An interesting demystification by the excellent Perun…
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Lend-Lease 2.0 explainedSamizdata Illuminatus (Arkham, Massachusetts) · Economics, Business & Globalization · Military affairs · North American affairs · Ukraine May 16th, 2022 |
 12 comments to Lend-Lease 2.0 explained |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Interesting watching history repeat itself. First a proxy war featuring US v China, and to a lesser extent, Russia in Viet Nam, followed by Russia v US in Afghanistan, followed by US v Russia in Afghanistan now morphing into Russia and to a lesser extent, China v US and Europe in Ukraine.
The Vietnamese ran the French and Americans out of their country and quickly discovered that they couldn’t run a successful country. They are now croney capitalists.
The Afghanistanis ran both the Russians and the Americans out and are discovering the same thing.
Ukraine: Same thing coming down but with a likely alignment with the EU.
Kinda sucks to be the proxy though.
Big advantage Ukraine has post-war is that it isn’t a third world shithole.
Thing is Billll, everyone remembers the failures. The successes just disappear unless you actually look at history a bit deeper.
The US supported the Greek anti-Communists in a proxy war with the Soviets. Few people seem to use that as a historical guide though.
In 1920 the French heavily supported the Poles when Russia tried to conquer them. Very similar to the current situation actually. But we forget, because the Poles won and avoided Communism for 20 years.
The British backed Estonia and Latvia in 1919 against the Soviets (and Germans). Again, forgotten.
I presume you left out the Korean War on purpose though. Didn’t suit the narrative.
The US, French and British have fought a lot of wars by proxy since WWI. They have been successful a number of times. Generally in Europe. I think that is the lesson to learn — support people who support you.
Perhaps I’ve been too busy working and lost focus on the news recently but at what point did the Russia-Ukraine war is a proxy war narrative stop being Putinite propaganda that deprived Ukrainians of agency and become a narrative advocated by many self-styled pro-Ukrainian US politicians and media?
To summarise Perun: The West and the US in particular will be paying for this. If we succeed in bringing people who want to be Western into the Western fold and humiliate Russian imperialists then given the current price tag I would say it is definitely worth it.
Patrick Crozier – dare I assume you are sufficiently well off that a two year doubling of energy and fuel, with food expected to not be far behind, will not lead to financial ruin? Oh, and interest rates rising until mortgages and rents also become un-affordable for many. If you will be able to ride out these increases, then it will not be you paying the price.
May I suggest that you bookmark your comment, and revisit it in, say, 12 months?
So you take the view that not backing Ukraine & letting Russia crush them will make us all better off financially in the west in the coming hard times? No long term security and economic downside to Russia once again moving west? A lengthy bloody insurgency in a conquered Ukraine not going to cause much in the way of economic disruption?
NATO military expenditure is a trillion US$ a year. The amount spent on the Ukraine is a rounding error in that connection. Much of what is being given away is dated anyway (that suits the Ukrainians when it is ex-Soviet) or about to expire.
If spending it means fewer US troops in Europe, which it may well do, then it may even save in the long run.
The “doubling of food and energy” is a red herring. That would happen if the Russians took over and were not opposed. And inflation was on the rise long before Putin began his misbegotten adventure. I know Biden likes to blame anything but his own policies, but we shouldn’t fall for it.
Quite so on all points, Chester.
+1 for, it ain’t Russia v. Ukraine that’s making life more expensive and inconvenient (over here in the US, at least.) That was baked in before Putin moved.
Billll @ May 16, 2022 at 6:30 pm:
In the last five full years of the Afghan war (2015-2020), US forces had 69 killed in Afghanistan: about one death per month. (Whereas the US military averages about 900 deaths per year in accidents.) The US was not “run out”; it walked away out of boredom and annoyance.
By comparison, Soviet forces lost 15,000 killed in nine years, with most of the losses coming later in the war.
I (sort of) agree with Rich. The US was not run out of Afghanistan in the usual sense of the term. However, they were outlasted.
USA was unable to achieve their unrealistic victory conditions (which were (1) permanently eradicate the Taliban without resorting to mass murderous depopulation & (2) remake Afghanistan into a modern liberal state). The Taliban’s victory objectives were not to allow the US to fulfil their objectives and to eventually regain control of Afghanistan.
Clearly the Taliban won by simply not losing when the USA gave up and went home.