Enjoyed this as usual. I recall thinking back in the days when Russia was being invited to the G7 “why do Eastern European countries keep wanting in to NATO? Why do we even need NATO anymore?”
Until I can compare your definition of "low grade nasty wars" with MacMillans definition then I reserve judgement on your narrative. Personally I would consider Ukraine at present to be the very epitome of a very nasty low grade war that will go on and on without a clear outcome, doing dreadful things to any civilians in its path. That is not to say it couldn't escalate into WW3. There certainly seems to be much effort on all sides to make that particular reality happen.
We don't need NATO or SEATO or any other "coalition of the willing." We need a UN with teeth, where all members - including the USA - agree to abide by all the rules - and not just ones ot likes - including those of the ICC when it declares a country - such, say, Israel - is openly committing genocide. Sanctions will be brought against such a state until such time as it ceases and it's leaders are fed to a docket in the Hague - such as Milosevik. Sanctions at least as onions as the ones currently afflicted upon Iran or Cuba. All of this "nastiness" in the middle east has the US's big thumb in it going back at least to Eisenhower green lighting the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Iran in 1953. Libya and Syria are both disasters of the US's and Israel's making.
Vlad, nasty as he is is no Hitler and he is not insane. He knows if he touches anything of NATOs everything has just gone nuclear. According to well placed people who were in the room he was prepared to stop the invasion 2 years ago for a simple assurance that Ukraine would never join NATO. So Ukraine might have lost Donna's and Crimea bit that's how rulea and negotiations work.
Our one hope for survival into the future is a strong UN that ends war - as the League of Nations might have had the US signed on. If we don't we are going to destroy our planet. The war this time is against our own stupidity and greed. We have wonderful example in Easter Island.
So I should ignore Vladimir Putin's own explanation of the attack on Ukraine, which has everything to do with Russian nationalism and the restoration of the Russian empire, and conclude that the invasion is the fault of aggression by a strictly defensive alliance?
He was likely misguided and thought the war would be a cakewalk. So his bad. No need to go ballistic which he seems to understand as he's very careful not to touch NATO countries - mostly because they are backed by the US nuclear arsenal. A good United Nations would be a good place for Ukraine to bring its complaint and resolve this to everyone's satisfaction - more or less. But the US would have to sign aboard to all the UN treaties including those banning cluster bombs and land mines and repecting the ICC. If they won't do that we have to ask ourselves whose side are we on?
And, where, Ron, will you find such a United Nations?
Clearly, the current UN is toothless and, even worse, is beset by those who support aggressors in so many wars. I cannot conceive of your "solution" actually "solving" any crisis unless and until ALL members of the UN are not members of alliances and are themselves totally non-aligned and willing to vote, not in their favor, but in accordance with "good," whatever such a concept is. And, of course, good to you is very different than good to the next fellow and, me, I absolutely KNOW what is good - just ask me and I will tell you. Wait, you don't have to ask me; I will tell you anyway as I invade you.
In other words, your "solution" is no solution but is simply a feeble attempt to evade any responsibility to deal with real strife and consequences.
Gee, I think that was my point. Give the UN teeth after the Woodrow Wilson design of all countries signing on. Had the US - ironically - signed on to the League of Nations and been there in 1939 to sanction Hitler a whole war could've been avoided. Currently US and Israel are thumbing their noses at the UN and the ICC over credible charges of genocide in Gaza and The West Bank against the Palestinians. Rather than collaborate with the new Nazis we should be working to build instruments of peace and negotiations to influence all nations of the world. War is a luxury we can't afford with the planet on the brink.
But, Ron, you assume just because country A SAYS it will abide by whatever decision, etc. is offered up by the UN that they will do so, whereas I have no doubts whatsoever that country A may choose to do what is in it's interest. If you rely on country B and country C and ...... right down to country Z to go along, then you do not take into account the bribery and self interest in various of those countries.
You say, "Give the UN teeth ...." All it takes is for some of the countries to sign on to teeth but then to ignore the dental bill. I refer you to the glorious sounding platitudes that all countries offer about freedom, equality, etc., etc., etc. and then I refer further to, oh, say Cuba, Venezuela, Congo, Russia, North Korea and so forth. None of these guys live up to what they say.
So, to summarize, nice plan, too bad it won't work.
I regret to admit that I have always considered myself one of those who were "far from politics," and Russia's military invasion of Ukraine came as a complete surprise to me; otherwise, I would have left the empire's territory even earlier.
But Russia's military invasion of Ukraine wasn't a surprise to everyone. Samuel P. Huntington, in his book 'The Clash of Civilizations' back in 1996, not only predicted the high likelihood of this war but also described in detail the preconditions for its occurrence.
In short, Huntington classified Ukraine as "a cleft country with two distinct cultures. The civilizational fault line between the West and Orthodoxy runs through its heart and has done so for centuries." This fault line and the division of Ukraine into East and West were tempting for Putin to "take it all."
As for the wars of the future, I unfortunately can't remember the author, but I once read a sci-fi story where one country declared war on another. Both countries launched a computation program, which, within seconds, calculated the outcome and declared the winner. The loser surrendered without a single shot being fired.
The essence of the plot was that in the future, there would be no need to produce actual tanks or launch real missiles; by having complete information about each country's resources and production capabilities, it would be possible to calculate who would win without spending those resources on actual destruction. It would probably be great if we lived to see such a time, avoiding the fate of the inhabitants of Easter Island.
May I make one slight challenge here? It will be difficult to maintain the competitive edge needed for the best weaponry without a large military industrial complex. That kind of beast needs large orders to make it's scale viable. How do you perceive the balance being struck on that?
I'd strongly agree with your possibilist outlook on this. Prediction is futile and often counter productive. But if we make no predictions what kind of weaponry are we aiming to build? Fifth generation fighters cost billions to develop and build so without a clear strategy/mandate it's hard to see why we'd even bother?
I recall in November or December 2021 during Russia’s build up on the Ukrainian border. The US was warning the world of its intelligence on Russian deployments and plans. The Russia issues an ultimatum loaded with demands that Ukraine could not possibly meet. It was shockingly similar to the demands Austria made on Serbia in the summer of 1914. I knew at that time that Russia was going to invade Ukraine no matter what.
As Ian morris wrote in his book “geography is destiny” “while the past is not a very good guide to the future, it’s the only one we’ve got.”
Enjoyed this as usual. I recall thinking back in the days when Russia was being invited to the G7 “why do Eastern European countries keep wanting in to NATO? Why do we even need NATO anymore?”
Vis pacem, para bellum… nothing new under the sun, as the Ecclesiastes and the Romans used to say
Until I can compare your definition of "low grade nasty wars" with MacMillans definition then I reserve judgement on your narrative. Personally I would consider Ukraine at present to be the very epitome of a very nasty low grade war that will go on and on without a clear outcome, doing dreadful things to any civilians in its path. That is not to say it couldn't escalate into WW3. There certainly seems to be much effort on all sides to make that particular reality happen.
We don't need NATO or SEATO or any other "coalition of the willing." We need a UN with teeth, where all members - including the USA - agree to abide by all the rules - and not just ones ot likes - including those of the ICC when it declares a country - such, say, Israel - is openly committing genocide. Sanctions will be brought against such a state until such time as it ceases and it's leaders are fed to a docket in the Hague - such as Milosevik. Sanctions at least as onions as the ones currently afflicted upon Iran or Cuba. All of this "nastiness" in the middle east has the US's big thumb in it going back at least to Eisenhower green lighting the overthrow of the democratically elected government in Iran in 1953. Libya and Syria are both disasters of the US's and Israel's making.
Vlad, nasty as he is is no Hitler and he is not insane. He knows if he touches anything of NATOs everything has just gone nuclear. According to well placed people who were in the room he was prepared to stop the invasion 2 years ago for a simple assurance that Ukraine would never join NATO. So Ukraine might have lost Donna's and Crimea bit that's how rulea and negotiations work.
Our one hope for survival into the future is a strong UN that ends war - as the League of Nations might have had the US signed on. If we don't we are going to destroy our planet. The war this time is against our own stupidity and greed. We have wonderful example in Easter Island.
So I should ignore Vladimir Putin's own explanation of the attack on Ukraine, which has everything to do with Russian nationalism and the restoration of the Russian empire, and conclude that the invasion is the fault of aggression by a strictly defensive alliance?
He was likely misguided and thought the war would be a cakewalk. So his bad. No need to go ballistic which he seems to understand as he's very careful not to touch NATO countries - mostly because they are backed by the US nuclear arsenal. A good United Nations would be a good place for Ukraine to bring its complaint and resolve this to everyone's satisfaction - more or less. But the US would have to sign aboard to all the UN treaties including those banning cluster bombs and land mines and repecting the ICC. If they won't do that we have to ask ourselves whose side are we on?
And, where, Ron, will you find such a United Nations?
Clearly, the current UN is toothless and, even worse, is beset by those who support aggressors in so many wars. I cannot conceive of your "solution" actually "solving" any crisis unless and until ALL members of the UN are not members of alliances and are themselves totally non-aligned and willing to vote, not in their favor, but in accordance with "good," whatever such a concept is. And, of course, good to you is very different than good to the next fellow and, me, I absolutely KNOW what is good - just ask me and I will tell you. Wait, you don't have to ask me; I will tell you anyway as I invade you.
In other words, your "solution" is no solution but is simply a feeble attempt to evade any responsibility to deal with real strife and consequences.
Gee, I think that was my point. Give the UN teeth after the Woodrow Wilson design of all countries signing on. Had the US - ironically - signed on to the League of Nations and been there in 1939 to sanction Hitler a whole war could've been avoided. Currently US and Israel are thumbing their noses at the UN and the ICC over credible charges of genocide in Gaza and The West Bank against the Palestinians. Rather than collaborate with the new Nazis we should be working to build instruments of peace and negotiations to influence all nations of the world. War is a luxury we can't afford with the planet on the brink.
But, Ron, you assume just because country A SAYS it will abide by whatever decision, etc. is offered up by the UN that they will do so, whereas I have no doubts whatsoever that country A may choose to do what is in it's interest. If you rely on country B and country C and ...... right down to country Z to go along, then you do not take into account the bribery and self interest in various of those countries.
You say, "Give the UN teeth ...." All it takes is for some of the countries to sign on to teeth but then to ignore the dental bill. I refer you to the glorious sounding platitudes that all countries offer about freedom, equality, etc., etc., etc. and then I refer further to, oh, say Cuba, Venezuela, Congo, Russia, North Korea and so forth. None of these guys live up to what they say.
So, to summarize, nice plan, too bad it won't work.
I regret to admit that I have always considered myself one of those who were "far from politics," and Russia's military invasion of Ukraine came as a complete surprise to me; otherwise, I would have left the empire's territory even earlier.
But Russia's military invasion of Ukraine wasn't a surprise to everyone. Samuel P. Huntington, in his book 'The Clash of Civilizations' back in 1996, not only predicted the high likelihood of this war but also described in detail the preconditions for its occurrence.
In short, Huntington classified Ukraine as "a cleft country with two distinct cultures. The civilizational fault line between the West and Orthodoxy runs through its heart and has done so for centuries." This fault line and the division of Ukraine into East and West were tempting for Putin to "take it all."
As for the wars of the future, I unfortunately can't remember the author, but I once read a sci-fi story where one country declared war on another. Both countries launched a computation program, which, within seconds, calculated the outcome and declared the winner. The loser surrendered without a single shot being fired.
The essence of the plot was that in the future, there would be no need to produce actual tanks or launch real missiles; by having complete information about each country's resources and production capabilities, it would be possible to calculate who would win without spending those resources on actual destruction. It would probably be great if we lived to see such a time, avoiding the fate of the inhabitants of Easter Island.
May I make one slight challenge here? It will be difficult to maintain the competitive edge needed for the best weaponry without a large military industrial complex. That kind of beast needs large orders to make it's scale viable. How do you perceive the balance being struck on that?
I'd strongly agree with your possibilist outlook on this. Prediction is futile and often counter productive. But if we make no predictions what kind of weaponry are we aiming to build? Fifth generation fighters cost billions to develop and build so without a clear strategy/mandate it's hard to see why we'd even bother?
History is not a bad predictor in the short term.
I recall in November or December 2021 during Russia’s build up on the Ukrainian border. The US was warning the world of its intelligence on Russian deployments and plans. The Russia issues an ultimatum loaded with demands that Ukraine could not possibly meet. It was shockingly similar to the demands Austria made on Serbia in the summer of 1914. I knew at that time that Russia was going to invade Ukraine no matter what.