Ukraine

Have I ever told you guys how much I love you? Probably not, but I do - at least a little bit. :icon_biggrin:

Sav, I have been too tough on you in particular. I shouldn't have been - especially in your own house. Sorry about that.

But if you want me to be a Mr. Rogers, I'm afraid I'll never be. I am a real person - sorry if that makes me seem like a hypocrite, or whatever term you think is most appropriate for me.

Yes, all generations have their faults and weaknesses. And Millennials probably have more strengths than I'm typically willing to give them credit for. So, here's to hoping y'all will surprise the snot out of me. Sure know, we'll need for you to, with as much crap as we, previous generations have loaded on you. Obamacare will just be the start.

As for my age - I was born in the mid 60s. I am on the tail end of the baby-boomers, the generation I readily lambast.
 
Julio3000 said:
I'm just finishing Anthony Beevor's history of the Second World War. His book about the Battle of Stalingrad, btw, is magisterial.

Anyway, this passage struck me as germane to the topic:

"There is, nevertheless, a real danger of the Second World War becoming an instant reference point, both for modern history and for all contemporary conflicts. In a crisis, journalists and politicians alike instinctively reach for parallels with the Second World War, either to dramatize the gravity of the situation, or in an attempt to sound Rooseveltian or Churchillian. To compare 9/11 to Pearl Harbor, or to liken Nasser and Saddam Hussein to Hitler, is not just to make an inaccurate historical parallel. Such comparisons are gravely misleading and risk producing the wrong strategic responses. Leaders of democracies can become prisoners of their own rhetoric, just like dictators."

Going back upthread a bit, addressing kcgrew—it was more than just domestic isolationists that kept the US out of the war when Hitler was romping around Europe from '38-'40. The Western democracies simply didn't have a military force that could stand up to the Wehrmacht in those years. No amount of tough talk or bellicosity or pointless sacrifice would have changed that. Had Hitler not hastened the inevitable clash of the two totalitarian states, it might have been many years before the western democracies could have rolled back the Germans' mastery of Europe. As it was, doing so meant making a deal with the devil and ultimately consigning miillions of Eastern Europeans to the depredations of the USSR. It's harder for democracies to move to a war footing, but it is well that it should be so.
Click to expand...

Saw this article about Hillary and was reminded of your post. Link
 
Half serious question. Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the break-up of Yugoslavia, I've wondered what is the future of the nation-state. The latest Russian escapade makes me think about this even more.

And before anyone goes off, let's think about the United States. For a number of reasons, states opted out of the Medicaid expansion that was part of the ACA, which, if nothing else, erode at the notion of an inviolable centralized state.

Curious what others think. Maybe I'm on Mars.
 
50PoundHead said:
Half serious question. Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the break-up of Yugoslavia, I've wondered what is the future of the nation-state. The latest Russian escapade makes me think about this even more.

And before anyone goes off, let's think about the United States. For a number of reasons, states opted out of the Medicaid expansion that was part of the ACA, which, if nothing else, erode at the notion of an inviolable centralized state.

Curious what others think. Maybe I'm on Mars.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are 50. One the one hand we have greater Balkanization (consider Venice's move, Scotland's, Quebec's clamor, etc.) but on the other hand you have the Russian experiment of in some ways going back to their glory days and another example might be Hong Kong going back to China. Balkanized states may be short term fixes, but they are also more vulnerable to the shark.
 
BedellBrave said:
I don't think you are 50. One the one hand we have greater Balkanization (consider Venice's move, Scotland's, Quebec's clamor, etc.) but on the other hand you have the Russian experiment of in some ways going back to their glory days and another example might be Hong Kong going back to China. Balkanized states may be short term fixes, but they are also more vulnerable to the shark.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm "calling all sturg33's" in the audience to expand this discussion to what centralization actually means and how it relates to this discussion.

Bedell, you've pointed out the other recent separatist movements that I was too lazy to cite. We both forgot Sudan/South Sudan. It seems that nationalism has gone micro in some sense where the goal of small groups of separatists is to have "neighborhood states" instead of "nation states." The issue, of course, is that the larger, more muscular states will be able to dominate the separatists militarily irrespective of whatever the geographic and/or ethnic dictates may exist. Both soft and hard power will constrict smaller, break-off states, but what form need this take. Are we moving back to pseudo-monarchies that are totally secular and allow movement and activity by peoples provided they pledge some measure of fealty? Is Putin using hard power in the short term to expand the reach of his soft power. I don't think hard power will work for the long term any more, but it can be helpful to establish dominance. I don't know if it can maintain it.

Anyway, I'm not totally focused here, but I'm working on it.
 
We may be moving toward pseudo-monarchies or principalities, but I wouldn't bank on them all being "totally secular" (if I am understanding your point correctly).

And yes, that seems to be exactly what Putin is doing. I anticipate China will as well. I wonder what, if any thing would prevent them from doing so.

The other question I have is about us, will we? And what will the "we" be? I mean this country is very divided. Must it remain this huge nation state or will we, can we, should we move toward some other model?
 
I've done a fair amount of international traveling over the years and I am struck by how technology has affected national boundaries. That and transnational businesses. There does seem to be an erosion of national/cultural boundaries making traveling too and fro easier and interestingly, allowing a city-state-small-prinicpality model work again. Course I'm sure there will be modern equivalents of the Hanseatic League that might arise - and if that happens, does the pendulum move back to a larger national model?
 
Talk about trolling - dude has got some balls. Link

(Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the United States on Monday of being guided in its foreign policy not by international law but by the "rule of the gun."

"Our Western partners headed by the United States prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun," he told a joint session of parliament.

"They have come to believe in their exceptionalism and their sense of being the chosen ones. That they can decide the destinies of the world, that it is only them who can be right."
 
We want our reset button back!

01-lavrov-clinton-reset-button-434x350.jpg
 
"They have come to believe in their exceptionalism and their sense of being the chosen ones. That they can decide the destinies of the world, that it is only them who can be right."

That arguement is what we are up against
 
BedellBrave said:
I've done a fair amount of international traveling over the years and I am struck by how technology has affected national boundaries. That and transnational businesses. There does seem to be an erosion of national/cultural boundaries making traveling too and fro easier and interestingly, allowing a city-state-small-prinicpality model work again. Course I'm sure there will be modern equivalents of the Hanseatic League that might arise - and if that happens, does the pendulum move back to a larger national model?
Click to expand...

Good points. I jumped the gun a bit on "totally secular." My guess is what we are seeing Africa and may someday see more of in the Mideast will include a religious component in Muslim countries and Christian breakaway states. That's kind of what we've seen in Sudan/South Sudan (as I understand it). The Christian states will likely be more secular in nature, but their existence is pretty much the result of a religious difference.

I've been thinking about this and observing international movement since reading Richard Barnet's Global Reach back in the 1970s. Barnet predicted a decline in the importance of the nation state that would be replaced by increasing corporate bonds between nations facilitated by multi-national corporations. Some of that has happened, but we've obviously covered a ton of ground since the 1970s that Barnet could never have predicted, most notably the rise of political Islam.

(ADD kicking in) Is the EU the new Hanseatic League and are Russia's actions in the Ukraine a reaction to the economic aspects of that union (regardless of how tenuous the EU may appear)? I've always thought that almost all instances of war are expressions of the desire for power and most of that expression is about economics. There are religious and geopolitical elements, but I'm an economic determinist to a great extent when it comes to inter-state/inter-region relations (and I will readily admit to that bias).

Are we moving toward a world of confederations as opposed to nation-states? I believe the US is heading in that direction and I believe EU is an expression of that. It appears that the Russians are trying to recreate something that resembles to old Eastern bloc. That leaves the Mideast, South Asia, and Africa untouched. China will always be China. Curious times and as I've aged, I try to look at events like the current situation in the Ukraine as a data point in a longitudinal progression as opposed to a pivot point.

I've rambled.
 
Could be (EU - Hanseatic League), though on a much larger scale.

One of the things that will get really tricky is what happens within mixed religious smaller-entities. Take for instance England proper (and London more specifically).

All this is fascinating stuff.

Good ramble btw.
 
BedellBrave said:
Could be (EU - Hanseatic League), though on a much larger scale.

One of the things that will get really tricky is what happens within mixed religious smaller-entities. Take for instance England proper (and London more specifically).

All this is fascinating stuff.

Good ramble btw.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Population decline of native populations in European states is a huge issue that not many folks are talking about. The Germans will always be the Germans and they pretty much turn everyone into Germans. I think we've seen where France stands as well, but I don't know if they can be as doctrinaire as the Germans. Don't know if that will happen in other states (Italy, England, Spain).
 
Though the Germans are struggling to turn Turks into Germans. The French will continue to struggle with the N. African Arabs. When folks think Europe is becoming less religious, they aren't paying real close attention. The native Europeans are more and more adopting a secular faith, Muslim immigrants are maintaining their faith (for the most part), Sub-Saharan Christian immigrants are coming with their own vibrant faith, and Indians are coming with Hinduism, the Sikh faith, etc.
 
BedellBrave said:
Though the Germans are struggling to turn Turks into Germans. The French will continue to struggle with the N. African Arabs. When folks think Europe is becoming less religious, they aren't paying real close attention. The native Europeans are more and more adopting a secular faith, Muslim immigrants are maintaining their faith (for the most part), Sub-Saharan Christian immigrants are coming with their own vibrant faith, and Indians are coming with Hinduism, the Sikh faith, etc.
Click to expand...

But I think in the end, the Germans will simply close the borders if there is a lack of assimilation.
 
BedellBrave said:
So Z, tell me, do you really think the likes of all you young guys have the stomach for a war with Russia or China? Really?
Click to expand...

Tell me: why is stomach for war a good thing? I'm surprised that you, particularly, would hold "stomach for war" in a positive, goal-for-society sort of regard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top