Jump to content

Ukraine: It’s starting…


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

I think China as the dominant global power would be a terrible fucking idea but I think there is also an almost-British tendency in America to not realise quite how much people in many parts of the world hate y'all as a power to assume that everyone would prefer the US to the prospect of China. I don't know if anyone here is falling prey to that or just setting aside that specific to argue what we think would be worse, but I feel like there might be some surprise here if it really came out how many parts of the world would feel themselves quite justified in setting aside US/Western domination and alliance for that of China, if they could.

You just have to look at the occasional global polls about which country is the biggest threat to world peace. Most countries tend to put the USA first. In fact, even in the typical Western echo-chamber, I seem to remember some major European countries putting the US ahead (at least when polls are done under W Bush or Trump).

In fact, that China is oppressing people inside China instead of sending troops abroad to maim and kill people living in other countries, as USA usually does, might actually be seen as a point in favour of China by some. Of course, it's quite faulty reasoning, but as long as China hasn't interferred militarily abroad and bombed other countries (Taiwan not being taken into account, I suppose), it's understandable that some people, specially in "Global South", will still see USA as the bigger of two evils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalibuster said:

, where he made any particularly good moves?

Cuba.  But he allowed the Clintons to eff over Haiti -- again. Cuba is the only smart and useful foreign policy thing I can recall.  He was awful about South America and Caribbean.  It's as though he knew nothing about these places and they didn't even really register on his radar.  He did like southeast Asia though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Perfect benevolence doesn’t exist.  Never has.  China is currently purging people for being Muslim and not Han.  That’s really who you want as a global hegemon?

Not that I disagree with you on how is that an atrocy and I certainly won't welcome a Chinese hegonomy (I have that at home already). But in percentage and absolute numbers: How many black people are held in prisons and shot in the USA for being black? How about we want nobody as global hegemon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, kiko said:

Not that I disagree with you on how is that an atrocy and I certainly won't welcome a Chinese hegonomy (I have that at home already). But in percentage and absolute numbers: How many black people are held in prisons and shot in the USA for being black? How about we want nobody as global hegemon?

If no one is global hegemon, then several powers will be fighting for that role.

The US is the best/least bad choice for that position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For anyone thinking that China would be any more benevolent than the USA/Russia or any other superpower in history, I would suggest they look into the treatment of workers in Chinese factories, both in China and abroad. That should burst their bubble in an instant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, polishgenius said:

I think China as the dominant global power would be a terrible fucking idea but I think there is also an almost-British tendency in America to not realise quite how much people in many parts of the world hate y'all as a power to assume that everyone would prefer the US to the prospect of China. I don't know if anyone here is falling prey to that or just setting aside that specific to argue what we think would be worse, but I feel like there might be some surprise here if it really came out how many parts of the world would feel themselves quite justified in setting aside US/Western domination and alliance for that of China, if they could. Notice that all your arguments currently are about what China are doing in their own territory. You can argue that they'd change their foreign policy if they got enough domination and may very well be correct about that- like I wouldn't trust them any more than I could throw them and China is fucking big so that's not far- but it's not hard to see why many people from many parts of the world would feel perfectly justified in taking their chances.  

Of course, I haven't done any actual statistical study of opinion on this so take it with a grain of salt but... 

I mean, I dunno where Conflicting Thought is from, but I was arguing just today with a Mexican fellow I know on twitter, from MMA spaces, who is generally a perfectly sensible dude in most cases but who made it clear that he would at least consider, if it came up, a nato-style arrangement between Mexico and Russia or China just to get some protection from US/'western' oppression.  

And he's from a part of the world where as far as I know China isn't making deliberate efforts to foster soft power via investment, building infrastructure etc etc. Nor one where his family and friends are being killed by American drones whistling bombs at them out of the clear blue sky. 



Basically what I'm trying to say by that ramble is we shouldn't dismiss the concept of people preferring China as ridiculous and stupid, because that won't persuade anyone. We might understand why that would be worse- and I have my own personal family history reasons for being, you know, very anti-communist- but just asking people who are currently fucked by the US to assume that China would be worse is... presumptuous, I think I'd put it? Like it's not gonna change anything us expressing it now, here, but if that's the attitude America and Americans (and Europe by extenstion) take in the coming years in general, to international relations and shit, I think that's dangerous. 

 


It's not particularly relevant to the Ukraine discussion mind. And Russia in the same position would be unquestionably worse for everyone in every measure- we already know full well that they'd be just as bad for foreign 'allies'/subjects as for minorities in their own lands. 

Thank you so much for saying this. As someone from a South Asian country that has massive issues of its own, I still feel the whole Western narrative of being benevolent fathers to the rest of the world is incredibly paternalistic and hypocritical, not to mention frustrating. I'm not accusing anyone on this board of such a view, but Western PR strategy seems to rely disproportionately on this, such as all the helpful invasions we've seen over the last few decades being 'for the good of the natives', which end up with specific Western people and organisations profiting enormously from these wars. I don't find it much different from the colonial shit of previous centuries.

China has a shit-ton of issues (the appalling treatment of Uyghurs being the worst in a long list, particularly glaring when you see how my birth country's normally bordering-on-fanatical Muslim leaders haven't said a word about it due to obvious reasons) but I think in some non-Western corners of the world, it's seen as the lesser evil because at least it doesn't invade countries or forcefully impose its own philosophy and ideals on them, nor does it approach foreign policy with other nations from the POV of 'we're optimus maximus, we know best and you need to toe the line or we'll make you.'  

Nations are driven by power and self-interest, so when some countries dress up their intentions as being for the benefit of the world it can be extremely irritating, especially juxtaposed with their real actions over the last century. 

Caveat: I'm not attacking any specific country or culture - just adding this so people don't take my comment personally! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, baxus said:

For anyone thinking that China would be any more benevolent than the USA/Russia or any other superpower in history, I would suggest they look into the treatment of workers in Chinese factories, both in China and abroad. That should burst their bubble in an instant.

It's easy to think the grass is greener on the other side, and without question, the USA has backed some awful people post-war (Operation Condor was, by any measure, a disgrace).

But, I agree that China would be terrible as top dog.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yaaaargh.  I probably shouldn't comment on this tangent - if only because I'm not sure I'll be able to articulate the jumbled mess of conflicting thoughts in any coherent manner, especially in my current state - but c'est la vie.  Or more apropos, hold my beer.  I'm not sure if it's ironic or apt, but my knee-jerk response to this discussion is to relate it to the (in)famous imperialist Churchill's quote "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

At the jump, allow me to clarify that I entirely agree that the US, or the west, or neoliberalism, or whatever you want to call it, certainly has no claim on moral superiority.  When we're talking about "hegemons," morality goes out the window.  Hegemony is inherently amoral - at best.  If a hegemon didn't exploit the states that are subject to them, they wouldn't be hegemons.

Second, I suppose let's tackle this comparativist/relativistic argument on which one is worse.  On the domestic end - especially if we're counting Taiwan and Hong Kong as "domestic" to China, I think they got the US beat without even considering the Uyghurs, Tibetans, etc.  And the US is a pretty high oppressive bar to clear!  On foreign policy, yeah, the US is the gold standard in terms of military and/or covert oppression of states within the global south since WWII.  But this was a much more compelling argument when I was growing up during Dubya's administration with all those neocon fuckfaces. 

Since then, from the Arab Spring and Syria to obviously now with Ukraine, China's subtle - or non-existent - involvement has benefitted them from a realist perspective far more than the US' commitment to intervene.  In another stroke of irony, China has the strategic advantage in a lot of international crises vis-a-vis the US in that they haven't been strutting around since WWII trying to advance and subsequently pose as the world's police. 

All that considered, it is still true that US military presence trumps China's around the globe (and yes, I left out other examples, most glaringly Yemen, but this post is already getting way too long).  But it is increasingly clear that this is much more of a burden than a benefit to the US -- in that way nominating George W. Bush for the Nobel Peace Prize is only half a joke.

As for exploitation of the global south, which I think (and from what I gather many agree) is the heart of the matter, let's not pretend China is in any way preferable to the US.  Much if not most of the global south is burdened with unsustainable debt to China.  If you think that's gonna work out well for the global south, you haven't been paying attention.  Once again, obviously, the US and the west has no moral high ground to complain about this - China learned this exact tool of oppression from us!  But it doesn't change the facts on the ground.

Bottomline, I don't know if Xi's China or Putin's Russia is necessarily worse than Trump's US.  They all look at the global south in the exact same way - as "shithole" countries.  But I definitely do think the former two are worse than Biden or Obama's US. 

And that's the rub.  Hegemons gonna hegemon, but if you're looking for egalitarian change the preference most logically should be the ones that at least ostensibly espouse egalitarian values.  Putin clearly doesn't - he made that abundantly clear in his speech two days ago where he held up Lenin to the CPSU during the USSR's fall as his casus belli.  Like, seriously, it took him 20 minutes to start complaining about the west - at first he was whining about Russia not being as oppressive as they should have been for the past century.

Xi definitely ain't the answer either.  The EU, yes, would absolutely be the most desirable great power to turn to - if only for the historicity and institutional memory that they should know better.  But I'm not holding my breath on that one.

I've studied politics my entire adult life.  And if you think I have any "American" bias you have no idea what kind of household and education system I was raised in before that adult life.  But if you're looking for anything better than what we got now, you might as well gaze your starry eyes at Plato's Republic, Lennon's Imagine, or Tolkien's Middle Earth.  Because this is the worst form of an international order, except for all the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

As for exploitation of the global south, which I think (and from what I gather many agree) is the heart of the matter, let's not pretend China is in any way preferable to the US.  Much if not most of the global south is burdened with unsustainable debt to China.  If you think that's gonna work out well for the global south, you haven't been paying attention.  Once again, obviously, the US and the west has no moral high ground to complain about this - China learned this exact tool of oppression from us!  But it doesn't change the facts on the ground.

This is actually a mistake - an understandable one, but still a mistake.
From a "Southern" perspective, the "Washington consensus" was already burdening developing states with unsustainable debt, while destroying what little State organisation they had ("structural reforms"), and selling away their -burgeoning- industries and natural resources to foreign compagnies and/or investors ("free trade").
Point is, with China, they at least tend to get something out of it (in terms of infrastructure).

Then, there's the question of what "debt" is in the first place. Since 2008, our understanding of what money and debt are has been evolving. After the catastrophes caused in some states by the neo-liberal ideology (Greece or Argentina, and should we talk about Chile @Conflicting Thought ?), developing states may very well be far less scared of being indebted to China than to Western agents. Especially since they can assume that China will be less greedy than the West was in the past (and they may be right about this, too).
To sum up: the global South being massively indebted to China is scary... for the West. For the South, it's just business as usual, or close enough.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

On the domestic end - especially if we're counting Taiwan and Hong Kong as "domestic" to China, I think they got the US beat without even considering the Uyghurs, Tibetans, etc.  And the US is a pretty high oppressive bar to clear!  On foreign policy, yeah, the US is the gold standard in terms of military and/or covert oppression of states within the global south since WWII.  But this was a much more compelling argument when I was growing up during Dubya's administration with all those neocon fuckfaces. 

I would agree with you that China is worse. Especially if you throw in something like social credit. But I'm not sure it's that obvious for everyone.
First, as has been said, China being oppressive domestically doesn't necessarily mean that much to people, if they don't seem to have truly expansionist policies worldwide.
Second, as crazy as it seems, the nature of Chinese oppression depends on one's personal view of political philosophy. You and I were raised in liberal environments that value individual liberty, and even place it above collective well-being in most cases. But such individualism is itself frowned upon in many places. In other words, many people are willing to accept the idea that the needs of the collective are more important than those of the individual ; in fact, the idea that individual liberty may be more important (than anything else) can be alien, and even scary in some cultures. You and I may be scared about State oppression, but to many, collective demands are easier to understand than a society that encourages relentless competition between individuals, to a point where "there is no society."

Given the reality of climate change, I find it easy to see how the Chinese model could quickly become very attractive. All the Chinese need to do is show the South that they will be more benevolent than the West (very low bar to clear), and that putting the collective before the individual gets shit done, not just in terms of development (they've already achieved this, I think), but even in terms of sustainable development (which they're working on).
In other words, if the Chinese can transition before the West (or give the impression they have ;) ), they will become the de facto leaders of the world.

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I've studied politics my entire adult life.  And if you think I have any "American" bias you have no idea what kind of household and education system I was raised in before that adult life.  But if you're looking for anything better than what we got now, you might as well gaze your starry eyes at Plato's Republic, Lennon's Imagine, or Tolkien's Middle Earth.  Because this is the worst form of an international order, except for all the others.

With all due respect, this is still a very American conclusion.
Western leadership has been great for the West, not so much for everyone else. It's been devastating for entire peoples ; we're talking destruction of entire countries (a glance at a map of the Middle East should suffice, I think), and support for terrible forms of oppression, including quite a few genocides.
There's this "little factoid" that in terms of raw numbers, US domination over Latin America was far deadlier than Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and often far more brutal.
These simple facts should help understand why "Southern" peoples will be very willing to try any other leadership.
Consider the West's hypocrisy (its tendency to give empty promises of "liberty" and prosperity, while taking what it wants), as well as its persistent refusal to truly admit its responsibility in various forms of colonialism and neo- (economic) colonialism, not to mention climate change, and it should be easy to see how hatred of the West can lead peoples to accept an alternative, any alternative.
A simpler way to put it: Western oppression in the past centuries has been so bad, that people might reject Western leadership even if it magically started getting everything right.
Yet another way to put it: for many peoples, things weren't so bad when the Soviet Union was still around to compete with the US. On some level, it doesn't actually matter whether the Soviet Union was so terrible "at home," because it often wasn't that bad abroad. Peoples of Eastern Europe may remember the tanks and the Stasis, and the "horrors of communism," but in the South, people can just as easily remember how the "socialists" were the only ones who seemed to genuinely care about the plight of the common man, while the "communists" sent Cuban doctors when things got tough (like, in a pandemic).
And I have to say, even close to home, here in Western Europe, there is the -erroneous- idea that things got worse after the Soviet Union disappeared, because it emboldened the neo-liberals. I don't subscribe to this idea, because neo-liberalism emerged a dozen years before the Soviet Union crumbled, but there is this perception that, regardless of the Soviet Union's flaws, an alternative ideology to American individualism was useful for humanity as a whole, because it forced our governments to seek a "middle-ground" between the US and the Soviet ideologies, thus giving more importance to things like social programs, unions, progressive taxation... etc.

To sum up, it's easy to think that an international order in which the US is the one and only superpower sucks, and that the sooner China starts fighting "for the soul of mankind" the better.

Aaand, all of this was off-topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

It's easy to think the grass is greener on the other side, and without question, the USA has backed some awful people post-war (Operation Condor was, by any measure, a disgrace).

But, I agree that China would be terrible as top dog.  

I never said that USA is an ideal "top dog", but they are much better than China or Russia would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I would agree with you that China is worse. Especially if you throw in something like social credit. But I'm not sure it's that obvious for everyone.

Peter Thiel and Palantir might want a word in that discussion. 

While there's very little discussion to be had about the levels of dystopia with regards to social credit points. In terms of surveillance Sugarmountain and his buddy/mentor/investor Thiel, are they really better? Add to that seasteading shit to experiment with other forms of society. I find that every bit as scary as big brother China watching. Difference in the Chinese model it's the state, while Thiel prefers it to be coorperations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

To sum up: the global South being massively indebted to China is scary... for the West. For the South, it's just business as usual, or close enough.

Sure!  Not clear how this contradicts anything I said, other than some type of variation on the devil you know is better/worse than the devil you don't.

11 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

There's this "little factoid" that in terms of raw numbers, US domination over Latin America was far deadlier than Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and often far more brutal.

You're playing pretty fast and loose with your "facts" here.

15 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

an alternative ideology to American individualism was useful for humanity as a whole, because it forced our governments to seek a "middle-ground" between the US and the Soviet ideologies, thus giving more importance to things like social programs, unions, progressive taxation... etc.

If you're saying two competing hegemons is better than one hegemon I absolutely agree.  Never said otherwise.

 Anyway, you seem to be arguing against the perception that I don't understand why the global south hates the west, or would prefer alternatives.  That wasn't the point of my post at all.  I was responding to the discussion, very explicitly, comparing the US and China regimes as they stand today - and subsequently them leading the international order.  And I suppose Russia too, but..I suppose that's mostly just to maintain relevance to the topic/thread.  And if you ask me, as I said, I'll take Biden/Obama's US over Xi's China.  I certainly wouldn't take Trump's US over Xi's China, but at least with the US there's still a fighting chance.  There's not, as far as I can tell, in China and Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much agree with Crixus and Rippounet. I think it would be best for the world if China and Russia could take down USA power by a few notches (not trough war obviously). Then the USA, China, Russia and maybe EU, could keep each other in check and the rest of us can maybe continue without becoming vassals of a foreign empire, without being strip-mined of resources, polluted or forced into indentured servitude. By no means is absolute USA dominance preferable by much of the world. There is really no difference between the three superpowers. Of the power blocks, EU seems the most benign currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a very short history of this region since the 1700's, and the variety of empires that claimed and occupied it.

https://theswordandthesandwich.substack.com/p/ukraine-on-a-knifes-edge?utm_source=url

Maybe it should just go back to the Ottomans; Erdogan -- another trumpista idol -- would approve of that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For anyone who is interested a public discussion on the situation in Ukraine.

”Russia and Ukraine: 
What’s going on?

Dr. Anat Niv-Solomon, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science and Global Affairs and Dr. Susan Smith-Peter, Professor, History Department will discuss the historical background of these two nations, the evolving security situation, the impact on the region, and the roles of NATO and the nations attending the 2022 Munich Security Conference.

Thursday, February 24, 2022
3:30pm-4:30pm
Via Zoom:”

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89755748790?fbclid=IwAR2y0PjJlXNR4yEVJ-bVS3oUhgRASHuzw0cJe4LCdeJZe_IleknbCLMA2b0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Here is a very short history of this region since the 1700's, and the variety of empires that claimed and occupied it.

https://theswordandthesandwich.substack.com/p/ukraine-on-a-knifes-edge?utm_source=url

Maybe it should just go back to the Ottomans; Erdogan -- another trumpista idol -- would approve of that.

 

OK, I'm just spitballing here, but what if we just gave Russia back to the Mongols, and give Crimea to the Turks? The Mongols ruled most of what is now Russia at one point, and the Crimean Tartars are a Turkic people after all, and The Crimean princes were apparently in the Ottoman line of succession, so I think that puts everything in a neat little bow. I just solved the Ukrainian Crisis, you're welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting - although scary - to see the play here.

If Putin wants to continue going softly-softly, to divide and mitigate the response to sanctions, then rolling into the rebel provinces and going up to the contact line is the next logical step. It's then up to him whether he goes further and occupies both oblasts in full.

The Ukrainian response there would be key. From a purely strategic standpoint, Ukraine pulling out of the oblasts and retreating to their borders would cause the Russians headaches, as it avoids a military exchange they could use as an excuse for a further invasion. Russia would have to simply settle for the two rebel provinces and not proceed any further, or forego any excuse whatsoever and simply invade the rest of Ukraine outright.

However, the Ukrainians doing that would cede Mariupol, over which a lot of blood has been spilled and is now home to half a million people who do not want to be ruled by Russia. Also, the line of contact is fortified, with nearby supply depots and strongpoints on the line. Retreating from there to an unprepared defensive line is inadvisable, but given Russia will overwhelm the line anyway within hours or days (it's not exactly the Maginot Line, and with modern weapons it wouldn't matter much if it was), it may not matter. Ukraine would have to decide if it's better to make a stand on the line and be seen to be defending the territory rather than abandoning it without a fight (which might be seen as ceding the provinces to Russia). Bloodying Russia early on and making it clear the Ukrainians will fight might also cause a rethink if one of the cornerstones of the strategy is that there will be no or minimised Russian casualties. Significant numbers of Russians coming home in bodybags could trigger popular protests in Moscow and other Russian cities.

Ukraine is in a really horrible situation here, having to choose on how to proceed without rolling over to Russia but also not causing immense casualties that could perhaps be avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Ukraine is in a really horrible situation here, having to choose on how to proceed without rolling over to Russia but also not causing immense casualties that could perhaps be avoided.

Indeed.  Ukraine is understandably wary of a death in detail if they keep giving up territory to Russia without a fight.  But I can also understand the desire to avoid an all out war with Russia that can only end badly or very badly.  I'm not an expert, but the articles I've read indicate that Ukrainians are pressuring President Zelensky to stand up to Russia, and that his govt might fall apart if he were to just give away more territory without a fight. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...