site banner

Transnational Thursday for February 27, 2025

Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.

0
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Bizarre Soviet-style denial of basic economic capacity isn’t a rebuttal of any value to this argument. Of course military production matters; after all, Pyongyang is capable of destroying Seoul. But Russia has no desire or intention to conquer the West and isn’t going to be nuking London, Paris or Washington any time soon because of a minor regional conflict in Ukraine, that being utter WW3 hysteria.

Strange that someone defending Vance’s comment would appear to have a much lower opinion of Russian strategy than someone criticizing it.

It's not bizarre or Soviet style to acknowledge that Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands are no match for Russia, nor is Italy.

Nominal GDP is just a made-up number, it doesn't mean anything significant. It is silly to write off Russia as weak because some economists made up some numbers.

It is also the case that Russia is not nearly strong enough to conquer Europe (IMO, others like Shrike seem to think it's more even and he is at least initiated in these matters). Nor does Russia have the intention to conquer Europe. But Russia isn't weak enough that it's wise or cost-efficient to force Russia from Ukraine, as is now being recognized in the US government. You seem to consider this appeasing Russia.

isn’t going to be nuking London, Paris or Washington any time soon because of a minor regional conflict

The US seriously considered nuclear strikes in Korea and Vietnam, faraway wars without major ramifications at home. The Ukraine war is much more important for Russia and nukes should not be discounted. If as you say the Russians weren't willing to use nukes over Ukraine, then why not simply demand Russia withdraw or face direct NATO intervention backed up with nukes? Easy win since Russia was never going to use nukes! In reality, it's not that simple. There is a certain point at which Russia would use nukes, just like there's a certain point at which they'd give up on diplomacy and invade.

Strange that someone defending Vance’s comment would appear to have a much lower opinion of Russian strategy than someone criticizing it.

I don't even know what Vance statement you're talking about or how this relates to anything I've said.

If as you say the Russians weren't willing to use nukes over Ukraine, then why not simply demand Russia withdraw or face direct NATO intervention backed up with nukes?

When did I advocate that? I advocated a negotiated peace early in the war. I don’t believe in escalation. But I also don’t believe Russia is this terrifying for where, if we don’t make a deal with them right now, we’re risking WW3. That’s hysterical.

The problem with GDP as a measurement of war-making capability is that the United States can’t actually nationalize Netflix, Facebook and Pornhub and use their factory floors to build tanks.

But the US can nationalize those companies and force them to show propaganda-- or they can conscript their programmers out from under them and force them to work on software for autonomous killing machines. American deindustrialization is strategically dangerous... But it's not like the US gets no strategic advantages in return for being the global center for information engineering (inclusive of coding, financial services, and software.)

The US can, within reason, print money and build more factory floors very quickly. Russia’s manufacturing capacity prewar was also heavily overstated and very outdated. China is a much bigger threat in those terms.