Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
If Ukraine Wins, Who Loses?
There’s the obvious answers – Putin, the image of Russian might, the Duginist dream of solidifying Russian control over its insolent children.
Who else? The Russian Orthodox Church, for declaring this a holy war? Xi, for his association with a loser whose actions renewed Taiwanese determination to stave off an invasion? The countries that have been buying Russian military gear and now have a rep, however justified, for buying junk? US pundits who backed Russia’s invasion? Renewable energy advocates, suddenly on the back foot because nuclear is a better option than Russian gas? US intelligence agencies that failed to figure out how the Russian forces are ancient and hollowed out by corruption?
You could also note who else wins: the West, for one. Superior armaments and tech, better logistics, the products of a more energetic and innovative culture. I suspect there’s a non-insubstantial intersection between those who are comfy with Russian control of Ukraine and those who would be irritated by a Western win, because the West is decadent and subject to rule from our Davos overlords, and ought not to prevail until it is overhauled and remade.
This is not a thread about whether Ukraine will win, or what victory looks like. Just a question about what shakes out when it is apparent to all that Russia could not prevail.
Published in General
That would certainly be to the advantage of any sense of self-preservation and self-perpetuation that the chewing gum might have.
I disagree. We might not be capable of pole vaulting and cooking a stir fry at the same time, but we are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Like I said, it has not been demonstrated. It has been asserted, but not demonstrated.
You use a metaphor like chewing gum and walking and then you ask for your metaphor to be demonstrated. That’s nonsensical.
None of you know what time it is.
WE ARE NOT DEFENDING OUR BORDER. But we just spent $40B to defend someone else’s. And the argument is “we can do both!”
Ok. Defend our border and I’ll support our defending Ukraine’s. But our border first.
I don’t think the metaphor was really important. She’s just down on the United States and wants to denigrate its valuation.
I live here. My family lives here. My family has been here for generations. I do not have family in other countries. I do not have anywhere else to go. My life is here.
So on WHAT grounds do you slander me with grossly false accusations?
Ted Cruz was correct to support the 40 billion dollar aid package for Ukraine. Ted Cruz is also correct to support protecting our border.
Unfortunately, Biden only got one of those two policies correct.
Moderator Note:
Way out of line, unless you have proof Stina murdered someoneInsult redacted
This is an boorish thing to say. But the mods agree with you and Seward so you are likely to get away with it.
I’m done with both of you. You and your policies are destroying this country.
It has not been demonstrated that we have the ability to deal with just one problem at a time on a schedule of our choosing. If you can use any influence you have with Herr Putin to get him to halt his invasion and pull back until we deal with our problems at home, that would demonstrate that we do have such ability.
The post world war 2 resistance to the allies were called the werewolves.
We are choosing not to defend our border, that isn’t a resource problem it is a problem of will. Ultimately we are probably better at defending someone else’s border because it isn’t controversial. Generally speaking I think we are better off if the current administration doesn’t try to do anything inside the US.
It hasn’t been proven that this administration is capable of dealing with any problem at all. Even this isn’t dealing with a problem it is just throwing tons of money at it.
Gaza had what by most observations was a fair election and elected Hamas. The PA hasn’t had an election in a while because a fair election would elect Hamas. I think that it is fair to say neither is currently a democracy. I think it may be unfair to say they aren’t even close. They aren’t the kind of democracies I would favor, and they may follow the classic formulation 1 man, 1 vote, 1 time, but they aren’t autocratic or weren’t originally.
I have read that as an exception to the general maxim that democracies don’t go to war with each other. I am not sure I buy it completely, never the less it does sound plausible.
I think the point of that expression is not that democracies never have “disagreements” but that they have other ways of settling them.
You disparage the United States pretty much every time you mention it. I don’t recall you ever saying a good thing about our country. If not the case, please fill me.in. That’s why I asked you if you’ve crossed over to the “woke” side a few weeks ago when you commented that Putin is justified in his actions because the United States has been no better with its actions around the world. I thought it was only the lefties that disparage our own country in that way.
True but that may be a characteristic of the countries that are democracies in the later half of the twentieth and first quarter of the twenty-first century than a feature of democracy as a type of government. That is more my contention, or to put it differently the US, UK and Australia are unlikely to go to war because they are the US, UK, and Australia and not because they share a broadly democratic tradition. Where as Turkey and Israel are much more likely to go to war even if both are broadly speaking democracies, because they are Turkey and Israel.
Why do you object to his post- it isn’t out of bounds since you have clearly stated you see no difference between the US and Putin’s Russia:
Think King Lear and reconsider what you ask.
Don’t know much about Shakespeare. My wife dragged me to Macbeth once. I fell asleep, even though there’s a character in the play named Seward.
It’s not a matter of can, it’s a matter will. The decision-making concludes that spending 40 billion dollars of rescuing Ukraine is so small no one will ever miss it. But spending 48 billion to bail out small businesses that were crippled by government dictates is so small it is pointless.
It’s got nothing to do with ability, but priorities.
I don’t think it’s a matter of being controversial so much as defending our own border is counter-productive to the ruling party’s goals.
You are likely right about this. So the actual statement better written by you lights would be this formulation. Ultimately we are better at defending someone else’s border because the ruling party thinks it is good. Don’t have any problem with that reinterpretation.
For your consideration:
“There is no such thing as conversation. It is an illusion. There are intersecting monologues, that is all.”
—Rebecca West, The Harsh Voice (1935)
Is a question part of a conversation or just a monologue?
Must have been spoken by a person who never listened to anybody else. I’ve known some of them.
If it’s a device to showcase one’s own answer….
That’s awfully cynical, isn’t it?