So how are y'all preparing for the Apocalypse?

[Fish Owl]

I agree. And if Ukraine wanted help in facilitating talks, we would help. But first Russia would have to step out of the picture and leave it to the Ukrainians.

which is impossible because they will never leave Crimea and Sebastopol. And if they do it will be another war because majority of people in Crimea (except tatars and they are only 10% of population) support Russia and they will never return to Ukraine peacefully.

it's the same dead end as Oseria-Georgia, Moldova-Transnistria, South-North Korea and Israel-Palestina.
It can't be mended.

 

[Av Demeisen]

What if the EU and Ukraine had never considered their association treaty and NATO and Ukraine had not sought closer ties. Do you think it is possible Russia would not have moved on the Crimea? It is after all strategically vital to their naval interests and until 1954 Crimea was part of Russia. I think even strict Ukrainian neutrality would have been impossible to accept for Putin's Russia.

 

[Fish Owl]

Do you think it is possible Russia would not have moved on the Crimea?

I would highly doubt they would. They had military base in Sebastopol same way US have base in Okinawa and Guantanamo. Why bother with rest of the population? Today Crimea is a huge problem for Russia because Ukraine never invested into Crimean infrastructure (probably our politicians knew we can lost this territory anytime).

But I still think true neutrality is only possible if you have nuclear weapon. So we missed that chance in 1994 when we forfeit ours in exchange for pile of empty promises.

accept for Putin's Russia.

Putin rule Russia for the last 16 years. The conflict became inevitable only in 2014.

 

[JacenAster]

Woah. This thread kinda exploded when I was sleeping. Exploded and took a left turn. To be honest, I'm not nearly as well versed in the Ukraine situation and history as I ought to be. So I'm not going to chime in on that ongoing conversation except to point out a relevant but about precisely why I'm not. The primary reason for my lack of detailed knowledge is...that frankly the U.S. is bloody swamped in worldwide issues.

The U.S. may still have the single most powerful military in the world(by a very much decreasing margin), but it's currently deployed in Four ongoing armed conflicts. That's not even counting the huge numbers of other commitments, such as the nearly 30,000 U.S. troops stationed in Korea as of the last numbers update I can find. To be perfectly honest, the U.S. has pretty much hit it's limit of force projection.

The public, even those like me who do their best to keep up with it, are also beyond their ability to keep track of everything. Add a sort of spreading numbness to the population...to be blunt the average U.S. citizen is reverting to an isolationist mindset. We've been trying to act as a world police force, and the strong arm of the world government for so long, and getting so much hate in return for our efforts, that the public really just wants to withdraw from everywhere and let China and Russia do whatever the hell they want to the rest of the world.

This very thread has highlighted the reason why. Despite the best efforts of our military and political masters, every time anything in the world goes wrong, everyone and their brother screams "Where was America!". The American public has grown sick of it, of the whining and bitching when we help, and of the even worse whining and bitching when we don't. I'm not saying it's right. I'm not even agreeing with it. It's just an observation of reality.

Compare an Amtrak train to an Italian high-speed, an American interstate to a French highway, an international airport anywhere in Europe to one anywhere in the US. Americans think they're leading the world only because they've never seen the world.

First, and I want to make this point, because it's important: Amenities mean almost nothing about the population's interested in the public good. They are, generally, more related to country/city size and comparative affluence. Heck, in some places the public amenities are less...because the idea of the public good is higher and the money was spent to raise overall quality of life. I'm not sure where the two got associated here.

Second, and this is equally important if you're going to compare somewhere like France to the USA.

Size of France: 248,573 mi²
Size of United States: 3.797 million mi

France has things like a superior rail system because it's possible to have a better rail system. They can do it, practically, at that size. Moreover, where in the U.S. are you comparing it to? Some U.S. cities have very solid public transit systems, others not so much. The variance is so huge that I I'm unsure how, exactly, you feel able to make such broad statements? Same thing with the Highway. I've lived in places where the highway was incredibly well maintained, likely far better than the French system...and others not so much.


P.S. If anything in this post came off as irritable, I apologize. I'm having major trouble with the forums, had to rewrite it multiple times, and was pretty pissed off by the time it went through. Later rewrites were probably considerably more aggressive than the original text -_-.

 

[Av Demeisen]

A blundering clueless Trump supporter tweets on America's greatness.

 

[Matthew Hughes]

A blundering clueless Trump supporter tweets on America's greatness.

She used to be a British Tory MP, always eager to grab a headline. Bit of a thickie.

I think I speak for Canadians in general when I say we never minded sharing Leonard Cohen with the world.

 

[Av Demeisen]

My mistake.

 

[Matthew Hughes]

Woah. This thread kinda exploded when I was sleeping. Exploded and took a left turn.

Well, the election of Trump has worldwide consequences. There is going to be some chatter.

I'm not going to argue details about infrastructure. I've lived in twelve countries, including the USA, and my comparisons are based on experience. Come up to a Canadian city and see for yourself.

But I do want to comment on the idea that America is the world's policeman. That is purely an American-centric view. The rest of the world sees America as what it is: an empire. Empires protect and further their interests. The British Empire, in its time, had soldiers and fleets all over the world, because trade follows the flag. America has alliances that allow American military to operate in places where the potential for force projection is useful to American interests. It does not have them where America’s interests are not in play.

So, yes, America is engaged in wars in the Middle East. But that's because the ME is important to America's strategic position. There has been a far more horrific conflict going on in the Congo for many more years but America's geopolitical position is not affected, so it's ignored. The civil war in Sri Lanka was similarly ignored, as was the one in Sudan. Atrocities by Boko Haram and its affiliates in Nigeria and Mali draw no US attention because nothing affecting America is at stake. Somalia is a completely failed state, but not worth bothering about. There are other examples.

If America under Trump decides to forgo its interests and pull back from Japan and Korea and the Philippines, China will become the dominant power in the Pacific, the world’s most energetic economic zone. If you walk away from the mess in the Middle East, Russia will move in and make hay.

So the question is not whether you want to be a policeman. It’s whether you want to be an empire or an isolated, declining country pushed around by empires on the rise.

 

[JacenAster]

But I do want to comment on the idea that America is the world's policeman. That is purely an American-centric view.

<blink> <blink> What? You do realize that "America world's police" has been used for decades as an accusation against America. It isn't an American idea at all, it's what the rest of the world accused the USA of trying to become. Meanwhile, many of the conflicts people point to as examples of "policing" or "empire building" were U.N. security council operations, in which the U.S. simply provided the majority of the firepower.

There has been a far more horrific conflict going on in the Congo for many more years but America's geopolitical position is not affected, so it's ignored. The civil war in Sri Lanka was similarly ignored, as was the one in Sudan. Atrocities by Boko Haram and its affiliates in Nigeria and Mali draw no US attention because nothing affecting America is at stake. Somalia is a completely failed state, but not worth bothering about. There are other examples.

Thank you kindly for proving my previous point.
|
|
\/

This very thread has highlighted the reason why. Despite the best efforts of our military and political masters, every time anything in the world goes wrong, everyone and their brother screams "Where was America!". The American public has grown sick of it, of the whining and bitching when we help, and of the even worse whining and bitching when we don't. I'm not saying it's right. I'm not even agreeing with it. It's just an observation of reality.

Though, I will note, that you should probably do at least some research before you post. The Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria is one of the four armed conflicts where the U.S. is, in fact, currently active.

 

[Matthew Hughes]

It isn't an American idea at all

It's an American perception. The rest of the world does not see America as a police force. As Trump would say, believe me.

Meanwhile, many of the conflicts people point to as examples of "policing" or "empire building" were U.N. security council operations

Vietnam? Panama? Nicaragua? Grenada? Colombia? Iraq? I'll give you Afghanistan, but come on.

Thank you kindly for proving my previous point.

What proof? No one expected the US to intervene in the conflicts I listed. The idea that the world "screams" for American intervention is an American perception. Ask the Okinawans.

The Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria is one of the four armed conflicts where the U.S. is, in fact, currently active.

You're right. The US has some special forces there now, doing training and drone work. But France is carrying the main load.

 

[Fish Owl]

Until 2008 Russia didn’t have any military of economic capabilities to involve itself in external conflicts. They even didn’t have strength enough to keep their own country in one piece and practically lost war to Chechen separatists in 1994 and Chechnya was a tiny state with less than a million inhabitants. Meanwhile US involved itself into Middle East (Gulf war in 1990), Yugoslavia (1994-1999), Afghanistan (2001-present), Iraq (2003-present) and several minor conflicts.

So US actions can’t be justified by saying “if we wouldn’t move in – Russians would”. Russia did absolutely nothing to protect Milošević and Hussein because they didn’t have any resources to do it. When USSR collapsed it was a great opportunity to create a new world without the confrontation of huge empires but humanity failed again.

One thing that makes people hate and despise US is their double standards. Mujahideen were praised as great freedom fighters while they waged war against USSR. When they strike against US they become mindless fanatics. Saudi Arabia has monarchy and death penalty for “crimes” like witchcraft (sic!) and Sharia laws but nobody cares since they are US allies currently. Chechen terrorists were freedom fighters despite the fact they took hostages and hospitals and schools. The list goes on.

Why US do it? Because they need to justify their actions somehow. Majority of Americans don’t understand why US army needs to fight in some remote countries. And here comes great fairytale about “bringing democracy”.

 

[Av Demeisen]

Another British tweet.

 

[Av Demeisen]

This Huffington Post article collects a series of tweets about the shocking acts of racism being commited in the U.S.A. since Trump's win.

 

[hscope]

This Huffington Post article collects a series of tweets about the shocking acts of racism being commited in the U.S.A. since Trump's win.

All pretty shocking, but I dare say you could have compiled the same list before the election. And in ten years' time.

America hasn't changed overnight and become more racist. Racists are just temporarily emboldened because Trump used racism as one his many negative tools to get elected. He now has to pacify the whole country if he wants to avoid ongoing civil unrest, so he will tone down the hate, become moderate and deny causing this whole fucking mess.

 

[Fish Owl]

All pretty shocking, but I dare say you could have compiled the same list before the election. And in ten years' time.
America hasn't changed overnight and become more racist.

I’m actually more worried about aggressive anti-Trump behavior. Because seeing racist or rapist in every Trump supporter is the same kind of witch hunt only with different banners. Things got ugly in my country when protests against "police brutality" became more brutal than police itself. I see same pattern in reports from USA.

 

[Justin Swanton]

But I do want to comment on the idea that America is the world's policeman. That is purely an American-centric view. The rest of the world sees America as what it is: an empire. Empires protect and further their interests. The British Empire, in its time, had soldiers and fleets all over the world, because trade follows the flag. America has alliances that allow American military to operate in places where the potential for force projection is useful to American interests. It does not have them where America’s interests are not in play.

I would make a distinction between specific interests and the big picture. America's specific interests are limited and localised - holding the Middle East together to make the world safe for oil; keeping South Korea secure from North Korea because the North Korean government is dangerous enough already without getting its hands on South Korean resources; guaranteeing Europe against a Russian incursion because nobody wants a second USSR, and so on. But all these localised interests add up to one big interest - preventing the First World from descending into another World War. It's a carry over from the Cold War, with the USSR and allies on one side, and the US and allies on the other - a paradoxically safe setup in that neither side dared go all-out against the other since that meant Götterdämmerung.

Once the politically stable, safe USSR collapsed, the USA was left holding the baby, i.e. keeping its friends close and its enemies closer, in the sense of stomping on the latter if they looked likely to threaten the US-led Western hegemony - a hegemony necessary to prevent war. Trouble is, this worked fine during the Cold War when the USSR was an obvious threat to the US, a threat which unified Americans behind the international policies of the US government and when Moscow kept half the world in line anyway. Now, 25 years after the collapse of the USSR, the rising generation cannot see what America has to do with the rest of the world. Russia makes noises but is only a regional power with an economy the size of Italy's. China is even more regional. The US navy rules the oceans and the US army is second to none. The US is safe, so why bother about anyone else?

This all has such a Thirties feel.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Joe...

 

[Fish Owl]

because nobody wants a second USSR, and so on.

Actually a lot of people in former Soviet republics and even Eastern Europe want new USSR. Because reforms and liberalization of economy turned out to be actual collapse of economy and infrastructure, criminalization, corruption, degradation of society and so on.

 

[Av Demeisen]

Actually a lot of people in former Soviet republics and even Eastern Europe want new USSR. Because reforms and liberalization of economy turned out to be actual collapse of economy and infrastructure, criminalization, corruption, degradation of society and so on.

This says a lot about Ukraine and Russia and little about European democracies. Centuries of autocracy and an unwilligness of the elite to see a transition to a European model come about had left your societies economically and socially underdeveloped and unprepared for a sudden transition to a democratic system. Then you experienced decades of failing totalitarian communist rule. This unablility to transition to a pluralistic democratic society and the fact that people are now hankering for a strongman ruler like Putin is a sad consequence of your own history.

 

[Fish Owl]

This says a lot about Ukraine and Russia and little about European democracies.

Might remind you that last authoritarian country of Europe was Yugoslavia and it collapsed 10 years after USSR. And let’s not forget about fascist dictator Franco who ruled Spain until 1975. By the way recently elected Bulgarian president is supported by socialist party.

Dictatorship can happen in any country. When Hitler took power Weimar Republic was probably most developed, cultural and liberal country in the world on par with USA and Britain.

Centuries of autocracy

You say like EU core countries are some kind of Roman Empire and Eastern Europe is barbarian horde. For example in most countries of Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Austro-Hungary)bourgeois revolutions took place in later 18-th and through all of 19-th century. In Russian Empire it happened in the very begging of 20-th century. As for traditions of democracy – Ukraine is one of the Europe oldest democracies. We had republic with elected officials since 1649. England was only 9 years ahead.

By the way Karl Marx was German who died in England and never been to Russia. Both facism, nazism, communism was invented and introduced by West Europe but now it's somehow our fault.