EPTAnd before you say it, yes, there would be conflicts. Just as there are conflicts now. But people here seem to think that the world will devolve into absolute chaos and constant open warfare between every non-Western country if you remove the US military occupation of the world. That is a ridiculous notion. I'll admit I haven't done any research on this, but I'm pretty sure most people just want economic prosperity and simply to stop being bombed/droned to death or stop living with nuclear weapons being pointed at them simply for existing.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 555
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
And before you say it, yes, there would be conflicts. Just as there are conflicts now. But people here seem to think that the world will devolve into absolute chaos and constant open warfare between every non-Western country if you remove the US military occupation of the world. That is a ridiculous notion. I'll admit I haven't done any research on this, but I'm pretty sure most people just want economic prosperity and simply to stop being bombed/droned to death or stop living with nuclear weapons being pointed at them simply for existing. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
At the peak of its imperial power, China took over Korea and tried unsuccessfully to take over Japan. Mostly it stayed in its own lands, and for the most part the Chinese consensus was that getting involved in imperial conquests was a colossal waste of resources. Which isn't really untrue, if you look at things from a modern perspective; for all of their colonizing, the nations of Europe that were colonial powers are now just the tiny little plots of land that they were hundreds of years ago, with little chance of becoming more than that (unless you believe that all those countries are going to overcome their differences and combine onto one "United States of Europe" nation-state any time soon). Meanwhile China remains China, a very large nation by land mass. Russia is very similar. It's already conquered its empire: all of modern-day Russia. It doesn't really need more land because it has more land than anyone else in the world. It doesn't need more European land because all those countries are pretty damn expensive to take care of and are generally less productive than Russia itself (the USSR spent a lot of resources on keeping the Warsaw nations afloat). Empire is expensive, and fully unnecessary. What is necessary, however, is to keep other nations from invading. There's the whole mythos of Russian Winter, but the other factor is that before the invasion is repelled, Russia itself is a pretty easy target (due to the wide open landmass that makes up its western border) and a lot of people tend to die in the defense. Hence the most brutal part of big European conflicts tends to fall on Russia. Obviously that's a problem and Russia has sought to create a buffer zone to prevent that from happening - which is what the Warsaw Pact tried to do. It might be worth noting that in WW2, a lot of those nations that are currently seen as frightened of Russian control are the very same nations who were Nazi co-conspirators.The Baltics and West Ukraine played a large and ugly role in the Nazi war movement. Romania and Finland played a military role in that, and Bulgaria aligned itself with Nazi Germany (though didn't really fight). Poland is generally seen to have been a victim of the conflict but from what I've heard modern interpretations are somewhat less flattering regarding Poland's military collaboration with the Nazis (though at the same time, Russian-Polish relations are better than Russian-Baltic ones for their lesser contribution to that conflict). Obviously having neighbors who tried to invade your country and exterminate people is not a favorable security arrangement, and it would be foolish to just let them do whatever they please. They will just do the same again in the future. But no one wants to admit that their country was deeply involved in an ideology that is nowadays almost synonymous with pure evil. China, it has its conflicts. It had a war with Japan which was very costly and painful. It would rather not have that again and the Korean peninsula is a decent buffer for keeping that from happening. Taiwan is a conflict for obvious reasons. The South China Sea conflicts... well guess which country basically reopened near-resolved conflicts between China and its neighbors? Besides, I'm sure Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia are more than happy about US intervention in the region. India too for that matter. Being a large nation in a troubled part of the world inherently comes with some very significant issues in maintaining your borders. The US has the fortune of having very weak neighbors. Russia and China have neighbors who have tried to invade it in recent history, while the US hasn't been invaded in 200 years. And the last time there was a provocative conflict on its borders - the Cuban Missile Crisis - the US freaked out and almost led to nuclear war. Compare that to provocative gestures on the Russian and Chinese borders and you'll see that they are simply reacting to being provoked by aggressive movements. For the same reason, both countries have put a lot of effort into the planning of the possibility of a nuclear war. That's not to say that Russia and China are angels who do no wrong. Spheres of influence always come with some degree of aggressive coercion, and both Russia and China have done plenty of that. Specifically, Maoist and Stalinist style police states are not really a good long-term strategy, and they have both moved away from that kind of approach (though towards a command-government arrangement that is unlike the Western-style democracy, but not a police state either). But hell, it seems like most people see modern Russia like this: + Show Spoiler + Hell, if all the countries within the general area of Russia and China were reliably neutrally aligned, that would be good enough. But that's not what happens - when your neighbors let an aggressive foreign power play a large role in their military dealings and put missiles nearby, it's reasonable to see that as a threat and act accordingly. That's what Russia and China do. What those small nations should do instead, is to find a political alignment that does not involve being aggressive with its neighbors. Their fear of being attacked if without allies is reasonable; their willingness to provoke Russia/China is not. Small nations have to realize that they are not independent, they do not have the means to be independent, and they should seek not to start conflicts with nations that could easily destroy them if provoked. They should instead look for a mutually acceptable diplomatic arrangement, one that cedes some control over their matters to foreign powers that could potentially pose a threat (but that really have no inherent reason to want to invade) while having some assurance of external defensive support in case things go downhill, and some means of self-defense to discourage attack. Something along the lines of neutral arrangement, bilateral economic cooperation, avoidance of provocative movements (e.g. starting a war with pro-Russian citizens on the eastern half of your country), and bilateral sharing of military movements on the borders. The Russian/Chinese variant of "world domination" is that they have a secure border that will prevent other nations from attacking. The US variant is to butt into every conflict it can and to escalate it into open war. I think that some nations might actually prefer the former variant if they really think about it. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9229 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 26 2016 03:39 Sent. wrote: Don't know what's more irritating, getting told to accept being someone's buffer zone or getting told that you shouldn't be afraid of someone who treats you as his buffer zone. Would you rather be the first casualty in a war that starts on your border then? Align yourself directly against your neighbors, and congratulations, you are now an enemy combatant. Small countries don't have the economic or military strength to be independent of world powers. It's best simply to accept that and push for neutrality rather than push for a war in which you will be the first to die. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9229 Posts
Since you brought up ww2: Neutrality did save Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. It didn't save Czechoslovakia, Belgium and Norway because they just happened to be in German way. Obviously Putin is not Hitler but that's irrelevant here, I'm talking about the flaws of declaring neutrality as a weakling. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On September 26 2016 03:45 LegalLord wrote: Would you rather be the first casualty in a war that starts on your border then? Align yourself directly against your neighbors, and congratulations, you are now an enemy combatant. Small countries don't have the economic or military strength to be independent of world powers. It's best simply to accept that and push for neutrality rather than push for a war in which you will be the first to die. I think Europe as a whole (from the west of Ukraine to Britain) would be sufficient to at least challenge Russia in terms of economics. As a European myself, I obviously think military might is a silly thing, but there are nuclear powers in Europe as well. As I think we can see from history, all it really takes to be taken seriously on the world stage and 'deter' potential aggressors such as the US or Russia is nuclear capability. If the military alliance stays together despite kicking out the US, that would be sufficient to 'protect' the eastern countries. You can then take a look at what Russia does and have a proper discussion whether or not you think a network of missile systems is worth the monetary investment. I can certainly see a number of both pros and cons on that issue. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6236 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21851 Posts
On September 26 2016 05:28 RvB wrote: Russia has nothing on Europe economically. Their economy is the size of Italy, dependent on commodities, full of cronyism and in a huge downturn. For all Europe's flaws the economy is where we're still way ahead of most of the world. Economy is pretty much all we got :p | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10131 Posts
On September 26 2016 05:15 Sent. wrote: Neutrality without nukes is just an illusion of safety. It's like not locking your car and hoping it won't get stolen. I am aware we can't win a war with Russia but I prefer actively trying to keep her as weak as possible instead of closing our eyes and hoping Vladimir won't try to undo "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century". Since you brought up ww2: Neutrality did save Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. It didn't save Czechoslovakia, Belgium and Norway because they just happened to be in German way. Obviously Putin is not Hitler but that's irrelevant here, I'm talking about the flaws of declaring neutrality as a weakling. Hmm minor nitpick here, Spain wasn't "neutral" because Franco was on Hitler's side, just that he was smart enough to ask for a lot of stuff which Hitler never inteded to pay for, as at that point, Spain couldn't really provide a lot of military help. But refueling, buildings, information, sending the blue division to Russia, etc... hell the British paid him a lot of money to stay out of the war. What "saved" Spain was the unwillingness on fully removing fascism in Europe, and that he wasn't neutral, but against the commies. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 26 2016 05:15 Sent. wrote: Neutrality without nukes is just an illusion of safety. It's like not locking your car and hoping it won't get stolen. I am aware we can't win a war with Russia but I prefer actively trying to keep her as weak as possible instead of closing our eyes and hoping Vladimir won't try to undo "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century". Since you brought up ww2: Neutrality did save Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. It didn't save Czechoslovakia, Belgium and Norway because they just happened to be in German way. Obviously Putin is not Hitler but that's irrelevant here, I'm talking about the flaws of declaring neutrality as a weakling. Guarantees of safety are impossible. A sufficiently motivated powerful country (Germany, Russia, US, etc.) would be able to make short work of a small country like Poland simply because they have more than enough resources to easily outdo anything such a country could throw at them. However, what you can do is to avoid antagonizing countries that may potentially be enemies, and to instead cooperate with them and foster good diplomatic ties. It's true that "we're not going to take part in this conflict" neutrality isn't any guarantee of safety - but neither is antagonizing a neighbor that could easily kill you if they so desired. And by the way, WWI is a great example of how defensive alliances can lead a whole lot of countries into somebody else's war without any means of stopping when you see it went too far. Only now, with weapons far more advanced than what existed back then. When you explicitly choose a military alignment, you are now a combatant who is going to fight wars on behalf of the other countries in the alliance. On September 26 2016 05:28 RvB wrote: Russia has nothing on Europe economically. Their economy is the size of Italy, dependent on commodities, full of cronyism and in a huge downturn. For all Europe's flaws the economy is where we're still way ahead of most of the world. Russia is definitely behind Europe economically, but far ahead of where its GDP numbers say it is. Money goes a lot further in Russia than it does in Europe, and the economy is far less import/export based. GDP PPP is a better measure, although still not quite a perfect measure. Though it is plenty capable of economic coercion on smaller nations if it so desires, due to sheer size. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On September 26 2016 06:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote: That was quick. Legallord went from Russia isn't imperialist, to Russia can take over your nearby small country anytime Russia wants so you better not align against our interests. lol. Theoretical military capacity ≠ actual willingness to invade another country. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18832 Posts
On September 26 2016 06:54 TheDwf wrote: Theoretical military capacity ≠ actual willingness to invade another country. Both could be adequately described as relevant to a nation's imperialist nature, no? | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 26 2016 07:40 farvacola wrote: Both could be adequately described as relevant to a nation's imperialist nature, no? Or to any other number of concerns that would lead a country to decide how much to spend on its military. | ||
|
Narw
Poland884 Posts
Poland is generally seen to have been a victim of the conflict but from what I've heard modern interpretations are somewhat less flattering regarding Poland's military collaboration with the Nazis Oh please do enlighten me. On September 26 2016 06:54 TheDwf wrote: Theoretical military capacity ≠ actual willingness to invade another country. As seen in Ukraine. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
Nixer
2774 Posts
On September 26 2016 06:13 LegalLord wrote: Guarantees of safety are impossible. A sufficiently motivated powerful country (Germany, Russia, US, etc.) would be able to make short work of a small country like Poland simply because they have more than enough resources to easily outdo anything such a country could throw at them. However, what you can do is to avoid antagonizing countries that may potentially be enemies, and to instead cooperate with them and foster good diplomatic ties. It's true that "we're not going to take part in this conflict" neutrality isn't any guarantee of safety - but neither is antagonizing a neighbor that could easily kill you if they so desired. Taking a good look in the mirror and maybe considering history would be a good idea for Putin apologists. I wonder why these countries seek to align themselves like they are. There are a few good reasons, no? | ||
|
Narw
Poland884 Posts
On September 26 2016 09:54 LegalLord wrote: I'm genuinely curious, what do they say about Polish Nazi co-conspirators in Poland? Do they consider Poland to have generally avoided collaboration with the Nazis, or not so much? I'm not sure what you are asking me? Collaboration on the civilian level? I mean, there was like 10k-14k policeman who were recruited to aid administration and fight ressistance/crime and there were people who aided Germans with extermination of Jews (don't know the number) and there were of course some who joined administration. Numbers that are totally insignificant on a scale of a 35m nation. But i don't even understand why you bring that up when i quoted you about MILITARY collaboration. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 26 2016 10:10 Nixer wrote: Taking a good look in the mirror and maybe considering history would be a good idea for Putin apologists. I wonder why these countries seek to align themselves like they are. There are a few good reasons, no? A lot of those countries were willing to align themselves to Nazi Germany in WW2. That's not to say those countries are Hitler spawn, but simply to note that perhaps said countries have pretty bad judgment about their political alignment of choice. It doesn't matter that choosing to aid Germany was their choice, it was very clearly the wrong one. | ||
| ||
