Brilliant! It seems the lessons of the bloodbath that was the last century are being forgotten: aggression is a loser’s game. Unfortunately it also seems that sociopaths rise to leadership even in former liberal democracies like the US. Let deterrence slip and you let slip the dogs of war.
I agree with the general concept but there is still the problem of the leader who is living in the 19th century. Trump’s wars have been about oil. Trump loves oil. He keeps telling the British to do more North Sea drilling. “Drill baby drill.” So his reality may cause him to act in way incongruous with everyone else’s reality.
Oil is slowly declining as a go-to energy source. It’s especially true if you are concerned about energy security in places like Australia where there is a lot of sun but your oil must be shipped in. It’s fast becoming a relic of a bygone era.
But if you see the world through antiquated glasses wars for resources like oil still make sense. So while I agree with the premise I caution that it has its limits.
To your point on deterrence I don’t think that’s really anything new. We are accustomed to Cold War deterrence because the Cold War was seen as existential. Where threats are not existential they get less attention and certainly less domestic concern. Munich and Czechoslovakia come to mind.
The West certainly failed Ukraine both because we failed to keep our promises made when Ukraine gave up its nukes and we didn’t even follow our own post-WWII declarations on aggressive war. But we did more than nothing. So I’m not ready to condemn us just yet.
In my mind war has moved from territory to people. China could take Taiwan by force but the long term price is too high. Better to convince them that reunification is inevitable and ultimately in their best interests … comparatively speaking.
Russia is neither weak nor impoverished, and NATO is losing this war precisely due to Western cowardly unwillingness to openly fight and die alongside their greatest proxy ever and thereby risk a ‘limited’ nuclear exchange (plausibly one initiated by the U.S. after the loss of carrier battle groups or other major defeats) in Europe.
The Russians have fought the most powerful proxy the Collective West has ever assembled—dwarfing in terms of money and equipment due to Cold War stockpiles intended for Europe, whatever was sent to the South Vietnamese and the Afghans—and they are slowly methodically bleeding the Ukrainian Army to death. The bled white state of the UAF is increasingly evident across the Donbass and with the Ukrainian uprising brewing against the TCC man hunter press gangs. Yet both neocons pretending to be MAGA and DC Blob hawks remain in denial.
Brilliant! It seems the lessons of the bloodbath that was the last century are being forgotten: aggression is a loser’s game. Unfortunately it also seems that sociopaths rise to leadership even in former liberal democracies like the US. Let deterrence slip and you let slip the dogs of war.
I agree with the general concept but there is still the problem of the leader who is living in the 19th century. Trump’s wars have been about oil. Trump loves oil. He keeps telling the British to do more North Sea drilling. “Drill baby drill.” So his reality may cause him to act in way incongruous with everyone else’s reality.
Oil is slowly declining as a go-to energy source. It’s especially true if you are concerned about energy security in places like Australia where there is a lot of sun but your oil must be shipped in. It’s fast becoming a relic of a bygone era.
But if you see the world through antiquated glasses wars for resources like oil still make sense. So while I agree with the premise I caution that it has its limits.
To your point on deterrence I don’t think that’s really anything new. We are accustomed to Cold War deterrence because the Cold War was seen as existential. Where threats are not existential they get less attention and certainly less domestic concern. Munich and Czechoslovakia come to mind.
The West certainly failed Ukraine both because we failed to keep our promises made when Ukraine gave up its nukes and we didn’t even follow our own post-WWII declarations on aggressive war. But we did more than nothing. So I’m not ready to condemn us just yet.
In my mind war has moved from territory to people. China could take Taiwan by force but the long term price is too high. Better to convince them that reunification is inevitable and ultimately in their best interests … comparatively speaking.
Russia is neither weak nor impoverished, and NATO is losing this war precisely due to Western cowardly unwillingness to openly fight and die alongside their greatest proxy ever and thereby risk a ‘limited’ nuclear exchange (plausibly one initiated by the U.S. after the loss of carrier battle groups or other major defeats) in Europe.
The Russians have fought the most powerful proxy the Collective West has ever assembled—dwarfing in terms of money and equipment due to Cold War stockpiles intended for Europe, whatever was sent to the South Vietnamese and the Afghans—and they are slowly methodically bleeding the Ukrainian Army to death. The bled white state of the UAF is increasingly evident across the Donbass and with the Ukrainian uprising brewing against the TCC man hunter press gangs. Yet both neocons pretending to be MAGA and DC Blob hawks remain in denial.
Very interesting annalisys! Thanks!