TheDemonRazgriz
No bio...
User ID: 3577
TheDemonRazgriz
3mo ago
I think the US would be fine with a Canada that has a formal commitment to neutrality.
Do you really? I’m curious about your reasoning because that seems far from obvious to me. With the status quo, even with a fairly dysfunctional Canada, the US gets a lot of value out of NORAD and, to a lesser but still meaningful extent, Canadian participation in the Five Eyes. There’s certainly room for improvement (e.g. Canada needs to be far more wary of foreign influence/espionage in its government, and needs to change its immigration policy before it becomes a source of illegal immigrants and smugglers like Mexico is) but a truly neutral Canada would seem to be strictly worse for the US.
TheDemonRazgriz
3mo ago
The have Australia as well, IIRC.
TheDemonRazgriz
3mo ago
It’s practically axiomatic that civilization requires (and arguably is) the control of young men.
This is an insightful framing that I haven’t seen before. I think you see the same concept in negative form in situations which we describe as “societal (or civilizational) breakdown.” When the structures of social control break down, such as in failed states like Somalia, we see uncontrolled young men follow their violent instincts, self-organize into warbands, and fight each other. Tribal societies where the elders have stronger control are less likely to fight each other compared to a situation where the younger men have more power.
TheDemonRazgriz
3mo ago
Most countries pay lip service to the One China policy, yes, but in practice most countries do have separate relations with Taiwan, because Taiwan is de facto a separate country from mainland China and has been for decades.
Long-time lurker, first-time poster. Please allow me to begin by politely registering my disdain for your vagueposting.
I am informed, in fact, that this forum is overrun with Russian Propaganda, such that some no longer wish to participate.
I can sympathize with your sentiment, but while turnabout may be fair play, that does not make it good.
Anyway. For a little context, since of course nobody here knows who I am, I think my general political position is to the left of the median Motte attitude on many issues, but at the same time I have some views that would probably see me labeled a “dangerous fascist” or something like that in the deep-blue city in which I live. When it comes to the Russo-Ukrainian War, I would accept being labeled as something of a hawk. I believe we should have responded to the 2014 invasion of Crimea much the way we responded to 2022’s “full-scale” invasion. In fact, at the time I recall writing a short essay for my high school AP Lang class arguing in favor of sending Javelin missiles to the Ukrainian forces… but I digress.
So to answer each of your direct questions:
- I would provide weapons, money, training, and intelligence, much as we are now. Direct US military involvement, whether from the air only or with boots on the ground, would be foolish in the extreme. I doubt I need to convince anyone of that! However, I would have fewer strings attached to the support. I would have provided higher-end weapons sooner (with a concomitant greater urgency toward improving our own materiel production) and would apply far fewer, if any, restrictions on their use. Probably the only restriction I would apply is not to fire indiscriminately on civilian targets. Disallowing the Ukrainians from firing into Russian territory is/was, in my view, just nonsensical. This policy allowed the Russians to mass equipment just across the border, defeating the purpose of providing advanced long-range weapons in the first place. At that point you may as well not send any aid at all.
- The target end state of the war would be a formal peace treaty with a minimum of territorial concessions to Russia. Obviously Russia is the stronger country and a certain amount of concessions would be necessary, for example, I don’t see any realistic pathway to Ukraine getting Crimea back as part of the negotiations. We would be aiming for an outcome somewhat like Finland achieved at the end of the Winter War: losing on paper and giving up territory, but retaining independence and control over most of the country with formal recognition by the aggressor. This could in practice look something like giving up Crimea, probably Donetsk and Luhansk, and the occupied territory in Kursk while the Russians withdraw from the rest of their currently-occupied territories. After this treaty the Ukrainians would retain their democratic government and general pro-Western alignment.
- I suppose if Ukraine’s government collapsed, or if the country suffered demographic collapse, or if it looked like Russia was going to end the war stronger than when it started. Each of those would be fair grounds to call the US/Western backing a failure/waste, but frankly none of these really seem to be on the table as things stand.
To be honest, many of the right-wing-ish takes I’ve seen against aid for Ukraine (not necessarily yours, to be clear, I don’t really know what you personally think) seem to rely on an oddly naive view of the Russian Federation as a geopolitical actor, as though Putin is sitting at the table ready to sign a peace treaty and it is only Zelensky’s personal perfidy that is stopping this from happening. It takes two sides to end a war. The Russians have no incentive— none— to come to the table if the West ceases to back Ukraine. Let us not forget that the initial invasion plan was for an immediate decapitation strike to topple the Kyiv government and Russian troops parading in the streets on a days-long timetable. The big-picture goal has always been to absorb and annex certain territories (basically Crimea plus a connection to Russia proper) and turn the rump Ukraine into a subservient client state, like Belarus.
If the US drops its support for Ukraine, it will not lead to a swift end to the fighting, it will lead to an acceleration in fighting (even if after a pause) as the Russians press their newfound advantage. The only way this war ends in even a semi-permanent peace is for a formal treaty to be signed (probably involving some kind of UN, EU, or Turkish monitoring mission along the negotiated border), and that can only happen with Ukraine in a position of relative strength.
Interesting -- I do see your point. I think the status quo of Canadian relations/border control would have to get a lot worse before I'd see neutrality as an upgrade, but that's not impossible. The fundamental problem is that it's hard for me to imagine a neutral Canada as more or even equally resilient to Chinese infiltration/influence than a status-quo Canada, such that "a convincing guarantee that China will never be able to threaten the US from the North" is basically impossible unless Canada is in a military alliance with the US (i.e., NORAD). I can't really imagine a scenario where a neutral Canada doesn't become a diplomatic and intelligence battleground between the US and China (as well as Russia and India, among others).
Annexing Canada outright would probably be desirable in an abstract sense but is entirely unrealistic; a much-more-subservient or "puppet" Canada would definitely be good for the US though. Especially given their sometimes very strange foreign policy choices (too deferential to China when the US is their open enemy, weirdly hostile to India when the US is trying to bring them into alignment -- as an aside I think the bad relationship with India is an ironic consequence of importing such an enormous number of poorly-assimilated Indian immigrants, they are importing grievances and political fractiousness along with them). If, as you said in your previous comment, Canada essentially gave up its foreign policy to US control then that would be a great outcome for the US, although of course that seems very unlikely.
I do wonder if Trump is aiming for that sort of outcome, albeit in his particular incompetent and clumsy manner. Perhaps he thinks he can bring the Canadian government to heel and force them into a subservient position internationally, or force them to take action on their immigration/border control fiasco... but trying to do this through an "all stick, no carrot" approach seems like a terrible idea. Not least because he's making the Canadian conservative party less popular through association, and if they get another liberal government (which is only even on the table because of the backlash against Trump spilling into a backlash against the Canadian right, prior to this diplomatic clusterfuck the conservatives were pretty much locked in to win, afaik) it will make pretty much every US goal harder to achieve.
More options
Context Copy link