In the last 24 hours, I’ve enjoyed this, your conversation with Tom Friedman, and your sterling performance on Decoding The Gurus. Thanks for the work you do – I wish it wasn’t so necessary right now.
I think Xi Jinping has accelerated the push to control Taiwan under his watch, and has added in the "by force if necessary" part due to the Taiwan populace's decreasing interest in joining the mainland. I don't think prospect of forceful reunification has been accelerated by the US arms build up as much as by the realization that force will be the only way to achieve this personal and party goal, and time is running out.
Great post, with lots to think about, thanks. One way to frame the debate that you're proposing: First, would Putin have invaded Ukraine at some point regardless of whether there were weapons & assistance from NATO, since Ukraine was drifting westward even while he considered Ukraine to really be a part of Russia and had already started thinking about his legacy in a more imperialist mindset? If Putin would have invaded in either case, the weapons now in Ukraine by which the country is defending itself are making the invasion-against-international-law much more costly for Russia. What will the effect of a far-more-costly-than-expected invasion have on Putin's ambitions in the region after this war--i.e. will they check his ambitions more than if Ukraine had been poorly defended and ill-equipped and easy to topple and take over? Will the weapons and Ukraine's resistance allow Ukraine to keep more of its sovereign national territory in the end than it would have otherwise? And, most relevant for the circuitous connection between Ukraine and Taiwan that you're thinking about: Will China seeing the trouble Russia is having fighting against an armed Ukraine now be more deterred by an armed Taiwan (than it would have before Russia's difficulties in achieving its invasion aims)? After all, China's decision-making regarding Taiwan is different from Russia's decision to invade Ukraine precisely in that China is seeing the example of how Russia's invasion of Ukraine has gone; China will be factoring into its decision how many casualties and losses Russia has experienced fighting an armed Ukraine, as well as the toll of reputational loss and sanctions burden on Russia due to the invasion. (Another version of this last question that stays with Russia: would a Putin with the foresight of how things are going now still have decided to invade initially, i.e. had he known how an armed Ukraine would defend itself? China vis-a-vis Taiwan is right now more like this fictional Putin with foresight would have been early this year vis-a-vis Ukraine.)
At least in the case of Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, there does not seem to be any suppression of dissent. Mitt Romney and the WaPo editorial page had negative things to say about it out loud.
The US spends roughly half of its budget on its military, fostering ill-will and conflict around the world. It has engendered a mindset that war and conflict are part and parcel of life (including in politics and relations between nations). It leaves very little room for nuance and hope and, well, peace.
So it's unfortunately not surprising that views cautioning against the idea of using weapons and military protection as main means of support of imperiled countries are derided and diminished--they are up against a deeply ingrained cultural mindset, not to mention very powerful business interests. These interests by default are averse against taking multiple analytical perspectives--such approach endangers repeating the same very profitable (for a few) mistakes of the past.
I'd question what proponents of strife and conflict (and business for business sake) are seeing as the end goal of their strategy--to be the last man/woman standing in a world of desolation and devastation?
“If you want peace and harmony in the world, you must have peace and harmony in your hearts and minds. Such change cannot be imposed; it must come from within.” --Nisargadatta
A. You do not even consider the possibility, entirely likely given the disbalance of forces at the start of russia's invasion, that the weapons flow to Ukraine was meager and completely inadequate to deterring an invasion.
Given that weapons were being gradually provided to Ukraine for close to a decade, the argument that this flow encouraged invasion cannot hold water. Particularly given putin's statements starting circa 2007 and his many years of military build-up.
Your discussion of this topic is quite superficial. According to the logic of a potential line of argument you put forth, arming can never (!) deter because it may, instead, encourage belligerence, which is, of course, ridiculous.
B. That people with no even passing familiarity with the situation in Ukraine actually seriously consider NATO's enlargement to be a potential reason for russia's invasion is sufficient for their statements to be taken as parroting russian propaganda. Because they do.
Despite thorough searching, no one has found any basis at all for putin's claim that a promise was made not to enlarge NATO. NATO enlarged steadily, including right up to russia's borders, with russian acquiescence, at least until 2007. Any thought out consideration of events leading to the invasion would take into account the irrational logic of: they want to join NATO, let's level their cities to the ground.
The taint of russian propagandist is imposed because of the superficiality and plain wrongness of seeking any justification for russia's invasion in America's actions.
Trying to reconcile russia's responsibility with supposedly "reckless" US policy is nonsense. Either US policy abetted russia's actions or it did not, leaving aside to what degree, etc.
C. The dilemma many restrainers face regarding the war in Ukraine is that their -- and, apparently, your -- starting and end point is that military measures should be avoided. Then peace will reign in the age of Aquarius. This is a very naive, and dangerous, approach, well demonstrated by Ukraine, which did not arm itself, did not prepare for russian aggression. So, take note, if you can.
Unless the US opposes by force a Chinese invasion, China can certainly defeat the Republic. So the real question is whether the US will actively defend Taiwan. I am of the opinion we should decide whether relations with Taiwan are a vital national interest, and if so make it clear that an invasion means war with the US. If not, we’d better get to work on an alternate source for vital products we get from Taiwan, including semiconductors.
Pelosi:" My foreign policy could be bounded by the midterms, and I'd count myself a queen of infinite skill, were it not that I gave Xi bad dreams."
Apologies to WS!
The mood seems to be one of adolescent triumphalism.
Like, though I don't altogether agree. Thanks.
In the last 24 hours, I’ve enjoyed this, your conversation with Tom Friedman, and your sterling performance on Decoding The Gurus. Thanks for the work you do – I wish it wasn’t so necessary right now.
I think Xi Jinping has accelerated the push to control Taiwan under his watch, and has added in the "by force if necessary" part due to the Taiwan populace's decreasing interest in joining the mainland. I don't think prospect of forceful reunification has been accelerated by the US arms build up as much as by the realization that force will be the only way to achieve this personal and party goal, and time is running out.
Great post, with lots to think about, thanks. One way to frame the debate that you're proposing: First, would Putin have invaded Ukraine at some point regardless of whether there were weapons & assistance from NATO, since Ukraine was drifting westward even while he considered Ukraine to really be a part of Russia and had already started thinking about his legacy in a more imperialist mindset? If Putin would have invaded in either case, the weapons now in Ukraine by which the country is defending itself are making the invasion-against-international-law much more costly for Russia. What will the effect of a far-more-costly-than-expected invasion have on Putin's ambitions in the region after this war--i.e. will they check his ambitions more than if Ukraine had been poorly defended and ill-equipped and easy to topple and take over? Will the weapons and Ukraine's resistance allow Ukraine to keep more of its sovereign national territory in the end than it would have otherwise? And, most relevant for the circuitous connection between Ukraine and Taiwan that you're thinking about: Will China seeing the trouble Russia is having fighting against an armed Ukraine now be more deterred by an armed Taiwan (than it would have before Russia's difficulties in achieving its invasion aims)? After all, China's decision-making regarding Taiwan is different from Russia's decision to invade Ukraine precisely in that China is seeing the example of how Russia's invasion of Ukraine has gone; China will be factoring into its decision how many casualties and losses Russia has experienced fighting an armed Ukraine, as well as the toll of reputational loss and sanctions burden on Russia due to the invasion. (Another version of this last question that stays with Russia: would a Putin with the foresight of how things are going now still have decided to invade initially, i.e. had he known how an armed Ukraine would defend itself? China vis-a-vis Taiwan is right now more like this fictional Putin with foresight would have been early this year vis-a-vis Ukraine.)
At least in the case of Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, there does not seem to be any suppression of dissent. Mitt Romney and the WaPo editorial page had negative things to say about it out loud.
The US spends roughly half of its budget on its military, fostering ill-will and conflict around the world. It has engendered a mindset that war and conflict are part and parcel of life (including in politics and relations between nations). It leaves very little room for nuance and hope and, well, peace.
So it's unfortunately not surprising that views cautioning against the idea of using weapons and military protection as main means of support of imperiled countries are derided and diminished--they are up against a deeply ingrained cultural mindset, not to mention very powerful business interests. These interests by default are averse against taking multiple analytical perspectives--such approach endangers repeating the same very profitable (for a few) mistakes of the past.
I'd question what proponents of strife and conflict (and business for business sake) are seeing as the end goal of their strategy--to be the last man/woman standing in a world of desolation and devastation?
“If you want peace and harmony in the world, you must have peace and harmony in your hearts and minds. Such change cannot be imposed; it must come from within.” --Nisargadatta
A. You do not even consider the possibility, entirely likely given the disbalance of forces at the start of russia's invasion, that the weapons flow to Ukraine was meager and completely inadequate to deterring an invasion.
Given that weapons were being gradually provided to Ukraine for close to a decade, the argument that this flow encouraged invasion cannot hold water. Particularly given putin's statements starting circa 2007 and his many years of military build-up.
Your discussion of this topic is quite superficial. According to the logic of a potential line of argument you put forth, arming can never (!) deter because it may, instead, encourage belligerence, which is, of course, ridiculous.
B. That people with no even passing familiarity with the situation in Ukraine actually seriously consider NATO's enlargement to be a potential reason for russia's invasion is sufficient for their statements to be taken as parroting russian propaganda. Because they do.
Despite thorough searching, no one has found any basis at all for putin's claim that a promise was made not to enlarge NATO. NATO enlarged steadily, including right up to russia's borders, with russian acquiescence, at least until 2007. Any thought out consideration of events leading to the invasion would take into account the irrational logic of: they want to join NATO, let's level their cities to the ground.
The taint of russian propagandist is imposed because of the superficiality and plain wrongness of seeking any justification for russia's invasion in America's actions.
Trying to reconcile russia's responsibility with supposedly "reckless" US policy is nonsense. Either US policy abetted russia's actions or it did not, leaving aside to what degree, etc.
C. The dilemma many restrainers face regarding the war in Ukraine is that their -- and, apparently, your -- starting and end point is that military measures should be avoided. Then peace will reign in the age of Aquarius. This is a very naive, and dangerous, approach, well demonstrated by Ukraine, which did not arm itself, did not prepare for russian aggression. So, take note, if you can.
Is this the place to comment on the Tom Friedman interview? It was excellent!
Unless the US opposes by force a Chinese invasion, China can certainly defeat the Republic. So the real question is whether the US will actively defend Taiwan. I am of the opinion we should decide whether relations with Taiwan are a vital national interest, and if so make it clear that an invasion means war with the US. If not, we’d better get to work on an alternate source for vital products we get from Taiwan, including semiconductors.