Quote (ferdia @ 18 Apr 2023 04:12)

Using your analogy, I would have the USA as Sparta. They were per-eminent before the rise of Athens. Athens rose and Sparta fell into obscurity. I do not believe the same thing will happen to the US. While the US has serious domestic problems (cultural identity), there is nothing to suggest that they will stop being, forgive me now, the worlds policeman. Provided no other US politician emerges to replace Mitch McConnell (who set american vs american), the US should be able to get out of this Us vs Them mentality (Democrats vs Republicans).

Whatever way you frame it, Russia lost vs the US. They then became isolationist. While the US might lose vs China, that is not going to happen in my lifetime, and with nuclear weapons the concept of "lost" is a relative term. I would say that the Russian model of government and their (broadly now) withdrawal from the international stage made them weak and irrelevant. China will be the new Athens, provided their form of government does not self implode. The problem with China is that you run the risk of a dictator stepping in and wrecking their country (or the world). There are more checks and balances to my mind in more democratic countries. The US has alot of smart people, they just dont seem to be using them properly. reversing globalisation is a tactical mistake to my mind, as was pushing for Ukraine in Nato. Pushing Russia to China was an own goal as regardless of views of Russia, they were more European then Asian.



This seems to suggest that once Putin is replaced a pro democratic or pro western leader will take his place. I would contend the opposite will happen. We are more likely to get someone far worse. You would need a people's revolution in Russia and i frankly dont see that happening. i dont know what you mean re: below 2014 invasion areas. else i would reply.

(everyone by now knows not to respond to fender).

Quote (Hamsterbaby @ Apr 17 2023 09:26pm)

I agree with this I don't think US will lose to China in our lifetime

What I am hoping is that within the next couple of years , both China and US will realize how serious the conflict is going to be even though a lot of them already know at the moment.
But what I am hoping is, even the crazy Hawks on both sides are going to back down.

They might sign something like the 30 years peace deal between Sparta and Athens. but someone is going to screw it up sooner or later either from the US or China.
But at the very least from the time they sign the " deal " we can at least have a relatively peaceful 8 to 10 years ?
So from the time it leds up to 2030 possible Taiwan conflict with a possible peaceful deal we will have anywhere between 15 to 20 years of relative peace to stock up before shit hits the fan.

Quote (ferdia @ 18 Apr 2023 04:27)

my view: No.

Quote (ferdia @ Apr 17 2023 10:41pm)

I think Russia was incapable of assassinating the Ukrainian Government and incapable of installing its own pro-russian government by this point, noting Nato aspirations had reached a very advanced stage. I think thats why they opted to invade instead. As we see in Georgia it can takes decades for the US to install a pro western government. even the 2014 one in Ukraine took the US years to do.

Quote (Neptunus @ 18 Apr 2023 04:30)

From a realpolitik perspective, something along those lines is probably not very far from the truth... but my question is where is the justification for invading? Some ppl here are defending Russia's actions, even as far as justifying an invasion after failing at gaining satellite states through political, non-violent means. Nobody wants to live in a world where despotic regimes prey upon their weaker neighbours and dictate how they should live and who should they bow to. People confuse the realpolitik approach in geopolitics as a principle to adhere to instead of it being a tool to deal with worst-case scenarios and the events leading to them. The tool that was created for managing cynical opponents has made its bearer become a cynical opponent himself.

Quote (Neptunus @ Apr 17 2023 09:30pm)

From a realpolitik perspective, something along those lines is probably not very far from the truth... but my question is where is the justification for invading? Some ppl here are defending Russia's actions, even as far as justifying an invasion after failing at gaining satellite states through political, non-violent means. Nobody wants to live in a world where despotic regimes prey upon their weaker neighbours and dictate how they should live and who should they bow to. People confuse the realpolitik approach in geopolitics as a principle to adhere to instead of it being a tool to deal with worst-case scenarios and the events leading to them. The tool that was created for managing cynical opponents has made its bearer become a cynical opponent himself.

Quote (ferdia @ Apr 17 2023 11:34pm)

I think its wrong to defend Russia's actions but to acknowledge the concept of cause and effect. Ultimately Russia sees Ukraine in Nato as a clear threat. This was communicated to western leader for over 10 years. A slight nuance now and forgive me, i know you might not agree, but its not just despotic regimes that prey on weaker neighbours and dictate how they should live.

Quote (Neptunus @ Apr 17 2023 09:36pm)

Not only despotic regimes prey on their neighbours, but when the despotic ones do they bring a lot more suffering. Nuance indeed.

Quote (Hamsterbaby @ Apr 17 2023 11:33pm)

I think that is a very small amount of people that justify it.
Posters like Ferdia and me don't but we know why it happen and it is what it is.

Quote (Neptunus @ Apr 17 2023 09:41pm)

I aint even mad. All im interested in is how these contrarian zealots are claiming to say exactly what both of you are saying, but end up sounding like Lavrov, Peskov or Zakharova. Im just genuinely curious and so far, all im getting is a repost of the NATO website link and photos/memes, broken records. But maybe theyll make me understand better.