Skibboleth
No bio...
User ID: 1226
Skibboleth
1d ago
I am underwhelmed. Greece denies the shootdown incident, and while I don't believe them it points towards them seeing it as a big-time fuckup, not an embrace of violence as a tool for inter-state, intra-NATO conflict resolution. The Gibraltar kerfluffle is even less impressive. Per the article: Spain doesn't threaten to invade Gibraltar, the UK defense secretary says "if they attack, we'll defend our territory", and then May laughs off the issue.
And therefore American politicians are hypocrites
And?
it is because they are the proverbial man in a gated community patrolled by police who believes that nobody has the right to self-defence
This is the strangest conceptualization of self-defense I've seen in a while.
Skibboleth
1d ago
I think what you mean here is that has protected its members through strength.
Okay, sure. But crucially:
a) NATO members don't get invaded by external foes
b) NATO members do get into disputes with each other, but don't threaten each other with war over disagreements. Germany doesn't insist that the Netherlands and Denmark have pro-German governments on pain of invasion. Hungary is a toxic cyst inside the EU and NATO and the consequences are that other leaders complain a lot about Orban.
This adds up to NATO members not living in the jungle.
because they are in a position of strength they participate by causing it, not by experiencing it
There's no distinction between the two.
Skibboleth
1d ago
You're right - fortunately, that's a bit more extreme than what I actually said.
No, it's literally what you said: " If the Russians have a mind-control weapon which can capture the President without the US military or IC doing anything about it then they have already won and you may as well just roll out the red carpet for them now.
Of course, the alternative hypothesis, that the alternative media and other voices have been correct about the US' pivotal role in starting the Ukraine conflict"
Now, I think you're probably smart enough that you don't think the Russians have literal mind control, but you unambiguously presented that as the only alternative to the Russia apologist POV being correct, despite there being some very obvious reasonable alternative explanations. Thus: a false a dichotomy between your preferred conclusion and a ridiculous one.
The POTUS is a conspiracy theorist?
There's a laundry list, but the most prominent and undeniable are the Birther conspiracy theory and the 2020 stolen election conspiracy theory.
Skibboleth
1d ago
His 'throwaway comments' are backed up by a 'peace negotiation' where to all appearances he is planning on selling out to Russia. He's also doubled down on this line, so apparently more than just a throwaway comment.
More broadly, Trump is President of the United States. People are going to take him seriously, and they should take him seriously. That Trump says ten insane things a day and he only means three of them is not an indication that you should write off what he says.
Saying "that's how it is" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The US is, for the moment, part of a military coalition that has pretty effectively suspended international anarchy (at least for its members). It doesn't have to be how it is, but Trump and his supporters are moving us back in that direction because they apparently can't conceive of anything other than the most short-sighted self-interest.
Like, this is not an attitude that pays off for the US in the long run. (And, of course, it doesn't require bending over for Russia - Trump does that for free)
Skibboleth
1d ago
I reiterate: And?
The problem with the thug's worldview is that they create the world they think they are merely describing. Nobody in Eastern Europe would be clamoring for an alliance with Uncle Sam if not for Russia's own behavior.
it was helped along by the West
Again, in what way? Specifically. I suppose you could say that the EU created friction by offering Ukraine a trade deal that was liable to agitate Russia, but that just brings us back to the issue of Russia feeling entitled to dominate Ukraine.
But to my mind, you really can’t engage with the war and the causes or likely outcomes unless you can explain what all sides actually believe is going on and why they’re making the decisions they’re making.
When Trump says "You should never have started it", he's not engaging in cold-blooded causal analysis and I see no reason to pretend that he is. Like, yes, obviously Russia/Putin has a perspective on why the war is justified, but there isn't actually that much divergence between pro and anti-Russian positions on why Russia invaded Ukraine, just in how seriously you take their justifications.
Skibboleth
2d ago
"Don't resist oppression because you'll lose anyway" is a tactical argument which may or may not be correct depending on circumstances; "it's your fault for trying to resist" is a moral argument. Most people would not say that if the mugger tries to move into your house, it's your fault for trying to kick him out instead of giving him the living room and kitchen in the hopes he doesn't ask for more.
Skibboleth
2d ago
"Color revolution" is a just a term for a post-soviet/communist protest movement. Ukraine had a color revolution in 2004 as well (also involving Yanukovych, though that time it was about election fraud, not his backing out of an EU trade deal, but both cases involved the underlying perception of Russia violating Ukrainian sovereignty).
Every country has its dissidents
The Euromaidan protests involved hundreds of thousands to millions of active protestors from basically every part of the Ukrainian political spectrum except the pro-Russia faction. This is more that "dissidents > 0". Defending the claim that it was instigated by Western powers in a meaningful way is going to take more than allusions to possible foreign involvement.
Skibboleth
2d ago
And yet the United States has a long, long history of demanding subservience from both:
And? Leaving aside some of the dodgy specifics herein, it would be pretty brazen to suggest that, e.g. Canada was really at fault for the Fenian Raids. If the point is merely that sometimes powerful nations bully weaker ones, no one was contesting that.
I cannot help but feel like "either the Russians have a mind control device or else the alternative media were right about everything" is a bit of a false dichotomy. The alternative alternative hypothesis, born out by his behavior during his first term, is that Trump is a simp for authoritarians in general and Putin in particular. It doesn't take a mind control device to explain how a not-very-bright 78 year old conspiracy theorist might fall for bullshit that flatters his preferences.
Skibboleth
2d ago
If you uncritically accept Russia's position that they have the right to dominate Ukraine, then the Ukrainians did start it by not applying their tongues to Russian boots with sufficient vigor. However, I refer you to my remark about thuggish worldviews. Russia has no more right to demand subservience from Ukraine than the US does from Canada or Mexico.
It's hard to see how a change of government in a neighboring country justifies invading them (twice!) and engaging in naked land grabs.
with generous help from the West
What exactly does this mean? The "Euromaiden was fake/astroturf" position runs aground on the absolutely massive, cross-spectrum popular participation.
How seriously should we take this reproach? Is it just another tactic to extract concessions from Ukraine before sitting down with them to negotiate a potential deal?
Trump has a history of dealing extremely generously with Putin and taking him at his word. If Putin or his representatives told him it was really Ukraine's fault, I would expect Trump to repeat that. It's probably not helping that Zelenskyy recently pointed this out, since Trump is notoriously fragile.
“You should have never started it,” Mr. Trump said, referring to Ukrainian leaders who, in fact, did not start it. “You could have made a deal.”
The other half of this is that Trump has the mind of a thug. When the powerful threaten you, you make concessions. If you don't, it's your fault for whatever happens.
Skibboleth
2d ago
And conservatives are happy about this? What?
The obvious point would be that the Trumpist movement may be right-wing, but it is in no way conservative.
Skibboleth
2d ago
This seems like a bog-standard Republican move to gut anything that might inhibit business/financial elites as executed through the Trump admin's position that the president is functionally an elected dictator. They're probably not thinking that long term, but if they are I would hazard to guess they are wagering on an emerging Republican majority an extremely favorable position on the Supreme Court plus an electoral system/political geography heavily biased in their favor to prevent the Democrats from exercising power the same way the next time they win the presidency. A lot of Trump's ambitious executive behavior is predicated on an extremely deferential Congress, which a Democratic president is unlikely to get.
I think the fear is starting to take root in Europe that the US would effectively switch sides in return for Russia granting it mineral rights in Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine. This heel turn seems unlikely, but things are murky enough that it is worrying people.
I think the perception of a turn towards Russia rests almost entirely on Trump being a Putin simp. While this sort of thing might be damaging to long-term US relations with allies (hard to count on a senior partner that elects a mad king at regular intervals), it's not a stable relationship in that it hinges almost entirely on Trump's personal affinity. While there are elements of the American fasc post-liberal populist right who view Russia as an ally against liberalism, they generally lack popular credibility (and keep getting caught taking money from Russia). Any alignment between the US and Russia dies with Trump, and even while Trump is in office he'll be fighting his own party.
The primary effect (and in my more paranoid moments, the goal) will be to shred the US' network of alliances.
Maybe the average American now thinks not only "Europe should contribute more to solve their own defence problems", but furthermore, "Europe should get its nose out of international affairs and attempt to help only when it's spoken to. We, Russia and China are in charge now."
Per above, I think this loosely summarizes the view inside the Trump administration. However, most Americans don't think about foreign policy that much or that deeply. A lot of Americans love flashy, muscular actions, but it's not tied to a coherent view of foreign policy. Kicking ass and taking names good, getting sneered at by the French bad. Your average American probably thinks the Europeans should shut up, but more in a "pull your weight or stop complaining" sense than a "know your place" attitude.
Skibboleth
5d ago
The 1st amendment is interpreted more expansively now than it was when the Constitution was adopted. Likewise the 6th.
Skibboleth
5d ago
What would you label people that are fiscally left-wing (for taxes, regulation and redistribution) and socially liberal as in for the freedom to abort and take drugs and also the freedom to use slurs and misgender and sideline minorities that are statistically rarely good enough for high-status jobs?
rare That just sounds like a normal liberal with some idiosyncratic beliefs*, i.e. a normal liberal. Nobody is on-side 100% of the time, any model of politics is going to collapse some distinctions, and at the end of the day the most important question re: political alignment is who you're voting for.
*A lot of this really depends on how they prioritize issues.
Skibboleth
6d ago
Read: it's what actual businesses do, not governments, because businesses care about cutting out waste, and governments don't really
I've said this before, but I have to reiterate: applying the logic of business to government is a mistake. The difference is not that governments don't care about waste and private businesses do; there's significant political incentive to crack down on (perceived) waste. Rather, governments and businesses are not subject to the same feedback mechanisms.
The first and biggest distinction is that governments cannot (except in truly extreme circumstances) fail. Firms which make subpar decisions (I won't say 'bad', because you only need to outrun the bear) will eventually go out of business as you're outcompeted and profit/credit/investments dry up. Governments can keep spending money forever because revenue derives from taxes, not sales, and they are (usually) not trying to make a profit. You can't count on "what's really needed" emerging because your feedback mechanism doesn't respond like that. You can just break something important and never fix it.
The other big distinction is scope of interest. Businesses usually represent a narrow group of people (shareholders) with fairly straightforward interests (money). Governments not only aren't trying to make money, they represent the interests of countless vying groups. There's a great deal of disagreement on the margins about what they ought to be doing and how. You're going to get contradictory feedback on almost anything you do. One man's waste is another man's critical program.
I regret to inform you that there have only ever been seven sincere classic liberals. The rest were embarrassed reactionaries.
I'm quite serious, if hyperbolic. Genuine "social liberal, fiscal conservative"-types are incredibly rare. It's just not a very popular belief set (if you find traditional social hierarchies objectionable you probably feel the same way about economic hierarchies; likewise if you support traditional social relations). What it does have going for it is that it offers an intellectual framework for pushing back against anti-discrimination laws and other elements of social liberalism without openly defending bigotry.
That's not to say there are no genuine classical liberals, but they're not a faction with power or influence.
I would contend that we are headed for an economic collapse simply because we are spending so much more than we produce in GDP, often by simply printing more dollars.
"Economic collapse" covers a range of outcomes from Mad Max to austerity. If this economic apocalypse described really is looming, then DOGE is in chair of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. A project to streamline federal bureaucracy - even if successful - is not going to cover budgetary shortfalls, reverse the rise of China, or bring back the 60s US manufacturing dominance. It's not even going to cushion the fall. Neither is cutting foreign aid to zero.
Which bring me back to my point: the US has the tools to manage its fiscal issues, but there is no good faith fiscal conservatism in the US when it comes to Federal politics. There are serious conservative proposals for bringing spending under control, but they have no traction with actual politicians. If you think harsh fiscal discipline is the only way to save America from economic disaster, you should be yelling at your leaders to stop grandstanding over trivial savings and a) raise taxes b) cut entitlements. The 'every little bit helps' excuse is, in fact, wrong.
To illustrate what I mean, we have the current House GOP's budget proposal. Now, it's just a proposal and it probably undergo major changes, but it does demonstrate what I am talking about. Johnson has floated cuts to Medicaid (hey, something substantial!) among other things, but not in aid of deficit reduction. No, the plan is to cash in all of the savings (and likely then some) on tax cuts that will increase the deficit.
So let's not pretend DOGE is about radical measures to save money.
To an extent, we can get away with it for now, simply because we’re the World Reserve Currency and oil is traded in Petrodollars
If this analysis is correct, it is a huge argument in favor of US foreign involvement. It suggests we are getting absolutely staggering returns for our role as global hegemon and the fact that it isn't coming in the form of annual tribute is immaterial. Pretty much the last thing you'd want to be doing is running around alienating people by abruptly cutting off trade and aid.
Skibboleth
8d ago
This is why metaphors are overrated outside of poetry. They tend to obscure at least as much as they illustrate. If you want to stick with the fat guy metaphor, DOGE's "economy" drive is hectoring the patient for eating a salad for lunch while ignoring that he eats two pounds of bacon for breakfast and a box of Krispy Kreme donuts for dinner. You would discuss dieting plans where you step down food consumption and coming up with a plan the patient could actually follow and doesn't harm them. You wouldn't just say "you're going on a starvation diet now, figure it out."
But in actual fact the USG is not a fat guy. Spending is not food. It's not going to drop dead of a heart attack if it has irresponsible fiscal policy. The worst case scenarios involve a lot of economic turmoil, but the US isn't going to collapse because social security becomes insolvent.
Moreover, the US has a lot of tools with which to solve its fiscal problems, but no one wants to use them. Conservative elites are primarily focused on cutting taxes for conservative elites and weakening consumer/labor protections; electoral success dictates protecting transfers to elderly and rural voters. So the obvious solution of trimming entitlements and raising taxes is a nonstarter and instead we get a pantomime of cost savings* as a cover for re-legalizing banking scams.
*high confidence prediction: these will not result in meaningful government savings over the long run and will incur higher social costs
*intermediate confidence: they will actually increase government costs over the long run as even more Federal staff are replaced with more expensive, less efficient contractors
Skibboleth
9d ago
You aren’t fighting a war
On the contrary, they are fighting the culture war, and what's a war without some war crimes?
No, we didn't. Bay of Pigs predated the Missile Crisis, and there was no subsequent invasion. Cuba is still communist. If the best equivalence one can draw is a failed covert op sixty years ago against a recently established dictator, America is looking pretty good by comparison.
Cuba isn't even a good comparison. Cuba was openly authoritarian and there's a fairly obvious asymmetry between nuclear missiles and a trade deal with the EU. A more appropriate one would probably be the coup targeting Arbenz in Guatemala. And, you know, the coup in Guatemala was completely unjustifiable. It didn't advance US interests or security in any meaningful way - it was simply a manifestation of anti-communist paranoia and extremely petty corporate interests.
The reservation must be pretty fucking massive, then, because we've had anti-American governments in Latin America for decades. European governments routinely ignore US desires and if they told the US to get out the we would do so.
More options
Context Copy link