Jump to content

International Events Next-


DireWolfSpirit
 Share

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You’d be cool with doing nothing if Maduro invades Guyana?

I agree w/ you a lot more than I disagree, but I for one would prefer the US stayed out of everyone else’s business. And listen, I get that sometimes the intentions are good, but certainly not always; just think Trump saying he will invade Venezuela to get their oil and gas. So even if the intention is good, it creates a permission structure, so to speak. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I agree w/ you a lot more than I disagree, but I for one would prefer the US stayed out of everyone else’s business. And listen, I get that sometimes the intentions are good, but certainly not always; just think Trump saying he will invade Venezuela to get their oil and gas. So even if the intention is good, it creates a permission structure, so to speak. 

One of the things the Russians did with the overt invasion of Ukraine is attempt to re-establish the 19th Century and eariler use of invasion and war to take territory from other nations.  If Maduro invades and the international response (including the US) is nothing but hand wringing and platitudes… the Russian move is made more real.  The Russian vision for international acquiescence (if not acceptance) of the use of invasion and war to gain territory becomes more intrenched.

That would be bad for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

One of the things the Russians did with the overt invasion of Ukraine is attempt to re-establish the 19th Century and eariler use of invasion and war to take territory from other nations.  If Maduro invades and the international response (including the US) is nothing but hand wringing and platitudes… the Russian move is made more real.  The Russian vision for international acquiescence (if not acceptance) of the use of invasion and war to gain territory becomes more intrenched.

That would be bad for everyone.

Agree and disagree. :P

Joking, sorta. I agree to an extent. I think there are limits, lines that shouldn’t be crossed b/c in the long run crossing certain lines may make things worse. 
Take the Guyana example… If I’m not mistaken, Irfaan Ali has asked the US government for help, and I do think the US should help. But there’s many different ways to help, degrees of involvement, etc. And toeing the line can be tricky, or in a worse case scenario, the line will be deliberately ignored or stomped on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kissdbyfire said:

Agree and disagree. :P

Joking, sorta. I agree to an extent. I think there are limits, lines that shouldn’t be crossed b/c in the long run crossing certain lines may make things worse. 
Take the Guyana example… If I’m not mistaken, Irfaan Ali has asked the US government for help, and I do think the US should help. But there’s many different ways to help, degrees of involvement, etc. And toeing the line can be tricky, or in a worse case scenario, the line will be deliberately ignored or stomped on. 

I’m not saying boots on the ground is ideal for every situation.  Supporting Ukraine with arms and Training seems to be effective to at least… stop… the Russian advance (even if pushing the Russians out of Ukraine has proved more difficult).  I’m saying sipping tea and doing nothing more than commneting about how dreadful an invasion of Guyana would be is just not enough.  

If we don’t want invasion to become even more commoneplace… we the international community (including the US) have to take a firm stance against invasion and annexation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

One of the things the Russians did with the overt invasion of Ukraine is attempt to re-establish the 19th Century and eariler use of invasion and war to take territory from other nations.  If Maduro invades and the international response (including the US) is nothing but hand wringing and platitudes… the Russian move is made more real.  The Russian vision for international acquiescence (if not acceptance) of the use of invasion and war to gain territory becomes more intrenched.

That would be bad for everyone.

I mean, from my perspective the us was and is responsible for the rusian "vision"  for internatial acquiescence of territory, given that the us face no repercution for the iraq war, and afghanistan, etc. Consequences for them but not for me has been us policy for as long as i can remember, and us intervention has never come from the good of their hearts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m not saying boots on the ground is ideal for every situation.  Supporting Ukraine with arms and Training seems to be effective to at least… stop… the Russian advance (even if pushing the Russians out of Ukraine has proved more difficult).  I’m saying sipping tea and doing nothing more than commneting about how dreadful an invasion of Guyana would be is just not enough.  

If we don’t want invasion to become even more commoneplace… we the international community (including the US) have to take a firm stance against invasion and annexation.

I agree w/ this. And to be clear, I have no great concerns while Biden is POTUS, my concerns come from others. Like any republican at this point, pretty much? B/c I believe they could support two almost opposing policies: isolationism and international interference whenever would be suitable to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

I mean, from my perspective the us was and is responsible for the rusian "vision"  for internatial acquiescence of territory, given that the us face no repercution for the iraq war, and afghanistan, etc. Consequences for them but not for me has been us policy for as long as i can remember, and us intervention has never come from the good of their hearts.

Horseshit.  Complete and utter Horseshit.

The US was wrong to engage in its “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan.  However, the US did not attempt in either of those wars to take territory or annex portions of the Nation-States invaded as part of the US.  

Russia, and those offering apologia for Russian actions, are attempting to claim Russian actions in invading, occupying, and then annexing territory to itself is somehow justified by prior US bad actions are absolutely and completely full of shit.  Because while invasion and occupation are bad… then claiming it justifies annexation is a step well beyond anything the US has attempted in more than a century.

:shocked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US has not gained any territory through military conquest in many decades. Absurd to make a comparison.

The US already has some military relations with Guyana, due to joint maritime patrols interdicting drug running, and US military engineering and medical corps have been helping with public works. Guyana and the US have a strong bilateral relationship, and I think the idea that the US will just abandon Guyana is ethically naive at best.

 

Edited by Ran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this excellent lecture on the current global geopolitics by Fiona Hill, and can't remember if I posted it here already.

I would strongly encourage people to read the whole thing rather than just the cuts I made. It's intellectualised, but rather clear, and illuminates a lot of discussions we've had here:

Quote

 

Since 1991, the U.S. has seemingly stood alone as the global superpower. But today, after a fraught two-decade period shaped by American-led military interventions and direct engagement in regional wars, the Ukraine war highlights the decline of the United States itself. This decline is relative economically and militarily, but serious in terms of U.S. moral authority. Unfortunately, just as Osama bin Laden intended, the U.S.’s own reactions and actions have eroded its position since the devastating terrorist attacks of 9/11. “America fatigue” and disillusionment with its role as the global hegemon is widespread. This includes in the United States itself—a fact that is frequently on display in Congress, news outlets and think tank debates. For some, the U.S. is a flawed international actor with its own domestic problems to attend to. For others, the U.S. is a new form of imperial state that ignores the concerns of others and throws its military weight around.

[...]

Ukraine is essentially being punished by guilt through association for having direct U.S. support in its effort to defend itself and liberate its territory. Indeed, in some international and American domestic forums, discussions about Ukraine quickly degenerate into arguments about U.S. past behavior. Russia’s actions are addressed in a perfunctory fashion. “Russia is only doing what the U.S. does,” is the retort … Yes, Russia overturned the fundamental post-1945 principle of the prohibition against war and the use of force enshrined in Article 2 of the UN Charter … But, the U.S. already damaged this principle when it invaded Iraq 20 years ago.

“What aboutism” is not just a feature of Russian rhetoric. The U.S. invasion of Iraq universally undercut U.S. credibility and continues to do so. For many critics of the United States, Iraq was the most recent in a series of American sins stretching back to Vietnam and the precursor of current events. Even though a tiny handful of states have sided with Russia in successive UN resolutions in the General Assembly, significant abstentions, including by China and India, signal displeasure with the United States. As a result, the vital twin tasks of restoring the prohibition against war and the use of force as the critical cornerstone of the United Nations and international system, and of defending Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, get lost in a morass of skepticism and suspicions about the United States.  

In the so-called “Global South,” and what I am loosely referring to as the “Rest” (of the world), there is no sense of the U.S. as a virtuous state. Perceptions of American hubris and hypocrisy are widespread.  Trust in the international system(s) that the U.S. helped invent and has presided over since World War II is long gone.  Elites and populations in many of these countries believe that the system was imposed on them at a time of weakness when they were only just securing their independence. Even if elites and populations have generally benefitted from pax Americana, they believe the United States and its bloc of countries in the collective West have benefitted far more. For them, this war is about protecting the West’s benefits and hegemony, not defending Ukraine. 

https://lmc.icds.ee/lennart-meri-lecture-by-fiona-hill/

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I found this excellent lecture on the current global geopolitics by Fiona Hill, and can't remember if I posted it here already.

I would strongly encourage people to read the whole thing rather than just the cuts I made. It's intellectualised, but rather clear, and illuminates a lot of discussions we've had here:

 

 

Wouldn’t support for Guyana in the event of a Venezualan invasion help demonstrate US sincerity in supporting the international system?

What seriously perplexes me is the “Global South’s” apologia for the Russian invasion of an attempt at annexation of Ukrainian territory?  Russia is explicitly imperial in its ambition… why would the anti-imperial “Global South” not oppose the Russians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Conflicting Thought said:

The usa is not the world police, im against venezuela invading guyana, but the usa doesnt have to get involved (though i know the usa has its eye on oil). The usa has no moral standing, has no right to get involved.

I believe when it comes to geopolitics, a country not having a right to go to war is wishful thinking. The USA has protected and always will protect its economic interests, and Guyana is such a place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What seriously perplexes me is the “Global South’s” apologia for the Russian invasion of an attempt at annexation of Ukrainian territory?  Russia is explicitly imperial in its ambition… why would the anti-imperial “Global South” not oppose the Russians?

I'm sure there is plenty of apologia for Russia, but it's mostly not what I'm seeing. I'm personally seeing a lot more of throwing hands in the air and basically declaring that Russia and "the West" are all as bad as each other. Which...isn't exactly accurate, but also isn't entirely baseless either.

The US invasion of Iraq (and other interventions) is not directly equivalent to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, either in goals or execution, but it still nevertheless seriously damaged US diplomatic and moral credibility, and also damaged global perceptions of the so-called "rules-based order." Quibbling over the US not looking to annex territory is entirely beside the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What seriously perplexes me is the “Global South’s” apologia for the Russian invasion of an attempt at annexation of Ukrainian territory?  Russia is explicitly imperial in its ambition… why would the anti-imperial “Global South” not oppose the Russians?

A lot of the leaders and parties in the global south were educated and supported at one time by the Soviet Union and often exploited by western powers (USA etc.). They see Russia as the successor of their old friends and Allies and Putin plays into that. Surprising as it may be but we westerners are not the most popular guys there ;) , we just did too much shit there in the past and so there is a certain whataboutism about the Ukraine war. Some of them also depend on a combination of Russian military help, Chinese money and investment and Russian natural resources which makes them reluctant to go against Putin. Putins and Chinas way of not asking questions and not pestering them with human rights democracy, rule of law western values etc. is also seducing for a lot of the strongman’s in the south…

and finally Ukraine isn’t really a known entity in the global south and no one’s really gets why they are actually fighting their Russian  „brethren“ since a lot of them are not nation states anyway…

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

I believe when it comes to geopolitics, a country not having a right to go to war is wishful thinking. The USA has protected and always will protect its economic interests, and Guyana is such a place.

yes i agree with this, they will protect their interests but to pretend that its something else is wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Horseshit.  Complete and utter Horseshit.

The US was wrong to engage in its “forever wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan.  However, the US did not attempt in either of those wars to take territory or annex portions of the Nation-States invaded as part of the US.  

Russia, and those offering apologia for Russian actions, are attempting to claim Russian actions in invading, occupying, and then annexing territory to itself is somehow justified by prior US bad actions are absolutely and completely full of shit.  Because while invasion and occupation are bad… then claiming it justifies annexation is a step well beyond anything the US has attempted in more than a century.

:shocked:

good thing im not offering apologia for rusia. and sure the us did not take territory they just secure what they wanted while uterly destroying iraq and several other countries, its called neocolonialism. and sorry if im not fucking happy that the us still does whatever the fuck they want in latin america after they fucked it up for all of us till this day. the usa has fuck all to do with latin america, except when it comes to stealing our shit, so please keep your usa sincerity we dont give a fuck about that, the usa has no credibility when it comes to human rights and has no credibility when they say the will intervine for democarcy or whatever the fuck they say their reasons are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What seriously perplexes me is the “Global South’s” apologia for the Russian invasion of an attempt at annexation of Ukrainian territory?  Russia is explicitly imperial in its ambition… why would the anti-imperial “Global South” not oppose the Russians?

cuz you dont know what you are talking about, if these are serious questions i recommend that you read on the topic, inform your self please. for us latinos the usa has been far more imperialist than rusia ( but i do know the history of russian imperialism) and imperialism isnt just conquering territory just so you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...