Germans don't get the idea of mutal defense

[Purple]

Actually, no. We will keep having conflicts on the border of these spheres as long as they exist.

Only because powers can't leave well enough alone and agree to split things up and stay split. All the conflicts that do happen are just results of nations trying to poach each others vassals with predictable results.

[K. A. Pital]

Actually, it is because these "spheres" also constitute heterogenous populated areas, so you cannot decide that the people of region so-and-so will belong to country-so-and-so and leave it at that. This problem has existed since the nation-states started rising.

[Purple]

Actually, it is because these "spheres" also constitute heterogenous populated areas, so you cannot decide that the people of region so-and-so will belong to country-so-and-so and leave it at that. This problem has existed since the nation-states started rising.

Of course you can decide that. All it takes is the decision to, when they inevitably disagree with you and rebel against their masters you do nothing and let their masters, as assigned by you handle it. Look at what happened to Hungary in 1956 for an example of such a decision.

[K. A. Pital]

For every crushed rebellion there is a successful one. That is because the world is not homogenous and simple, as some want it to be. When the central power of some bloc is weakened, processes of collapse at its borders will intensify as one sphere of influence disintegrates to be replaced by another - or even none at all, if too many new competitors enter the fray.

[Purple]

For every crushed rebellion there is a successful one. That is because the world is not homogenous and simple, as some want it to be. When the central power of some bloc is weakened, processes of collapse at its borders will intensify as one sphere of influence disintegrates to be replaced by another - or even none at all, if too many new competitors enter the fray.

Well I guess than the next logical step is to ensure that the blocks don't fall. Maybe one block should support the other or something.

[Kane Starkiller]

So the way this deal would work is that we contact US and tell them that there is this dude on stardestroyer.net forums that goes by the handle "Purple" and he is, like, totally sure that Russians only want Ukraine, Baltics and maybe a bit of Poland so US can just go ahead and pull the military from these countries and that will be it?

[Purple]

So the way this deal would work is that we contact US and tell them that there is this dude on stardestroyer.net forums that goes by the handle "Purple" and he is, like, totally sure that Russians only want Ukraine, Baltics and maybe a bit of Poland so US can just go ahead and pull the military from these countries and that will be it?

We are all talking hypothetical here of course. I doubt anyone would actually be willing to do all this as people are stupid and power hungry and all that. But hypothetically speaking I see no reason why the leaders of major world powers could not form some sort of security council where they all sit around one big table and carve the world up. And than they could agree to not meddle in each others part of the world and to support one another in maintaining their mutual deal.

[Tribble]

So the way this deal would work is that we contact US and tell them that there is this dude on stardestroyer.net forums that goes by the handle "Purple" and he is, like, totally sure that Russians only want Ukraine, Baltics and maybe a bit of Poland so US can just go ahead and pull the military from these countries and that will be it?

We are all talking hypothetical here of course. I doubt anyone would actually be willing to do all this as people are stupid and power hungry and all that. But hypothetically speaking I see no reason why the leaders of major world powers could not form some sort of security council where they all sit around one big table and carve the world up. And than they could agree to not meddle in each others part of the world and to support one another in maintaining their mutual deal.

The problem with that is there's always going to be someone who is not going to be content with the status quo and wants a bigger piece of the pie, and will work to destabilize the situation.

Or are you talking about a 1984 situation?

[Batman]

Yeah, because who cares what the people actually 'living' in the carved up territory think?

[Purple]

Or are you talking about a 1984 situation?

Now that you mention it, yes, that's kind of how it sounds in hindsight. Just instead of a permanent mock war we'd have a permanent peace.

Yeah, because who cares what the people actually 'living' in the carved up territory think?

No one cares about them anyway. The difference would simply be that instead of trying to exploit them for your own ends you'd be helping someone else exploit him for his own ends which further yours so that he in turn helps you exploit another bunch of people for your own ends which further his.

The end result is still the same countries exploiting the same other countries, the rich pissing on the poor and the world population, you and me both being pissed on and all that. Just without the paranoid fear of world war. And frankly somewhat more honest.

[K. A. Pital]

We actually have such a place where people carve the world up. It used to be called something else before, but now it is called the United Nations Security Council.

And it does not look as if it is working out well.

[Purple]

We actually have such a place where people carve the world up. It used to be called something else before, but now it is called the United Nations Security Council.

And it does not look as if it is working out well.

Because they can't agree to carve up the world and help each other keep it carved up. Instead they try to constantly undermine one another.

[K. A. Pital]

For some periods, they agreed to keep it carved, but wars happened nonetheless. Nations are always eager to capitalize on the failure of others. Besides, letting a conflict linger for ages can eventually lead to a collapse of colonial rule on its own - Britain lost Ireland on its own a century later, not when Ireland almost received French assistance.

[Purple]

For some periods, they agreed to keep it carved, but wars happened nonetheless. Nations are always eager to capitalize on the failure of others. Besides, letting a conflict linger for ages can eventually lead to a collapse of colonial rule on its own - Britain lost Ireland on its own a century later, not when Ireland almost received French assistance.

But imagine if instead France had sent its own troops to help the English in order to ensure the maintenance of world order. Could the Irish have succeeded than?

[K. A. Pital]

France at the time was in no shape to help, bled by its own conflicts. Besides, the idea of helping others fight their wars is exactly what leads to interventionism.

[Purple]

France at the time was in no shape to help, bled by its own conflicts. Besides, the idea of helping others fight their wars is exactly what leads to interventionism.

Yea, but there are two kinds of wars. You have the kind of wars where multiple superpowers gang up on a weak nation to produce a swift and decisive victory with little harm to anyone outside of that particular weaker nation. And than you have the kind of wars where superpowers fight one another for supremacy which end up setting the world alight. One is worse than the other.

[Tiriol]

France at the time was in no shape to help, bled by its own conflicts. Besides, the idea of helping others fight their wars is exactly what leads to interventionism.

Yea, but there are two kinds of wars. You have the kind of wars where multiple superpowers gang up on a weak nation to produce a swift and decisive victory with little harm to anyone outside of that particular weaker nation. And than you have the kind of wars where superpowers fight one another for supremacy which end up setting the world alight. One is worse than the other.

It would mean, though, that those superpowers would have to fight constantly and expend resources constantly, as well. You see, smaller nations, like bigger ones, are composed of people. And those people have their own goals and ideas. They can and they will act contrary to some huge global domination scheme and it really doesn't matter how much supoerpowers huff and puff. The Nazis couldn't get Poles to end their uprising and rebellion despite their callous attitude and cruel, barbaric methods - are you willing to see a world where the superpowers act just as relentlessly and mercilessly as the Nazis (or NKVD and Stalin's regime) on daily basis just to keep the world carved into neat little fiefdoms? Are you willing to possibly face such brutality yourself, or are you only willing to let others face consequences of such hegemony? The only way to truly keep the world controlled in such manner is to use violence and brutality in the end. Superpowers would bleed themselves out and also face resistance from their own citizens (not all are callous power players in politics) and when they would collapse or end this pitiful farce of "world peace" in frusfration, things would be the same or even worse than before.

[Purple]

It would mean, though, that those superpowers would have to fight constantly and expend resources constantly, as well. You see, smaller nations, like bigger ones, are composed of people. And those people have their own goals and ideas. They can and they will act contrary to some huge global domination scheme and it really doesn't matter how much supoerpowers huff and puff. The Nazis couldn't get Poles to end their uprising and rebellion despite their callous attitude and cruel, barbaric methods - are you willing to see a world where the superpowers act just as relentlessly and mercilessly as the Nazis (or NKVD and Stalin's regime) on daily basis just to keep the world carved into neat little fiefdoms? Are you willing to possibly face such brutality yourself, or are you only willing to let others face consequences of such hegemony? The only way to truly keep the world controlled in such manner is to use violence and brutality in the end. Superpowers would bleed themselves out and also face resistance from their own citizens (not all are callous power players in politics) and when they would collapse or end this pitiful farce of "world peace" in frusfration, things would be the same or even worse than before.

I am not saying that it would be a nice world to live in. All I am saying is that this is the only way I can see world peace, or rather a lack of future world wars that lead to millions upon millions dying happening. You basically need the 1984 world but committed to peace in order to have peace.

[K. A. Pital]

Even a "unipolar" world saw no peace, when the US could invade and attack almost any small nation entirely unopposed. How the hell would that work with several actors, which are also internally politically unstable? You forget that the nations forming a core of some influence sphere are not unchangeable machines either, they are also full of people with different desires and political change occurs anyway.

Suppression works best when those rising up are offered some concessions after the fight (else, the rebellion will repeat itself a lot sooner). But the concessions isolate the rebel nation's power structures from the hegemon and allow for independent politics, to a degree. This in turn leads to eventual break of the alliance or relationship, if the small state feels bold enough to challenge its hegemon.

It is also a matter of fact that even help from third-rate powers can make conflicts enormously complicated. China was not a great power after its revolution, but its assistance to countries in South East Asia complicated the US war there and eventually led to the US walking out. No "union of imperialists" could actually help here much, either, because the ideology of imperialism and intervention is a very tough sell at home for the vast majority of nations.

[Ziggy Stardust]

We are all talking hypothetical here of course. I doubt anyone would actually be willing to do all this as people are stupid and power hungry and all that. But hypothetically speaking I see no reason why the leaders of major world powers could not form some sort of security council where they all sit around one big table and carve the world up. And than they could agree to not meddle in each others part of the world and to support one another in maintaining their mutual deal.

So, in your opinion, why would this strategy work, when historical events like Sykes-Picot and the Congress of Vienna did not ensure a lasting peace? Where did you get the idea that at no point in the history of international diplomacy has this been attempted by major powers?

[Tribble]

I am not saying that it would be a nice world to live in. All I am saying is that this is the only way I can see world peace, or rather a lack of future world wars that lead to millions upon millions dying happening. You basically need the 1984 world but committed to peace in order to have peace.

Actually, I think the 1984 world including the endless wars would be necessary to keep things stable. The perpetual wars were designed to keep people in line and focused on the war effort while causing as little actual damage as possible. Without the constant "threat" of invasion, the public might have started paying more attention to the government's excesses.

Obviously I hope such a scenario doesn't play out - I'm not keen on society turning into little more than a boot stamping on a human face forever.

[Simon_Jester]

Actually, no. We will keep having conflicts on the border of these spheres as long as they exist.

Only because powers can't leave well enough alone and agree to split things up and stay split. All the conflicts that do happen are just results of nations trying to poach each others vassals with predictable results.

Great powers have been trying without success to partition the land between them into spheres of interest for thousands of years. Literally, some of the oldest written documents found by archeologists are records of ancient Mesopotamian treaties and diplomatic correspondence regarding boundary disputes between ancient empires.

This never works, because when you're the sort of nation that's willing to use force to compel your immediate neighbors to be part of your "sphere of influence," it follows that you are willing to use force to try and expand your sphere at the expense of your neighbor's sphere.

Thugs remain thugs, armed robbers remain armed robbers, and a successful use of violence creates the incentive to keep using violence. It is the way of the world.

It is simply ridiculous that a nuclear power may be "conquered" by another nuclear power. Nukes do not work that way. They are designed exactly for such a scenario and no one needs a ravaged wasteland.

Russia is not alone in its attempts to recreate a lost sphere of influence (France did it in Algeria earlier). It did not lead everyone to weird phobias.

Agreed. On the other hand, it is hard to predict the future, and many nations have gone from 'only mildly dangerous to immediate neighbors' to 'threat to the whole continent' within a generation or two in the past.

And it is quite possible that, if the Americans, British, and French lose the incentive to use nuclear force to defend other countries (including those which are unwilling to in turn use conventional force to defend still other countries)... the Russians could theoretically conquer all the way up the the Rhine without ever encountering anyone with a nuclear arsenal.

It is also possible that by 2100, missile and air defense technology may have advanced to such heights that air and missile-delivered nuclear weapons are no longer a realistic and credible threat. That may change a lot of calculations, and make large conventional militaries more of a threat to small nuclear armed ones.

That's not likely to happen and you know it. At best the Russians might take the Ukraine and the Baltic states. They simply do not have the power or incentive to go further. Seriously, what does Russia have to gain from conquering say France?

At the moment, very little- because subduing France would be costly and would wreck most of the valuable things that you could tax in France.

If France became an easy target, that calculation might change. It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation to try that kind of thing.

Well, I'm not making an argument for general nuclear disarmament because I don't think it's realistic. It would be great, yeah - but it's unlikely to happen. Although, the US under Obama has made significant progress towards reducing the number of actual stockpiled nukes, which incentivizes Russia to do the same.

Reduced armament is not disarmament. Not even close- because both sides maintain large enough nuclear stockpiles that, as long as current levels of ABM defenses don't change, they could easily destroy any and all major nations opposing them. Neither side is going to agree to bargain their arsenal to a low enough level where that's no longer possible for them.

My argument is simply that widening the mutual-defense umbrella to include Poland and Estonia increases the potential set of things that could occur that might cause someone to whip out the launch codes. Putin would be more likely to invade non-nuclear Poland, or bordering Estonia, than say, um... France, because it's easier. But with NATO, Estonia is now another nuclear trigger point. Now, I understand that you're saying that this trigger point is precisely what we can count on to reliably deter Putin from ever daring to invade Estonia. My response is simply: that's not at all clear. I mean, I don't personally believe Putin would ever invade Estonia, but it's possible he, or his successor, might find a good enough reason to do so, betting that the West just wouldn't really give a shit for the most part.

By the same argument, Khrushchev could have decided to invade a non-nuclear West Germany...

The thing I think you're missing is, if aggression is tolerated it tends to snowball. Countries that successfully launch a surprise descent on a neighbor and take them over by armed force will tend to try the same trick that worked for them before. Once an actual shooting war is started by any invasion force, conventional or otherwise, neighbors becoming involved is far more likely.

So I don't think we can realistically claim that NOT extending security guarantees to, oh, Poland is safer than doing so. If we don't do so, the risk of Poland actually being attacked increases, which in turn creates many reasons for nations further west to consider getting involved in an (as yet non-nuclear) conflict. Or for the aggression to spill over and effect a third party who then has to consider using nuclear weapons to defend themselves.

Unless we're prepared to sign a statement ceding control of Poland outright (a la the Munich agreement), we're going to be stuck in the position of "what if nuclear-armed Russia invades Poland" regardless of whether we grant the nuclear guarantee or not.

And in my opinion the danger of a nuclear war breaking out as people fight over Poland after Russians invade it because they do not expect consequences is greater than the danger of a nuclear war breaking out because the Russians invaded it despite the consequences.

I mean, he's managed to frame the entire Ukraine invasion as something of a humanitarian intervention, so who knows? And my argument is simply that the cost of nuclear war on human civilization is so, so, so very extreme, that we really should try to avoid creating these potential situations in the first place.

Well, the way to avoid that is (as a nuclear power) to refrain from threatening to coerce or annex the surrounding non-nuclear states. If everyone did that we wouldn't have a problem.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be how things work at the moment, or Russia wouldn't be getting involved in the Ukraine. And even if Russia has a right to become involved- not even bothering to dispute that- the fact that they're willing to do so is reason for other powers to feel the need to draw a line they're not allowed to cross.

Except that just hasn't actually happened. Latin America is entirely non-nuclear, and yet the US doesn't exert too much tyranny over it, for the most part. So is Canada. Yes, we bully them sometimes and we invaded Panama, but those incidents are few and far between. And the UK and France aren't exerting tyranny over Germany, Spain or Poland, for that matter either. (Quite the contrary, Germany actually exerts more influence over all of them, despite not having nukes, because the German economy is fucking amazing, so it wields more influence over the Eurozone/EU)

My point is that this is prevented precisely because of mutual security arrangements. The alternatives are:

1) All nations able to do so developing nuclear arsenals, with everyone too weak to do so being caught in the middle and likely enslaved.

2) Voluntary arrangements in which mid-tier nations can deliberately refrain from seeking nuclear weapons in self-defense, because they are assured that nuclear weapons will not be used against them by their probable enemies, and because if they ARE attacked by a nuclear power, that attacker will suffer retaliation in kind.

Yes, but this is only a problem for developing countries with emerging economies. It is not so much a problem in the first world where the economies are highly developed and globally intertwined. Which is why I'm saying that the real, long-term solution to "end all wars", so to speak, is not to create fragile nuclear staring contests, but to develop the global economy to the extent that war becomes ultimately useless. Which is why I'm saying NATO is something of a relic - it may have once been useful, it may still even be useful for some things, but it doesn't represent a long-term solution to anything.

War used to be highly economically fruitful, whether in terms of looting conquered nations, or the industries it promotes...

Thing is, war hasn't been profitable as a rule since at least 1900- the sheer scale of industrialized war means NOTHING can make up for the costs. War is profitable for some people but not for everyone. That hasn't stopped numerous wars from breaking out.

As I noted earlier, people are good at thinking up justifications for why they should fight each other, in the absence of a truly compelling reason not to. And trade has a very mixed history as a "truly compelling reason." Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The threat of death or of conquering a land of worthless scorched earth after losing half your army to nuclear strikes... that's rather more effective.

We're in a transitory phase right now, where we have a global economy that encompasses much of the world, where US, European, Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Russian multi-national corporations are financially intertwined and traded across various stock exchanges. The more isolated a country is from this economic network, the more likely it is to revert to old world hostilities (e.g. North Korea.) The US and Russia are probably the most threatening, in terms of stirring up instability with military interventions - but these incidents are isolated, and both the US and Russia are heavily invested in the success of the global economy.

Yes, but Germany had a lot to gain from staying involved in the European economy of the 1910s, and yet they joined the war without much serious introspection. Likewise Britain.

The problem is that trade is something you can decide to ignore while still being a sane human with a working sense of self-preservation. Just like, oh, religious values, philosophical convictions, and so on.

Sane humans with a working sense of self-preservation don't ignore "do this and a nuclear bomb falls down your chimney."

Of course, certain Middle Eastern countries are also highly economically intertwined with the first world, it's just that there are many other specific, non-economic related details that can work to destablize a developing region.

The rest of the world is not immune to such details. The Middle East may be the area suffering the most violence right now, but it's not the only one.

Regardless, we can talk about the individual details that lead to wars in this or that region, but for the most part NATO doesn't help with any of this, because the first world (and to a lesser extent the former "second world", i.e. Eastern Europe) is becoming more and more economically intertwined to the extent that any large-scale war is really unlikely. Putin's current antics are most likely a distraction - his invasion of Ukraine is extremely alarming, but I don't think it represents any kind of reversal of the trend I'm talking about here.

If so, then there is little or no harm in having nuclear security guarantees for other countries on the Russian frontier that they might try to infiltrate, invade, or subdue.

Nuclear exchanges are only even remotely likely in times that are already tense and potentially violent. Remove the prospect of violence and you remove the threat of nuclear surprise attack from the equation, realistically.

[Thanas]

Kipling's poem about the danegeld is ignoring history while being stupidly ignorant and insulting. No serious person would cite it.

[Channel72]

Well, I'm not making an argument for general nuclear disarmament because I don't think it's realistic. It would be great, yeah - but it's unlikely to happen. Although, the US under Obama has made significant progress towards reducing the number of actual stockpiled nukes, which incentivizes Russia to do the same.

Reduced armament is not disarmament. Not even close- because both sides maintain large enough nuclear stockpiles that, as long as current levels of ABM defenses don't change, they could easily destroy any and all major nations opposing them. Neither side is going to agree to bargain their arsenal to a low enough level where that's no longer possible for them.

Agreed - that's certainly true.

By the same argument, Khrushchev could have decided to invade a non-nuclear West Germany...

Yeah, except Khrushchev's thinking and actions were a product of his isolated command economy - unlike Putin, who probably actually owns stock in fucking Deutsche Bank.

And in my opinion the danger of a nuclear war breaking out as people fight over Poland after Russians invade it because they do not expect consequences is greater than the danger of a nuclear war breaking out because the Russians invaded it despite the consequences.

I suppose... I'm not really sure why that should be clear or obvious to you, however. Anyway, whether Russian aggression remains isolated to the situation in Crimea or it extends to like, Belarus or other non-NATO neighbors is something we'll simply have to wait and see. Regardless, as I said, Wall Street is not going to allow exchanging nukes with Russia, no matter what happens. That's the funny thing about sanctions against Russia - when Russian equities go down, it actually hurts US investors and firms who invest with things like RSX (a US ETF for Russian companies), and at this point things are so economically intertwined that a US firm like Wells Fargo is actually affected negatively by sanctions on Russia, let alone fucking nuclear war. The more intertwined and symbiotic our economies become, the more the prospect of going to war becomes a joke.

My point is that this is prevented precisely because of mutual security arrangements.

Mutual security arrangements (especially in Europe with the EU) probably helped stabilize the situation post-WW2 and pave the way for a more globalized economy, but I think these security arrangements are now much less necessary, given that all of Europe is democratized and economically intertwined.

Thing is, war hasn't been profitable as a rule since at least 1900- the sheer scale of industrialized war means NOTHING can make up for the costs. War is profitable for some people but not for everyone. That hasn't stopped numerous wars from breaking out.

But it's certainly helped a lot to reduce the scale and frequency of wars. The wars that have broken out after WW2 are highly concentrated in the third world, either between multiple third world nations (the worst of these wars really being in Africa), or first world nations (mostly the US) fighting proxy wars in the 3rd world, or invading 3rd world nations for... um... reasons. Other than that there was the UK declaring war against Argentina for reasons which nobody cares about anymore.

In particular, no first world, democratic nations have warred with each other.

Yes, but Germany had a lot to gain from staying involved in the European economy of the 1910s, and yet they joined the war without much serious introspection. Likewise Britain.

And yet, ironically, Germany was pulled into war precisely because of various complicated mutual defense alliances.

The problem is that trade is something you can decide to ignore while still being a sane human with a working sense of self-preservation. Just like, oh, religious values, philosophical convictions, and so on.

Sane humans with a working sense of self-preservation don't ignore "do this and a nuclear bomb falls down your chimney."

Yeah, it's definitely a deterrent. It's just not a very promising deterrent, nor is it particularly likely to work over centuries without someone eventually saying "fuck it" and pressing the launch button. (Although, your comment about improved missile defense technology is definitely true, and potentially a game changing development.)

If so, then there is little or no harm in having nuclear security guarantees for other countries on the Russian frontier that they might try to infiltrate, invade, or subdue.

I suppose - but that doesn't help much with the larger picture. I mean, way more so than Russia, the US can deploy troops to pretty much anywhere across the globe. Realistically, the US is much more likely to invade say, Yemen, because of whatever flaky intel we beat out of some poor guy in Guantanamo Bay, than Putin is to invade Poland at this point. Also, I really don't think it's valid to define the world anymore in terms of an Eastern Bloc vs. the West. I know Putin's been acting up lately, and the media has been running wild with Cold War analogies and what not, but again Putin's economy is way too intertwined with European and US interests for him to escalate this much further. The old Soviet "means of production" has largely been privatized, and Putin is likely more concerned with how the Moscow Exchange (which is doing pretty well) is doing than invading Warsaw.