Progressive Politics

4232 readers

1023 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world

368

"We need to talk seriously about general strikes, about breaking quorum, about exploiting parliamentary procedure to ensure that Republican legislation doesn't get through." (Kat Abughazaleh) (cdn.social.linux.pizza)

submitted 23 hours ago by CubitOom@infosec.pub to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

66 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Source

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works -1 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

I envision a two-part credible deterrence plan that turns Taiwan into a “porcupine” too costly for the PRC to invade, by providing them with weapons to defend themselves and committing to actually defending the island if they do invade.

It's more the military armament implementation as a pre-emptive and deterrant policy. So perhaps 'pro-MIC including war with China' might've been more technically correct? Or a less globalized M.A.D. policy? Localized?

Nonetheless she's probably going to be no worse and probably better than the retiring incumbent at any rate, so I can even just chalk it up as an electoral strategy.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 6 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

If a defense strategy doesn't include "we will use weapons to stop you from doing this" it isn't actually a defense plan, it's a strongly worded letter.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works -2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, but:

without touching the political One China Policy outlined in the Shanghai Communiqué

Coupling that with increasing armaments is what spurred the Kissinger reference. It kinda constrains the trajectory to escalating towards war.

Which, well, as we are seeing unfold with Iran now and have with the American boondoggles of the 21st century, may not serve Taiwan or the US in the long run.

[–] Soggy@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Lip service must be given to the OCP lest Mainland China decide playing the long game isn't worth it. Speaking against the policy is a signal that the only legitimate claim to Taiwan is through force, while also jeopardizing trade with the entire West Pacific.

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Is providing Ukraine aid and arms pro-war?

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works -3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Ukraine is an active warzone, so that switch is already flipped.

As a policy of deterrent though, arming a proxy nation to the teeth I do find to be pro-war.

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

But, if they are in an active war. Wouldn't sending them aid and arms prolong the war? Wouldn't that be pro-war according to how I understand your argument? Perhaps it might even lead to more deaths then if Russia would just conquer it without the ability for Ukraine to resist invasion.

Pro-war doesn't mean just preparing for war right? It means a desire for war.

(For the record, I think we should be sending aid and arms to Ukraine. I'm just trying to follow your logic.)

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

But, if they are in an active war. Wouldn't sending them aid and arms prolong the war? Wouldn't that be pro-war according to how I understand your argument?

Sending an active war aid and arms is pro-war by using that logic, yes. But that's not the point I was making, which was to armaments as a deterrent strategy. I simply don't think it prevents war, like a deterrent would or should.

To me the pro-war aspect is not the scale of destruction or costs as it is whether pathways to peace or diplomacy are being closed off, or otherwise escalating military tensions and provocations. The destructive costs are double edged, which is the basis of my view, and why I don't support the more death and destruction rationale to deterrence.

(For the record, I think we should be sending aid and arms to Ukraine. I'm just trying to follow your logic.)

And I don't fault that, really. There are different goals in play than preventing war once war starts.

So like Kat's saying do with Taiwan what wasn't done with Ukraine by committing to a defense of Taiwan maximizing armament and commiting direct intervention. To me that's a pro-war position, albeit one agnostic to whether it pays off or not. (I generally think it doesn't work out long-term.) But not touching the One China Policy, however is where the Kissinger red flags started flying for me.

(And for the record I think she's going to win and I don't have a problem with that. She'll likely/hopefully be better than who she is replacing. My current rep is a Zionist so if anything I'd take a China hawk like Kat if I could hotswap.)

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

Ukraine giving up it's nukes was one of the reasons it was invaded. Also, the US promised to defend Ukraine incase it was attacked as part of the negotiations for them giving up their nukes, but that promise was broken.

For more info in the topic, see Ukraine and weapons of mass destruction

Ukraine inherited about 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 nuclear warheads that remained on Ukrainian territory.[2] Thus Ukraine became the third largest nuclear power in the world (possessing 300 more nuclear warheads than Kazakhstan, 6.5 times less than the United States, and ten times less than Russia)[3] and held about one third of the former Soviet nuclear weapons, delivery system, and significant knowledge of its design and production.[4]

...

In 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia for dismantlement and became a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in exchange for economic compensation and assurances from Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom to respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.[6][7] Almost twenty years later, Russia, one of the parties to the agreement, invaded Ukraine in 2014 and subsequently also from 2022 onwards.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

but that promise was broken.

That is ultimately where my criticism falls to. I believe the US and NATO powers cynically never had any intention to back up Ukraine to ths extent being promised. Both then and now.

Overpromising and underdelivering is a pattern I want broken.

Like, I want my country to be subject to international law and the ICC. I would love to see many of my elected leaders arrested for war crimes. (And the whole other thing with the pedophilia.)

Honestly I think dragging Bibi and Trump to the Hague would be one of the strongest actual deterrents of more war around the globe.

[–] CubitOom@infosec.pub 2 points 10 hours ago

Agreed there.