International thread 2

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

When was the last time Russia or China sent an immense army to the other side of the world and invaded a sovereign nation?

And Israel doesn't need anyone's protection. They have nukes. And, tbh, it seems to me the best way to ensure Middle East stability is to let Iran have its own.

You do know about Ukraine right? And the Crimea? And Georgia?

And are you aware of China’s recent push for global power? It’s expansion into the Pacific and bullying of countries around the world? 

So you are genuinely advocating for some sort of Middle Eastern nuclear war, where one side is led by an Islamic fundamentalist regime?

I mean I knew you had extreme positions but these are some of the silliest things I’ve read in a while.

[Larry of the Lawn]

24 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Where I’m going with this is that we aren’t living in some after brightly coloured care bear episode, world politics is about the use of power to maintain ones own position. While it’s nice to imagine we would all just get on clearly there’s no evidence that would happen.

Clearly the USAs goal is to remain the hegemon and primary global power and it uses its influence to maintain its political power. This isn’t simply bullying for the sake of it, it’s about maintaining political power in regions around the world in competition with other state actors.

If it didn’t do that then someone else will simply step in and take up the reigns. I would rather have the US in charge than Russia, Autocratic China or any number of Islamic regimes. 

Your example of Israel for instance, what happens if the US stops protecting Israel tomorrow? A number of countries have threatened to wipe it from the face of the earth. 

Seems like a tough argument to make.  Consider the same policy applied to crime or any other shitty human behavior:  "Why bother trying to stop people from murdering eachother?  We've been doing it a long time".  It's the ultimate we-can't-do-anything, defeatist, cowardly, attitude.  

 

[Heartofice]

13 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Seems like a tough argument to make.  Consider the same policy applied to crime or any other shitty human behavior:  "Why bother trying to stop people from murdering eachother?  We've been doing it a long time".  It's the ultimate we-can't-do-anything, defeatist, cowardly, attitude.  

 

Not the argument at all. 

Geopolitics is not a love-in. Its a competition.

[sologdin]

world politics is about the use of power to maintain ones own position

this realist position was somewhat repudiated by the US itself after the world war, in the creation of the UN and the bretton woods institutions.  it is incorrect therefore to suggest that geopolitical power is the only reasonable interpretation, and cynical to use conduct consistent therewith as self-justification for commission of the core crimes of international law--if you're a violator of the rome statute, who cares about the rationale?

[mormont]

All very true, but there's been a little sleight of hand here: we started by discussing sanctions, very legal, and now somehow are discussing crimes under international law?

[Heartofice]

52 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

As I said, when was the last time Russia or China sent an immense army to the other side of the world and invaded a sovereign nation?

The point is about bullying smaller nations. Both Russia and China has been heavily involved in that for a long time and will continue to do so in the future, ESPECIALLY if the US left the picture and took a back seat. Russia has already been hugely emboldened by the world lack of reaction to it literally invading a neighbour and assassinating people in other countries (as well as influencing elections around the world). China has spent enormous amounts of money in an effort to push its own political interests on other countries.

It is in the interests of larger nations to find ways to make sure they don't lose strategic power around the world, its grossly naive to imagine this isn't happening all the time, with every country. This is rarely as clear cut as 'doing good' or 'being evil', its quite childish to think in those terms and in a bigger picture I doubt Russia or China think the same way.

Quote

And Israel doesn't need anyone's protection. They have nukes. And, tbh, it seems to me the best way to ensure Middle East stability is to let Iran have its own.

This is what you literally said. You said you are perfectly happy for Iran to have nuclear weapons when those who rule Iran have said they wish to see Israel wiped off the map. Where do you think this will go? It's not like Israels neighbours have been happy to let them live there is it.

 

[sologdin]

All very true, but there's been a little sleight of hand here: we started by discussing sanctions, very legal, and now somehow are discussing crimes under international law?

seemed like it.  maybe i missed a beat in there--though it seems as though unlawful invasions are subject to discussion?

the term bullying, as used in this thread, lacks precision, in both its educational context and a fortiori in international relations.  i usually try to replace it with blockburgerable criminal concepts--at school, that's extortion, assault & battery, false imprisonment, and so on; in international law, that's the rome statute. 

that said, it seems as though geopolitical bullying is recommended by sun tzu, who recommends no war unless the outcome is certain--there is no better way than to select only those states whom one knows cannot defend themselves, such as if an international inspections administration has verified that no weapons of mass destruction are available to a state like, say, iraq.  fair to say that otherwise pacifist master sun recommends an unlawful course of conduct; military efficacy itself is unlikely to provide legal or ethical justification.

[Larry of the Lawn]

I just read Banks' State of the Art, which is a pretty cool meditation on international (well, pangalactic anyway) interventionism.  I'm doubting the Minds would have come to any different conclusions in today's world than they did in the late 1970s fictional setting.  Probably best for the Lit thread but it's a quick and quality read on the subject.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 hours ago, Spockydog said:

When was the last time Russia or China sent an immense army to the other side of the world and invaded a sovereign nation?

And Israel doesn't need anyone's protection. They have nukes. And, tbh, it seems to me the best way to ensure Middle East stability is to let Iran have its own.

Well, Russia invaded Georgia and Ukraine in the last Decade.  Does increasing the distances the armies are sent make the invasions worse?

[sologdin]

increasing the distances the armies are sent make the invasions worse?

not particularly, from my perspective. it might however be that the rationales change when there's distance involved and therefore the acts become more or less justifiable from the realist position advocated upthread: taking the crimea and the ukraine furthers an irredentist/revisionist project that the current russian empire seeks to develop--or they form the defensive cordon saintaire of compliant buffer states to brace against the germans' inevitable return.  the realist likely has no principled objection to these acts, as they are consistent with the power politics that realists adore.

because they are decisions taken by purported official enemies, the jingo realist deplores them openly while secretly admiring the audacity. one can see the lust burning in huntington and brzezinski and kissinger and fukuyama when they write about the geopolitical acts of official enemies. like sellars in kubrick, they can barely keep their hand from seigheiling.

by contrast, the realist might scratch their head at irrational geopolitical acts, such as wellington's plan in blackadder to station nelson in the arctic instead of trafalgar.  one might class the US adventure into indochina in this category--not so much the repeated invasions of mexico and the caribbean and central america, and a fortiori the destruction of internal aboriginal states.

incidentally, am not sure what china has done recently to qualify for this blackguard gallery--taking tibet? repeatedly invading vietnam? silly border wars with india and russia? bluster in the south china sea? apodyopsis at taiwan?

[House Balstroko]

While it is certainly within a nation's right to impose sanctions on another state, coercing others to do so comes off as roguish. This is why I fundamentally believe that the situation with Iran differs from that of Venezuela. The Trump administration decided to pull the plug on the Iran Deal and reimpose sanctions. Few nations have come out in support of those policies as opposed to the ones in Venezuela which had been gradually descending into chaos, prior to the application of targeted sanctions.

At the same time, I understand the issue with Iran, particularly with regards to Israel and the spread of Shia throughout the region. The bigger problem is that I expect the hardliners to regain a foothold in Iran (Ahmadinejad, anyone?). We can expect an increase in the "wipe Israel off the map" rhetoric. The Iranian regime is similar to the Saudi Arabian one in it's goal of supporting proxies in the region in order to further it's cause (Sunni vs Shia). For better or worse, Western powers have aligned with the Saudi's for their own personal gain. 

I would argue that Israel is the closest thing to a rationale player in the ME and the only proper democracy in the region. 

With regards to American power and it's application across the globe, well it's a double edged sword. I share @Heartofice view in that I would much rather have the US as the global power over either Russia or China. At the same time, a lot of American foreign policy is highly questionable. America's recent shift on Iran is highly reminiscent of China's policy towards the recognition of Taiwan. The major difference being that China doesn't currently have the ability to throw it's weight around as much as the US, though I expect that to change in the coming decades. 

[The Anti-Targ]

Personally I'd rather have the EU step up and severely diminish the influence and sway of the US, Russa and China equally. But if Brexit happens that's going to seriously diminish the EU's capacity to play in that sandbox, and even if Brexit doesn't happen the UK largely walks half a step behind the USA anyway when it comes to pushing around smaller countries.

The real solution isn't picking which bovver boy is the least worst of the available options to be the current playground enforcer. It's having proper international institutions, that can act interdependently of any one nation and has the tools to enforce it's binding decisions. Trouble is no one is willing to go there yet.

If Iran got nukes, they would not use them against Israel, any more than the allegedly more insane North Koreans have lobbed any at South Korea, to date. They might be fanatical, but they still have a much greater interest in self-preservation than in turning Israel into a nuclear wasteland. Nukes are always a deterrent first and foremost and only to be actually deployed when you're existence is directly threatened, and it's either be wiped out and take no retaliatory action, or be wiped out and give the enemy a black eye in the process. Iran understands this. Would they use the fact they have nukes as cover to launch a conventional air and ground offensive against Israel? I seriously doubt it. The US can still guarantee Israel's protection from external threats AND force Israel to reach a proper agreement on Palestine. It just lacks the political will to do it.

[Free Northman Reborn]

10 hours ago, sologdin said:

increasing the distances the armies are sent make the invasions worse?

not particularly, from my perspective. it might however be that the rationales change when there's distance involved and therefore the acts become more or less justifiable from the realist position advocated upthread: taking the crimea and the ukraine furthers an irredentist/revisionist project that the current russian empire seeks to develop--or they form the defensive cordon saintaire of compliant buffer states to brace against the germans' inevitable return.  the realist likely has no principled objection to these acts, as they are consistent with the power politics that realists adore.

because they are decisions taken by purported official enemies, the jingo realist deplores them openly while secretly admiring the audacity. one can see the lust burning in huntington and brzezinski and kissinger and fukuyama when they write about the geopolitical acts of official enemies. like sellars in kubrick, they can barely keep their hand from seigheiling.

by contrast, the realist might scratch their head at irrational geopolitical acts, such as wellington's plan in blackadder to station nelson in the arctic instead of trafalgar.  one might class the US adventure into indochina in this category--not so much the repeated invasions of mexico and the caribbean and central america, and a fortiori the destruction of internal aboriginal states.

incidentally, am not sure what china has done recently to qualify for this blackguard gallery--taking tibet? repeatedly invading vietnam? silly border wars with india and russia? bluster in the south china sea? apodyopsis at taiwan?

Meant to ask you before on another thread: Do you HAVE to write that way?

I want to read your posts, but I can’t be the only one who has a headache by the time I reach the end of one. I usually have to read a sentence at least twice to make sure I understand your meaning, and that’s when I don’t end up resorting to a dictionary upon the third attempt.

All very impressive, I guess, but there can be virtue in simplicity.

[Proudfeet]

17 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Of course it's fucking possible. I mean, the US has never bullied Israel, has it?

Pretty sure the US has been bullying the entire world with FATCA. 

[sologdin]

isn't the FATCA implemented because of a treaty, though?

[Proudfeet]

Well, which country is in a position to refuse the world's largest economy and which other country taxes its citizens on foreign sourced income without them bringing it back? I'm not an expert but it seems like the cost and benefit heavily favours the US.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

A new report by the United Nations has found that roughly 20% of plant and animal biodiversity has gone extinct over the last century and that upwards of a million more plant and animal species are at risk of going extinct all due to human behavior.  

Great stewards of the planet we’ve been….

[Spockydog]

Failed Venezuela coup was fake news — designed to fool people in two nations

Quote

After days of breathless reporting in the U.S. media about public and military support for Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro collapsing, and about an April 30 coup by presidential poseur Juan Guaidó, we now know the truth:  The whole thing was a fraud, staged at the instigation of Washington in hopes that the Venezuelan people and rank-and-file troops would fall for the trick and think an actual coup was underway.

We also know, from an excellent May 2 report by Michael Fox in the Nation, that the U.S. mainstream media and its reporters in country were promoting that dangerous fraud.

Take CNN. In its reporting on the “uprising” announced by Guaidó on Tuesday, April 30, it ran a video from social media depicting Guaidó, accompanied by opposition leader Leopoldo López, along with some armed men in uniform, said to be military defectors, standing behind them. The video claimed they were on the La Carlota military airfield in eastern Caracas, which Guaidó said had been “liberated.” According to CNN, he was addressing “thousands of supporters” on the scene, urging the rest of the Venezuelan military to join the coup and oust the “usurper” Maduro.

But as Michael Fox and other observers noted, CNN didn’t show those “thousands” of supporters — because there were none. Nor did the cable network explain in its report that Guaidó and López were not actually at the airbase, but rather were standing on a highway overpass outside the base — which was, in fact, never in rebel hands at all.

Guaidó and his “deserting” soldiers quickly left the scene as government troops headed their way, with López later that day holing up in the Chilean and eventually the Spanish embassy, seeking asylum for himself and his family, and with some two dozen soldiers who had deserted in support of Guaidó asking for asylum in the Brazilian embassy.

There are two possibilities here: Either CNN’s U.S.-based editors were lied to by their reporters in Caracas, or they were well aware that their story of the takeover of a military airfield, along with reports of thousands of protesters on the scene in support of Guaidó, was a hoax. It’s not hard to imagine the latter being the truth, because CNN earlier was caught fraudulently reporting that Venezuelan troops had set aid trucks stopped at the Colombian border afire, when in fact the fires had been started by anti-Maduro protesters. Though this truth was proven by other reports and video, CNN never corrected its false story in that case, nor did it discipline its on-the-scene reporters.

 

[sologdin]

a violation of UNC art. 2(4), and furthermore of art. 8 bis of the rome statute? one wonders. streicher hanged for acts taken in violation of international law mostly as a journalist.

[House Balstroko]

On 5/7/2019 at 10:01 AM, The Anti-Targ said:

Personally I'd rather have the EU step up and severely diminish the influence and sway of the US, Russa and China equally. But if Brexit happens that's going to seriously diminish the EU's capacity to play in that sandbox, and even if Brexit doesn't happen the UK largely walks half a step behind the USA anyway when it comes to pushing around smaller countries.

The real solution isn't picking which bovver boy is the least worst of the available options to be the current playground enforcer. It's having proper international institutions, that can act interdependently of any one nation and has the tools to enforce it's binding decisions. Trouble is no one is willing to go there yet.

If Iran got nukes, they would not use them against Israel, any more than the allegedly more insane North Koreans have lobbed any at South Korea, to date. They might be fanatical, but they still have a much greater interest in self-preservation than in turning Israel into a nuclear wasteland. Nukes are always a deterrent first and foremost and only to be actually deployed when you're existence is directly threatened, and it's either be wiped out and take no retaliatory action, or be wiped out and give the enemy a black eye in the process. Iran understands this. Would they use the fact they have nukes as cover to launch a conventional air and ground offensive against Israel? I seriously doubt it. The US can still guarantee Israel's protection from external threats AND force Israel to reach a proper agreement on Palestine. It just lacks the political will to do it.

The EU doesn't have the military might to stand up to the US, Russia and China. Perhaps the development of the proposed EU army might change that, but I highly doubt it. The EU is simply far too fractured and recent developments suggest that it might be moving further in that direction.