8 ms·

How to avoid another world war

17 points by hzlatar 4y ago

ElfinTrousers 4y ago
1. Don't let people like Henry Kissinger run things.
jamincan 4y ago
I balk at calls for peace from Henry Kissinger, who didn't seem to have qualms at raining death on millions of innocent people for his own personal political gains. Nevertheless, I did read the article. Kissinger's framework for understanding the world is still rooted in an outdated cold war mentality and this article seems like he is naively trying to shove the cat back in the bag and return to a paradigm that he felt he understood. But I don't think we can return to the way things were. Russia's hegemony over its neighbours was not because of its nuclear power, but because of its military power, which it has demonstrated is considerably weaker than we had previously understood. I think this conflict has actually weakened the power of a nuclear arsenal considerably compared to conventional military strength, because it really has no strategic use beyond nuclear deterrence.
- vlovich123 4y ago
  With Russia‘s nukes, it seems unlikely Ukraine will invade Russia. It’s possible they wouldn’t be so cautious of Russia if it had disarmed its nuclear capabilities. EDIT: fixed the multiple wording mistakes that made the statement nonsense from start to finish.
  - totalZero 4y ago
    It seems unlikely that Ukraine will invade Ukraine, because Ukraine occupies Ukraine and has done so ever since Ukraine became Ukraine. Perhaps you mean that it seems unlikely Ukraine will invade Russia due to Russian nuclear capability? What do you mean when you say "without Russia's nukes" (do you mean "with")?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - darthrupert 4y ago
    By Russia's fucked up interpretation of reality, Ukraine has already invaded Russia and is currently occupying two of its cities. Or did you mean they would invade real Russian territory, like Moscow? Why would they do that?
    - vlovich123 4y ago
      Russia territory from before all the conflict > why would they do that Russia has a regime that’s clearly hostile to Ukraine. Additionally, they have a history of trying to assisted people in their way politically. So, if you’re successfully pushing back the army, you have the momentum to try to overthrow this regime and ensure some long term security on your border. Whether or not that would work or be wise would be separate calculus but nuclear weapons in the hands of an unstable leader adds at least a little bit uncertainty that would make you pause in addition to everything else.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      They might, for instance, get tired of Russia sending missiles at Ukraine, and decide to go after the launch sites.
- psychphysic 4y ago
  It's sounds like you're arguing for war with Russia while they are weak?
  - jamincan 4y ago
    Not at all. Kissinger specifically frames this as a war between two great powers over a conventionally armed nation. In this framing, western nations have the power to end this war and set the terms for peace. But I don't believe this is true, and I feel this is a relic of a different era. Western nations can influence the war - sending Ukraine more arms, or cutting off supply would certainly influence its chances. But fundamentally Ukraine is a sovereign nation and will decide peace on its own terms. Eastern European nations threatened by a world order where their sovereignty is subordinate to Russia's will support Ukraine on their terms. This is just fundamentally not a Russia v. NATO war as much as it might be more convenient if it were.
    - nine_k 4y ago
      More than that: if the West pulls away and stops supporting Ukraine, it will not make peace. Imagine Russian army overcoming the remaining Ukraine defenses and occupying 100% of it's territory. So you think the people of Ukraine will grudgingly lay down arms, and return to normal daily life? Come on. Ukraine has always had a strong separatist movement while a part of the USSR. It was a founding member of the USSR, but the last vestiges of armed separatist forces were only suppressed by the end of 1950s. This was under Stalin, a tyrant with a very efficient suppression machine and no qualms about killing his subjects whatsoever. A peer comment suggests that it could be fine to just let Russia have what it's currently grabbed, and cease the fire ASAP. I think it'd be the one of the worst courses of action. An Ukraine defeated by Russia would be another Afghanistan. With current technology, and with the general ineptitude that the Russian state repeatedly demonstrates throughout the campaign, there's no doubt that guerilla warfare will be widespread and hurtful. This is on top of letting an authoritarian regime to conquer by war and annex a sovereign European state, right next to "real" Western states. This would send many signals, of all the wrong sorts, of what the Wast is going to put up with. In general, an abscess, once it exists, should be treated, one way or another, until it disappears completely. Stopping to treat it because it hurts is a way to make it hurt more, and become more dangerous.
- mmmwww 4y ago
  While I agree with you, I think this information will already be understood in coming negotiations. Although the author’s legitimacy is questionable, I read the solution he proposes as sensible: End of war. Removal of the army from Ukraine except for Crimea, at first and international oversight of referenda for the regions. Potential threat of cost of reparations and what it would mean for Russia to lose is probably what keeps Russia fighting, and away from the negotiation table.
  - psychphysic 4y ago
    What Kissinger is correct about most is that none of this matters as much as ending this war. With hindsight ww2 could have been avoided if it wasn't for the prolonged punishment for ww1. Russia has too many ways to ruin the world for it to be worth not trying out best to bring them into the fold tightly and fast. Sadly this will upset Ukrainians but that's unfortunately not as important as avoiding another world war. Heck as I spell out below, what would happen if Russia simply continues to use its own fossil fuel supply? That's bad enough.
    - yywwbbn 4y ago
      > With hindsight ww2 could have been avoided With hindsight most of WW2 could have been avoided if UK/France invaded Germany while its army was busy in Poland. Even during the Sudeten crisis, though this would have probably required a soviet intervention which would have been problematic. Then again the German Army wasn’t that well prepared for an all-out war back in 1938 and might have been bogged down in Czechoslovakia similarly to how Russia is now stuck in Ukraine. Support for Hitler in Germany wasn’t that necessarily that strong prior to the conquest of France especially amongst the military leadership* so a coup wouldn’t have been out of the question. The Battle of France pretty much turned Hitler into a German Napoleon. * mainly because they didn’t believe that a quick victory was an option and feared a repeat of WW2. They obviously wanted to win a war against France eventually.
    - nine_k 4y ago
      WWII in Europe ended not just with the fall of Berlin, but with the Marshall plan. If something like that happened after WWI, Europe would have been very different. But enacting a Marshall plan requires a definite military defeat first. Else it's pacifying the aggressor again, with the same efficacy as in 1938.
- yywwbbn 4y ago
  > Russia's hegemony over its neighbours was not because of its nuclear power, but because of its military power Arguably dependence on Russian oil & gas was as or more important. Basically countries in the region had a choice either pay the market price (or more if you don’t have access to the global market to buy natural gas) or submit to Russia politically and get massive discounts. Not an easy choice to make for poor post-soviet countries with no natural resources. e.g. I don’t think the Belarusian regime would survive long without energy subsidies from Russia. The situation in Ukraine prior to 2014/2004 was not that different.
  - jamincan 4y ago
    That's a fair point; military power isn't the only way to project power. I do think, though, that the war in Ukraine may lead to us reevaluating just what nuclear power provides you. Certainly it is a deterrent to attack and especially a deterrent to a nuclear attack. But with time, especially after nuclear threats from Putin and Kim repeatedly prove to be empty threats, its ability to project power beyond a country's own borders seems more and more limited.
- refurb 4y ago
  I balk at calls for peace from Henry Kissinger, who didn't seem to have qualms at raining death on millions of innocent people for his own personal political gains. Nevertheless, I did read the article. “War monger suggests peace” Look at his track record! He’s wrong we need more war!
  - jamincan 4y ago
    Do you think your straw man reflects what I posted?
    - refurb 4y ago
      It's not a straw man. Just pointing out the delicious irony. You claim we shouldn't listen to Kissinger because he "didn't seem to have qualms at raining death on millions of innocent people". Your logic being, don't listen to his calls for peace, what we need is war. Which would unavoidable result in "raining death on [..] innocent people"
      - jamincan 4y ago
        I'm not claiming we need war at all. I am pointing out that Kissinger's road plan for peace is built on a false framework.
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    Exactly this. When the guy who never met a war he didn't like is telling you our current path is a bad idea, you had better fucking listen.
hulitu 4y ago
> How to avoid another world war by Henry Kissinger tells the guy not known for avoiding wars.
- yywwbbn 4y ago
  Which makes his insights quite unique and possibly valuable.
- rlanday 4y ago
  To be fair, I don’t think he’s been responsible for any world wars.
dandare 4y ago
It is a good first approximation to say that Henry Kissinger is always wrong.
psychphysic 4y ago
I rarely agree with Kissinger but he's right as far as I can see. I'd be the first to deride Russia's military effectiveness. But consider that the vast majority of the world is against them largely on every single front. And you see why they've earned their reputation as a super power. Russia is big with plenty of fossils. They could ruin the world simply by continuing to use their fossil fuels without regard to climate change. They could nuke themselves. They could conduct a few missile tests in space and precipitate a Kessler syndrome situation. They could trade nuclear secrets for more kamikazi drones. Do you see where I'm going? If you want Russia destroyed they you are asking for a world war. Peace requires we put up with them and encourage all governments to work for global health.
- yywwbbn 4y ago
  > They could nuke themselves. How is that helpful for them? But yeah, I agree in general
  - psychphysic 4y ago
    Most people think MAD requires that both sides have an effective means to carry out a strike on the enemy territory. The fact that Russian nuclear weapons used within Russian territory could destroy modern society tells you that MAD requires no such thing.
- sfifs 4y ago
  actual sustainable peace requires denuclearization (and possible fragmentation) of the Russian federation because a precedent has to be set for the international order that threat of weapons of mass destruction cannot be used for annexation. Right now, by arming Ukraine, NATO is stripping Russia of conventional forces that keep the nucleae weapons safe and the federation together. Hopefully the emdgame will be achieved politically vs by first strike.
  - psychphysic 4y ago
    This is the problem I'm afraid. Perhaps it's well meaning but by asking for the end of Russia you're just another war hawk voice asking for world war.
defrost 4y ago
Why Milosevic, but not Kissinger? [1] ..a stupendous liar with a remarkable memory [2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/25/milosevictrial.petertatchell https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/25/milosevictrial... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger
ProjectArcturis 4y ago
I'm reminded of the classic Onion headline: "Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point" The deal he proposes is that Russia returns to the pre-2022 borders, and Ukraine joins NATO. That second point is critical, because without that protection by Western powers, Russia would surely rearm and reinvade Ukraine in a few years. The alternative is that the war continues for several years, until Putin finally loses the will to fight, or is overthrown. That latter prospect, while initially appealing, would almost certainly result in a new leader who is just as aggressive, but more effective and less isolated. Or, potentially, Russia itself might break up under the strain of prolonged war. We've never had a civil war in a nuclear power, but if you think that has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention so far.
- trasz3 4y ago
  We had USSR split up 30 years ago, and it turned out quite well. Why assume making it happen again would result in something terrible?
  - ProjectArcturis 4y ago
    That was (mostly) a peaceful split, with countries that had been dominated by the Soviets for 50 years gaining independence. The rest of the Russian empire has been under Moscow/St Petersburg for 500 years. The ethnic Russian elites will not give up their Asian territories without a fight. And, after what's happened to Ukraine, none of the new states will give up their nukes. We'll have a nuclear armed Dagestan, run by whoever was aggressive enough to seize power.
  - hackinthebochs 4y ago
    This is what is called over-updating on a single event. Probably the key difference is that each soviet republic was already a discrete identity based on ethnic, cultural, and historic ties, and so the default was simply to revert to that identity. For a state with no clear discrete sub-identities, nor with enough economic or military autonomy to survive as an independent state, civil war becomes much more likely as these lines are forcibly drawn.
dumpsterlid 4y ago
[flagged]
- yywwbbn 4y ago
  True he is a war criminal and probably an awful person in most ways. That does not mean his understanding of the situation is incorrect. And I can’t disagree with most of what he’s saying from an utilitarian point of view. To be fair I would expect a cold blooded sociopath/psychopath to be more rational than most people (e.g. Kitchner is not unlike Hannibal Lecter in that way)
  - dumpsterlid 4y ago
    [flagged]

17 points by hzlatar 4y ago

1. Don't let people like Henry Kissinger run things.

I balk at calls for peace from Henry Kissinger, who didn't seem to have qualms at raining death on millions of innocent people for his own personal political gains. Nevertheless, I did read the article. Kissinger's framework for understanding the world is still rooted in an outdated cold war mentality and this article seems like he is naively trying to shove the cat back in the bag and return to a paradigm that he felt he understood. But I don't think we can return to the way things were. Russia's hegemony over its neighbours was not because of its nuclear power, but because of its military power, which it has demonstrated is considerably weaker than we had previously understood. I think this conflict has actually weakened the power of a nuclear arsenal considerably compared to conventional military strength, because it really has no strategic use beyond nuclear deterrence.

vlovich123 4y ago
With Russia‘s nukes, it seems unlikely Ukraine will invade Russia. It’s possible they wouldn’t be so cautious of Russia if it had disarmed its nuclear capabilities. EDIT: fixed the multiple wording mistakes that made the statement nonsense from start to finish.
- totalZero 4y ago
  It seems unlikely that Ukraine will invade Ukraine, because Ukraine occupies Ukraine and has done so ever since Ukraine became Ukraine. Perhaps you mean that it seems unlikely Ukraine will invade Russia due to Russian nuclear capability? What do you mean when you say "without Russia's nukes" (do you mean "with")?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- darthrupert 4y ago
  By Russia's fucked up interpretation of reality, Ukraine has already invaded Russia and is currently occupying two of its cities. Or did you mean they would invade real Russian territory, like Moscow? Why would they do that?
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    Russia territory from before all the conflict > why would they do that Russia has a regime that’s clearly hostile to Ukraine. Additionally, they have a history of trying to assisted people in their way politically. So, if you’re successfully pushing back the army, you have the momentum to try to overthrow this regime and ensure some long term security on your border. Whether or not that would work or be wise would be separate calculus but nuclear weapons in the hands of an unstable leader adds at least a little bit uncertainty that would make you pause in addition to everything else.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    They might, for instance, get tired of Russia sending missiles at Ukraine, and decide to go after the launch sites.
psychphysic 4y ago
It's sounds like you're arguing for war with Russia while they are weak?
- jamincan 4y ago
  Not at all. Kissinger specifically frames this as a war between two great powers over a conventionally armed nation. In this framing, western nations have the power to end this war and set the terms for peace. But I don't believe this is true, and I feel this is a relic of a different era. Western nations can influence the war - sending Ukraine more arms, or cutting off supply would certainly influence its chances. But fundamentally Ukraine is a sovereign nation and will decide peace on its own terms. Eastern European nations threatened by a world order where their sovereignty is subordinate to Russia's will support Ukraine on their terms. This is just fundamentally not a Russia v. NATO war as much as it might be more convenient if it were.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    More than that: if the West pulls away and stops supporting Ukraine, it will not make peace. Imagine Russian army overcoming the remaining Ukraine defenses and occupying 100% of it's territory. So you think the people of Ukraine will grudgingly lay down arms, and return to normal daily life? Come on. Ukraine has always had a strong separatist movement while a part of the USSR. It was a founding member of the USSR, but the last vestiges of armed separatist forces were only suppressed by the end of 1950s. This was under Stalin, a tyrant with a very efficient suppression machine and no qualms about killing his subjects whatsoever. A peer comment suggests that it could be fine to just let Russia have what it's currently grabbed, and cease the fire ASAP. I think it'd be the one of the worst courses of action. An Ukraine defeated by Russia would be another Afghanistan. With current technology, and with the general ineptitude that the Russian state repeatedly demonstrates throughout the campaign, there's no doubt that guerilla warfare will be widespread and hurtful. This is on top of letting an authoritarian regime to conquer by war and annex a sovereign European state, right next to "real" Western states. This would send many signals, of all the wrong sorts, of what the Wast is going to put up with. In general, an abscess, once it exists, should be treated, one way or another, until it disappears completely. Stopping to treat it because it hurts is a way to make it hurt more, and become more dangerous.
mmmwww 4y ago
While I agree with you, I think this information will already be understood in coming negotiations. Although the author’s legitimacy is questionable, I read the solution he proposes as sensible: End of war. Removal of the army from Ukraine except for Crimea, at first and international oversight of referenda for the regions. Potential threat of cost of reparations and what it would mean for Russia to lose is probably what keeps Russia fighting, and away from the negotiation table.
- psychphysic 4y ago
  What Kissinger is correct about most is that none of this matters as much as ending this war. With hindsight ww2 could have been avoided if it wasn't for the prolonged punishment for ww1. Russia has too many ways to ruin the world for it to be worth not trying out best to bring them into the fold tightly and fast. Sadly this will upset Ukrainians but that's unfortunately not as important as avoiding another world war. Heck as I spell out below, what would happen if Russia simply continues to use its own fossil fuel supply? That's bad enough.
  - yywwbbn 4y ago
    > With hindsight ww2 could have been avoided With hindsight most of WW2 could have been avoided if UK/France invaded Germany while its army was busy in Poland. Even during the Sudeten crisis, though this would have probably required a soviet intervention which would have been problematic. Then again the German Army wasn’t that well prepared for an all-out war back in 1938 and might have been bogged down in Czechoslovakia similarly to how Russia is now stuck in Ukraine. Support for Hitler in Germany wasn’t that necessarily that strong prior to the conquest of France especially amongst the military leadership* so a coup wouldn’t have been out of the question. The Battle of France pretty much turned Hitler into a German Napoleon. * mainly because they didn’t believe that a quick victory was an option and feared a repeat of WW2. They obviously wanted to win a war against France eventually.
  - nine_k 4y ago
    WWII in Europe ended not just with the fall of Berlin, but with the Marshall plan. If something like that happened after WWI, Europe would have been very different. But enacting a Marshall plan requires a definite military defeat first. Else it's pacifying the aggressor again, with the same efficacy as in 1938.
yywwbbn 4y ago
> Russia's hegemony over its neighbours was not because of its nuclear power, but because of its military power Arguably dependence on Russian oil & gas was as or more important. Basically countries in the region had a choice either pay the market price (or more if you don’t have access to the global market to buy natural gas) or submit to Russia politically and get massive discounts. Not an easy choice to make for poor post-soviet countries with no natural resources. e.g. I don’t think the Belarusian regime would survive long without energy subsidies from Russia. The situation in Ukraine prior to 2014/2004 was not that different.
- jamincan 4y ago
  That's a fair point; military power isn't the only way to project power. I do think, though, that the war in Ukraine may lead to us reevaluating just what nuclear power provides you. Certainly it is a deterrent to attack and especially a deterrent to a nuclear attack. But with time, especially after nuclear threats from Putin and Kim repeatedly prove to be empty threats, its ability to project power beyond a country's own borders seems more and more limited.
refurb 4y ago
I balk at calls for peace from Henry Kissinger, who didn't seem to have qualms at raining death on millions of innocent people for his own personal political gains. Nevertheless, I did read the article. “War monger suggests peace” Look at his track record! He’s wrong we need more war!
- jamincan 4y ago
  Do you think your straw man reflects what I posted?
  - refurb 4y ago
    It's not a straw man. Just pointing out the delicious irony. You claim we shouldn't listen to Kissinger because he "didn't seem to have qualms at raining death on millions of innocent people". Your logic being, don't listen to his calls for peace, what we need is war. Which would unavoidable result in "raining death on [..] innocent people"
    - jamincan 4y ago
      I'm not claiming we need war at all. I am pointing out that Kissinger's road plan for peace is built on a false framework.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  Exactly this. When the guy who never met a war he didn't like is telling you our current path is a bad idea, you had better fucking listen.

hulitu 4y ago

> How to avoid another world war by Henry Kissinger tells the guy not known for avoiding wars.

yywwbbn 4y ago
Which makes his insights quite unique and possibly valuable.
rlanday 4y ago
To be fair, I don’t think he’s been responsible for any world wars.

dandare 4y ago

It is a good first approximation to say that Henry Kissinger is always wrong.

psychphysic 4y ago

I rarely agree with Kissinger but he's right as far as I can see. I'd be the first to deride Russia's military effectiveness. But consider that the vast majority of the world is against them largely on every single front. And you see why they've earned their reputation as a super power. Russia is big with plenty of fossils. They could ruin the world simply by continuing to use their fossil fuels without regard to climate change. They could nuke themselves. They could conduct a few missile tests in space and precipitate a Kessler syndrome situation. They could trade nuclear secrets for more kamikazi drones. Do you see where I'm going? If you want Russia destroyed they you are asking for a world war. Peace requires we put up with them and encourage all governments to work for global health.

yywwbbn 4y ago
> They could nuke themselves. How is that helpful for them? But yeah, I agree in general
- psychphysic 4y ago
  Most people think MAD requires that both sides have an effective means to carry out a strike on the enemy territory. The fact that Russian nuclear weapons used within Russian territory could destroy modern society tells you that MAD requires no such thing.
sfifs 4y ago
actual sustainable peace requires denuclearization (and possible fragmentation) of the Russian federation because a precedent has to be set for the international order that threat of weapons of mass destruction cannot be used for annexation. Right now, by arming Ukraine, NATO is stripping Russia of conventional forces that keep the nucleae weapons safe and the federation together. Hopefully the emdgame will be achieved politically vs by first strike.
- psychphysic 4y ago
  This is the problem I'm afraid. Perhaps it's well meaning but by asking for the end of Russia you're just another war hawk voice asking for world war.

defrost 4y ago

Why Milosevic, but not Kissinger? [1] ..a stupendous liar with a remarkable memory [2] [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/25/milosevictrial.petertatchell https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/25/milosevictrial... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger

ProjectArcturis 4y ago

I'm reminded of the classic Onion headline: "Heartbreaking: The Worst Person You Know Just Made A Great Point" The deal he proposes is that Russia returns to the pre-2022 borders, and Ukraine joins NATO. That second point is critical, because without that protection by Western powers, Russia would surely rearm and reinvade Ukraine in a few years. The alternative is that the war continues for several years, until Putin finally loses the will to fight, or is overthrown. That latter prospect, while initially appealing, would almost certainly result in a new leader who is just as aggressive, but more effective and less isolated. Or, potentially, Russia itself might break up under the strain of prolonged war. We've never had a civil war in a nuclear power, but if you think that has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention so far.

trasz3 4y ago
We had USSR split up 30 years ago, and it turned out quite well. Why assume making it happen again would result in something terrible?
- ProjectArcturis 4y ago
  That was (mostly) a peaceful split, with countries that had been dominated by the Soviets for 50 years gaining independence. The rest of the Russian empire has been under Moscow/St Petersburg for 500 years. The ethnic Russian elites will not give up their Asian territories without a fight. And, after what's happened to Ukraine, none of the new states will give up their nukes. We'll have a nuclear armed Dagestan, run by whoever was aggressive enough to seize power.
- hackinthebochs 4y ago
  This is what is called over-updating on a single event. Probably the key difference is that each soviet republic was already a discrete identity based on ethnic, cultural, and historic ties, and so the default was simply to revert to that identity. For a state with no clear discrete sub-identities, nor with enough economic or military autonomy to survive as an independent state, civil war becomes much more likely as these lines are forcibly drawn.

dumpsterlid 4y ago

[flagged]

yywwbbn 4y ago
True he is a war criminal and probably an awful person in most ways. That does not mean his understanding of the situation is incorrect. And I can’t disagree with most of what he’s saying from an utilitarian point of view. To be fair I would expect a cold blooded sociopath/psychopath to be more rational than most people (e.g. Kitchner is not unlike Hannibal Lecter in that way)
- dumpsterlid 4y ago
  [flagged]