Jeffrey Ding on China
I’ve been amazed by the response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The most militarily expansionist leader since Hitler and Stalin starts a war that threatens to spiral out of control. He leads a country with enough weapons to destroy most of the US population. He threatens to use nuclear weapons (and is scolded by China for doing so.) And in response we are told by our foreign policy establishment that “China is the real threat”.
A recent podcast provides some interesting historical parallels:
Jordan Schneider: Then in the 1980s, the concern was that Japan would overtake the US. David Halberstam — author of The Best and Brightest and Breaks of the Game — wrote in 1983 that Japan’s industrial ascent was America’s most difficult challenge for the rest of the century and a “more intense competition than the previous political-military competition with the Soviet Union.”
There was a deep consensus within the American body politic that America was losing the technological future and long-term productivity race to Japan. What didn’t Japan get right?
Jeffrey Ding: This was a very real threat in the eyes of the US. Henry Kissinger wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post saying that Japan’s economic strength and rise in high-tech sectors would eventually convert into military power and threaten the US. A poll in the late 1980s found that more Americans were worried about Japan than the Soviet threat to US national security.
The trend that I see so clearly with all these historical examples is the US overhyping other countries’ scientific and technological capabilities. One reason we do that is because we don’t pay as much attention to diffusion capacity.
Japan was the real threat, not the Soviet Union?? Americans seem to have a deep-seated need to see Asians as the “real threat”, not Europeans. Recall the ethnic group that FDR put in concentration camps back in 1942.
Later, Ding points out that it’s not easy to determine what strategy toward China is best, even if we accept the premise that it is a threat:
Jeffrey Ding: We have shifted so far in the direction of US national security interests and the need to beat China in all these different forms of competition. The biggest risk is if China overtakes us on something, whether militarily, economically, or by soft power.
I’m not sure where I stand on this, but why are we not considering that the biggest national security risk for the US is a weak China and a China that can’t sustain its growth? For the longest time that was US State Department policy. A strong China is good for peace.
All this self-flagellation that’s been coming out in terms of China’s AI sector has been overhyped. China could also suffer economic stagnation. What would the national security consequences be for the US? They might not be good.
It’s not even in the Overton window. We’re not even talking about it anymore in Washington.
To be clear, both Schneider and Ding see China as a serious threat. Please read the entire interview. But at least they seem to have some historical perspective that is lacking in most other commentary on the issue.
Tags:
30. August 2024 at 09:13
The hostility from the NatCon right is 100% hypocrisy if they advocate non-interventionist foreign policy. Instead of a hostile and paranoid posture towards China, the goal should be focused on fostering mutual friendship while acknowledging both sides spy, etc. on each other. Most of the “they steal our jobs” ignorance seems to stem from the likes of Tucker/Ingraham/Buchanan who don’t understand fundamental concepts of trade.
As far as Russia and Ukraine, I highly recommend Schwarz and Layne’s “Why Are We in Ukraine” article in Harper’s or “The American Origins of the Russo–Ukrainian War” in the American Conservative (both articles online) that lays much of the blame for the state we are in now on US foreign policy since WW2 especially in regards to NATO expansion.
30. August 2024 at 10:04
“And in response we are told by our foreign policy establishment that “China is the real threat”.”
Sumner, the reasoning is that since Russia’s performance in the Ukrainian war has been so unimpressive, and China has much higher state capacity (see its COVID performance), importance in the world economy, and population, China has much more capability than Russia to do successful major military operations.
Fortunately for all involved, China’s leadership seems content to limit its territorial expansion on land to a few uninhabited islands. Its navy is nowhere close to taking Taiwan.
“Americans seem to have a deep-seated need to see Asians as the “real threat”, not Europeans.”
I think this error was due to memories of WWII.
30. August 2024 at 11:00
Why hasn’t China sanctioned Russia?
30. August 2024 at 11:49
Echarles, I agree about China, but Putin is to blame for the Ukraine War, not us.
Lizard, They see Russia as helping them in the Cold War between China and the US.
30. August 2024 at 13:06
I doubt the US would sit idle militarily if China and Russia entered into an agreement with Mexico and Canada and deployed thousands of troops along the Mexican and Canadian borders. Do they have the right to? Surrrrre, I suppose. Is it an irresponsible provocation? Perhaps.
30. August 2024 at 14:30
Echarles, If the US invades Canada, I will be highly critical of the US.
Have you ever wondered why Canada has not asked Russia to station thousands of troops on the US border? And have you wondered why the Baltic states might be a bit nervous about Russia?
Putin knows that Nato has no intention of invading Russia.
30. August 2024 at 14:31
BTW, is “Nato” also the reason Russia attacked Georgia?
30. August 2024 at 14:34
“Putin is to blame for the Ukraine War, not us.”
Both Putin and the US (particularly the Trump administration) could easily have taken actions that prevented the Z War. Regardless, Putin is more directly at fault.
30. August 2024 at 14:35
“is “Nato” also the reason Russia attacked Georgia?”
Basically yes; Georgia reunifying with South Ossetia and Abhazia would have made it a lot easier for Georgia to join NATO.
30. August 2024 at 15:03
A better analogy would if a MAGA Texas seceded from the US and the US decided to take it back after China and Russia were on the verge of entering a defense treatise with TX. Would you still object to a US invasion and reclaiming of TX? From the Layne and Schwarz piece:
“At NATO’s 2008 Bucharest summit, the George W. Bush administration proposed that Ukraine and Georgia be admitted to the alliance. German chancellor Angela Merkel and French president Nicholas Sarkozy were appalled and managed to sidetrack it with a kicking-the-can-down-the-road compromise. Kyiv was not offered a membership action plan or a firm date for joining the alliance, but NATO declared that the door was open for Ukraine to join in the future. This led the Kremlin to conclude that Ukraine’s membership in NATO was inevitable….
…As Burns (US Ambassador) said, ‘Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat.’ Burns went on to observe, “Russia’s opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia is both emotional and based on perceived strategic concerns about the impact on Russia’s interests in the region…. While Russian opposition to the first round of NATO enlargement in the mid-1990’s was strong, Russia now feels itself able to respond more forcefully to what it perceives as actions contrary to its national interests.”
30. August 2024 at 16:00
Some people valorize Putin, Tehran and Hamas. And the CCP.
Not me.
30. August 2024 at 16:15
Echarles:
At what point does Russia stop having veto power over all its neighbors’ foreign policy decisions? The only reason Russia’s European neighbors want to join NATO is because Russia scares the hell out of them. Apparently, the realist solution to this is to treat all Russia’s European neighbors as though they are vassal states of Russia, even though Russia’s population is not much bigger than that of all these sacrificial countries. In essence it’s hard to tell the difference between the goals of the realists and those of Putin. Both seem to agree that Russia should be allowed to reconstitute the Soviet Union. Somehow we’re all supposed to forget that the Soviet Union fell apart because none of the sacrificial countries wanted to be a part of it and think that letting Putin reconstitute the Soviet Union will contribute to security.
30. August 2024 at 16:51
Carl- are you saying that defending non NATO countries is worth it even if it means nuclear war? It’s clear the US has been pursuing regime change in Russia so I get Russia’s concerns but I can’t fathom how it’s in the US interest to defend Russian “neighbors” if the result is nuclear destruction.
30. August 2024 at 19:04
Echarles, Russia voluntarily allowed Ukraine to exit. If we did that with Texas, I’d strongly oppose a later invasion.
Bush probably mishandled the Nato thing, as you suggest. Halfway measures in foreign affairs are often a problem. That’s my worry with Taiwan.
30. August 2024 at 22:39
Brainwashed babyboomers are utterly incapable of placing the shoe on the other foot.
1990’s NATO: Don’t worry, we won’t move one inch closer to your border Vladmir Putin. We are peaceful. – Bill Clinton
2000’s NATO: Okay, so we moved a bit closer, but don’t worry Putin because we are still peaceful. You have our word. – Bush
2014 NATO: Crimea voted to be part of Russia, and Donbas seceded from Ukraine. Let’s place more sanctions on Russia, because we’re peaceful. – Obama
2014-2021 NATO: More weapons sent to Kiev (Warmonger Bolton was the architect of that policy). Europe, meanwhile, behind Trump’s back, told Zelensky not to negotiate over Donbas or abide by the Minsk agreement.
2022 NATO: Russia began to assist Donbas. The Biden administration chose to call that an “invasion” because if you say that word often enough, the dumb people might start to believe it.
2024 NATO: Sent powerful military equipment to Ukraine, while encouraging them to fire those weapons on Russian soil, all in the name of ‘peace.’
But remember, NATO loves us all. War is Peace, freedom is slavery.
31. August 2024 at 08:06
One of the unfortunate side effects of Trump Derangement Syndrome (I’m not a fan of Trump nor saying Sumner suffers from TDS) is that the Left has lost all sense of perspective when it comes to Russia (because they think Trump likes Russia) turning them into hawks to the point of risking a nuclear war since no clear exit strategy exists at this point:
“There are a lot of erroneous claims being made about why the U.S. must risk conflict with Moscow to ensure Ukraine ‘wins’ its war. Some see this as an example of the Mackinder geopolitical paradigm: a hostile power dominating the European (or Eurasian) ‘heartland’ would pose a mortal threat to America’s security. Quite apart from the fact that Russia lacks the military and economic power to attain this goal, the nuclear revolution (still not properly understood by strategists) has rendered the ‘Mackinder nightmare’ obsolete.
For America to avoid a possible strategic disaster over Ukraine, it is necessary to have a searching and honest debate about U.S. foreign policy decisions, going back not only to the end of the Cold War but to the end of World War II. There is no indication that such a reexamination will occur. The foreign policy establishment does not want such a discussion. Aided by a docile press, its (admittedly sophisticated) perception management machine will frame the debate on Ukraine and U.S grand strategy more generally by depicting the conflict as a moral crusade and universalizing the magnitude of the stakes in a way that will stifle real discussion rather than promoting it. We have seen this before—in Vietnam, the Gulf War, Kosovo, the Iraq War, and Afghanistan. The watchword for Americans now is: Don’t be fooled again.” (Schwarz/Layne)
31. August 2024 at 08:35
Echarles, I have a radically different view on almost everything. To begin with, it is the right wingers that want to go to war with China over Taiwan that are the hawks. I have yet to see a single leftist advocate going to war with Russia over Ukraine. Heck, Trump has promised to bomb Mexico to get rid of drug gangs. The “left” is the least of our problems in foreign policy.
Second, I would encourage you to examine the history of the 1930s if you think that appeasement is the best way to prevent a wider war. I support providing aid to Ukraine precisely because it will reduce the chance of nuclear war. If Russia conquers Ukraine, the risk of nuclear war between Russia and Nato increases sharply (albeit still far below 50-50.)
“lost all sense of perspective when it comes to Russia”
Russia is a rogue state with expansionist aims. Since 1945, there has been an international rule against invading other countries with the intend to annex their land. Saddam violated that in 1990, and Russia in 2022. The Ukraine War is not a normal War, a dangerous line has been crossed. Again, look at the history of the 1930s, when Germany and Russia jointly invaded Poland to annex territory. These things don’t end well. If Russia wins in Ukraine, why wouldn’t they go for Georgia and the Baltics next?
31. August 2024 at 10:08
Echarles, I have a radically different view on almost everything. To begin with, it is the right wingers that want to go to war with China over Taiwan that are the hawks. I have yet to see a single leftist advocate going to war with Russia over Ukraine. Heck, Trump has promised to bomb Mexico to get rid of drug gangs. The “left” is the least of our problems in foreign policy.
I agree and pointed out the hypocrisy on China earlier in regards to isolationist NatCons and China. No one is dumb enough (yet) to advocate direct conflict with Russia. The point is the Left’s TDS has clouded their judgment to the point of supporting a proxy war by arming Ukraine that strongly risks nuclear conflict.
Second, I would encourage you to examine the history of the 1930s if you think that appeasement is the best way to prevent a wider war. I support providing aid to Ukraine precisely because it will reduce the chance of nuclear war. If Russia conquers Ukraine, the risk of nuclear war between Russia and Nato increases sharply (albeit still far below 50-50.)
You’re forgetting there was no nuclear deterrence in the 1930’s so you’re slippery slope argument is irrelevant and your argument implies that we should defend all non NATO countries from invasions from Russia, China, etc.
Russia is a rogue state with expansionist aims. Since 1945, there has been an international rule against invading other countries with the intend to annex their land. Saddam violated that in 1990, and Russia in 2022. The Ukraine War is not a normal War, a dangerous line has been crossed. Again, look at the history of the 1930s, when Germany and Russia jointly invaded Poland to annex territory. These things don’t end well. If Russia wins in Ukraine, why wouldn’t they go for Georgia and the Baltics next?
NATO has been the expansionist entity:
“Since the early 1990s, the United States has steadily pursued a policy, NATO expansion, that has pushed America’s purported security frontiers to Russia’s doorstep. By enfolding states that were for centuries in Russia’s sphere of influence, Washington has concretely defined its vital interests to be in direct opposition to Moscow’s. The United States has extended security guarantees, backed by nuclear force, to these states. This means that the U.S. security frontier along NATO’s eastern border, actually is a frontier of American insecurity because NATO has become a potential transmission belt for war—nuclear war—that could devastate the American homeland. This is something most Americans do not realize, because the foreign policy establishment does not encourage discussion about what U.S. security guarantees actually mean.” (Schwarz/Layne)
This was Putin in 1997:
“I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr. Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that ‘the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.’ Where are these guarantees?”
31. August 2024 at 14:15
Echarles
How have we been pursuing regime change in Russia? By supporting Ukraine’s efforts to repel a Russian invasion?
I’m aware Russia has nuclear weapons. And it may be comforting to assume that if we all just sacrifice Russia’s neighbors to appease Russia we will be safe. But Russia is creating the instability around itself by trying to enforce its will over neighbors that want to be free of Russian dominance.
31. August 2024 at 18:21
Biden called Putin a murderous dictator and said he needs to go.
Your position implies that the US needs to be the global policeman by protecting non NATO countries against China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc.
And it also implies that the nuclear deterrence umbrella that NATO has is worthless.
31. August 2024 at 21:19
What’s he supposed to say while Putin’s massacring Ukrainians? “He’s a great leader and we want him to stay in power? Just because Biden said the truth about Putin doesn’t mean we’re trying to overthrow him.
And, no I don’t want to be the world’s policeman. I just think it’s silly to pretend that we can stop worrying about Eastern Europe so long as we do nothing when Putin brutalizes his neighbors.
1. September 2024 at 04:59
You have more faith than myself that this situation can be resolved without nuclear conflict. I say Ukraine is not worth that price and that it’s silly to worry about slippery slope 1930’s comparisons that are disanalogous since there was no nuclear security umbrella that exists now.
1. September 2024 at 07:03
“If Russia wins in Ukraine, why wouldn’t they go for Georgia and the Baltics next?”
Because the Baltics are NATO protected and Georgia is little more than a hole for organized crime. Russia has had the ability to annex Georgia at any point since 2008; it has not done so.
I do think Western aid to Ukraine has increased the risk of war between Russia and the West.
“The Ukraine War is not a normal War, a dangerous line has been crossed. Again, look at the history of the 1930s, when Germany and Russia jointly invaded Poland to annex territory.”
“Jointly” is putting it too much; the USSR annexed Eastern Poland because of the fear of Germany annexing it.
“Since 1945, there has been an international rule against invading other countries with the intend to annex their land.”
India violated that rule in Goa and Sikkim and noone cared.
“Saddam violated that in 1990”
And 1980.
1. September 2024 at 07:21
Sumner, given that China is Russia’s largest trading partner among those countries that haven’t sanctioned it, it only makes sense for the rich countries to work with China to pressure Russia to end the war. Yet, despite this, nobody in the West seems to suggest it, instead preferring to light billions in money and thousands in blood on fire (which, in the long run, I think will result in Russia becoming more combat-effective).
1. September 2024 at 07:26
Nobody suggests Russia has designs on Azerbaijan or Mongolia; you should wonder why that is. Even Kazakhstan (which has a notable Russian population) is viewed by Western commentators as fairly unlikely for Russia to invade.
1. September 2024 at 09:32
ECharles, If nuclear war occurs, it will likely be due to a series of miscalculations on both sides. If Russia is not stopped in Ukraine, that sort of miscalculation becomes increasingly likely. It was Saddam’s second invasion that led to war with the US. It was Hitler’s second invasion which led to war with Britain and France.
“NATO has been the expansionist entity:”
So you are comparing one of the best things that’s happened to the world in the past 100 years, a group of democratic nations that joined together for mutual defense, an international cooperative organization trying to move beyond crude nationalism, with a brutal expansionist power like Russia? We are so far apart that any meeting of minds will be impossible.
Harding. Really? Comparing Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine (a sovereign nation) with India demanding that Portugal vacate its colony in India?
“USSR annexed Eastern Poland”
‘Annex’ is such a polite term. I guess you’ve never heard of Katyn Forest
1. September 2024 at 09:47
“a group of democratic nations that joined together for mutual defense,”
NATO has not just been limited to democratic nations or just limited to mutual defense (see Libya and Yugoslavia). It’s true that NATO has been successful at its aim of “mutual defense”, but where’s the evidence that this peace would not have been the case if NATO had never existed?
1. September 2024 at 11:12
“We are so far apart that any meeting of minds will be impossible.”
Yeah, you seem firmly in the Cheney/Wolfowitz democracy spreading camp so doubt any meeting of the minds unfortunately.
1. September 2024 at 12:02
EHarding:
https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/04/ukraine-war-sparks-suspicion-over-russias-designs-on-kazakhstan/
I’m not sure I would feel so unconcerned as you if I were a Kazakh.
1. September 2024 at 23:23
Scott,
In your comment you write
“..So you are comparing one of the best things that’s happened to the world in the past 100 years, a group of democratic nations that joined together for mutual defense …”
That’s probably not how Lybians, Iraquis, Afghans, Syrians, Serbs etc. see things..
Most important: It is definitely not how Russians see it (historical memory quite strong here, after all: they have been invaded twice in the last 200 years (and many thimes before that) by a western coalition)…
2. September 2024 at 14:28
ECharles, LOL, If you think I’m in the Cheney camp then that proves my point, we are talking past each other.
viennacapitalist, “Lybians, Iraquis, Afghans, Syrians”
You’d be surprised how many people in those countries welcomed our intervention. Obviously doesn’t make it right, but large share of the population hated Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, the Taliban, etc. Certainly the Kurds and Shia in Iraq welcomed us.
“Most important: It is definitely not how Russians see it (historical memory quite strong here, after all: they have been invaded twice in the last 200 years (and many times before that) by a western coalition)…”
They’ve been the bully far more often than the victim. Even in 1939 they were allied with Hitler when he went into Poland.
Putin knows that the US has no intention of invading Russia. We don’t know that Russia has no intention of invading Estonia. That’s the difference.
2. September 2024 at 23:08
Scott,
“…Certainly the Kurds and Shia in Iraq welcomed us…”
Yes, a MINORITY welcomed your intervention, the MAJORITY did not! Proves my point, doesn’t it?
You also might have missed more recent developments: the Iraqi government has been politely asking you to leave the country for over a decade now – to no avail
(The shia clerics of Iran, also welcomed your intervention btw. as did al Quaida (of 9/11 fame) in Syria) –
Most Lybians were comparatively well of under Gadhafi. Of course, the warlords who now rule the lands (rather badly) welcomed your intervention.
And in Afghanistan, the intervention (invasion?) was so welcome that NATO soldiers could only stay inside heavily fortified fortresses and the US approved government collapsed overnight – winning hearts and minds in the process..
“…They’ve been the bully far more often than the victim.”
There is a misunderstanding here: the Russians do not see themselves as victims. Emphatically not! They see themselves as winners.
I refer to these things, because it helps to explain their viewpoint, which, in turn, helps to predict how they are going to react to certain developments…
“…even in 1939 they were allied with Hitler when he went into Poland…”
and a few weeks later they were fighting Hitler. What do you make out of it? You think Poland would have been better off, ceding the whole (instead of only half) the country to the Nazis who wanted (and did) to enslave or externminate Slavs?
Since I see this argument brought up often: It also helps to keep a sense of proportion when it comes to the scale of suffering and destruction: one simply cannot compare the invasion of Napoleon, let alone Barbarossa (the biggest military campain in human history by large mile) with comparably minor battles over Poland or elsewhere in Europe.
(Which is why I explicitly did not mention the invasion and capture of Moscow by the Polish-Lithanian comonwealth in 1612, as this was a rather small scale affair by what came later on)
“…Putin knows that the US has no intention of invading Russia. We don’t know that Russia has no intention of invading Estonia…”
Putin thinks/knows that the US wants to topple his goverment, which from his perspective is the same thing as an invasion. Maybe even worse, considering the horrors that followed German agent Lenin and the bolshewiks (we know Putin hates Lenin).
If memory serves, in the Oiver Stone interview series (10 years ago recommended) he explicitly states that he doesn’t think a NATO invasion to be likely in the near future, but argues:
a.) it is much easear to support coups d’etat (see below) from enemy lands
b.) things, i.e. decision makers and incentives might change in the distant future and then it would be costlier to solve this problem
Conclusion: unless Estonia hosts large forward military bases and does not actively support efforts to topple the Kremlin, an invasion is highly unlikely.
3. September 2024 at 14:37
“Yes, a MINORITY welcomed your intervention”
That “minority” is 75% of Iraq’s population.
You might want to speak to some Polish people about how their country has been treated by Russia for centuries.
“Putin thinks/knows that the US wants to topple his government”
Sure, now that he has shown his expansionist agenda. We certainly weren’t trying to topple it 10 years ago. I’m sure Hitler thought we were trying to topple his government in 1941.
3. September 2024 at 23:19
Scott,
“…That “minority” is 75% of Iraq’s population…”
Sorry, I just realized the figures for Iraq are mess and I got a wrong Shia share (shares vary wildly between sources).
I don’t think it is permissible to add up the Shia and the Kurdish share, as both groups have diverging politcal goals.
Also, if it had been so clear cut, as you make it out to be then why the WMD lie?
“…You might want to speak to some Polish people about how their country has been treated by Russia for centuries…”
I live in CEE, I speak to Poles and Czechs, Slovaks etc. on a daily basis – I understand their languages. Being the victim is big business here, the Americans (money, power) like it and it absolves one of one’s own faults.
If you ask them, they will also tell you that only the Russians were communists, no Czech or Pole would get the idea – LoL.
Moreover, I also know what Russian people tell me about Poles (there is more variation here and it is less of an obsession):
* Felix Dshershinsky, founder of the KGB under Lenin, was a Polish natonalist who killed a lot of Russians because of that (needless to say: Katyn, pales in comparison)
* without the red army destroying 80 percent of the Wehrmacht, there would neither be Poles nor Poland
* the Poles got a splendid deal in Yalta, as Stalin gave them the most properous parts of the German Reich, a beautiful port (Danzig) and helped them (and the Czechs) to expell 17 million Germans. They could never have done it on their own.
You know, there is a lovely monetary economist (recomended, now on substack) who argues that poling people is meaningless, as they do not really know what they want. Surely this insight extends to complex historical questions.
“…Sure, now that he has shown his expansionist agenda…”
The Oliver Stone interviews were recorded between 2015-2017 and the Maidan (Russian speaking, elected president toppled) happened in 2014 – long before his “expansinist agenda”.
He also might know things which you and I do not know (theoreticaly possible)
4. September 2024 at 13:41
Viennacapitalist, I think we’re done, as we’re so far apart. Normally when people are corrected on factual points they rethink their argument, they don’t invent nonsensical new ones.
You are deep into conspiracy territory, I have no interest in following.
4. September 2024 at 21:07
Scott,
picking out the one factual argument where I have been wrong (and admitted), not responding at all to the many other points I raised is sad, but I respect your decision/rhetorical trick- your blog, your rules!
But accusing me of being into conspiracy theories (without being specific, ofc) is ironic, for an advocate of asking „the people“ about complex historical events.
The people typically knowing little else BUT conspiracy theories…
5. September 2024 at 09:11
OK, I’ll respond. Your points are irrelevant—Russia’s been a brutal bully for 100s of years. Nato is vastly more ethical than Russia, to compare the two is grotesque.
6. September 2024 at 17:35
“Russia’s been a brutal bully for 100s of years. Nato is vastly more ethical than Russia”
100% irrelevant concerning whether it is in the US interest to defend Ukraine. Remember that when you’re pondering NGDP targeting in a bomb shelter post nuclear war. 🙂
9. September 2024 at 08:31
Echarles, If you’d studied history, you’d learn that not stopping aggressors early leads to far worse wars later on.
9. September 2024 at 11:44
Your lessons and analogies are flawed because they are based on pre WW2 examples when we didn’t have nuclear deterrence. That is the whole point of having nukes but you seem to think they are worthless and that the U.S. needs to be the world policemen when it comes to border aggressions involving non-NATO countries (which puts you firmly in the Neocon camp).
9. September 2024 at 11:52
I don’t think you have any idea what “neoconservative” means. But maybe you are too young to recall the actual neoconservatives like Cheney and Bolton.
9. September 2024 at 12:15
From the Layne/Schwarz piece-
“As Zubok writes, ‘For many in the U.S. administration the Cold War had continued and some were happy to see the Soviet Union collapsing.’ This is why economic support for Gorbachev’s economic reforms was not forthcoming. Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady argued that, rather than propping up the Soviet economy, the real U.S. interest was ‘changing Soviet society so that it can’t afford a defense system.’ Defense Secretary Cheney and his Pentagon advisers also supported the Soviet Union’s breakup and regarded Ukraine’s independence as a bulwark against a possible post-Soviet Russian resurgence. Indeed, as Robert Gates, then deputy national security adviser, has written, Cheney wanted to see the dissolution of the Russian Federation itself (as do current Ukrainian policymakers)…
…The administration’s leaked 1992 Defense Planning Guidance reflected the continuing hold of Cold War thinking on U.S. foreign policy. Given that it was prepared while Cheney was Secretary of Defense and drafted by the neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz, its hawkishness is unsurprising. Like NSC 20/4, and NSC 68, the DPG set as America’s grand strategic goal the permanent reduction of Russian power: ‘Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.”
You disagree with this strategy?
9. September 2024 at 13:32
Strategy? Terms like “happy” are so vague it’s hard to comment. My view is that we obviously should have welcomed the breakup of the Soviet Union, but should not have actively encouraged it. Unless I’m mistaken it was Yeltsin’s decision, not ours.
10. September 2024 at 03:53
Like I said, you are aligned with interventionists Neocons who want regime change because “American good” and ” bad”. Instead of WMD’s for example, you are justifying the overthrow of the government (with likely a worse leader/regime in place) under the fake pretext of blahblahblah….Hitler. And like Neocons, you are uninterested in the history leading to the current situation based on broken political assurances and redlines, well, because “America good”.
10. September 2024 at 04:49
Sentence correction:
Like I said, you are aligned with interventionists Neocons who want regime change because “American good” and InsertRandomDictator “bad”
10. September 2024 at 06:28
Echarles,
IMHO you are corrrect! basic game theory suggests:
Non-appeasement only makes sense when you have “escalation dominance”, otherwise, not so much…
students of history know that it was “not smart” to escalate against the Mongols (as long as they had a military technological advantage)..
10. September 2024 at 06:33
And we learned yesterday that Putin almost used tactical nukes and today dozens of drones hit Moscow. But we should still continue to poke the bear because of…..Hitler.
11. September 2024 at 08:00
Your childish name calling won’t win you any arguments.
11. September 2024 at 12:00
No one is name calling…you misread something.
12. September 2024 at 17:22
Getting close to crossing the nuclear Rubicon.
https://dnyuz.com/2024/09/12/biden-poised-to-approve-ukraines-use-of-long-range-western-weapons-in-russia/