site banner

Israel-Gaza Megathread #2

This is a refreshed megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.

6
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

An increasingly centralized EU could be a world power if it takes the direction that the US did early on and gradually become a single state. Barring that, no single EU state is powerful enough to qualify, and too restrained by the rest of the EU to flex the requiref muscles.

Russia will likely be more of a regional power than a world power, I agree. However, do not underestimate the psychological impact that backing the losing horse has on international opinion. Ukraine will likely lose the war, which means Team USA lost the war.

Doesn't matter how costly it was to Russia, it demonstrates that even very heavy US backing doesn't protect you against even a dysfunctional regional power, which means many smaller states will look elsewhere, such as forming their own regional blocks.

Ukraine will likely lose the war, which means Team USA lost the war.

maybe, but Russia will not get more powerful as result of that adventure. Maybe if Ukraine would unconditionally surrender today they would end ahead in total, but soon even that would not help. And in more realistic scenarios it is unqualified disaster for Russia even if they will declare mission accomplished in the end.

Russia will not get more powerful as result of that adventure

No, but they will acquire 62,000 sq mi of land that is better than most of the land that they currently possess. And the cost is what? Weapons that would have expired anyway? Some consumer goods shortages for things that no population actually needs to begin with? 180,000 men? That's only 3 men per square mile, a hell of a deal! And that of course is leaving out the possibility of Russia winning anything more than it has already gotten.

Maybe there are some more extreme long-term costs that I'm not seeing, but I really don't think so. What move could possibly have better contributed to Russia's long-term overall position.

The problem for Russia is that they have not finished paying costs.

As mentioned "Maybe if Ukraine would unconditionally surrender today they would end ahead in total".

That's only 3 men per square mile, a hell of a deal!

Russia is not really having shortage of land, this is not a Singapore.

The problem for Russia is that they have not finished paying costs.

True, but I guess I'm not just expecting their costs to mount much higher without a proportionally larger gain. The front has largely stagnated. Any operations large enough to move the meter would also be liable to shred what's left of Ukraine's fighting population and end with much larger land gains.

Russia is not really having shortage of land, this is not a Singapore.

It's not about square footage, it's about production capability. Major steel manufacturing industries, a very significant chunk of farmland, some of the world's larger lithium deposits and (if they can push into Kharkiv province,) significant natural gas deposits. For western countries that are living on their inheritance, things like that aren't too important. For everyone else, resource extraction is vital. Even what they've taken now is a win. In the case of unconditional surrender? It becomes the biggest material win any country has had since World War II.

When thinking about the land gains through conquest, it's worth looking at through a lens of "How much would you have to pay to acquire that area and everything in it minus the people?" There is no way anyone could acquire it cheaper than the price Russia will pay for the war.

Now of course, all of this is predicated on "If they can keep it," but with the combination of nuclear MAD and the unwillingness of any other major powers to step into a full-scale hot war, that seems likely.

but I guess I'm not just expecting their costs to mount much higher without a proportionally larger gain

Well, I have different expectations/hopes/hopium. We will see.

An increasingly centralized EU could be a world power if it takes the direction that the US did early on and gradually become a single state. Barring that, no single EU state is powerful enough to qualify, and too restrained by the rest of the EU to flex the requiref muscles.

That's always how the EU, and each step of centralization, was sold. But who knows, maybe superpowerdom is just around the corner.

I mean, it's still a long ways off from being centralized enough. It doesn't even have a single unified military structure. The change a few years ago to be able to take on debt at the federal level was a big move in the right(?) direction though.

I mean, it's still a long ways off from being centralized enough. It doesn't even have a single unified military structure.

for start, idea of EU-as-a-superstate does not even have a clear support

it does not even have well unified goals, and even shared projects to produce weaponry were far from success as different countries have massively different needs and priorities

Right now "single unified military structure" is nonstarter. Though there are some very local unifications.

Well yes, that's the point of the boil-the-frog style gradual centralization. I don't expect them to achieve it anytime soon. More like 100 years from now.

Or something that will end up dragging the continent to the bottom, because the whole structure is corrupt by design. We'll find out eventually, I suppose.