|
Since Trump won the presidency, I've been hearing a lot of people terrified of the rollback he might do on any or all of the liberal rulings and changes the Obama presidency performed. They imagine the unpleasant near future, the tens of thousands of policemen raiding homes and workplaces, rounding up illegal immigrants and sending them off on overcrowded trains and buses. They look at the grim statistics and know exactly what it means that 87% of Trump supporters are white.
And yet, what I hear little mention of is what I perceive as the true danger in our new reality. The possibility - the real, looming, numbing possibility - of the western civilization breaking apart and collapsing.
I'm 24 years old. I have had the absolute luck to have been alive during what must be the most safe and prosperous, least violent and least hateful three decades of human existence. During my entire as of yet short life I could lean on a certainty that things are just going to keep on getting better, and the only question is the pace. All we humans had to do was try to keep a semblance of order while scientists slowly but surely march us closer and closer to a technological utopia.
This certainty is gone. The world is holding it's breath. What used to seem like an unshakable status quo now reveals itself as the house of cards that it is. It takes quite a powerful blow to knock down one of the foundations of this structure, but once a single card is misplaced, the entire thing could collapse at once.
Trump, as president of the united states, is the single most powerful person in the world. He is positioned to knock down a foundation, if he is so inclined. It truly is anyone's guess if he would or wouldn't, and what would happen if he would. If Trump pulls U.S forces out of Asia and Europe and refuses to have America continue to act as global cop, nations that didn't need an army for decades will suddenly have to decide if they want to rebuild their military might. A South Korea without American backing may decide it needs a nuclear arsenal, prompting a mad scramble for nuclear armament across Asia. A Russia that does not fear American intervention can become more aggressive in it's effort to reassert control over former Soviet Union territories. A Middle East where Putin has a free reign to act could become a bloodbath or a huge dictatorship. A Europe shaken to it's core with newfound instability could turn to right wing extremists - Brexit may have been a start to a crumbling European Union. A world where global trade agreements are broken or revoked may experience a great recession, and billions could find they have less now than they used to - and lack of resources could easily lead to wars.
I'm not saying this apocalyptic scenario is going to happen, or even likely to happen in any way resembling how I lay it out. But my point, my fear, is that these things are now possible. I think like a mountaineer who discovered that the path ahead no longer has a safety rail - all of a sudden, any slip in his footing may lead to a tumbling fall.
With all due respect and empathy to the citizens of America who worry about gay marriage and the rights of women over their own body, Trump is not a local problem. He's a global menace. The world has been all but dormant for a while now, and I am greatly troubled to think that this period came to an end this week.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's simply too early to tell. We already have protests, and the man isn't even in office yet.
My advice is to not give in to fear, and live your life. Worry about the day to day, here and now. This is not a dismissal of your fears, as no one has the right to say it's not valid to you.
I'm simply saying that living in fear is no way to live. Do whatever you do now; if you're politically active, keep doing it. Keep working for your ideals where you live. Be a decent human being. Love your neighbors, take care of those you love. Live your life.
This too shall pass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And does this come as a surprise? Really? Honestly?
Western politics have been dominated by two idiot conflicts for as long as there has been a West. One has been whether people should pay more in taxes and get more benefits for it, or pay less taxes and get less benefits for it. The other is what you're allowed to say about whom and who decides that. Every possible political force in the West has dedicated all its time to these two issues. The foundations of Western civilization have been safely ignored: A free press, rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of information, right of ownership, freedom of religion, protected communications, freedom of thought, democracy, accountability, and so on.
Twitter was more interesting than defending freedom of speech. After all, those people were RACIST! Getting or not getting a slight tax increase was more important than standing up for not having the government spy on all our communications. After all, the people communicating might be TERRORISTS!
The West has been doing this for decades. Principles have been sacrificed to expediency at a frightening rate. Nobody even seems to have considered if these things were there for a reason. International treaties have been seen as ways to get profits for various companies. The rabid copyright dogs being the best example with their ACTA treaty - what is private communications worth when copyright holders may lose money if those communications are not recorded? Who cares about millions of people not getting medicine when patent money is on the line?
With each of those decisions, the West acted a little more like an authoritarian state. The cards of the house of cards were tossed down, not accidentally, but knowingly. While we did not have an authoritarian state yet, people started thinking that way. And lo and behold, who did they vote for?
The seeds were planted ages ago. And now we will all know why those protections and foundations of democracy were important while we had them. Maybe the world will crawl out of the hole we're in now. Perhaps that time, the most important issue will not be if someone uses a terrible word, whether the person saying something is male or female, whether someone screams TERRORIST!, or whether Kim Kardashian has a new haircut.
Sorry for ranting.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Being a bit older, I'll just reassure you this isn't the first time.
When Reagan was elected in 1980, everyone assumed it was the beginning of WWIII. Many otherwise-sensible people spent tens of thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of dollars on nuclear fallout shelters. International treaties would collapse. War would spread across the globe. Reagan was a loose cannon pointed at the world.
And yet... the world survived.
This article is a great description of why Trump won: 38% of the U.S. population is completely disenfranchised; rural people who made their living at the local factory (now shut down) wondering what happened to their lifestyle, and what they can do to get it back. As one of my friends with relatives in those areas said, "They have nothing left to lose. Global recession can't touch them, because they already have nothing. They're just sick of no one paying any attention to them, or dismissing them as uneducated rubes."
Trump's election was a big F.U. at the powers-that-be.
But the idea that he can somehow bring about the collapse of civilization is a bit premature, in my mind.
That being said, I think many of your concerns are valid: Russia essentially just got a free pass to continue to absorb former Soviet states, and to continue meddling in the Middle East. Trump has already tacitly declared his opposition to the First Amendment, and an amenable Supreme Court may allow further restrictions on it. I am particularly concerned that "Equal Protection under the Law" is going to be gutted to include only race and gender, allowing discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation (it's what the Republicans and the rural populace want). A trade war with China is a distinct possibility, and that will have tremendous economic impact on those of us with 401(k)s.
But we'll survive. And if he's bad enough, in 2 years the Democrats will regain control of the Senate and House and rein him in.
He can do damage, but the collapse of Western civilization? I don't think so.
A trade war with China is one the US is likely to regret for a VERY long time. Looking at his stated policies just makes me wince. Taxes on imports is an idiot's balm that will kill the export sector, which will hit the US worse than it gets for it. China can demand payment of US loans today if it wants to - and the US will have to either pay up or refuse. Refusing will make sure the US never again gets a loan for anything. Good luck getting all those wins, Trump.
That said, with such an unworkable platform, it is quite likely he will default to the tried and true method of any autocrat: dismantle the checks and balances. See my post above.
A trade war with China is one the US is likely to regret for a VERY long time. Looking at his stated policies just makes me wince. Taxes on imports is an idiot's balm that will kill the export sector, which will hit the US worse than it gets for it. China can demand payment of US loans today if it wants to - and the US will have to either pay up or refuse. Refusing will make sure the US never again gets a loan for anything. Good luck getting all those wins, Trump.
That said, with such an unworkable platform, it is quite likely he will default to the tried and true method of any autocrat: dismantle the checks and balances. See my post above.
Oh, yeah. Of EVERYTHING the man has promised to do, the trade war with China is the scariest. I imagine the U.S. re-entering the Great Depression, or even suffering 1930's Germany-style inflation. It would be BAD.
And I don't disagree with your post at all. The 4th and 6th Amendments have already been essentially annulled. The 8th Amendment is arguably gone. He's after the 1st.
It's scary, but he's just a continuing progression of what's been happening ever since Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to annul many of our protections.
But I'll stand by my statement that Western Civilization will survive. It's unpleasant, but it's not doom.
It started in the early nineties, actually. When you look at a timeline, it seems the end of the cold war was the starting gun for formal removal of liberties.
It started in the early nineties, actually. When you look at a timeline, it seems the end of the cold war was the starting gun for formal removal of liberties.
Interesting -- they were much more subtle about it then. I mean, I was in grad school, but I didn't think I was *that* distracted.
Do you have a link to such a timeline?
EDIT: Oops! I just remembered the war on drugs and the WONDERFUL Supreme Court ruling that allowed police to seize property on which drugs were found even if the owner was unaware of them. So, for example, if you gave your buddy a lift and he had cocaine in his pocket, they could confiscate YOUR car.
So the erosion goes all the way back to the 80's, at least.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Businesses run the government.
Businesses area not going to let him kill the cow they're milking for profit.
Corporate self interest: the lesser evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I saw one ages ago, NobodysHome. And it wasn't full scale removal back then, it was a slow increase of spying powers, things like that. Then things kicked into gear in 2001, of course.
Of course, the government has ALWAYS abhorred the idea of liberties - stuff it specifically isn't allowed to do to people. It just wasn't until then they started making exceptions for it. The cold war wasn't much better, but I suspect the reason for the shift in tactics was precisely the end of the cold war. Perhaps there was too much doubt in what liberal democracy could do without a common enemy? Too little faith in letting things chart a course with new possibilities? I suppose we'll never know.
|
|
Being a bit older, I'll just reassure you this isn't the first time.
When Reagan was elected in 1980, everyone assumed it was the beginning of WWIII. Many otherwise-sensible people spent tens of thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of dollars on nuclear fallout shelters. International treaties would collapse. War would spread across the globe. Reagan was a loose cannon pointed at the world.
And yet... the world survived.
This article is a great description of why Trump won: 38% of the U.S. population is completely disenfranchised; rural people who made their living at the local factory (now shut down) wondering what happened to their lifestyle, and what they can do to get it back. As one of my friends with relatives in those areas said, "They have nothing left to lose. Global recession can't touch them, because they already have nothing. They're just sick of no one paying any attention to them, or dismissing them as uneducated rubes."
Trump's election was a big F.U. at the powers-that-be.
But the idea that he can somehow bring about the collapse of civilization is a bit premature, in my mind.
That being said, I think many of your concerns are valid: Russia essentially just got a free pass to continue to absorb former Soviet states, and to continue meddling in the Middle East. Trump has already tacitly declared his opposition to the First Amendment, and an amenable Supreme Court may allow further restrictions on it. I am particularly concerned that "Equal Protection under the Law" is going to be gutted to include only race and gender, allowing discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation (it's what the Republicans and the rural populace want). A trade war with China is a distinct possibility, and that will have tremendous economic impact on those of us with 401(k)s.
But we'll survive. And if he's bad enough, in 2 years the Democrats will regain control of the Senate and House and rein him
...
But what happens if Russia *does* continue to take land, creeping closer and closer to Europe?
Say you're running Germany, and Russia takes Ukraine and Belarus. Now it is looming over Hungary, Serbia and Slovakia. Within a year Russia may have an armed presence uncomfortably close to your border - and you don't know if the U.S will help you if it comes to a military confrontation. You can literally lose your independence if you sit on your laurels. This is the time to start rebuilding your army, right? Take all that money you were going to put into improving the lives of your citizens and start pouring it into building a strong and capable modern military force capable of scaring Putin away.
Except, raising an army, especially from the mere shade of an army that Germany has now, takes time. By the time Russia starts looking real intimidating you might not have that time. So, you being the ruler of Germany - might you not decide to start investing more in your military right now?
And now say you're in charge of Britain. It's been a while since you were known for your world dominating fleet and well trained professional troops. Your public just made it clear they are not interested in sharing their future with Europe. Russia is advancing ever closer to the west, and you see the German and the French and the Italian hastily constructing respectable armies. You probably don't want to be left behind in this new balance of forces. After all, the U.S might just not do anything if you are ever threatened by a less democratic rival state.
Now let's say you're Japan...
The world is currently peaceful, but this relies heavily on the intimidating presence of the U.S as an international police force. If western nations are scared to a point that they'll start an arms race again, we all might discover exactly how a 21st century total war looks like - all indication is that humankind has never seen anything nearly as bloody as what's in store for us if that happens.
NobodysHome, you say you've already seen all of this play out 35 years ago, and everything turned out fine back then. I agree that everything might turn out fine now - but you must agree there is reason to fear, whereas had Clinton been elected we could have been much more at ease. Next year will feature multiple important elections in Europe. I fear that Brexit and the Trump candidacy (alongside a mounting Muslim immigration demographic threat on the dwindling number of white Europeans) could spell a sweeping, continent-wide victory for Hawks. On a personal level, as a Jew, I am also for the first time in my life actively anxious about the possibility of rising antisemitism (not as a unique phenomenon but as a general increase in racism that might occur in the west). Many of these right wing parties are openly neu-nazis.
|
|
A trade war with China is one the US is likely to regret for a VERY long time. Looking at his stated policies just makes me wince. Taxes on imports is an idiot's balm that will kill the export sector, which will hit the US worse than it gets for it. China can demand payment of US loans today if it wants to - and the US will have to either pay up or refuse. Refusing will make sure the US never again gets a loan for anything. Good luck getting all those wins, Trump.
That said, with such an unworkable platform, it is quite likely he will default to the tried and true method of any autocrat: dismantle the checks and balances. See my post above.
Oh, yeah. Of EVERYTHING the man has promised to do, the trade war with China is the scariest. I imagine the U.S. re-entering the Great Depression, or even suffering 1930's Germany-style inflation. It would be BAD.
And I don't disagree with your post at all. The 4th and 6th Amendments have already been essentially annulled. The 8th Amendment is arguably gone. He's after the 1st.
It's scary, but he's just a continuing progression of what's been happening ever since Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to annul many of our protections.
But I'll stand by my statement that Western Civilization will survive. It's unpleasant, but it's not doom.
trade war with china may cause huge recession not only in the U.S, but in China as well. China now has a middle class numbering in the hundreds of millions (still not a huge slice of their population), which will take a reduction in life style badly. Also, all those jobs disappearing from the U.S are jobs in China which may be thrown in turmoil by the changes.
If a billion Chinese find themselves poorer all of a sudden, warlike sentimentality and outrage may appear in China too. A war in Asia caused (at the root) by a sudden dearth of resources, is now not an unthinkable outcome, but an actual possibility.
But what happens if Russia *does* continue to take land, creeping closer and closer to Europe?
Say you're running Germany, and Russia takes Ukraine and Belarus. Now it is looming over Hungary, Serbia and Slovakia. Within a year Russia may have an armed presence uncomfortably close to your border - and you don't know if the U.S will help you if it comes to a military confrontation. You can literally lose your independence if you sit on your laurels. This is the time to start rebuilding your army, right? Take all that money you were going to put into improving the lives of your citizens and start pouring it into building a strong and capable modern military force capable of scaring Putin away.
Except, raising an army, especially from the mere shade of an army that Germany has now, takes time. By the time Russia starts looking real intimidating you might not have that time. So, you being the ruler of Germany - might you not decide to start investing more in your military right now?And now say you're in charge of Britain. It's been a while since you were known for your world dominating fleet and well trained professional troops. Your public just made it clear they are not interested in sharing their future with Europe. Russia is advancing ever closer to the west, and you see the German and the French and the Italian hastily constructing respectable armies. You probably don't want to be left behind in this new balance of forces. After all, the U.S might just not do anything if you are ever threatened by a less democratic rival state.
Now let's say you're Japan...The world is currently peaceful, but this relies heavily on the intimidating presence of the U.S as an international police force. If western nations are scared to a point that they'll start an arms race again, we all might discover exactly how a 21st century total war looks like - all indication is that humankind has never seen anything nearly as bloody as what's in store for us if that happens.
NobodysHome, you say you've already seen all of this play out 35 years ago, and everything turned out fine back then. I agree that everything might turn out fine now - but you must agree there is reason to fear, whereas had Clinton been elected we could have been much more at ease. Next year will feature multiple important elections in Europe. I fear that Brexit and the Trump candidacy (alongside a mounting Muslim immigration demographic threat on the dwindling number of white Europeans) could spell a sweeping, continent-wide victory for Hawks. On a personal level, as a Jew, I am also for the first time in my life actively anxious about the possibility of rising antisemitism (not as a unique phenomenon but as a general increase in racism that might occur in the west). Many of these right wing parties are openly neu-nazis.
You're basically describing the Cold War.
And yes, it was no fun. We practiced nuclear war drills. High-school age kids had nightmares about WWIII. There was still a draft in the U.S., and one of the scariest events of my life was submitting my registration card while Reagan was in office.
I'm not saying it's not OK to be scared.
I'm saying I've seen this whole thing: Military buildup, posturing, aggressiveness, all play out in the 1970's and 1980's and it did not lead to a world collapse.
And I don't see the world as so different today than it was then that something will trigger WWIII when it didn't get triggered back then.
...Being a bit older, I'll just reassure you this isn't the first time.
When Reagan was elected in 1980, everyone assumed it was the beginning of WWIII. Many otherwise-sensible people spent tens of thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of dollars on nuclear fallout shelters. International treaties would collapse. War would spread across the globe. Reagan was a loose cannon pointed at the world.
And yet... the world survived.
This article is a great description of why Trump won: 38% of the U.S. population is completely disenfranchised; rural people who made their living at the local factory (now shut down) wondering what happened to their lifestyle, and what they can do to get it back. As one of my friends with relatives in those areas said, "They have nothing left to lose. Global recession can't touch them, because they already have nothing. They're just sick of no one paying any attention to them, or dismissing them as uneducated rubes."
Trump's election was a big F.U. at the powers-that-be.
But the idea that he can somehow bring about the collapse of civilization is a bit premature, in my mind.
That being said, I think many of your concerns are valid: Russia essentially just got a free pass to continue to absorb former Soviet states, and to continue meddling in the Middle East. Trump has already tacitly declared his opposition to the First Amendment, and an amenable Supreme Court may allow further restrictions on it. I am particularly concerned that "Equal Protection under the Law" is going to be gutted to include only race and gender, allowing discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation (it's what the Republicans and the rural populace want). A trade war with China is a distinct possibility, and that will have tremendous economic impact on those of us with 401(k)s.
But we'll survive. And if he's bad enough, in 2 years the Democrats will regain control of the
Check your facts please. At the moment Russia is not "taking land", it took back Crimea for a plethora of reasons too long to write down now (but above all its strategical importance).
The fact that Russia is on the agressive is debatably false, on the contrary it seems to me it was the NATO that decided to expand eastward Despite its commitments not to do soAnd Russia's "meddling" in the middle east is not different than the US one. In Syria they have a more legitimate presence than the US as, like it or not, they have had a base there for a long time and were asked to help by their government (no matter if we don't like it).
Btw in my opinion getting Russia out of the middle east was the western strategic goal that caused the Syrian abattoir to happen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Check your facts please. At the moment Russia is not "taking land", it took back Crimea for a plethora of reasons too long to write down now (but above all its strategical importance).
And sent troops into the ukraine (not just crimea) just to see if it would stick.
And now say you're in charge of Britain. It's been a while since you were known for your world dominating fleet and well trained professional troops. Your public just made it clear they are not interested in sharing their future with Europe. Russia is advancing ever closer to the west, and you see the German and the French and the Italian hastily constructing respectable armies. You probably don't want to be left behind in this new balance of forces. After all, the U.S might just not do anything if you are ever threatened by a less democratic rival state.
As a counterpoint, from where I am sitting the one good thing about Trump is that he looks like he might be an isolationist US president, so there is the faint possibility that for the first time in 20-odd years the US isn't going to start a war somewhere and drag the UK into it because NATO.
The UK spends a surprisingly large percentage of its GDP on the military, nothing like US levels, but more than you might expect (and in some ways has a very militarised society).
Check your facts please. At the moment Russia is not "taking land", it took back Crimea for a plethora of reasons too long to write down now (but above all its strategical importance).And sent troops into the ukraine (not just crimea) just to see if it would stick.
Yeah, right, because had they wanted to escalate things further they could not have taken Ukraine, right?
But considering the kind of people we installed there by defending the coup that installed the current government we are clearly on the side of democracy against Tyranny, right?
Here's a different point of view on what happened in Ukraine
Bottom line, needlesly provoking a nation with 5.000+ nukes is rarely a good way to "work for peace". On the contrary it risks escalating things to the point of no return.
|
|
You're basically describing the Cold War.
And yes, it was no fun. We practiced nuclear war drills. High-school age kids had nightmares about WWIII. There was still a draft in the U.S., and one of the scariest events of my life was submitting my registration card while Reagan was in office.
I'm not saying it's not OK to be scared.
I'm saying I've seen this whole thing: Military buildup, posturing, aggressiveness, all play out in the 1970's and 1980's and it did not lead to a world collapse.
And I don't see the world as so different today than it was then that something will trigger WWIII when it didn't get triggered back then.
To be clear, I am saying that I'm scared of these things happening, not that I'm sure they'll happen. I'm saying I think there's a real chance, and this very Sunday I wouldn't have dreamed that any such scenario could play out in the immediate future.
And I see what you're saying, I really do - lots of so called crisis situations would have been received much more proportionately if people had more historical context. But the thing is... just because things didn't escalate in the 80s doesn't mean there was no chance that they would. It may have been a coin toss - 50% that a war breaks out, 50% that everything slides. What if this is a coin toss era again?
And yet another clarification. What I fear is not an end to the human race. I actually still think that the chances of nuclear mutual destruction are not very high. Rather, I fear that the longstanding reign of America as the central power of the world may very well be over, and that the new players who step up to divide the cake between them may not be as nice. Today we feel crushed because minority rights may be violated in America. Tomorrow, slavery may become a thing again. My fear comes from not knowing what will replace the liberal western world, and not just from the horrific wars that may punctuate its decline.
Trump's international viewpoints are um...odd, but the one solace I take in his election is that they are all far more extreme than the current Republican Party. Even his Vice President doesn't agree on his stance with Russia or NATO. My understanding is that the Tariff measure also isn't popular with most republicans, who would rather just see the tax cuts.
So I think that despite the fears, his foreign policy is going to be pretty typical for a Republican. That policy has a lot of points I don't agree with, but at least isn't apocalyptic. I do think its quite likely we will see troops on the ground in another ME conflict, however.
|
|
Check your facts please. At the moment Russia is not "taking land", it took back Crimea for a plethora of reasons too long to write down now (but above all its strategical importance).
The fact that Russia is on the agressive is debatably false, on the contrary it seems to me it was the NATO that decided to expand eastward Despite its cpommitments not to do so
And Russia's "meddling" in the middle east is not different than the US one. In Syria they have a more legitimate presence than the US as, like it or not, they have had a base there for a long time and were asked to help by their government (no matter if we don't like it).Btw in my opinion getting Russia out of the middle east was the western strategic goal that caused the Syrian abattoir to happen.
Not that I dispute that Russia reacted to a provocation in Ukraine, but that hardly matters. This matters. I'm not just making stuff up - Europe and Russia are currently staring at each other across the street with fingers twitching on the handles of their pistols. "who started it" is an inherently uninteresting question. "What happens next" is more crucial. I have been to Moscow a year ago and spoke with locals, and they say the war drums are beating in the media, and that Putin is promoting the idea of restoring Russia to its former glory. Russia is also involved militarily in engagements in the middle east, which not only help to establish a foothold in this Mediterranean area but also happen to serve as a perfect testing ground for tactics, personnel and equipment.
It is far from unreasonable to guess that if the U.S becomes less of an international presence (which under Trump it probably would), Russia would make more and bolder moves to expand into Europe.
Check your facts please. At the moment Russia is not "taking land", it took back Crimea for a plethora of reasons too long to write down now (but above all its strategical importance).
The fact that Russia is on the agressive is debatably false, on the contrary it seems to me it was the NATO that decided to expand eastward Despite its cpommitments not to do so
And Russia's "meddling" in the middle east is not different than the US one. In Syria they have a more legitimate presence than the US as, like it or not, they have had a base there for a long time and were asked to help by their government (no matter if we don't like it).Btw in my opinion getting Russia out of the middle east was the western strategic goal that caused the Syrian abattoir to happen.
Not that I dispute that Russia reacted to a provocation in Ukraine, but that hardly matters. This matters. I'm not just making stuff up - Europe and Russia are currently staring at each other across the street with fingers twitching on the handles of their pistols. "who started it" is an inherently uninteresting question. "What happens next" is more crucial. I have been to Moscow a year ago and spoke with locals, and they say the war drums are beating in the media, and that Putin is promoting the idea of restoring Russia to its former glory. Russia is also involved militarily in engagements in the middle east, which not only help to establish a foothold in this Mediterranean area but also happen to serve as a perfect testing ground for tactics, personnel and equipment.
It is far from unreasonable to guess that if the U.S becomes less of an international presence (which under Trump it probably would), Russia would make more and bolder moves to expand into Europe.
The EU does NOT have a unified political or military position on Russia. And aside from Poland and a few other ex soviet satellite states (including the current Ukrainian government) the idea of going to war with Russia is something anyone wants to contemplate.
As for Putin is whole political deal is based around a nationalistic message "Make Russia great again" if you want.
Is Russia going to be a threat? Possibly, but current western expansion has not helped making them less confrontational. It made them build more weapons and strengthened their ties to China (which is very scary, and not only from a military point of view, consider that China needs oil and gas, Russia has that kind of resources but currently cannot sell them to the west efficently).
As for the middle east I answered you above: getting them out was the reason for Syria's destabilization. It didn't work, we had Isis and hundres thousands of deaths instead, and they have actually strengthened their ties with Iran.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, right, because had they wanted to escalate things further they could not have taken Ukraine, right?
Not if nato and the eastern block are going to go "Oh hell no" and push them out. Which we would.
Look, i realize that the lines drawn on the map aren't the best representation of reality, but Europe keeps starting massive conflicts every time they try to redraw those lines. Leave it there. If russia is better, sell your house, move to russia. Ukraine, unlike russia, doesn't need a giant wall to keep people from fleeing.
But considering the kind of people we installed there by defending the coup that installed the current government we are clearly on the side of democracy against Tyranny, right?
Sending floor mats, protest signs and political support is not the same as sending troops and tanks.
Here's a different point of view on what happened in Ukraine
Right. Because a home grown rebellion has access to tanks.
Bottom line, needlesly provoking a nation with 5.000+ nukes is rarely a good way to "work for peace". On the contrary it risks escalating things to the point of no return.
Neither is rolling over when they invade an ally that you promised you would protect when they gave up their nukes at your request.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The EU does NOT have a unified political or military position on Russia. And aside from Poland and a few other ex soviet satellite states (including the current Ukrainian government) the idea of going to war with Russia is something anyone wants to contemplate.
No one wants to be invaded but no one wants to go to war until THEY"RE the ones being invaded.
|
|
The EU does NOT have a unified political or military position on Russia. And aside from Poland and a few other ex soviet satellite states (including the current Ukrainian...Check your facts please. At the moment Russia is not "taking land", it took back Crimea for a plethora of reasons too long to write down now (but above all its strategical importance).
The fact that Russia is on the agressive is debatably false, on the contrary it seems to me it was the NATO that decided to expand eastward Despite its cpommitments not to do so
And Russia's "meddling" in the middle east is not different than the US one. In Syria they have a more legitimate presence than the US as, like it or not, they have had a base there for a long time and were asked to help by their government (no matter if we don't like it).Btw in my opinion getting Russia out of the middle east was the western strategic goal that caused the Syrian abattoir to happen.
Not that I dispute that Russia reacted to a provocation in Ukraine, but that hardly matters. This matters. I'm not just making stuff up - Europe and Russia are currently staring at each other across the street with fingers twitching on the handles of their pistols. "who started it" is an inherently uninteresting question. "What happens next" is more crucial. I have been to Moscow a year ago and spoke with locals, and they say the war drums are beating in the media, and that Putin is promoting the idea of restoring Russia to its former glory. Russia is also involved militarily in engagements in the middle east, which not only help to establish a foothold in this Mediterranean area but also happen to serve as a perfect testing ground for tactics, personnel and equipment.
It is far from unreasonable to guess that if the U.S becomes less of an international presence (which under Trump it probably would), Russia would make more and bolder moves to expand into Europe.
You seem to be talking about blame, and who is responsible for escalations in hostilities, while I aim to talk more about the fact that an escalation process is happening, and that America pulling out of the picture could kick things into higher gear.
Yeah, right, because had they wanted to escalate things further they could not have taken Ukraine, right?
Not if nato and the eastern block are going to go "Oh hell no" and push them out. Which we would.
Look, i realize that the lines drawn on the map aren't the best representation of reality, but Europe keeps starting massive conflicts every time they try to redraw those lines. Leave it there. If russia is better, sell your house, move to russia. Ukraine, unlike russia, doesn't need a giant wall to keep people from fleeing.
But considering the kind of people we installed there by defending the coup that installed the current government we are clearly on the side of democracy against Tyranny, right?
Sending floor mats, protest signs and political support is not the same as sending troops and tanks.
Here's a different point of view on what happened in Ukraine
Right. Because a home grown rebellion has access to tanks.
Bottom line, needlesly provoking a nation with 5.000+ nukes is rarely a good way to "work for peace". On the contrary it risks escalating things to the point of no return.
Neither is rolling over when they invade an ally that you promised you would protect when they gave up their nukes at your request.
You are assuming a great deal:
-No one was going to start Worl War III for Ukraine. Had the russians really invaded NATO would not have intervened, because if they had it would have meant they were ready to eacalate things which when Russia is concerned means nuclear war on a global scale.
-What happened in Ukraine could be called a home grown rebellion or it could be called a coup instigated by foreign powers. Fact is a good number of the people now ruling Ukraine are neo nazis. Much like a fair number of the people who rebelled against Assad (no matter how deserved) were and are Al Quaeda loyalists and Isis cut throats. Fact is all these so called "home grown rebellions" happen to follow a very precise method.
-When 2 nuclear poweers face off directly none can win, but everyone loses. That's the whole reason for peripheral conflicts during the cold war era (mutually assured destruction). I'm not aware of military technological developments that changed that rationale and even if they do exist the risk of several nukes exploding in the atmosphere is not something the WORLD as a whole can afford imo.
@ Lord Snow: a lot of european nations want to trade with Russia and are unhappy with the difficulties of doing so. It means they cannot sell their products there easily and they cannot get russian tourists who spend money in their countries (most russians are dirt poor but there's also an extremely rich upper class) and so on. Besides that IF this perceived Russian threat provided the EU with the motivation to finally work togheter as a unified military force that could be considered an achievement in itself imo.
-No one was going to start Worl War III for Ukraine. Had the russians really invaded NATO would not have intervened, because if they had it would have meant they were ready to eacalate things which when Russia is concerned means nuclear war on a global scale.
So why doesn't russia invade then? Or the us invade? Since no one's willing to do anything when there are nukes involved...
-What happened in Ukraine could be called a home grown rebellion or it could be called a coup instigated by foreign powers.
I could call it a fluffy bunny but when your soldiers have been captured there and put on live tv, and there are videos on youtube of your tanks roling around the countryside it's an invasion. When you collapse a government with cardboard signs and bedding it's foreign policy.
Fact is a good number of the people now ruling Ukraine are neo...
Then why does every pro russian diatribe about how bad the current government is link the same person?
-No one was going to start Worl War III for Ukraine. Had the russians really invaded NATO would not have intervened, because if they had it would have meant they were ready to eacalate things which when Russia is concerned means nuclear war on a global scale.So why doesn't russia invade then? Or the us invade? Since no one's willing to do anything when there are nukes involved...
-What happened in Ukraine could be called a home grown rebellion or it could be called a coup instigated by foreign powers.I could call it a fluffy bunny but when your soldiers have been captured there and put on live tv, and there are videos on youtube of your tanks roling around the countryside it's an invasion. When you collapse a government with cardboard signs and bedding it's foreign policy.
Fact is a good number of the people now ruling Ukraine are neo...Then why does every pro russian diatribe about how bad the current government is link the same person?
-On a military level Russia quickly secured what it absolutely needed: Crimea. And given how nationalistic Putin is he also wanted to make sure Russia did not look weak in defending the interests of the russian minorities in Ukraine (a lot of people).
-How do you call when you actively promote rebellion, train insurgents and arm them (among those people most motivated to fight for their own "causes" which also helps you undermine your opponent's position, in this case neo nazis), maybe send in a couple of black ops teams in?
I'd say it's promoting your perceived foreign policy aims with what can be considered several acts of war while mantaining plausible deniability.
-Personally I don't know much about how the current Ukrainan government is doing. I know some of the people running it are neo nazis though and the policies they expouse are not exactly democratic. Installing neo nazis is not a good thing. And neither is supporting jhiadists.
-My whole point in this discussion is if you want to avoid the "end of civilization" (not only western) you've better be careful when risking war with people able to answer in kind. Cowardly? Maybe, but that's the rationale dominating US and Russian (or soviet before 1989) relations given their respective arsenals.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And then there's Pence, who threatens to throw is back to the 80s where all of us on here would be seen as 'demon-worshipping heretics' simply for enjoying a tabletop game.
I'd like to have a few words with the GM about this plot we've been railroaded into.
I think predicting Trump's reaction to things is difficult. Trump doesn't enough know how he'll react to things. If he stays true to his campaign statements though, I see us pulling back/ending alliances. The US isn't going to intervene if Europe and Russia get into it. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump floats a plan to pull troops out of South Korea.
So, the US is going to just watch as Russia invades Europe? The UK and France have nukes. It is going to become extremely ugly, even though Russia can possibly (Russian military budget is 70 billion dollars, UK and France and Germany come out to over twice that together) deal with it. Leaving the US pretty much alone in world politics. No, sorry, they can always go talk to Mexico, right?
EDIT: Checked the military budgets involved. It is not as simple as I thought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
leeets not go there it's bad enough already
Our country has survived a long time, but we've thrown a major variable into the equation now. Nothing says we have to survive this. The world may not end, but that doesn't mean that things won't get worse. Historically, successful populist movements to overthrow the old order tend to have dire results, and the stakes are higher than ever in the modern world.
It may be silly to be sure that Trump is going to destroy the world, but it's just as silly to discount the possibility entirely. We are in unexplored territory here, and anything can happen. And it all rests on the psychological profile of one man.
You know, I took a skim through the writeup of the Cuban Missile Crisis on Wikipedia, and I couldn't help but have the thought...
"What would have Trump done if he was in the hot seat instead of Kennedy. Would the Cuban Missile Crisis have ended with a subtle strengthening of Russian-US relations, or would it have devolved into a nuclear slug fest."
Its something to mull over.
