Hacker News Reader

Comment by nebula8804 | Hacker News Reader

>Now with Israeli funds making its way back to US politics, the crazier the politician the better his chances. With time, the benevolence of the US will be questioned by their allies and make the world a less predictable place.

What alternative do these other "partners" have? The Ukraine war has exposed how badly atrophied all their military might has become and lets be honest, post Ukraine, its clear that is the most important thing.

The EU still isn't meeting their minimum NATO commitments despite how far behind they are. It would take a massive amount of pain that the EU populations would have to bear in order to turn this around. I suspect all of a sudden EU population will become like the US population caring only about their own short term self interests more than what is "morally right". So the partnerships with the US will stay until the EU is willing to make that painful sacrifice to build out an alternative to the US military.

View on HN

A war only happens when the chances of winning or losing is indeterminate. Ukraine would have achieved a sane political outcome without loss of blood and treasure if the Russians managed to roll in their tanks and replaced the government with a Russian leaning one. This may sound unpalatable it would have restored status quo to the pre-western-funded coup against the Russian-friendly government that was in place.

Geopolitically, the NATO was heading towards obsolescence as Germany and Russian integrated their economies and achieve a lasting peace in the region. The US meddling in Ukraine weakens Europe and maintains the US status as the global hegemon.

and maintains the US status as the global hegemon.

The post-1945 globe evidently demands a hegemon. Which would you prefer, the US and its allies, or Russia and China? Those are your options. "None of the above" is not among them.

I believe that US has been an essential partner for a very long time. It demands great leadership but it is something sorely lacking over the past couple of decades.

It's called United Nations Organization. Although it hasn't been fully implemented. It was planned to have nuclear weapon monopoly and strong joint military forces to stop any aggression. Why didn't that happen? Because it's the US that gained the benefits out of both world wars. And its allies aren't allies but minions. Remember what happened to Charles de Gaulle?

Also note that no one has ever declared a war legally since WW II. Because of the UN and international conventions.

I'd also add that it's not entirely correct to consider countries equal top level actors in the historical process now and in the past. Nowadays so called political nations are technically subjects of international right, of course. But, for instance, in pre-Westphalian world that wasn't the case and these days there is plenty of evidence of transnational actors' influence. For example, Vatican dates back to that era I mentioned. And also who owns most the land in Europe? And how come these von Something German nazis avoided The Nuremberg Trials and ended up as board members in big industrial companies?

So no, the world doesn't need a hegemon in your sense. Taking into account the paralysis of the UN since 1991 it's more likely there will be another take on the ruins that.

Maybe so, maybe not, whatever. None of that changes my point: you'll get a 'hegemon' whether you want one or not, and no, it won't be the UN. It will either be a US-led alliance or one led by China. The world is becoming more polarized, not less, and I don't see how that trend can be reversed.

By the same token, at the national level, it's possible that dictatorship will emerge as the only stable model of governance. People everywhere seem to want it. The only principle that actually matters in politics turns out to be "Screw the other guy," and dictators are the best at that. If so, the US's ability to protest and resist its central government will turn out to be maladaptive, giving the advantage to the China-Russia alliance in the long run.

As for the church, they still own the land but not the hearts and minds. Or the nukes. Religion is irrelevant at the international scope. But of course it's still as useful to the rulers of individual nations as ever, because you can't maintain a cult of personality without exploiting the same mental bug that the church originally stumbled across.

You sure seem very eager to taste Putin's boot.

Apologies for the off topic discussion.

The eastern bloc countries suffered badly under soviet rule. When the Ukraine war started, I’m as eager as anyone to see that the Russians were dealt a black eye.

In retrospect, given the gas shortages that occurred in Europe, and the destruction of the German economy; the large number of deaths that occurred on both sides, and the war zone being turned into a weapons testing ground, I am left wondering who are the real winners and losers?

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact could also be considered an integration of German and Russian geo-political interests to achieve a lasting peace in the region. Just surrender.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com