Ukraine conflict
01-16-2024, 11:26 AM
#2011
Gets Everyday Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Fully Retired
Posts: 7,000
Did you even happen to read the cited article to see what parts of it you might agree with? It was a very pro Ukraine support article. Or did you just decide to be a good wingman for Hub in his ad hominem attacks?
As I said, there are things in the article that I disagree with but it was a well thought out article that tried for a broad look at what the author believes is necessary to carry the day against Russian imperialism. Without single ad hominem attack in it. Yiu ought to try thinking through a problem like the author did and critiquing the parts of it you like and dislike. Simply saying you feel sorry for his neighbors, wife, kids, coworkers, dog, cat, etc., is pretty intellectually lightweight...to say the least.
As I said, there are things in the article that I disagree with but it was a well thought out article that tried for a broad look at what the author believes is necessary to carry the day against Russian imperialism. Without single ad hominem attack in it. Yiu ought to try thinking through a problem like the author did and critiquing the parts of it you like and dislike. Simply saying you feel sorry for his neighbors, wife, kids, coworkers, dog, cat, etc., is pretty intellectually lightweight...to say the least.
Take this feedback in a positive caring manner it is offered. Suggest some introspection and an attitude adjustment.
01-16-2024, 11:39 AM
#2012
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 805
So far I have asserted that a fundamental requirement for the well being of any people/society is the physical security and predictability that is provided by political order. It is often stated using the term stability.
While most of the discussion centers on relations between countries, it also is critical to just how functional any given country is inside it's own borders.
In addition to making it possible for governments to address immediate needs, it also is a requirement for the relationships required to address worldwide problems and predicaments that affect everyone.
Example: difficult to address agreements on fishing rights between country's that are involved in open warfare.
I have become convinced that this 'order' is so basic and obvious regarding organized human endeavors that it can be labeled as a priori.
My second main point is multifaceted.
A: The post WW2 victors outside Stalin's orbit have attempted to build institutions and alliances aimed at making the world less likely to repeat the catastrophes of WW1 & 2. They involved trade, finance and banking, humanitarian aid, international law, the UN and military alliances. Over time many non-govt actors became involved as well. Some as genuine independent actors, some infiltrated by various govt. services/organizations. None of these organizations are monolithic. Nor are they infallible or free of the political and human failings of any large organization.
B: To actually achieve anything these institutions require both leadership and a primary partner with the wherewithal. Immediately after WW2 the only actor that had this was the USA. As time went by other nations gained strength and capability, but individually they were, and continue to be, no where near the USA in economic or military strength. The USA was, and still is, the essential country regarding the network that makes up this world order.
C: The most critical alliance for the stability of Western Europe and the political, economic, and military influence of the USA was NATO. It's significance is greater than a mere agreement. It was the United States, an ocean away, stating unequivocally 'Never Again". There were explicit and implicit promises made.
Russian rule is not going to be allowed any further west.
Germany will not be allowed to rise again.
We are in this together. The vast natural resources of the USA will counter that possessed by the USSR.
We recognize that the day is past of a smaller nation being able to achieve strategic security alone. The USA will provide the keystone for this arch of security.
The USA is the dominate partner. ( as a bit of irony I will steal a phrase, the USA will be the "First Among Equals")
Richard Haase has written that he "believes wars between countries have become less common only because policies that prevented them were adopted, including robust alliances and maintaining conditions of credible deterrence." In short, in spite of all their failings and shortcomings, he posits that this world order has worked, at least somewhat.
If we accept that statement as reflective of reality, we need to think very hard about undoing it. Just because we think that some members don't pay enough, (wah), do we pick up and leave? Do we approach government and international relations as though it were some sort of transactional business arrangement?
Reforms and adjustments have their place in any ongoing human activity. It is dangerous, in this case dangerous to the extreme, to unilaterally throw away what has taken a few generations to build. NATO is possibly a more important factor than the EU in making former Russian dominated nations feel as though they have joined the West....both culturally and philisophically.
"Leadership is rooted not in power and authority, but in service and wisdom"
The USA is still in a leadership position, but it's moral authority has been damaged. The invasion of Irag was contrary to all the accepted rules of soveriegnty that I have been going on about. Though it was attempted to sell the invasion as a preemptive war, it was actually a preventive war, and everyone knew it. The rhetoric of 'destroying evil' (something previously given as a province of God *), "we're an Empire now", and "you are either with us or against us" didn't help with allies and provided confirmation for the fears of the rest. This was in addition to other examples, but our credibility as a humane and just nation has been damaged by inconsistencies. We need to do better, and have work to do to restore the credibility level we had as recently as 40 years ago. It won't happen overnight, but it starts with putting honor and moral right and wrong ahead of business and domestic politics.
We need an FDR.
All that said, as the Lord said to Mephistopheles: "For while Man strives, he errs."
(Will wrap this up later with as to how this relates to Ukraine)
* concept credited to William Pfaff
01-16-2024, 01:09 PM
#2013
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,252
To continue.
So far I have asserted that a fundamental requirement for the well being of any people/society is the physical security and predictability that is provided by political order. It is often stated using the term stability.
While most of the discussion centers on relations between countries, it also is critical to just how functional any given country is inside it's own borders.
In addition to making it possible for governments to address immediate needs, it also is a requirement for the relationships required to address worldwide problems and predicaments that affect everyone.
Example: difficult to address agreements on fishing rights between country's that are involved in open warfare.
I have become convinced that this 'order' is so basic and obvious regarding organized human endeavors that it can be labeled as a priori.
My second main point is multifaceted.
A: The post WW2 victors outside Stalin's orbit have attempted to build institutions and alliances aimed at making the world less likely to repeat the catastrophes of WW1 & 2. They involved trade, finance and banking, humanitarian aid, international law, the UN and military alliances. Over time many non-govt actors became involved as well. Some as genuine independent actors, some infiltrated by various govt. services/organizations. None of these organizations are monolithic. Nor are they infallible or free of the political and human failings of any large organization.
B: To actually achieve anything these institutions require both leadership and a primary partner with the wherewithal. Immediately after WW2 the only actor that had this was the USA. As time went by other nations gained strength and capability, but individually they were, and continue to be, no where near the USA in economic or military strength. The USA was, and still is, the essential country regarding the network that makes up this world order.
C: The most critical alliance for the stability of Western Europe and the political, economic, and military influence of the USA was NATO. It's significance is greater than a mere agreement. It was the United States, an ocean away, stating unequivocally 'Never Again". There were explicit and implicit promises made.
Russian rule is not going to be allowed any further west.
Germany will not be allowed to rise again.
We are in this together. The vast natural resources of the USA will counter that possessed by the USSR.
We recognize that the day is past of a smaller nation being able to achieve strategic security alone. The USA will provide the keystone for this arch of security.
The USA is the dominate partner. ( as a bit of irony I will steal a phrase, the USA will be the "First Among Equals")
Richard Haase has written that he "believes wars between countries have become less common only because policies that prevented them were adopted, including robust alliances and maintaining conditions of credible deterrence." In short, in spite of all their failings and shortcomings, he posits that this world order has worked, at least somewhat.
If we accept that statement as reflective of reality, we need to think very hard about undoing it. Just because we think that some members don't pay enough, (wah), do we pick up and leave? Do we approach government and international relations as though it were some sort of transactional business arrangement?
Reforms and adjustments have their place in any ongoing human activity. It is dangerous, in this case dangerous to the extreme, to unilaterally throw away what has taken a few generations to build. NATO is possibly a more important factor than the EU in making former Russian dominated nations feel as though they have joined the West....both culturally and philisophically.
"Leadership is rooted not in power and authority, but in service and wisdom"
The USA is still in a leadership position, but it's moral authority has been damaged. The invasion of Irag was contrary to all the accepted rules of soveriegnty that I have been going on about. Though it was attempted to sell the invasion as a preemptive war, it was actually a preventive war, and everyone knew it. The rhetoric of 'destroying evil' (something previously given as a province of God *), "we're an Empire now", and "you are either with us or against us" didn't help with allies and provided confirmation for the fears of the rest. This was in addition to other examples, but our credibility as a humane and just nation has been damaged by inconsistencies. We need to do better, and have work to do to restore the credibility level we had as recently as 40 years ago. It won't happen overnight, but it starts with putting honor and moral right and wrong ahead of business and domestic politics.
We need an FDR.
All that said, as the Lord said to Mephistopheles: "For while Man strives, he errs."
(Will wrap this up later with as to how this relates to Ukraine)
* concept credited to William Pfaff
So far I have asserted that a fundamental requirement for the well being of any people/society is the physical security and predictability that is provided by political order. It is often stated using the term stability.
While most of the discussion centers on relations between countries, it also is critical to just how functional any given country is inside it's own borders.
In addition to making it possible for governments to address immediate needs, it also is a requirement for the relationships required to address worldwide problems and predicaments that affect everyone.
Example: difficult to address agreements on fishing rights between country's that are involved in open warfare.
I have become convinced that this 'order' is so basic and obvious regarding organized human endeavors that it can be labeled as a priori.
My second main point is multifaceted.
A: The post WW2 victors outside Stalin's orbit have attempted to build institutions and alliances aimed at making the world less likely to repeat the catastrophes of WW1 & 2. They involved trade, finance and banking, humanitarian aid, international law, the UN and military alliances. Over time many non-govt actors became involved as well. Some as genuine independent actors, some infiltrated by various govt. services/organizations. None of these organizations are monolithic. Nor are they infallible or free of the political and human failings of any large organization.
B: To actually achieve anything these institutions require both leadership and a primary partner with the wherewithal. Immediately after WW2 the only actor that had this was the USA. As time went by other nations gained strength and capability, but individually they were, and continue to be, no where near the USA in economic or military strength. The USA was, and still is, the essential country regarding the network that makes up this world order.
C: The most critical alliance for the stability of Western Europe and the political, economic, and military influence of the USA was NATO. It's significance is greater than a mere agreement. It was the United States, an ocean away, stating unequivocally 'Never Again". There were explicit and implicit promises made.
Russian rule is not going to be allowed any further west.
Germany will not be allowed to rise again.
We are in this together. The vast natural resources of the USA will counter that possessed by the USSR.
We recognize that the day is past of a smaller nation being able to achieve strategic security alone. The USA will provide the keystone for this arch of security.
The USA is the dominate partner. ( as a bit of irony I will steal a phrase, the USA will be the "First Among Equals")
Richard Haase has written that he "believes wars between countries have become less common only because policies that prevented them were adopted, including robust alliances and maintaining conditions of credible deterrence." In short, in spite of all their failings and shortcomings, he posits that this world order has worked, at least somewhat.
If we accept that statement as reflective of reality, we need to think very hard about undoing it. Just because we think that some members don't pay enough, (wah), do we pick up and leave? Do we approach government and international relations as though it were some sort of transactional business arrangement?
Reforms and adjustments have their place in any ongoing human activity. It is dangerous, in this case dangerous to the extreme, to unilaterally throw away what has taken a few generations to build. NATO is possibly a more important factor than the EU in making former Russian dominated nations feel as though they have joined the West....both culturally and philisophically.
"Leadership is rooted not in power and authority, but in service and wisdom"
The USA is still in a leadership position, but it's moral authority has been damaged. The invasion of Irag was contrary to all the accepted rules of soveriegnty that I have been going on about. Though it was attempted to sell the invasion as a preemptive war, it was actually a preventive war, and everyone knew it. The rhetoric of 'destroying evil' (something previously given as a province of God *), "we're an Empire now", and "you are either with us or against us" didn't help with allies and provided confirmation for the fears of the rest. This was in addition to other examples, but our credibility as a humane and just nation has been damaged by inconsistencies. We need to do better, and have work to do to restore the credibility level we had as recently as 40 years ago. It won't happen overnight, but it starts with putting honor and moral right and wrong ahead of business and domestic politics.
We need an FDR.
All that said, as the Lord said to Mephistopheles: "For while Man strives, he errs."
(Will wrap this up later with as to how this relates to Ukraine)
* concept credited to William Pfaff
https://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/91309
In essence, I believe that Europe's problems are Europe's problems, and in a number of areas (and certainly in the military arena) having Uncle Sam around "in a leadership position" has sort of infantilized Europe. It can afford not to have a capable military because the common belief has been that the Americans will bail them out regardless. I remember reading a European report after the breakup of Yugoslavia that made a compelling case for a European Quick Reaction Force of 60,000 personnel to be prepared to respond to genocide happening on Europe's doorstep and - considering somewhere between 100,000 deaths and 140,000 deaths and the systemic organized rape of between 20,000 and 40,000 women occurred (https://srebrenica.org.uk/what-happe...iolence-bosnia) -there was general agreement that such a force - staffed mainly by France and Germany - was certainly necessary.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20049804
BUT THAT FORCE WAS NEVER FUNDED. And it was never funded because the US was cajoled to lead the pacification effort in the former Yugoslavia despite the fact that the US was never a party to any treaty suggesting such a role and the EU (and French (who at that time were not even in NATO having quit it in 1966 https://www.history.com/news/france-...rles-de-gaulle) and German governments felt that they had been able to con the US into fighting their battles in Yugoslavia and could undoubtedly do it again, so why spend the money?
I differ from some ( but in a rapidly growing minority) in believing that the Europeans need to stop leaning on Uncle Sam before the rising populism in the US actually does lead us to become isolationist.
01-16-2024, 02:00 PM
#2014
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2023
Posts: 197
To continue.
So far I have asserted that a fundamental requirement for the well being of any people/society is the physical security and predictability that is provided by political order. It is often stated using the term stability.
While most of the discussion centers on relations between countries, it also is critical to just how functional any given country is inside it's own borders.
In addition to making it possible for governments to address immediate needs, it also is a requirement for the relationships required to address worldwide problems and predicaments that affect everyone.
Example: difficult to address agreements on fishing rights between country's that are involved in open warfare.
I have become convinced that this 'order' is so basic and obvious regarding organized human endeavors that it can be labeled as a priori.
My second main point is multifaceted.
A: The post WW2 victors outside Stalin's orbit have attempted to build institutions and alliances aimed at making the world less likely to repeat the catastrophes of WW1 & 2. They involved trade, finance and banking, humanitarian aid, international law, the UN and military alliances. Over time many non-govt actors became involved as well. Some as genuine independent actors, some infiltrated by various govt. services/organizations. None of these organizations are monolithic. Nor are they infallible or free of the political and human failings of any large organization.
B: To actually achieve anything these institutions require both leadership and a primary partner with the wherewithal. Immediately after WW2 the only actor that had this was the USA. As time went by other nations gained strength and capability, but individually they were, and continue to be, no where near the USA in economic or military strength. The USA was, and still is, the essential country regarding the network that makes up this world order.
C: The most critical alliance for the stability of Western Europe and the political, economic, and military influence of the USA was NATO. It's significance is greater than a mere agreement. It was the United States, an ocean away, stating unequivocally 'Never Again". There were explicit and implicit promises made.
Russian rule is not going to be allowed any further west.
Germany will not be allowed to rise again.
We are in this together. The vast natural resources of the USA will counter that possessed by the USSR.
We recognize that the day is past of a smaller nation being able to achieve strategic security alone. The USA will provide the keystone for this arch of security.
The USA is the dominate partner. ( as a bit of irony I will steal a phrase, the USA will be the "First Among Equals")
Richard Haase has written that he "believes wars between countries have become less common only because policies that prevented them were adopted, including robust alliances and maintaining conditions of credible deterrence." In short, in spite of all their failings and shortcomings, he posits that this world order has worked, at least somewhat.
If we accept that statement as reflective of reality, we need to think very hard about undoing it. Just because we think that some members don't pay enough, (wah), do we pick up and leave? Do we approach government and international relations as though it were some sort of transactional business arrangement?
Reforms and adjustments have their place in any ongoing human activity. It is dangerous, in this case dangerous to the extreme, to unilaterally throw away what has taken a few generations to build. NATO is possibly a more important factor than the EU in making former Russian dominated nations feel as though they have joined the West....both culturally and philisophically.
"Leadership is rooted not in power and authority, but in service and wisdom"
The USA is still in a leadership position, but it's moral authority has been damaged. The invasion of Irag was contrary to all the accepted rules of soveriegnty that I have been going on about. Though it was attempted to sell the invasion as a preemptive war, it was actually a preventive war, and everyone knew it. The rhetoric of 'destroying evil' (something previously given as a province of God *), "we're an Empire now", and "you are either with us or against us" didn't help with allies and provided confirmation for the fears of the rest. This was in addition to other examples, but our credibility as a humane and just nation has been damaged by inconsistencies. We need to do better, and have work to do to restore the credibility level we had as recently as 40 years ago. It won't happen overnight, but it starts with putting honor and moral right and wrong ahead of business and domestic politics.
We need an FDR.
All that said, as the Lord said to Mephistopheles: "For while Man strives, he errs."
(Will wrap this up later with as to how this relates to Ukraine)
* concept credited to William Pfaff
So far I have asserted that a fundamental requirement for the well being of any people/society is the physical security and predictability that is provided by political order. It is often stated using the term stability.
While most of the discussion centers on relations between countries, it also is critical to just how functional any given country is inside it's own borders.
In addition to making it possible for governments to address immediate needs, it also is a requirement for the relationships required to address worldwide problems and predicaments that affect everyone.
Example: difficult to address agreements on fishing rights between country's that are involved in open warfare.
I have become convinced that this 'order' is so basic and obvious regarding organized human endeavors that it can be labeled as a priori.
My second main point is multifaceted.
A: The post WW2 victors outside Stalin's orbit have attempted to build institutions and alliances aimed at making the world less likely to repeat the catastrophes of WW1 & 2. They involved trade, finance and banking, humanitarian aid, international law, the UN and military alliances. Over time many non-govt actors became involved as well. Some as genuine independent actors, some infiltrated by various govt. services/organizations. None of these organizations are monolithic. Nor are they infallible or free of the political and human failings of any large organization.
B: To actually achieve anything these institutions require both leadership and a primary partner with the wherewithal. Immediately after WW2 the only actor that had this was the USA. As time went by other nations gained strength and capability, but individually they were, and continue to be, no where near the USA in economic or military strength. The USA was, and still is, the essential country regarding the network that makes up this world order.
C: The most critical alliance for the stability of Western Europe and the political, economic, and military influence of the USA was NATO. It's significance is greater than a mere agreement. It was the United States, an ocean away, stating unequivocally 'Never Again". There were explicit and implicit promises made.
Russian rule is not going to be allowed any further west.
Germany will not be allowed to rise again.
We are in this together. The vast natural resources of the USA will counter that possessed by the USSR.
We recognize that the day is past of a smaller nation being able to achieve strategic security alone. The USA will provide the keystone for this arch of security.
The USA is the dominate partner. ( as a bit of irony I will steal a phrase, the USA will be the "First Among Equals")
Richard Haase has written that he "believes wars between countries have become less common only because policies that prevented them were adopted, including robust alliances and maintaining conditions of credible deterrence." In short, in spite of all their failings and shortcomings, he posits that this world order has worked, at least somewhat.
If we accept that statement as reflective of reality, we need to think very hard about undoing it. Just because we think that some members don't pay enough, (wah), do we pick up and leave? Do we approach government and international relations as though it were some sort of transactional business arrangement?
Reforms and adjustments have their place in any ongoing human activity. It is dangerous, in this case dangerous to the extreme, to unilaterally throw away what has taken a few generations to build. NATO is possibly a more important factor than the EU in making former Russian dominated nations feel as though they have joined the West....both culturally and philisophically.
"Leadership is rooted not in power and authority, but in service and wisdom"
The USA is still in a leadership position, but it's moral authority has been damaged. The invasion of Irag was contrary to all the accepted rules of soveriegnty that I have been going on about. Though it was attempted to sell the invasion as a preemptive war, it was actually a preventive war, and everyone knew it. The rhetoric of 'destroying evil' (something previously given as a province of God *), "we're an Empire now", and "you are either with us or against us" didn't help with allies and provided confirmation for the fears of the rest. This was in addition to other examples, but our credibility as a humane and just nation has been damaged by inconsistencies. We need to do better, and have work to do to restore the credibility level we had as recently as 40 years ago. It won't happen overnight, but it starts with putting honor and moral right and wrong ahead of business and domestic politics.
We need an FDR.
All that said, as the Lord said to Mephistopheles: "For while Man strives, he errs."
(Will wrap this up later with as to how this relates to Ukraine)
* concept credited to William Pfaff
01-16-2024, 03:13 PM
#2015
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Position: Cl65 left
Posts: 175
I've enjoyed reading your posts over the last several days. Some may consider them long winded but the reality is that this topic is immensely complex & you're distilling what's probably the most significant worldview in the history of mankind into relatively digestible bits. Bravo. Unfortunately, some here do not appear to be able to place current events into the overarching history. They may have some knowledge of that history & may have even played a role in it, yet cannot understand that the current conflict in Ukraine is just the latest act in that history. If we want to preserve the relative peace that the world has enjoyed for the last 75 years, it's imperative that the United States maintains a coherent long term foreign policy. Until recently, this was something that policy makers of all stripes generally understood. Unfortunately, the dissolution of the Soviet Union lulled many to believe that the "end of history" was upon us. Turns out, it was just a new chapter in the same old story. We simply cannot afford to treat foreign policy as a purely transactional endeavor that can be radically changed at the same rate trendy restaurants open and close in New York. The American people would do well to reacquaint themselves with the history of the current world order and make the issue a primary consideration when electing their representatives.
Don’t worry! We have the best of the best right now making decisions for us! Let’s hope nothing changes! Things are going perfectly! I’m completely confident that the USA will come out on top with all the money!
01-16-2024, 03:38 PM
#2016
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,252
01-16-2024, 04:25 PM
#2017
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Position: Cl65 left
Posts: 175
01-16-2024, 10:18 PM
#2018
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2020
Position: Enoch Powell Enthusiast
Posts: 2,323
To continue.
So far I have asserted that a fundamental requirement for the well being of any people/society is the physical security and predictability that is provided by political order. It is often stated using the term stability.
While most of the discussion centers on relations between countries, it also is critical to just how functional any given country is inside it's own borders.
In addition to making it possible for governments to address immediate needs, it also is a requirement for the relationships required to address worldwide problems and predicaments that affect everyone.
Example: difficult to address agreements on fishing rights between country's that are involved in open warfare.
I have become convinced that this 'order' is so basic and obvious regarding organized human endeavors that it can be labeled as a priori.
My second main point is multifaceted.
A: The post WW2 victors outside Stalin's orbit have attempted to build institutions and alliances aimed at making the world less likely to repeat the catastrophes of WW1 & 2. They involved trade, finance and banking, humanitarian aid, international law, the UN and military alliances. Over time many non-govt actors became involved as well. Some as genuine independent actors, some infiltrated by various govt. services/organizations. None of these organizations are monolithic. Nor are they infallible or free of the political and human failings of any large organization.
B: To actually achieve anything these institutions require both leadership and a primary partner with the wherewithal. Immediately after WW2 the only actor that had this was the USA. As time went by other nations gained strength and capability, but individually they were, and continue to be, no where near the USA in economic or military strength. The USA was, and still is, the essential country regarding the network that makes up this world order.
C: The most critical alliance for the stability of Western Europe and the political, economic, and military influence of the USA was NATO. It's significance is greater than a mere agreement. It was the United States, an ocean away, stating unequivocally 'Never Again". There were explicit and implicit promises made.
Russian rule is not going to be allowed any further west.
Germany will not be allowed to rise again.
We are in this together. The vast natural resources of the USA will counter that possessed by the USSR.
We recognize that the day is past of a smaller nation being able to achieve strategic security alone. The USA will provide the keystone for this arch of security.
The USA is the dominate partner. ( as a bit of irony I will steal a phrase, the USA will be the "First Among Equals")
Richard Haase has written that he "believes wars between countries have become less common only because policies that prevented them were adopted, including robust alliances and maintaining conditions of credible deterrence." In short, in spite of all their failings and shortcomings, he posits that this world order has worked, at least somewhat.
If we accept that statement as reflective of reality, we need to think very hard about undoing it. Just because we think that some members don't pay enough, (wah), do we pick up and leave? Do we approach government and international relations as though it were some sort of transactional business arrangement?
Reforms and adjustments have their place in any ongoing human activity. It is dangerous, in this case dangerous to the extreme, to unilaterally throw away what has taken a few generations to build. NATO is possibly a more important factor than the EU in making former Russian dominated nations feel as though they have joined the West....both culturally and philisophically.
"Leadership is rooted not in power and authority, but in service and wisdom"
The USA is still in a leadership position, but it's moral authority has been damaged. The invasion of Irag was contrary to all the accepted rules of soveriegnty that I have been going on about. Though it was attempted to sell the invasion as a preemptive war, it was actually a preventive war, and everyone knew it. The rhetoric of 'destroying evil' (something previously given as a province of God *), "we're an Empire now", and "you are either with us or against us" didn't help with allies and provided confirmation for the fears of the rest. This was in addition to other examples, but our credibility as a humane and just nation has been damaged by inconsistencies. We need to do better, and have work to do to restore the credibility level we had as recently as 40 years ago. It won't happen overnight, but it starts with putting honor and moral right and wrong ahead of business and domestic politics.
We need an FDR.
All that said, as the Lord said to Mephistopheles: "For while Man strives, he errs."
(Will wrap this up later with as to how this relates to Ukraine)
* concept credited to William Pfaff
So far I have asserted that a fundamental requirement for the well being of any people/society is the physical security and predictability that is provided by political order. It is often stated using the term stability.
While most of the discussion centers on relations between countries, it also is critical to just how functional any given country is inside it's own borders.
In addition to making it possible for governments to address immediate needs, it also is a requirement for the relationships required to address worldwide problems and predicaments that affect everyone.
Example: difficult to address agreements on fishing rights between country's that are involved in open warfare.
I have become convinced that this 'order' is so basic and obvious regarding organized human endeavors that it can be labeled as a priori.
My second main point is multifaceted.
A: The post WW2 victors outside Stalin's orbit have attempted to build institutions and alliances aimed at making the world less likely to repeat the catastrophes of WW1 & 2. They involved trade, finance and banking, humanitarian aid, international law, the UN and military alliances. Over time many non-govt actors became involved as well. Some as genuine independent actors, some infiltrated by various govt. services/organizations. None of these organizations are monolithic. Nor are they infallible or free of the political and human failings of any large organization.
B: To actually achieve anything these institutions require both leadership and a primary partner with the wherewithal. Immediately after WW2 the only actor that had this was the USA. As time went by other nations gained strength and capability, but individually they were, and continue to be, no where near the USA in economic or military strength. The USA was, and still is, the essential country regarding the network that makes up this world order.
C: The most critical alliance for the stability of Western Europe and the political, economic, and military influence of the USA was NATO. It's significance is greater than a mere agreement. It was the United States, an ocean away, stating unequivocally 'Never Again". There were explicit and implicit promises made.
Russian rule is not going to be allowed any further west.
Germany will not be allowed to rise again.
We are in this together. The vast natural resources of the USA will counter that possessed by the USSR.
We recognize that the day is past of a smaller nation being able to achieve strategic security alone. The USA will provide the keystone for this arch of security.
The USA is the dominate partner. ( as a bit of irony I will steal a phrase, the USA will be the "First Among Equals")
Richard Haase has written that he "believes wars between countries have become less common only because policies that prevented them were adopted, including robust alliances and maintaining conditions of credible deterrence." In short, in spite of all their failings and shortcomings, he posits that this world order has worked, at least somewhat.
If we accept that statement as reflective of reality, we need to think very hard about undoing it. Just because we think that some members don't pay enough, (wah), do we pick up and leave? Do we approach government and international relations as though it were some sort of transactional business arrangement?
Reforms and adjustments have their place in any ongoing human activity. It is dangerous, in this case dangerous to the extreme, to unilaterally throw away what has taken a few generations to build. NATO is possibly a more important factor than the EU in making former Russian dominated nations feel as though they have joined the West....both culturally and philisophically.
"Leadership is rooted not in power and authority, but in service and wisdom"
The USA is still in a leadership position, but it's moral authority has been damaged. The invasion of Irag was contrary to all the accepted rules of soveriegnty that I have been going on about. Though it was attempted to sell the invasion as a preemptive war, it was actually a preventive war, and everyone knew it. The rhetoric of 'destroying evil' (something previously given as a province of God *), "we're an Empire now", and "you are either with us or against us" didn't help with allies and provided confirmation for the fears of the rest. This was in addition to other examples, but our credibility as a humane and just nation has been damaged by inconsistencies. We need to do better, and have work to do to restore the credibility level we had as recently as 40 years ago. It won't happen overnight, but it starts with putting honor and moral right and wrong ahead of business and domestic politics.
We need an FDR.
All that said, as the Lord said to Mephistopheles: "For while Man strives, he errs."
(Will wrap this up later with as to how this relates to Ukraine)
* concept credited to William Pfaff
Enjoyed this post. Respects the reader.
An ascendant China (and India) probably makes the post WW2 international rules based order increasingly moot. The US unipolar moment was nice while it lasted; I enjoyed its fruits immensely.
“China is a sleeping giant, when she wakes she will shake the world.” (Attributed to Napoleon, probably apocryphal)
If I were to live another 100 years, and the Thucydides Trap didn’t kill us all, I’d put my money on China as the long term civilizational winner.
Nevertheless; the US State Department is ruthless (that’s good) and won’t go down without a fight.
Ukraine is a sideshow.
(APC is a terrible format for this)
01-17-2024, 07:06 AM
#2019
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2023
Posts: 197
Enjoyed this post. Respects the reader.
An ascendant China (and India) probably makes the post WW2 international rules based order increasingly moot. The US unipolar moment was nice while it lasted; I enjoyed its fruits immensely.
“China is a sleeping giant, when she wakes she will shake the world.” (Attributed to Napoleon, probably apocryphal)
If I were to live another 100 years, and the Thucydides Trap didn’t kill us all, I’d put my money on China as the long term civilizational winner.
Nevertheless; the US State Department is ruthless (that’s good) and won’t go down without a fight.
Ukraine is a sideshow.
(APC is a terrible format for this)
An ascendant China (and India) probably makes the post WW2 international rules based order increasingly moot. The US unipolar moment was nice while it lasted; I enjoyed its fruits immensely.
“China is a sleeping giant, when she wakes she will shake the world.” (Attributed to Napoleon, probably apocryphal)
If I were to live another 100 years, and the Thucydides Trap didn’t kill us all, I’d put my money on China as the long term civilizational winner.
Nevertheless; the US State Department is ruthless (that’s good) and won’t go down without a fight.
Ukraine is a sideshow.
(APC is a terrible format for this)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
