcher. Europe is a major economy and medium and rising military power. The most important thing related back to my point about Democracies being able to take pain, is that part of the avoidance (which is vastly preferred) of a war with China is economic sanctions. I think we've talked about about the difference in a petro state vs export state. Again, I don't know if this is enough to keep China from declaring war, but even a few % chance less of war the better and any amount of help if it does happen also very appreciated. Also, some VERY VERY useful allies in the Pacific also are eyeing our commitment to allies. Should they cut their losses and try to get favorable terms with China and hope it doesn't bite them later or do they keep their faith in us helping them.

How would you describe just letting Russia have what it wants while ignoring that they are likely to keep wanting more? I can say roll over, give up, head in the sand. Appeasement seemed to fit the definition to me. But please what is your definition for not doing anything and then watching them continuing to do things. Maybe it isn't appeasement because that definition assumes you think it MAY stop future action (or you hope it will at least). What is it when you know it won't? I'll use a stronger word if you let me know what it is.

I'm not saying it will be easy. I'm not saying its 100% success. What I am saying is its worth it. You haven't addressed any of my 4 points as to why TO support Ukraine (other than #3 when you seemingly say we should ditch our current allies for ones that by and large currently hate us).

[greenline]

I disagree (get to in a second), but your logic is heh since we can't have the most useful allies the solution is to have none??? To say the logic doesn't follow doesn't begin to express my confusion. Is the most extensive alliance system in history of humankind better than nothing? Its a real head scratcher. Europe is a major economy and medium and rising military power. The most important thing related back to my point about Democracies being able to take pain, is that part of the avoidance (which is vastly preferred) of a war with China is economic sanctions. I think we've talked about about the difference in a petro state vs export state. Again, I don't know if this is enough to keep China from declaring war, but even a few % chance less of war the better and any amount of help if it does happen also very appreciated. Also, some VERY VERY useful allies in the Pacific also are eyeing our commitment to allies. Should they cut their losses and try to get favorable terms with China and hope it doesn't bite them later or do they keep their faith in us helping them.

China is a manufacturing power that is dependent on imported materials. These primarily come through overseas or overland routes. Overland routes primarily go through Kazakhstan and Russia (Russian route not shown on this map). Overseas routes transit the straits of Malacca, the Strait of Hormuz, and potentially the Red Sea if the Suez Canal is open to them. Being able to harass or blockade Chinese merchant fleets traveling these routes in a war would be critical. If these countries were instead China aligned, they could make the ability of the US navy to project power over Chinese shipping difficult. We are already seeing the Houthis give the US navy headaches with some cheap ballistic missiles and drones.




This is NATO. Apart from the US itself, it features a bunch of European countries. These countries never border Chinese shipping routes. Their ability to project power by sea is woefully limited. Most European economies have been stagnating or outright declining in the wake of COVID and the shutdown of the Nordstream pipelines. Their attempt at a military buildup is entirely aimed at producing inventory to constrain Russia rather than producing anything that would be useful in a naval campaign. They are actually worse than useless, because the alliance structure involves a great deal of money being spent on completely worthless garbage. It would be a good thing if Trump disbanded the entire organization, although he will lack the power and probably lacks the will to do so.

How would you describe just letting Russia have what it wants while ignoring that they are likely to keep wanting more?

Appeasement is used in the context of Neville Chamberlain's policy regarding an obviously expansionist Nazi Germany. Russia under Putin has never been expansionist in the way Hitler was. Hitler was open in saying he did not care for the existence of an independent Poland or Austria rather than incorporating those areas into a German state, as had existed prior to the end of WWI. Putin's Russia did not feel any need to engage in aggressive maneuvers in Ukraine prior to the Euromaidan revolution in 2013. To Putin, Ukraine as an independent buffer state was an acceptable or preferable state of affairs, rather than an aberration to be corrected swiftly. So the use of the word appeasement shows that someone is historically illiterate.

[Charr Babies]

Even if it was the case that "we dictate every nation in the world to follow our rules"

If you dictate how every nation rules that would make you a dictator

What rules of ours (lol) are so bad that that would be a bad thing?

Exactly what a dictator would say.

The rest of your post is the same garbage not worth the electrons.

[Mjmd]

China is also a very export driven economy. AND you'll note how those trade routes go to and from Europe. I also love how you just ignore the signalling we are sending to our VERY VERY important Pacific allies in the vein hope I won't notice or mention again.

We recently had a little trade embargo of advanced semi conductor chips. I wonder if a key NATO ally who happens to make the best semi conductor printing machines (Netherlands) was willing to join in that? If its assumed Europe will join in trade sanctions the more likely it is companies are to decouple somewhat from China. I'll take some additional supply chain safety, pressure, and if worse comes to worse less pain. Things like Patriot missiles will definitely be needed and there is production ramping up of those in NATO right now. Again, not as vital as the Pacific allies we should definitely send signalling to that we won't abandon them, but better than nothing. And whatever NATO can do to help prevent a war is 1000% worthwhile and anything they can do to help if a war should break out is still better than nothing.

I mean to me Russia is pretty obviously expansionist. You've admitted at least to some of their ambitions. You also seem to be forgetting places like Chechnya and Georgia. Should we ignore statements by Dmitry Medvedev who is Putins pawn about how the Baltics belong to Russia? Would you like me to go back and find articles that sound suspiciously similar to what you write about how Austria is vital to Germany? There were plenty of people who legitimately thought Germany would stop. With hind site sure it was obvious, but it wasn't to the people at the time. We don't currently have hind site, but even you know they aren't going to friendly and just sit back after Ukraine. We may differ on scale of expected actions, but can we agree its likely to be somewhat antagonistic and they will want more to some extent?

Please stop the ad hominems, do you want me to go back through all the flubs you've made during this argument? You can't call me historically illiterate and then not know people were saying the same things about Germany expansion that you are saying right now. And I still can't get over that revolution isn't the lack of political will.

[Charr Babies]

How do you not see that sanctions or an embargo against China hurt us just as much? Hurting yourself just to hurt the other is not a sustainable strategy. Even the threat of us aggression pushes China to build up its military and trading options. As I’ve said before, the average Chinese citizen saves a third of their income and will be able to weather the storm, while most people here are mired in debt and just two paychecks away from homelessness. The inflation from not having Made-in-China goods alone would have this country in revolt, and they’d be doing it shoeless.

Our involvement in Ukraine DOES NOT deter China. If anything, it warns and pushes China to build up its military. Haven't you heard that Taiwanese woke up from their slumber to the Chinese military exercises, including coast guards (if you know the meaning of this), just now, with Taiwan completely encircled on six sides crossing the so-called Taiwan coastline? Haven't you noticed that China has increased its 'freedom of navigation' off the U.S. coast? 

China had just fired a DF31AG (DF41 has about 50% more range) to the south of Hawaii.

You really need to get out more

[greenline]

China is also a very export driven economy. AND you'll note how those trade routes go to and from Europe. I also love how you just ignore the signalling we are sending to our VERY VERY important Pacific allies in the vein hope I won't notice or mention again.

Cutting countries off from raw material imports is far more important in wartime than cutting them off from exports. War economies can function for long periods of time on government funny money and reserves. But you can't inflate petroleum into existence.




The countries most relevant for preventing a Chinese naval breakout from their coastline are Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam. South Korea has negligible naval forces, and their significant land forces are tied down by North Koreans at the border. Their few ports would also be vulnerable to bombardment. Vietnam is strongly anti-Chinese even without much courting by Western diplomats, but also lacks much offensive capability. Japan would be the most capable of providing a sustained platform for disrupting and destroying Chinese naval operations. However, Japan is even more dependent on foreign imports than China is for manufacturing, and there has been almost no effort to ramp up native Japanese arms production anyway. They hold some batteries of exported NATO missiles and planes - how long they would hold out vs shore based Chinese missiles is anyone's guess.

Policy wonks like to brag about a recent deal signed with Australia to build more submarines. If defensive action is planned around using Australian submarines, that seems to be an admission that Taiwan is going to be given up without much fight at the onset of any war. I don't consider that an encouraging sign. The Philippines, despite facing repeated harassment from Chinese fishing fleets, also flip flops on whether it wants to hang in the Chinese or American camp. If planners were taking a Pacific war seriously, they should be aiming to at least ensure China has to fight to neutralize the Philippines. 

We recently had a little trade embargo of advanced semi conductor chips. I wonder if a key NATO ally who happens to make the best semi conductor printing machines (Netherlands) was willing to join in that? If its assumed Europe will join in trade sanctions the more likely it is companies are to decouple somewhat from China.

Advanced semiconductors have been oversold as a war enabler. The most high tech wing of the Russian army, their spiffy new drones and airplanes, have been able to be manufactured with low end consumer grade electronics. High end semiconductors are most valuable for video games, cryptocurrency, and AI. AI salesmen will try and sell the moon; when I see the capabilities of Chat-GPT, I have my doubts. China itself is already proving competitive in the cutting edge of metallurgy and avionics engineering without the most cutting edge chip designs - right now Chinese companies are working on a Falcon 9 type reusable rocket. You don't see European rocket companies anywhere close to such breakthroughs. There is an economic component to denying Chinese tech companies the most advanced semiconductors, but most of their manufacturing economy works fine without them.

I mean to me Russia is pretty obviously expansionist. You've admitted at least to some of their ambitions. You also seem to be forgetting places like Chechnya and Georgia. Should we ignore statements by Dmitry Medvedev who is Putins pawn about how the Baltics belong to Russia?

You should ignore statements by Medvedev, yes. The Chechnyan wars were motivated by a great deal of Islamic terrorism being carried out surrounding and on Russian soil. The US certainly has little room to complain there. Georgia also has the pattern of being targeted by Russia following a pro Western revolution - the previously existing independent state was not an anathema to Putin...

Everyone makes flubs all the time. The important thing is the ability of someone to realize a flub is a flub and then stop repeating it. Putin is actually unlike Hitler. If he shared Hitler's motivations, the Ukraine war would have happened in the 2000s.

[Mjmd]

Is something better than nothing? I'm very confused by your argument. You seem to have ignored my Patriot missile comment for instance. Is some kind of economic deterrent better than Europe going "well we can't rely on the US anymore lets shift more towards Russia & China".

Mjmd: "Heh we should send signals to our Pacific ally we will stand with them"
Greenline: "Heh we should make sure the Philippines are on our side".
Mjmd" YES YES YES YOU GET IT!!!!!".

Again your argument is essentially it matters 0, but it clearly isn't 0. All my argument has to prove is its worth the cost of the mostly old stuff we will never use , which I value at less than 0 because we have to pay to maintain and then pay to dispose of it.

Heh Putin is fine with proxy governments isn't the proof of his ambitions won't continue you think it is. Also, the Russia military was in a pretty bad way early 2000s.

[greenline]

Europe does not manufacture Patriot missiles. There is no critical military hardware that is manufactured in Europe, to my knowledge.

Is some kind of economic deterrent better than Europe going "well we can't rely on the US anymore lets shift more towards Russia & China".

You seem to understand that Europe provides a small economic deterrent. I am attempting to contrast this with a much larger economic and military deterrent that would come from bringing Iran and Russia into an anti Chinese alliance. Both parties even want half of this - the Democrats keep trying to renegotiate an Iran deal, but are held back because this is too unfavorable to Israel. The Republicans now are interested in breaking bread with Russia, but are held back because this is unfavorable to Ukraine and various Baltic pig farms. One of the great things about OUR DEMOCRACY is how thoroughly the government is captured by small groups of antagonistic immigrants with deep ties to foreign countries. I eagerly await the day when the flood of Indian immigrants makes Pakistani foreign policy something you have to have a strong opinion on.

Heh Putin is fine with proxy governments isn't the proof of his ambitions won't continue you think it is. Also, the Russia military was in a pretty bad way early 2000s.

You are almost getting it. Putin considered the government in Ukraine prior to the Euromaidan revolution, for his purposes, a proxy government. Perhaps, if there had been no Euromaidan, Ukraine would still be a functioning country today, without all these people dead or fleeing from the war. If Putin was like Hitler and un-appeasable, then he would never have tolerated a separate Ukrainian government, and improving the military to invade Ukraine would have been his first priority. Well before any Chechnyan adventures.

[Mjmd]

Early this year there was a deal signed to produce a large number in Germany. They also are shockingly heavily into our F-35 supply chain. Also, there are a number of anti ship missiles and submarine production as well (Germany is big into diesel subs).

Wait. WAIT. WHAT. You actually think Russia would ally with us!!?!?!! . I knew most of the Republican party had been told not to support Ukraine (although there are still quite a few who do), but I haven't heard this one before. I would love to know the polling even within the Republican party. Edit: and just to be clear giving up on NATO for a vein hope they actually would is EXTREMELY stupid. I try to avoid that word here, but I can't think of a better one.

I got the word now that is worst than appeasement. Lap dog. I am indeed now getting it. You can have last word, I think we are done here, I also thought we were close at several points, but man was mistaken.

[greenline]

The idea of courting Russia for an alliance is no crazier than Democrats hoping to get a lasting peace deal and more with Iran, a country well known for it's popular slogan, "Death to America". It is based on the idea that nation states frequently act in accordance to a set of understandable interests. If Iran can do so, why not Russia?

(Whose bright idea was it to outsource F-35 production to Germany? Probably the same person who had parts for it made in China. Idiotic)