Currently Online 
Mnementh said:
OK, I will not answer everything in detail. But I think you want problems in the world that indeed are bad should be solved by the old means (mainly military) that are the reason these problems cropped up in the first place. I think you can't control a fire by burning down the house. Let me explain. The US does not only have direct influence over the politics of other countries, as the or one of the dominating forces in the world for around 100 years now it has a lot of indirect influence, which means countries look at what the US does and make their conclusions based on that. What can be consistently viewed from the world is, that the US is using military solutions to solve their problems all over the world for many decades now and even with no direct military involvement uses the might of their forces to get their way. And other countries take notice. China has a quite small military, compared with it's geographic, demographic or economic size. Yet Xi Yinping took notice and is expanding the size of the military for some time now. It will take more time, but as China is bigger than the US, it will inevitably end up with a bigger military, rendering the politics the US did for the last 100 years as pointless, as it relied on being the biggest military power. But the US cannot win a cold war against China, because China is so big and also because the US ruins iutself domestically. The ignorance of the internal problems will also make them weaker in foreign politics. If we look at current problems: Putin has built the military for a long time now. True, Russia had a lot of military left over from the cold war, but the cold war had ruined them and they were willing to reduce weaponry to focus more on economic growth. In the pre-Putin era there were multiple treaties between the Soviet Union/Russia and the US for reduction of weaponry, most notably START and SALT (which includes ABM). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty That ended with George W. Bush who retreated from ABM in 2002. The Duma (russian parliament) had ratified START II under the condition that the US respects the ABM, so that killed START as well. That is the start of Putins presidency. Putin and Bush made a new contract (SORT), which was considerably weaker than the ones before. In the following years the US seeked to improve strategically on their military capabilities and voided all efforts for disarmament and gave Putin room to grow the russian military as well with the goal to take control of the former soviet influence sphere by military means. This sphere includes Ukraine. So yes, the politics you and many others want to use to solve the invasion in the Ukraine is cause for these problems in the first place. And not only there, as I said before other countries like China seek also military power, simply as the US shows how they can use it. I would prefer a world that is going back to disarmament treaties like after the cold war and would this time include new powers like China and India and regional powers like Saudi-Arabia. The NATO bears the same problem. It is a hammer in a world that need more soft solutions. The NATO is designed by principle to protect the interests of North American and european countries. Africa, South America and Asia are for the most part out of the equation here and basically see themself opposed by this military alliance. No wonder they seek their own military power to counter it. You say the UN is toothless. But it is so because the NATO powers make sure the UN never gains more influence. NATO powers have often opposed UN solutions and instead stepped in as NATO to solve problems with military. The UN had not the opportunity to built up their own forces and they are sidestepped if the NATO want to directly deal with stuff. So the weakness of the UN is a result of the existance of the NATO. But as the NATO is one-sided everyone outside wants to grow their own military power as they are potentially targetted by NATO if they ever cross the interests of the US or western europe. So the existance of the NATO brews military conflict. If instead the regulating force is internationally controlled other countries wouldn't have the need to grow their own military to counter them, as they are part of it and part of the decision making. So yes, for a safer world NATO needs to disband. Not over night obviously, it has to be reduced in power step by step with the UN growing power in accordance. Overall your band-aid (and that of many politicians) to problems resulting of these military centered politics is more military centered politics. And if these exact politics lead to more problems they say: "See, we need that military." That is putting oil in the fire, it is no sufficient solution. Also I want to add, that domestic issues also have a massive influence world wide. As I said, the US is a dominating force, that does not mean military alone, but also economics or cultural leadership (Hollywood is still dominating most screens in the world). The domestic issues are well-known in the world and also the inability to address them. It is visible that things get worse and worse for around 30 years by now. This does embolden people opposing democratic and human rights values, as they squarely point to the US and say: see, it is shit. So the US needs to get their shit together and not by more violence, but by sustainable solutions. I don't see Trump or Biden or Kennedy offering any of this. |
I want military problems created by imperialists to be solved by military means because there is no other way, we didn't stop Nazi Germany with friendly words. Explain to me how exactly the UN will stop Russia from slaughtering Ukraine? How will the UN stop Russia from further invading Georgia? How will the UN stop Russia from invading Moldova? Russia is already a permanent member of the UN, in the "Security Council" and can veto any condemnation of their actions, it just shows what a joke the UN is and despite Russia having all of that, it didn't stop them.
NATO isn't the reason why this issue cropped up, it's because Russia is led by an imperialistic who wants to expand his empire and nothing more, NATO actually protects countries from Russia. Burning the house down would be America leaving NATO and letting Russia steamroll over Ukraine, killing hundreds of thousands and realising they can take whatever they want from this moment forward because nobody is going to stand up to them, saying "naughty Russia" isn't going to do a thing.
China doesn't have a small military and the core reason of China expanding is for its own self-interests as well, including the desire to take Taiwan, not to mention all the other ethnic cleansings that happen in China or their conflicts with India. Without America's support, China WILL take Taiwan by force as they've routinely expressed the desire to do so.
Even if China ends up with a bigger military than America and I question the "inevitably" of that because it's not like America will stop expanding, it's also a vague statement to make, are you talking about troop numbers? That would be irrelevant to the type of war which China would employ on Taiwan/America, as long as America keeps up in air force and navy then China should theoretically see the reward (Taiwan) not worth the cost. Not to mention that modern China has almost zero actual war experience.
I agree that the USA wouldn't win a cold war against China but neither would China, if America/Europe/China sanctioned each other then it would cripple every single country, including China. It'd be a no win scenario. China needs America/Europe just as much as we need them and why are we pretending that China doesn't also currently have domestic issues at this moment and a lot of their vague threats/military baiting is precisely to distract away from those issues.
Russia's word means nothing, they also promised not to attack Ukraine and to defend them in exchange for Ukraine giving up nukes. Russia has been ruining countries for dozens of years but we've always looked the other way in exchange for "peace" and their leadership hasn't changed much from the times of Russia siding with Nazi Germany in WW2 because Russia was never forced to change, they were always just biding their time. Russia has been fucking with countries for years now even before Ukraine.
- Soviet–Afghan War (1979-1989)
- South Ossetia war (1991–1992)
- War in Abkhazia (1992–1993)
- Transnistria War (1992)
- First Chechen War (1994-1996)
- Second Chechen War (1999)
- Russo-Georgian War (2008)
- Russo-Ukrainian War (2014-)
Let us also mention Russia helping Assad in the same way America helps Netanyahu or Wagner (a Russian military unit) exploiting African countries. Most of these have nothing to do with America's military and everything to do with Russia wants to expand its empire through military means.
Once upon a time I thought we could have peace, that we could remove nukes and be all "kumbaya" with each other but Russia has shown that isn't possible and military disarmament only works if EVERYONE does it and not EVERYONE will do it. Unfortunately they'll always be evil people in the world who do evil things and with your suggestion, nobody would be able to stop those evil people doing evil things. There is nobody to blame for the Ukraine invasion other than Russia themselves.
The world wasn't at peace after the Cold War...There were still dozens of conflicts going on, including ones created by Russia. Saudi Arabia is another example of how much of a joke the UN is, Saudi Arabia being appointed chair of UN’s gender equality. Also China and India hate each other so them working together is unlikely.
Who else coincidentally demands no support to Ukraine and the disbandment of NATO? Putin, I wonder why the man with a history of invading countries would want the one thing that acts as a deterrence to him to not exist anymore...Even Putin's own allies in Russia's equivalent of NATO (CSTO) are breaking relations with Russia (Armenia).
Nothing in your post explained to me how UN will convince Russia to stop slaughtering Ukrainians. Your soft solutions will result in more land grabs, more wars and more deaths. NATO is designed primarily to defend against Russian aggression which it does time and time again. Look, like I said, I would be all in favour of NATO expanding beyond Europe/America but NATO is no threat to Africa, South America or Asia unless they attack first because NATO is purely a defensive organisation. Article 5 has only ever been used once and that was by America after 9/11.
I'm pretty sure Africa, South America and Asia don't really care much about NATO by large, South America is bordering on a war between Venezuela and Guyana, Africa isn't united at all and is in a lot of conflicts which Russia takes parts in and half the countries in Asia hate China for good reason and have defence pacts with America because they are afraid of China. I'm actually genuinely confused a little because at the end of the post it seems like you're basically asking for UN to become NATO, Lol...How can UN enforce their decisions without a military force?
| A203D said: Does anyone here believe the 2020 election was legitimate? |
Basically everyone whose lives aren't plagued by conspiracy theories.
Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 26 March 2024
