People dont have as much agency as he thinks. And game theory(a relatively new concept for his era) dictates that the one who convinces/forces more of their people to fight, is the one who wins.
Let’s say that your entire country, every single person, refuses to go to war. And the country next door has a mere 100 people who are willing(or otherwise) to go to war. Now your country is part of their country and those 100 people are in charge.
In a world where noone wants to fight, those who are willing(or forced) to fight, rule everyone else.
And to bring this concept into the modern era, it is near impossible to post antiwar posts in Russia, because of state control of the internet and the cultivated perception that everyone who is antiwar, is antirussian and a traitor. This is literally the law there.
Yet in the liberal western states, you are free to do that. So what is the result of this difference? People in the West are less willing to go to war. Now you might think that is a good thing but ultimately this benefits Russia, who is then free to take over their smaller neighbours. This is just interference, marketing for Russia’s war machine, even if it doesnt feel like that.
The fact that the west was, and still is, the most prolific war mongerers of the post-Enlightenment era blows your hypothesis out of the water as soon as it tries to float.
The fact that the west was, and still is, the most prolific war mongerers of the post-Enlightenment era blows your hypothesis out of the water as soon as it tries to float.
How about we talk about the last 30 years then. What wars have europeans participated recently? Yugoslav wars? Afghanistan? Iraq?
Yugoslav wars were about ethnic cleansing between different ethnic groups who wanted to go their own ways. Afghanistan was because of 9/11, the taliban refusing to offer Bin Laden and the american thirst for revenge. Iraq was extremely controversial in Europe, pretty much every state opposed it, even if some european governments supported it, the majority of their people opposed it(huge protests).
Even the US, the imperium, which is usually doing imperial things, havent been doing much imperialism recently, after Afghanistan. And because of Afghanistan and Iraq, meaningless and immoral wars for most people, the US has trouble recruiting military personnel nowadays. Thats how democracies work, eventually the truth rises to the top.
The Ukraine war is one of the most clear cut wars since the Iraq invasion. And the West has the opportunity to be on the right side for once. Let me remind you that historically neutral countries like Sweden, joined NATO and countries like Germany are quickly re-arming for the first time in almost 100 years.
Because till recently, Europe was “let’s all hold hands together”, living in their own dream bubble about how war is not only bad but also insane. Putin reminded them that “sanity” is not a requirement for governance.
If the West is so war mongering, why did the West not spend more on military in the last 20 years? Why did the West wait till the Ukraine invasion to start pumping untoled trillions into the military industrial complex?
The only event with bigger impact on military spending was the collapse of USSR. For decades, Europe(and even the US) was taking advantage of the peace dividend. That doesnt sound too war mongery to me. And suddently, with just 1 Ukraine invasion, the West doubled and trippled its military budget.
So is the West war mongering or is Russia that caused an insane re-armament because of the Ukraine invasion?
And in before “nato expansion”, blah blah. Sovereign countries have the right to join any alliance they want. Nato didnt invade those countries and force them to join, those countries literally “blackmailed” to join. Poland threatened to get nukes if they werent allowed into NATO.
If Mexico joins an alliance with China, would you approve an invasion of Mexico by the US? I wouldnt.
These are only off the top of my head - I’m sure there’s a few I’ve left out. These also don’t include the wars the west wages through it’s colonialist proxies and client states.
why did the West not spend more on military in the last 20 years?
As is perfectly obvious to anyone that can read, France and Germany together easily matched China’s military spending and outspent Russia by a wide, wide margin in 2009.
If you’re going to post bullcrap, I’d advise you not to post so much of it in one go - all you’re achieving is to make the stink reach further.
Half your examples are older than 30 years old. The other half are literally fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS, on behalf and request of the local governments and population. In fact, in many west african countries, the West was “kicked out” and now Russia is literally doing the same(or promised to). Is Russia going after jihadists in Africa imperialism?
Regarding the Red Sea, Is your argument that the West should allow people/nations/groups to attack commercial vessels? Is that morally ok with you? Is trying to stop them, imperialism? Should the West start hitting iranian vessels? Iran absolutely needs ships to be safe to travel in order to sell their oil. In fact, the Houthis hit a ship that was going to Iran.
As is perfectly obvious to anyone that can read, France and Germany together easily matched China’s military spending and outspent Russia by a wide, wide margin in 2009.
You need to understand what ppp is. And you need to break down the cost to see what each country is paying for. France and Germany have limited but highly paid military personnel. Countries like China have an huge military+paramilitary, that work for low wages while they are spending a lot of money on new equipment(at higher ppp, thus cheaper per identical thing).
Remember when Trump was complaining about Nato allies not spending 2% of their gdp on defense? Literally every country in Europe has almost doubled their defense spending after the invasion of Ukraine. Why is that?
Russia is spending 7.1% of their gdp on defense, 35% of total government spending. Are they doing it because they are imperialistic or because they are afraid the West will invade them? And if you say “obviously they are doing it in self defense”, let me remind you that
As is perfectly obvious to anyone that can read, France and Germany together easily matched China’s military spending and outspent Russia by a wide, wide margin in 2009.
…didn’t you get the first time around?
Half your examples are older than 30 years old.
Really? Go count them and get back to us. Don’t be long now!
The other half are literally fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS,
Are you talking about those Wahhabist groups that only exists because of the US’s shitfuckery? Those ones?
Go on… fling your bullcrap at the wall in the hopes that something sticks - let’s see if anyone falls for this clever and sophisticated strategy of yours.
I am not trying to defend american imperialism, i am trying to rank it on a curve. And the curve is wild but relatively to its past, the US is chilling atm. Maybe because of China, maybe because military recruitment has fallen off a cliff or maybe because it is less cool to do “stuff” anymore.
20+ years ago, Yemen would have been invaded. Nowadays, noone wants to do that, they just dont want the Houthis to fuck with shipping. Thats why only the US and UK bombed the Houthis and even that was very limited, not the usual “shock and awe” kind of bombing.
US military spending is at an all time high, higher than the next 10 countries combined. After ending decades long occupations of multiple countries on the other side of the world, military spending is still increasing. The US is starting to face enough blowback that it’s somewhat more limited in what it can get away with, but it’s still pretty bad.
In order to understand this better, imagine how much a chinese soldier is paid and how much an american one is. And then do the same for literally everything. How much a chinese ship builder is paid vs how much an american one. How much a chinese engineer is paid vs how much an american.
In almost every category, the american worker will be A LOT more expensive. So a chinese ship that needs 100 people would be a lot cheaper than the american equivalent one. Obviously some of the cost doesnt differ, ie raw materials cost around the same in both countries. But wages and other factors make running a western military a lot more expensive than a chinese one.
And thats how you ended up with China having 370 warships while the US has 280. Now this number is extremely misleading, since american ships are heavier and are mostly blue water navy(while a lot of the chinese ones are green water ones) but still.
People dont have as much agency as he thinks. And game theory(a relatively new concept for his era) dictates that the one who convinces/forces more of their people to fight, is the one who wins.
Let’s say that your entire country, every single person, refuses to go to war. And the country next door has a mere 100 people who are willing(or otherwise) to go to war. Now your country is part of their country and those 100 people are in charge.
In a world where noone wants to fight, those who are willing(or forced) to fight, rule everyone else.
And to bring this concept into the modern era, it is near impossible to post antiwar posts in Russia, because of state control of the internet and the cultivated perception that everyone who is antiwar, is antirussian and a traitor. This is literally the law there.
Yet in the liberal western states, you are free to do that. So what is the result of this difference? People in the West are less willing to go to war. Now you might think that is a good thing but ultimately this benefits Russia, who is then free to take over their smaller neighbours. This is just interference, marketing for Russia’s war machine, even if it doesnt feel like that.
The fact that the west was, and still is, the most prolific war mongerers of the post-Enlightenment era blows your hypothesis out of the water as soon as it tries to float.
How about we talk about the last 30 years then. What wars have europeans participated recently? Yugoslav wars? Afghanistan? Iraq?
Yugoslav wars were about ethnic cleansing between different ethnic groups who wanted to go their own ways. Afghanistan was because of 9/11, the taliban refusing to offer Bin Laden and the american thirst for revenge. Iraq was extremely controversial in Europe, pretty much every state opposed it, even if some european governments supported it, the majority of their people opposed it(huge protests).
Even the US, the imperium, which is usually doing imperial things, havent been doing much imperialism recently, after Afghanistan. And because of Afghanistan and Iraq, meaningless and immoral wars for most people, the US has trouble recruiting military personnel nowadays. Thats how democracies work, eventually the truth rises to the top.
The Ukraine war is one of the most clear cut wars since the Iraq invasion. And the West has the opportunity to be on the right side for once. Let me remind you that historically neutral countries like Sweden, joined NATO and countries like Germany are quickly re-arming for the first time in almost 100 years.
Because till recently, Europe was “let’s all hold hands together”, living in their own dream bubble about how war is not only bad but also insane. Putin reminded them that “sanity” is not a requirement for governance.
If the West is so war mongering, why did the West not spend more on military in the last 20 years? Why did the West wait till the Ukraine invasion to start pumping untoled trillions into the military industrial complex?
The only event with bigger impact on military spending was the collapse of USSR. For decades, Europe(and even the US) was taking advantage of the peace dividend. That doesnt sound too war mongery to me. And suddently, with just 1 Ukraine invasion, the West doubled and trippled its military budget.
So is the West war mongering or is Russia that caused an insane re-armament because of the Ukraine invasion?
And in before “nato expansion”, blah blah. Sovereign countries have the right to join any alliance they want. Nato didnt invade those countries and force them to join, those countries literally “blackmailed” to join. Poland threatened to get nukes if they werent allowed into NATO.
If Mexico joins an alliance with China, would you approve an invasion of Mexico by the US? I wouldnt.
Your arguments are fucking laughable - if I wanted to deal with rotting offal like this, I would have become a garbage collector.
Yes. Lets.
US shitfuckery in Panama.
US shitfuckery in Somalia
US shitfuckery in Haiti.
US shitfuckery in Afghanistan.
US shitfuckery in Yemen.
US shitfuckery in Iraq.
US shitfuckery in Pakistan.
More US shitfuckery in Somalia.
US shitfuckery in Uganda.
US shitfuckery in Niger.
US shitfuckery in the Red Sea.
These are only off the top of my head - I’m sure there’s a few I’ve left out. These also don’t include the wars the west wages through it’s colonialist proxies and client states.
Bullcrap.
As is perfectly obvious to anyone that can read, France and Germany together easily matched China’s military spending and outspent Russia by a wide, wide margin in 2009.
If you’re going to post bullcrap, I’d advise you not to post so much of it in one go - all you’re achieving is to make the stink reach further.
I was talking about Europe in case you missed it.
Half your examples are older than 30 years old. The other half are literally fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS, on behalf and request of the local governments and population. In fact, in many west african countries, the West was “kicked out” and now Russia is literally doing the same(or promised to). Is Russia going after jihadists in Africa imperialism?
Regarding the Red Sea, Is your argument that the West should allow people/nations/groups to attack commercial vessels? Is that morally ok with you? Is trying to stop them, imperialism? Should the West start hitting iranian vessels? Iran absolutely needs ships to be safe to travel in order to sell their oil. In fact, the Houthis hit a ship that was going to Iran.
https://www.reuters.com/world/ambrey-says-bulker-was-targeted-by-missiles-bab-al-mandab-2024-02-12/
Even China has publicly opposed this shit.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-calls-red-sea-attacks-civilian-ships-end-2024-05-28/
You need to understand what ppp is. And you need to break down the cost to see what each country is paying for. France and Germany have limited but highly paid military personnel. Countries like China have an huge military+paramilitary, that work for low wages while they are spending a lot of money on new equipment(at higher ppp, thus cheaper per identical thing).
Remember when Trump was complaining about Nato allies not spending 2% of their gdp on defense? Literally every country in Europe has almost doubled their defense spending after the invasion of Ukraine. Why is that?
Russia is spending 7.1% of their gdp on defense, 35% of total government spending. Are they doing it because they are imperialistic or because they are afraid the West will invade them? And if you say “obviously they are doing it in self defense”, let me remind you that
They started it by invading a sovereign country.
They have nukes, noone is invading them.
Which part of…
…didn’t you get the first time around?
Really? Go count them and get back to us. Don’t be long now!
Are you talking about those Wahhabist groups that only exists because of the US’s shitfuckery? Those ones?
Go on… fling your bullcrap at the wall in the hopes that something sticks - let’s see if anyone falls for this clever and sophisticated strategy of yours.
“Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?”
I am not trying to defend american imperialism, i am trying to rank it on a curve. And the curve is wild but relatively to its past, the US is chilling atm. Maybe because of China, maybe because military recruitment has fallen off a cliff or maybe because it is less cool to do “stuff” anymore.
20+ years ago, Yemen would have been invaded. Nowadays, noone wants to do that, they just dont want the Houthis to fuck with shipping. Thats why only the US and UK bombed the Houthis and even that was very limited, not the usual “shock and awe” kind of bombing.
Even China has had enough of this bullshit
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-calls-red-sea-attacks-civilian-ships-end-2024-05-28/
I am pretty sure Iran and Russia feel the same. Fucking with trade hurts everyone.
US military spending is at an all time high, higher than the next 10 countries combined. After ending decades long occupations of multiple countries on the other side of the world, military spending is still increasing. The US is starting to face enough blowback that it’s somewhat more limited in what it can get away with, but it’s still pretty bad.
Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures
The difference is even smaller if you use PPP.
In order to understand this better, imagine how much a chinese soldier is paid and how much an american one is. And then do the same for literally everything. How much a chinese ship builder is paid vs how much an american one. How much a chinese engineer is paid vs how much an american.
In almost every category, the american worker will be A LOT more expensive. So a chinese ship that needs 100 people would be a lot cheaper than the american equivalent one. Obviously some of the cost doesnt differ, ie raw materials cost around the same in both countries. But wages and other factors make running a western military a lot more expensive than a chinese one.
And thats how you ended up with China having 370 warships while the US has 280. Now this number is extremely misleading, since american ships are heavier and are mostly blue water navy(while a lot of the chinese ones are green water ones) but still.
Next 9 countries, my mistake.
Or barely more than China+Russia, if you adjust for PPP(900 bil vs 700 bil).