Support NeoGAF

[kirblar]

Afghanistan could have been fine but of course Bush messed it up and also blew our chance at better relationships with Iran and Russia (when the latter was still quite possible).

Yup, he set relations with Iran back 2 decades, when he took office they had a moderate in office and were trying to thaw them.

 

[Zolo]

It's also crazy that Russia is getting away with it thanks to Trump. I mean, holy shit. History will look back and say WTF.

Trump winning is the bigger WTF. Trump not doing anything about it is normal since they did what they could to help him.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Afghanistan was fine, Gulf War was fine.

Ultimately I think both are justifiable but I can't quite put them in the unavoidable category for sure.

Well, at least Afghanistan. Saddam was probably not open to negotiating without severe harm in Kuwait in the mean time, so that's a good point.

But Nazi Germany is certainly an evil that wasn't open to negotiation. Hitler was a comic book villain with how determined he was.

 

[kirblar]

LOL WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS.

Retaliation, "Just bc its what you do" is a fucking terrible answer for going to war. You better be able to show me, in a quantifiable way, that you are saving lives on aggregate. What did this war solve?

We are not going to war. We are at war.

Good fucking god, have you never heard of the "Cold War"?

 

[BronsonLee]

WAIT IS SPICER BACK

 

[sphagnum]

I hope you support an immediate invasion and occupation of the United States so that the terrorist-supporting government that frequently infringes upon sovereignty and kills thousands of civilians will be stopped.

Would be morally A-OK tbh if we were living in a world where the USSR lived up to its ideals. Wouldn't work out though with all those nukes.

 

[PBY]

We are not going to war. We are at war.

Good fucking god, have you never heard of the "Cold War"?

Yes? I'd rather not go back to that time?

 

[Hindl]

Yes? I'd rather not go back to that time?

Well we're already there (or, at least we should be) so you don't really have a choice

 

[sphagnum]

The new cold war has terrible aesthetics

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Yes? I'd rather not go back to that time?

You don't get that choice. The whole "it takes two to tango" thing isn't true. Ask Poland or Ukraine.

 

[kirblar]

Yes? I'd rather not go back to that time?

Why do you think you have a choice in the matter!

 

[Eferim]

So Russia engages in multiple cyber attacks against the US declaring a cyberwar. This isn't that big of a deal because cyberwarfare isn't like real war and thus doesn't require any kind of retaliation. However, the US can't engage in cyber attacks against Russia because that would mean we'd have to face consequences for our actions. Consequences that Russia doesn't have to face because cyberwarfare isn't a big deal.

Am I getting this right?

 

[jtb]

What is the alternative to responding to Russia's aggression? Do nothing?

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

What is the alternative to responding to Russia's aggression? Do nothing?

Peace! (Inaction)


Really, the only sane response is to hit back through different means than boots, or strengthen defenses. Economically, digitally, socially, etc.

Which damn sure won't happen with Trump around.

 

[Beer Monkey]

LOL WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS.

Retaliation, "Just bc its what you do" is a fucking terrible answer for going to war. You better be able to show me, in a quantifiable way, that you are saving lives on aggregate. What did this war solve?

Russia's co-opting of Trump to subvert our democracy and institutions is straight out of their playbook aka 'Foundations of Geopolitics'. It's all about destabilizing the west so that they can't effectively stop Putin from accumulating power, and he will kill to do it.

Your plan would be to let them do it?

Russia will gladly commit genocide to annex Ukraine if that's what it takes to claim it. You'd be OK with that?

You know we fucked up staying out of WWII until Pearl Harbor happened, right?

 

[Frank the Great]

What is the alternative to responding to Russia's aggression? Do nothing?

Economic sanctions, isolation by international community. There needs to be consequences, but simply launching a cyber counterattack is not a good solution.

It's also not workable. I mean, what kind of counter cyber attack would it be? It sounds pedantic but it's true that two wrongs do not make a right, and the USA should always hold the moral high ground. We lose it the second we launch a cyber attack.

Also I doubt a counter cyber attack would even be an effective deterrent. Again, what would it look like? What would be the purpose? It would be lame compared to what they did to us.

 

[Valhelm]

What is the alternative to responding to Russia's aggression? Do nothing?

Stop trying to overthrow the governments of all of their friends. Make public displays of detente and abolish sanctions.

 

[BlastProcessing]

Everything we can to avoid war?

Everything? Because the best way to completely avoid war with Russia would be to completely cede our sovereignty to them and ask them very nicely to annex us. That would completely rule out a US/Russian war forever.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Make public displays of detente and abolish sanctions.

Appease, basically.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Stop trying to overthrow the governments of all of their friends. Make public displays of detente and abolish sanctions.

And when they continue?

At what point do we reach "just give them Alaska" phase?

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Stop trying to overthrow the governments of all of their friends. Make public displays of detente and abolish sanctions.

So our policy should be to oppose democratically elected governments like those in the Ukraine in favor of puppets installed by Putin? How could that go wrong?

 

[jtb]

Can a self-described lefty help me understand something?

How do you reconcile the belief that the government should act as an actor, strengthen the welfare state, control its industries, etc. with the idea that the state also should not have agency or sovereignty? Wouldn't you, by virtue of ceding so much power to the state, by definition be granting it authority on the international stage as well?

This is what I find puzzling about the Greenwald-ian strain of leftist politics which, foreign policy-wise, seem to be anti-state more than anything. The state does not have the authority to retaliate, etc. etc.

Aren't these things fundamentally at tension with one another?

Economic sanctions, isolation by international community. There needs to be consequences, but simply launching a cyber counterattack is not a good solution.

It's also not workable. I mean, what kind of counter cyber attack would it be? It sounds pedantic but it's true that two wrongs do not make a right, and the USA should always hold the moral high ground. We lose it the second we launch a cyber attack.

Also I doubt a counter cyber attack would even be an effective deterrent.

I agree with this.

Stop trying to overthrow the governments of all of their friends. Make public displays of detente and abolish sanctions.

What is the goal that this would achieve?

 

[CygnusXS]

I think we're all pacifists in the realm of ideal theory, but hostile powers actually exist and need to be negotiated. You can do that with hard power or soft power, but if you're interested in maintaining your own power, you need to be willing to defend it.

 

[Fenderputty]

I feel like I have a 50/50 shot at entering this thread and reading about PBY bitching about Russia.

 

[chadskin]

It's almost comical how afraid of Russia some Americans have become. Putin riding a horse bear chested seems to have left a lasting impression!

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Stop trying to overthrow the governments of all of their friends. Make public displays of detente and abolish sanctions.

This is insane. There would be no end to Russian encroachment.

Economic sanctions, isolation by international community. There needs to be consequences, but simply launching a cyber counterattack is not a good solution.

It's also not workable. I mean, what kind of counter cyber attack would it be? It sounds pedantic but it's true that two wrongs do not make a right, and the USA should always hold the moral high ground. We lose it the second we launch a cyber attack.

Also I doubt a counter cyber attack would even be an effective deterrent. Again, what would it look like? What would be the purpose? It would be lame compared to what they did to us.

Most cyber attacks are aimed at compromising systems which leads to expensive and slow upgrades to those compromised systems. It's equivalent to bombing empty buildings and structures.

And like I mentioned above, economic sanctions can push Putin into aggression. He's done it before and would do it again.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Economic sanctions, isolation by international community. There needs to be consequences, but simply launching a cyber counterattack is not a good solution.

It's also not workable. I mean, what kind of counter cyber attack would it be? It sounds pedantic but it's true that two wrongs do not make a right, and the USA should always hold the moral high ground. We lose it the second we launch a cyber attack.

Also I doubt a counter cyber attack would even be an effective deterrent. Again, what would it look like? What would be the purpose? It would be lame compared to what they did to us.

Presumably a counter cyberattack against their cyberwarfare capabilities--you know, hindering their ability to fuck with us--would be productive.

Obviously, "look we can fuck with your elections too" wouldn't be a good cyberattack angle to take.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

WE'RE DOING BIG THINGS FOR MADE IN AMERICA WEEK

 

[Frank the Great]

This is insane. There would be no end to Russian encroachment.



Most cyber attacks are aimed at compromising systems which leads to expensive and slow upgrades to those compromised systems. It's equivalent to bombing empty buildings and structures.

And like I mentioned above, economic sanctions can push Putin into aggression. He's done it before and would do it again.

But they'll just launch more cyber attacks against us in that scenario. Cyber attacks are criminal acts. The exact moment we launch a counter cyber attack, we are inviting retaliation and endless escalation. There's no winning a cyber war.

We need the moral high ground here and international cooperation to punish Russia with soft power. It's the only way. If Putin gets aggressive, we can deal with it then separately, as we always do.

 

[Poodlestrike]

The thing about Russia is that it's currently being run by Putin. Putin is... well, not to put too fine a point on it, but he's kind of a sociopath with a twisted zero-sum view of the world. He believes that for Russia to succeed, somebody else (the West generally, America specifically) MUST fail, and also, the inverse--that if the West falters, then Russia must therefore be succeeding. Detente does nothing for this mindset because they view overtures at peace as a sign of weakness.

Also the phrase "stop trying to overthrow the governments of their friends" gets a strong sideye from me due to the similarity to the classic "NATO encroachment" bullshit the Kremlin likes to spread.

Presumably a counter cyberattack against their cyberwarfare capabilities--you know, hindering their ability to fuck with us--would be productive.

Obviously, "look we can fuck with your elections too" wouldn't be a good cyberattack angle to take.

I mean, they're ALREADY fucking with their elections. There's... not a lot of room there.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

It's almost comical how afraid of Russia some Americans have become. Putin riding a horse bear chested seems to have left a lasting impression!

Hahahaha hacking nuclear plants, how comical!

 

[kirblar]

Putin's "for me to succeed others must fail" worldview is sadly, not uncommon. Having a country run by someone w/ that worldview is, however.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

To be clear, as I've mentioned before, I'm not really into the idea of sovereignty of nations. So my response to Russian election meddling is less about them not respecting our sovereignty and more about trying to remove the possibility of future unfair elections. If Russia was a power willing to negotiate and wasn't committing human rights violations every day, then I'd back that 100%. But it's immoral to me to treat them like Germany in a trade negotiation or something. They're not the same.

 

[kirblar]

To be clear, as I've mentioned before, I'm not really into the idea of sovereignty of nations. So my response to Russian election meddling is less about them not respecting our sovereignty and more about trying to remove the possibility of future unfair elections. If Russia was a power willing to negotiate and wasn't committing human rights violations every day, then I'd back that 100%. But it's immoral to me to treat them like Germany in a trade negotiation or something. They're not the same.

Trusting a country that's regularly assassinating its own people and is currently committing genocide in Chechnya- a very bad idea.

 

[Teggy]

I'm still very worried about the Kobach voter suppression stuff. It sounds like they will be submitting a bill that will further restrict the voter rights act whenever they are done with their sham commission. Question is if Rs will just go along with it.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I'm still very worried about the Kobach voter suppression stuff. It sounds like they will be submitting a bill that will further restrict the voter rights act whenever they are done with their sham commission. Question is if Rs will just go along with it.

Would need to pass a filibuster.

 

[jtb]

Trump shares Putin's zero-sum worldview.

 

[Teggy]

Would need to pass a filibuster.

Have you met Mitch McConnell?

 

[AntraxSuicide]

But they'll just launch more cyber attacks against us in that scenario. Cyber attacks are criminal acts. The exact moment we launch a counter cyber attack, we are inviting retaliation and endless escalation. There's no winning a cyber war.

We need the moral high ground here and international cooperation to punish Russia with soft power. It's the only way. If Putin gets aggressive, we can deal with it then separately, as we always do.

They're already aggressive. That's why they've conquered territory and hacked a foreign power.

And more cyber measures can limit their attempts in the future.

Have you met Mitch McConnell?

Mitch doesn't want to end the filibuster. It's why he's been really stretching the reconciliation rules.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Aggressive climate action would end Putin's rule and life most likely.

 

[Valhelm]

What is the goal that this would achieve?

Avoiding nuclear war. The Russian government would be substantially less bellicose if the US toned down its own aggression and imperialism. Ceasing our regime-change operations in states like Syria, Venezuela, and Iran (and Russia itself!) would give Russia far less cause to seek their influence by force.

Putin looms over Russia on two great stilts: oil sales and popular resentment of the West. While market forces and climate change are already starting to shake one of those pillars, Russians aren't going to stop loving Putin until Western governments stop fucking them over.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Have you met Mitch McConnell?

If he was willing to kill the filibuster he would have done it for healthcare rather than going through this song-and-dance with reconciliation.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Aggressive climate action would end Putin's rule and life most likely.

You mean regarding how heavily they rely on oil?

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Avoiding nuclear war. The Russian government would be substantially less bellicose if the US toned down its own aggression and imperialism. Ceasing our regime-change operations in states like Syria, Venezuela, and Iran (and Russia itself!) would give Russia far less cause to seek their influence by force.

Putin looms over Russia on two great stilts: oil sales and popular resentment of the West. While market forces and climate change are already starting to shake one of those pillars, Russians aren't going to stop loving Putin until Western governments stop fucking them over.

>Putin gets Americans to bend the knee.
>Russians, living in hell and craving the past of importance, decide to turn against Putin.

Yeah, this is terrible psychological analysis.

You mean regarding how heavily they rely on oil?

I mean, yes, they're a petrol state.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Putin's "for me to succeed others must fail" worldview is sadly, not uncommon. Having a country run by someone w/ that worldview is, however.

It might not even be that uncommon, but they're usually not nuclear-armed dictatorships. It complicates things.

Trump shares Putin's zero-sum worldview.

Yup yup yup.

Ultimately, if it weren't for the fact that Trump & co keep refusing to say one bad word about Putin I'd almost believe that he really DOES just like him that much. They're basically the same person in a lot of ways, and modern Russia is basically the Republicans' ideal nation-state. The refusal to throw 'em under the bus for political gain gives up the ghost, though.

 

[chadskin]

Hahahaha hacking nuclear plants, how comical!

I think you're misunderstanding what I was trying to say -- that some have become so afraid of Russia, they'd rather not respond to Russia's actions at all. That's dangerous when you're dealing with someone like Putin.

 

[Teggy]

If he was willing to kill the filibuster he would have done it for healthcare rather than going through this song-and-dance with reconciliation.

He'd need the same 50 votes that he doesn't have now.

 

[jtb]

Avoiding nuclear war. The Russian government would be substantially less bellicose if the US toned down its own aggression and imperialism. Ceasing our regime-change operations in states like Syria, Venezuela, and Iran (and Russia itself!) would give Russia far less cause to seek their influence by force.

Putin looms over Russia on two great stilts: oil sales and popular resentment of the West. While market forces and climate change are already starting to shake one of those pillars, Russians aren't going to stop loving Putin until Western governments stop fucking them over.

Is that it? That's a pretty low bar.

also what evidence is there that Russians love Putin?

 

[Valhelm]

>Putin gets Americans to bend the knee.
>Russians, living in hell and craving the past of importance, decide to turn against Putin.

Yeah, this is terrible psychological analysis.

Abandoning regime change operations isn't "bending the knee". It's decent human behavior.

In the immediate future, the US government should diplomatically condemn electoral meddling while ceasing its identical behavior in other nations. Sanctions are a no-go because they only impoverish everyday Russians.

 

[Zolo]

Why does everyone think Putin wants to give up his comfort for nuclear war at the drop of a hat?