DSG

Expand what? I don’t put any particular stock in the “Lost Cause,” but it was hardly a bloodless disagreement, and one that required careful reconciliation. And it carried the sympathy of many conservatives until roughly yesterday. Edit — I’ve been needlessly provocative, so I’ll let it go.

I wouldn’t call any state a shining paragon of anything. The ideological zealotry of the American elite, however, is uniquely insufferable and dangerous. If they’re willing to throw aside their fiduciary duties to promote a cross dresser, war isn’t far behind. We’ve already seen the application of “democratic peace theory” in the Middle East, and it’s been a bloody disaster. They are under no significant selection pressure and have a vast economic reservoir to draw on; their potential for further ruin is significant.

America doesn’t live up to its own values, made up or not. Which is fine — liberal pieties are dumb. I just have an allergy to self righteous hypocrisy, something which seems to be the stock and trade of our betters.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Still, it’s striking that in America, it’s those that present themselves as “weak” that are the biggest bullies and thieves. Abroad, America has little moral leg to stand on, to put it mildly. Your appeal to reason lacks evidence and is non-falsifiable; there is no control group scenario in which America husbands its strength instead of “engaging.” I see an enormously powerful economic engine, powered substantially by inertia, that continues to dominate the world in spite of its government and foreign policy, not because of it. Not a libertarian statement, by the way. I believe government can play a commanding and positive role — ours just isn’t such an example.

“Reason” argues no such thing. “Ethics and morality” are made up.

The mere fact that such scenario is plausible is indicative of criminal incompetence among our policy “elite.”

The U.S. is in imminent peril of being ejected from the western pacific by a country that had a triple digit gdp per capita in recent memory.

And?

The greatest squandered hand in world history.

The psychology of emotional investment in this conflict is as bizarre to me as professional sports enthusiasm, but far more perverse.

It's the goal of a dog to catch a car, but that doesn't stop it from being dumbfounded when it succeeds.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/01/10/army-sees-sharp-decline-white-recruits.html

Few people contribute anything of value to society as it is. I don't know that hypothetical draft dodgers should be singled out in that sense.

The non-stop drumbeat of propaganda crowing Russia's (exaggerated) losses while never speaking of Ukraine's has gotten very tiresome. UAF are space marines that inflict casualties 30:1, yet they're chronically short of manpower and their average serving age is 45. Like, who actually falls for this? Can they at least be less annoying about it?

Are you under the impression think tanks are centers of disinterested scholarship?

From what I can tell of the situation, this is an attempt from the Israeli right to defang a leftwing activist court (like the U.S. had until recently). A stark contrast from the alienation a lot of us feel from the leftwing-sheik American state ideology.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/19/cluster-bombs-biden-liberalism-war/ Some of us just want the self-righteousness to stop. Is it so much to ask?

I wouldn't liken the Israeli situation to the one in the U.S. -- they're pretty much diametrically opposed.

A moral judgement against Russia may be possible, but I'm just not really interested in making it. Such judgements are inevitably weaponized, and I'm not inclined to add to the chorus (especially when some of the loudest wailing comes from people I despise). Call it relativism, a reflexive revulsion to groupthink, partisanship -- it doesn't much trouble me. If conservatives are muddying the water the way progressives once did, it's for similar purposes -- to reduce support for a conflict for which they're unenthusiastic. A bit of a chicken-or-the-egg question, to be sure. I can't say that I have no personal stake in the conflict -- I'm aware that I benefit materially from the present international system. I won't even say that cheap sushi and smaller iPhones aren't worth killing over -- it comes with the territory. It's just not something I'm ever going to have any great enthusiasm for. I wouldn't say that right and wrong are relative, per se. I would say that moral universals are fewer and different than most would think, and that most pieties that are held up are self-serving. Viewing morality in a vacuum isn't apt and tends to bias power. Conservatives are sounding more like progressives did in the past because they've substantially switched places -- the former are the outsiders now. In fact it's been that way for quite a long time, but they were slow to realize it. The media has consistently framed Russia and Putin as foreign incarnations of their domestic political foes -- many conservatives are merely reacting in kind to that narrative. The unanimity of opinion on this board is interesting, though. Opinion at my unit is considerably more divided, as far as I can gather. It's not Reddit-level, but it's notably more homogenous.

Of course I can use the analogy with a straight face. It was part of the Russian Empire (among others) for centuries before the USSR existed, and shares a great deal of heritage. The Black Sea littoral is a relatively recent conquest under the Tsars (from the Khans) established principally by ethnic Russians (though rebalanced somewhat owning to internal migration over the years). The last time a piece of the U.S. tried to leave, Washington prosecuted a bloody war to stop it -- they're presently tearing down the losing side's monuments. If something analogous were to happen today, Washington's circling adversaries could be expected to leap on their high horse and pontificate about sovereignty, too, and with similar validity. I'll admit Texas isn't the best analogy -- California under a La Raza-esque government that suppressed the English language and tried to 'Latinize' the remaining Anglophone counties might be a better one. I don't disagree that failing to back Ukraine when it's substantially acted in accordance with American wishes would set poor incentives. That's more of a practical argument than a moral one, though. Morally, if the U.S. were truly interested in conflict avoidance, perhaps it should have kept its word about NATO expansion. I don't deny that the conflict has turned spectacularly in American favor thus far -- but that was far from preordained. U.S. policymakers seem to have the Devil's luck. Again, "sovereignty" is a principle the U.S. respects highly selectively, to put it mildly. Revisionists love to point out the Kosovo precedent, and for good reason -- there's not really a good answer to it. I'm not claiming the Russians have the moral high ground, necessarily. Merely that the principal difference between U.S. and Russian behavior is power. If you want to call that "relativist," that's fine with me. I find the widespread need on the part of Americans (particularly in this line of work) to feel like a part of a Marvel movie cast bemusing, personally.

I tend to sympathize with your realist take on things, but calling a chauvinistic kleptocracy and vector of hostile (to Russia) foreign influence "innocent" is quite a reach. There's certainly a strategic and economic case for supporting Ukraine, but the moral one, I find unimpressive. The U.S. is happy to support ethnic separatism when it suits it (Kosovo) -- presently, its Ukrainian client is violating the tenants of self-determination by forcing the Russophone southeast back under its writ. And needless to say, America has stepped on far more than its share of weak states. You can bet that if (say) Texas were to secede and invite Chinese and Russian troops onto its soil, the reaction of Washington would be apocalyptic. I find the moral outrage to be empty and self-serving, frankly.

Looking at the expenditure of arms in fiscal terms is misleading. The excessively streamlined defense industrial base is unable to cope with current outlays and will remain so for the foreseeable future. There's ample documentation of this, such as this report out today: https://www.csis.org/analysis/empty-bins-wartime-environment-challenge-us-defense-industrial-base It's possible Russia's difficulties could dissuade Chinese action, it's true. They may also come out ahead in the end. Only time will tell.

Ukraine's economic importance pales in comparison to Taiwan's. Yet, scare resources continue to be funneled to its defense. My distinct impression is that U.S. intervention in Ukraine is motivated less by such cold calculus as the above and more by the ideological animus and atavistic prejudices of the liberal internationalist foreign policy establishment. I'd be less skeptical of U.S. policy there were it otherwise.

It's all great until their citizen children assimilate downward and learn the DEI grift. Then you get the worst of both worlds.

Plenty of hypocrisy to go around in this conflict (and in general).