What happens if the bad guys win this time?
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 54
"And? What has that to do with my post? (In other words, "No shiznit, Sherlock")."
You were asking what constitutes a "win" in the question of the OP. The OP gave you the example of Russia taking over Ukraine as such a "win".
I tried to make it clear to you that such a "win" was exactly Russias goal, but so far they failed.
After the OP opening question, some people came to spread their anti-americanism, as usual.
As you stated, the waking of the West from their complacency happened, luckily! As we can see here, there are still many people which do not realise the extent of the problem. Although I do not encounter any similar opinions in real life.
You were asking what constitutes a "win" in the question of the OP. The OP gave you the example of Russia taking over Ukraine as such a "win".
I tried to make it clear to you that such a "win" was exactly Russias goal, but so far they failed.
After the OP opening question, some people came to spread their anti-americanism, as usual.
As you stated, the waking of the West from their complacency happened, luckily! As we can see here, there are still many people which do not realise the extent of the problem. Although I do not encounter any similar opinions in real life.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 63
Posts: 6,067
Originally Posted by 1201alarm
You were asking what constitutes a "win" in the question of the OP. I tried to make it clear to you that such a "win" was exactly Russias goal, but so far they failed.
OK, sorry about the snarky tone.
As you stated, the waking of the West from their complacency happened, luckily! As we can see here, there are still many people which do not realise the extent of the problem. Although I do not encounter any similar opinions in real life.
But here's a sobering thought: even if the 2% goal is to be realized, what it is spent on matters. (My own personal bias here is that funds on people, training, and spares parts is very, very important).
Nice analysis here.
NATO defense ministers pledged in 2006 to spend at least 2 percent of their nation’s gross domestic product on their defense annually. Today that’s become a totemic object for the alliance—especially for Americans who insist that others are spending too little. There is a certain truth in that, but there are much more pressing concerns for NATO than tracking this figure. Leaders should be asking harder questions about how the money is being spent and how the security burden can be shared, not obsessing about who’s giving their fair share.
The pledge was reaffirmed in 2014 at NATO’s Wales summit by alliance leaders, because NATO states were collectively failing to meet the 2006 commitment, thanks to decades of chronic underinvestment by European states on their militaries, which, unsurprisingly, led to significant capability gaps in their ability to conduct military operations. This, in turn, meant that the United States, which spends more than 3 percent annually, was absorbing the lion’s share of the costs associated with securing Europe. As the argument went in 2014, the United States would be much more amenable to continuing its investment in trans-Atlantic security if NATO nations would just spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense.
The pledge was reaffirmed in 2014 at NATO’s Wales summit by alliance leaders, because NATO states were collectively failing to meet the 2006 commitment, thanks to decades of chronic underinvestment by European states on their militaries, which, unsurprisingly, led to significant capability gaps in their ability to conduct military operations. This, in turn, meant that the United States, which spends more than 3 percent annually, was absorbing the lion’s share of the costs associated with securing Europe. As the argument went in 2014, the United States would be much more amenable to continuing its investment in trans-Atlantic security if NATO nations would just spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense.
Getting all NATO heads of state to agree to the 2 percent minimum target was a laudable achievement—and one that might not have happened if Russia hadn’t invaded Ukraine earlier that year.
- The 2 percent minimum target was largely intended as a political mechanism—for example, to help defense ministries fend off budget cuts imposed by finance ministers. But 2 percent is an input rather than an output metric. In other words, how that 2 percent is spent is considerably more important than whether countries are spending enough.
- But the value of alliances cannot be measured in terms of dollars and euros.
- European states have been at the forefront of coping with challenges such as disinformation and cyberwarfare—capacities and experience that are vital but not fully reflected in military budgets.
- As the Chinese tech giant Huawei’s investments in NATO countries demonstrate, failure to consider the security dimensions of commercial investments can have an adverse impact on the alliance. The conversation on burden-sharing must better account for the broader trade-offs and risks associated with choosing alliance security over commercial profitability. Those costs of NATO commitment in Europe are rarely visible in Washington discussions.
- This is no theoretical matter; the current high levels of public support for NATO might flag as the war in Ukraine continues and political will across the public in NATO states begins to diverge.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 12th Jun 2022 at 15:51.
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Rhones-Alpes
Posts: 430
[QUOTE=Sue Vêtements;11244982
In the UK there's the ridiculous FPTP system so that a Prime Minister (also If I have it correct, not elected by the people) can be put in office with far less than a majority of the votes cast[/QUOTE]
Happens everywhere - Germany for example. The coalition was agreed after the election. The overwhelming majority did not vote for Scholz and the SPD.
In the UK there's the ridiculous FPTP system so that a Prime Minister (also If I have it correct, not elected by the people) can be put in office with far less than a majority of the votes cast[/QUOTE]
Happens everywhere - Germany for example. The coalition was agreed after the election. The overwhelming majority did not vote for Scholz and the SPD.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 23,890
Originally Posted by etudiant
If China makes most of your goods, you're in a weak position. That is the case for both the Us and for Europe.
Last edited by NutLoose; 12th Jun 2022 at 18:11.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 148
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
I guess you weren't paying attention in November of 2020. Someone got too few votes to stay in so he and his team were replaced. Every two (representative), four (president), or six (Senator) you can be relieved by the voters. ( I won't get into the cycles for state and local office, just at the federal level).
A vote of no confidence, though, can arise at any time, can't it?
A vote of no confidence, though, can arise at any time, can't it?
and it was 2020 that the census was carried out and from which the electoral maps are drawn and they get drawn in such a way as to help maintain power of those in office at the time of drawing
But one point that you're definitely wrong on: The voters do NOT elect the president in the US
I can't speak to the UK method of no-confidence votes. It's been a long time since I was there and I was young when I left. As for a government being elected with way less than a majority, sure other countries do it that way, but that doesn't make it right. Many other countries use SV and PV and have multiple parties (which addresses another problem)
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,334
Originally Posted by NutLoose
But you could equally say China is in a week position as their economy is based upon those sales and without them their economy could collapse.
The multi hundred billion dollar trade imbalance the US runs annually with China is the fuel that allows them to also build up their military and their foreign investment portfolio.
They would suffer a bad hit if it went away, but it would not be disaster for their economy.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 23,890
But the funding for those contructions come from foreign revenue earnings, which drives the building of new homes and offices for those moving to the cities to build items for the west.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 63
Posts: 6,067
If I may remind the class that the question posed isn't about electoral systems, or the lack thereof, but the question of a forecast into the future if
(1) Russia takes over a lot of or all of Ukraine
(2) a vague assumption - Which Does Not Necessarily Follow - that their succeeding in this land grab will encourage China to make an aggressive move across the Taiwan straits.
If those two assumptions are to be taken as axiomatic, what does that mean for the world for the next 10, 20, 30 years.
We seem to have gotten side tracked by the usual suspects. Can we return to the topic at hand? (Mind you, I think it's of dubious provenance, however forecasting is a hobby that seems to entertain many JB denizens).
(1) Russia takes over a lot of or all of Ukraine
(2) a vague assumption - Which Does Not Necessarily Follow - that their succeeding in this land grab will encourage China to make an aggressive move across the Taiwan straits.
If those two assumptions are to be taken as axiomatic, what does that mean for the world for the next 10, 20, 30 years.
We seem to have gotten side tracked by the usual suspects. Can we return to the topic at hand? (Mind you, I think it's of dubious provenance, however forecasting is a hobby that seems to entertain many JB denizens).
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: SE of there
Age: 42
Posts: 58
OP question was what if bad guys win?
I agree with dr dre, someone's "badness" depends a lot on perspective. While western countries consider them as goodies, a lot of rest of the world would disagree on that.
Democracy being one of the markers? Take a good look on Yugoslavia and successor states and tell me how democracy worked for them? Democracy by itself is not "be all and end all" solution. How come some places need "more democracy" compared to others. Russia and China need more freedom of speech? Sure. How come Pakistan and Saudi Arabia don't need the same?
Notion that USA has spent most "money and blood" to make the world a better place begars belief. It might coincide that USA's interests alligned with what might be considered as better world, but make no mistake, USA works only for it's own interests (as do every other country on this planet).
China and Russia (and Iran, NK and others, works in it's own best interests and that is making them bad in someone's eyes, but so does the western democracies.
We are all the same.
I agree with dr dre, someone's "badness" depends a lot on perspective. While western countries consider them as goodies, a lot of rest of the world would disagree on that.
Democracy being one of the markers? Take a good look on Yugoslavia and successor states and tell me how democracy worked for them? Democracy by itself is not "be all and end all" solution. How come some places need "more democracy" compared to others. Russia and China need more freedom of speech? Sure. How come Pakistan and Saudi Arabia don't need the same?
Notion that USA has spent most "money and blood" to make the world a better place begars belief. It might coincide that USA's interests alligned with what might be considered as better world, but make no mistake, USA works only for it's own interests (as do every other country on this planet).
China and Russia (and Iran, NK and others, works in it's own best interests and that is making them bad in someone's eyes, but so does the western democracies.
We are all the same.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: antipodies
Posts: 75
Originally Posted by uxb99
Since I was a kid I've been fed on the notion that the good guys always win.
Now we have Russia and China threatening this very notion.
The West is in a very weak position.
So what will happen if the bad guys win this time? If Russia and China dominates what can we expect over the next 10, 20, 30 years?
Now we have Russia and China threatening this very notion.
The West is in a very weak position.
So what will happen if the bad guys win this time? If Russia and China dominates what can we expect over the next 10, 20, 30 years?
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: USA
Posts: 195
The 2% is a red herring. The amount of spending could be any number - the entirety of Europe could have dedicated themselves to building weapons and training soldiers and Russia would still remain a nuclear power with a leader expressing a willingness to pull the pin and give it a toss. There is no question that the responses to that will not offset the damage done. It is already possible that every major city, port, and critical area of Russia could be reduced to a shattered smudge on the planet's surface - and Putin knows that and gives the appearance of not caring.
The best weapon against a war is to ensure the enemy has a vibrant and comfortable life, one that has little pain and which they would hate to lose. I think looking at the invasion of franchise restaurants from the West was the greatest threat to Putin. Internally the best weapon is poverty - to have a segment that is so low on the social scale that the best option is to sign up with the military and take the risk of killing and getting killed. Poverty isn't a necessary condition, there are plenty of reasons as the post 9/11 cohort and the post Pearl harbor cohort proves, but it supplies the bulk for the long run and Putin appears to have plenty to call on.
Also - https://i.imgur.com/AO0aZsz.jpeg
(in that image DEATH speaks in all caps to his daughter, a former mortal he adopted)
The best weapon against a war is to ensure the enemy has a vibrant and comfortable life, one that has little pain and which they would hate to lose. I think looking at the invasion of franchise restaurants from the West was the greatest threat to Putin. Internally the best weapon is poverty - to have a segment that is so low on the social scale that the best option is to sign up with the military and take the risk of killing and getting killed. Poverty isn't a necessary condition, there are plenty of reasons as the post 9/11 cohort and the post Pearl harbor cohort proves, but it supplies the bulk for the long run and Putin appears to have plenty to call on.
Also - https://i.imgur.com/AO0aZsz.jpeg
(in that image DEATH speaks in all caps to his daughter, a former mortal he adopted)
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,334
Originally Posted by NutLoose
But the funding for those contructions come from foreign revenue earnings, which drives the building of new homes and offices for those moving to the cities to build items for the west.
The household savings rate in China is about 40%, about 3-5x what it is in the West. There are ample savings funds available, too ample in fact, which drives the excesses such as the empty cities China has built.
The huge trade imbalances add to China's foreign currency hoard, which allows them to develop influence all around the globe, recycling their surplus dollars.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Tranquility Base
Posts: 54
Lonewolf, thanks for the inputs about the 2% goal. I stand with you in all what you say, I have the strong belief that WW2 showed us that you can only be stronger than evil and not appease evil.
Now to admikar:
No it doesn't.depend on perspective. It is not that a lot of the rest of the world would disagree with that. Quite the opposite, as shown by the worldwide migration gradient. However what we have: a lot of the worldwide despotic gangs in charge of autoritharian countries are against the idea of freedom and democracy. But never mix up the authoritarian crooks with the people suffering under such rule.
Croatia & Slovenia are doing very well and are happy to be part of the European Union. This they achieved after having fought the serbian gang of crooks Milosevic, Mladic & Karadzic. Serbia on the other hand is still suffering from phantom pain and dreaming of great-serbia. They are like the russian, can only mentally endure their own way of life with some imaginary past greatness which will come back one day - which it won't, only dding to the bad economical development and frustrations.
.
A functioning democracy is the basis for a prosperous life in a fair and safe society. It is also the basis for progress in all kind of ways in human existence. But yes, it needs many factors to be a functioning democracy: voting alone is not all of it, you also need independant justice, you need independant media which try to deliver the reality, even if it is uncomfortable, and which at the same time have a good judgement what is relevant and what is not. Then you need a population which appreciates democracy and engages in a reasonable way, part of it is political debate and arguments without seeing your opponent as your enemy. I could go on and on, but you, admikar, haven't understood anything of that, that is obvious.
etudiant:
Until the west decides to freeze these assets as it has done with Russia. And then what, China? It is not by accident that China has gone very silent on the russian support front.
Now to admikar:
I agree with dr dre, someone's "badness" depends a lot on perspective. While western countries consider them as goodies, a lot of rest of the world would disagree on that.
Take a good look on Yugoslavia and successor states and tell me how democracy worked for them?
.
Democracy by itself is not "be all and end all" solution.
etudiant:
The huge trade imbalances add to China's foreign currency hoard, which allows them to develop influence all around the globe, recycling their surplus dollars.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 863
Wanna figure out who are the better guys versus worse guys when it come to the the countries we are generally talking about.
1. Ask yourself where people leave from to move to in order to start a new life.
2. Ask yourself what happens in each country when you have a protest with a screaming baby blimp of the leader, Winnie the Pooh blimp of the leader, blimp of the leader dressed in makeup/drag.
Now ask yourself this. Imagine due to some sort of circumstances, you had to move to one of the three countries for the rest of your life(and your kids). Which would you choose. Maybe not everyone would choose the same country, but where do you think most would choose. Probably where most already do choose. One reason is the because they could still say how bad their country of choice is.
1. Ask yourself where people leave from to move to in order to start a new life.
2. Ask yourself what happens in each country when you have a protest with a screaming baby blimp of the leader, Winnie the Pooh blimp of the leader, blimp of the leader dressed in makeup/drag.
Now ask yourself this. Imagine due to some sort of circumstances, you had to move to one of the three countries for the rest of your life(and your kids). Which would you choose. Maybe not everyone would choose the same country, but where do you think most would choose. Probably where most already do choose. One reason is the because they could still say how bad their country of choice is.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 863
The reality is, when it comes to general groups with economic/military power, the good guys are the anglos. A lot of other have recognized this and joined in an alliance creating the Pax Americana. The transition to a new pax will not be enjoyable for many. Enjoy being able to say how bad the hegemon and their allies are. Based on the alternatives offered up as realistic options in the last century, I suspect you won’t be able to do so easily when the next one arrives.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,334
Originally Posted by 1201alarm
Lonewolf, thanks for the inputs about the 2% goal. I stand with you in all what you say, I have the strong belief that WW2 showed us that you can only be stronger than evil and not appease evil.
etudiant:
Until the west decides to freeze these assets as it has done with Russia. And then what, China? It is not by accident that China has gone very silent on the russian support front.
etudiant:
Until the west decides to freeze these assets as it has done with Russia. And then what, China? It is not by accident that China has gone very silent on the russian support front.
Trump's tariff was a feeble attempt to help restore the balance, it obviously was way too little and failed, so the decay of our industrial base continues.
The Chinese proverb 'It is easy to apologize to those whom you have not finished with' does suggest the Chinese are feeling more confident, as apologies from China are becoming rare indeed.
China has maintained a hands off position on the Ukraine, Reuters summarized it this way back in March::
While saying it recognises Ukraine's sovereignty, Beijing has repeatedly said that Russia has legitimate security concerns that should be addressed and urged a diplomatic solution to the conflict.
There has been no change from this afaik.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 1313 Mockingbird Lane
Posts: 344
Originally Posted by etudiant
Dream on, we cannot recreate our industrial infrastructure demolished over several decades within a year or two. We don't have the tools to make the tools, starting with the educational base.
For China, there will be a couple of tough years, but they will manage, they have the goods and the skills to make what they need.
For China, there will be a couple of tough years, but they will manage, they have the goods and the skills to make what they need.
Dr Dre said it first… it’s perspective.
I grew up in the 60’s watching news footage about the “Vietnam War” constantly.
40 years later went to Hanoi for a meeting and was (unthinkingly) surprised to see it referred to as the “American War” everywhere there.
