7 ms·

US military power does most of its heavy lifting without throwing bombs. We're seeing the end of Pax Americana and it isn't pretty.

pphysch 6d ago
The two major ongoing wars are due to US foreign policy and could be over tomorrow if US government fully stopped supporting their respective belligerents. A good chunk of the human population has never known a "Pax Americana" and regions such as East Asia are clearly better off due to declining American hegemony.
- lovich 6d ago
  If you’re referring to Ukraine as one of the two, we already heavily reduced our support under Trump and there is no chance in hell that removing the leftover support causes Ukraine to capitulate by tomorrows, especially after recent territory gains and destruction of Russian logistical supply lines with Wildberries and their refinery infrastructure. Also if the other is Iran, lol at “stopped supporting respective belligerents” as if the US itself was not one of the major belligerents.
  - paimapi 6d ago
    I think the other example is Israel which seems like the much more obviously belligerent, actively colonial nation state that the US is largely propping up (and wouldn't exist otherwise) also, arguably, the half-century of creating, establishing, funding, and build-up of NATO largely supersedes the point that Trump cut spending there temporarily. that all came from American coffers and the current conflict there is a long hangover from that
    - JumpCrisscross 6d ago
      > colonial nation state that the US is largely propping up (and wouldn't exist otherwise) This is a baseless, American-centric notion I've heard frequently in New York and San Francisco. If America pulled support from Israel, it would find partners in other countries. India and China are at the top of the list–they want Israeli weapons technology and intelligence. Russia would probably play too. And depending on the kind of mess we leave Iran in, some Gulf countries may also find a way to come to a nuclear technology transfer deal with Tel Aviv.
      - lovich 6d ago
        I don’t know why so many people take it as a given that Israel only exists because of America. They used to be aligned with the USSR and we did a lot of work to peel them off into our own domain. They also have their own military industrial complex and are perfectly capable of manufacturing the weapons they need domestically. They also have nukes.
        paimapi 6d ago
        it probably has something to do with the fact that a full 2% of their GDP comes from US military aid alone: https://www.cfr.org/articles/us-aid-israel-four-charts https://www.cfr.org/articles/us-aid-israel-four-charts
        lovich 6d ago
        And they can redirect resources to the war if we removed it. If anything, removal of our support probably leads to the use of dumber less targeted weapons like carpet bombing or good ole white phosphorus that they’ve already demonstrated use of in past conflicts. If we were giving them 30+% of their gdp then yea, dropping that probably stops the conflict. 2% is just a budget reshuffle.
        paimapi 6d ago
        you should look up how much the 2008 financial crisis shrank the US GDP. 2% of an entire nation state's GDP especially with aid concentrated in gov\mil sectors of which a huge part of Israel's private sector is dependent on for grants is not a 'budget reshuffle'
        lovich 6d ago
        It is when there’s an existential threat which, agree with Israel’s government or not, they believe the neighboring Islamic factions are. I’m not claiming it would be easy but it’s definitely not an amount that losing would end the war overnight, which was the original claim I responded to
    - lovich 6d ago
      Israel vs Palestine is not a major conflict, especially given the one sided nature of the fight. Israel + US vs Iran is a majorish conflict but the US is directly a belligerent in that one. > also, arguably, the half-century of creating, establishing, funding, and build-up of NATO largely supersedes the point that Trump cut spending there temporarily. that all came from American coffers and the current conflict there is a long hangover from that Glossing over the Russian propaganda points accusing a defensive pact as a reason for starting a war, that still means that the conflict “ could be over tomorrow” is incorrect even if the US ended all support today.
  - pphysch 6d ago
    The USA is heavily supporting Ukraine with intelligence sharing, private financial support, StarLink, and """indirectly""" providing arms through European middlemen. The latter was Trump's innovation so that he can pretend he is upholding some foreign policy campaign promise without materially changing anything.
    - lovich 6d ago
      Private financial support doesn’t count, that’s private actors. I’ll accept Starlink as US support despite their back and forth on supporting Russia, because they are a large corporation requiring on government assent the same way Wildberries is for Russia. The indirect one you’ll have to sell me on as support. We’re selling shit, and like to make money. Someone buying our shit to give to Ukraine doesn’t count as support or antagonistic to me but as a neutral position.
- stickfigure 5d ago
  > regions such as East Asia are clearly better off due to declining American hegemony Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines would very much disagree.

pphysch 6d ago

The two major ongoing wars are due to US foreign policy and could be over tomorrow if US government fully stopped supporting their respective belligerents. A good chunk of the human population has never known a "Pax Americana" and regions such as East Asia are clearly better off due to declining American hegemony.

lovich 6d ago
If you’re referring to Ukraine as one of the two, we already heavily reduced our support under Trump and there is no chance in hell that removing the leftover support causes Ukraine to capitulate by tomorrows, especially after recent territory gains and destruction of Russian logistical supply lines with Wildberries and their refinery infrastructure. Also if the other is Iran, lol at “stopped supporting respective belligerents” as if the US itself was not one of the major belligerents.
- paimapi 6d ago
  I think the other example is Israel which seems like the much more obviously belligerent, actively colonial nation state that the US is largely propping up (and wouldn't exist otherwise) also, arguably, the half-century of creating, establishing, funding, and build-up of NATO largely supersedes the point that Trump cut spending there temporarily. that all came from American coffers and the current conflict there is a long hangover from that
  - JumpCrisscross 6d ago
    > colonial nation state that the US is largely propping up (and wouldn't exist otherwise) This is a baseless, American-centric notion I've heard frequently in New York and San Francisco. If America pulled support from Israel, it would find partners in other countries. India and China are at the top of the list–they want Israeli weapons technology and intelligence. Russia would probably play too. And depending on the kind of mess we leave Iran in, some Gulf countries may also find a way to come to a nuclear technology transfer deal with Tel Aviv.
    - lovich 6d ago
      I don’t know why so many people take it as a given that Israel only exists because of America. They used to be aligned with the USSR and we did a lot of work to peel them off into our own domain. They also have their own military industrial complex and are perfectly capable of manufacturing the weapons they need domestically. They also have nukes.
      - paimapi 6d ago
        it probably has something to do with the fact that a full 2% of their GDP comes from US military aid alone: https://www.cfr.org/articles/us-aid-israel-four-charts https://www.cfr.org/articles/us-aid-israel-four-charts
        lovich 6d ago
        And they can redirect resources to the war if we removed it. If anything, removal of our support probably leads to the use of dumber less targeted weapons like carpet bombing or good ole white phosphorus that they’ve already demonstrated use of in past conflicts. If we were giving them 30+% of their gdp then yea, dropping that probably stops the conflict. 2% is just a budget reshuffle.
        paimapi 6d ago
        you should look up how much the 2008 financial crisis shrank the US GDP. 2% of an entire nation state's GDP especially with aid concentrated in gov\mil sectors of which a huge part of Israel's private sector is dependent on for grants is not a 'budget reshuffle'
        lovich 6d ago
        It is when there’s an existential threat which, agree with Israel’s government or not, they believe the neighboring Islamic factions are. I’m not claiming it would be easy but it’s definitely not an amount that losing would end the war overnight, which was the original claim I responded to
  - lovich 6d ago
    Israel vs Palestine is not a major conflict, especially given the one sided nature of the fight. Israel + US vs Iran is a majorish conflict but the US is directly a belligerent in that one. > also, arguably, the half-century of creating, establishing, funding, and build-up of NATO largely supersedes the point that Trump cut spending there temporarily. that all came from American coffers and the current conflict there is a long hangover from that Glossing over the Russian propaganda points accusing a defensive pact as a reason for starting a war, that still means that the conflict “ could be over tomorrow” is incorrect even if the US ended all support today.
- pphysch 6d ago
  The USA is heavily supporting Ukraine with intelligence sharing, private financial support, StarLink, and """indirectly""" providing arms through European middlemen. The latter was Trump's innovation so that he can pretend he is upholding some foreign policy campaign promise without materially changing anything.
  - lovich 6d ago
    Private financial support doesn’t count, that’s private actors. I’ll accept Starlink as US support despite their back and forth on supporting Russia, because they are a large corporation requiring on government assent the same way Wildberries is for Russia. The indirect one you’ll have to sell me on as support. We’re selling shit, and like to make money. Someone buying our shit to give to Ukraine doesn’t count as support or antagonistic to me but as a neutral position.
stickfigure 5d ago
> regions such as East Asia are clearly better off due to declining American hegemony Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines would very much disagree.