this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2025
1129 points (96.7% liked)
People Twitter
7414 readers
1836 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The U.S. military has done nothing to defend their "nation" for over 100 years. They ONLY defend the corporate oligarchs' ability to steal resources and use slave labor in third world countries.
Lmao yet Ukraine still stands thanks to American intelligence and military apparatus.
I'm not even an American but this kindergarten sentiment on Lemmy is so exhausting.
And then promptly fucked right out of peace negotiations immediately after signing the resources deal. Fits perfectly well with
Yeah you get a lot of these 'moral purity absolutists' with all the nuance of an edgy teen. Some of them, or course, are edgy teens, but 100 years is a super odd choice even so. You'd think by the time they were 13 they'd have heard of at least one war that came pretty close to defense against a malign hegemonic power with ambitions of global domination....
It really reminds me how I felt when I was an edgy 16-year old but luckily for me social media wasn't really a thing yet so it didn't bother anyone.
Are you suggesting that kindergarten political thought is somehow less valid? You must hate children!
Which they provide exactly as long as they profit exponentially from it. Dont pretend like the US would provide foreign aid out of generosity.
I am of the mindset that a good thing done for selfish reasons is still ultimately a good thing done.
Me too, but that still doesnt contradict the comment above drmoose's
I never said it did, I'm just offering perspective.
It's possible that you're overestimating the US contribution
Looking at the conflicts they have been explictly or covertly involved in, it does seem like they are attempting to create a hegemony. That's not to say that some good doesn't get done along the way but it is more of a byproduct than the intent.
But... Ukraine falling to Russia would strengthen the US's military (and cultural) hegemony over the western world. If this truly was the rationale behind the US's involvement in Ukraine, everything we've done thus far would make absolutely zero sense. Strengthening Ukraine and spurring investment into the home-grown EU defense industry only serves to weaken our position as the lynchpin of NATO. A better justification for US involvement in Ukraine is that this is a great opportunity to starve Russia's economy by forcing them into conflicts they cannot economically support (which was much the same strategy that lead to the collapse of the soviet union).
It's also a great opportunity for Russia to starve the US economy by getting them involved in conflicts it cannot economically support. And the US is far more overextended due to other conflicts.
You might have a point if the US were fighting in Ukraine, but... we're not? We're advising the Ukraine army, sharing intelligence we'd be gathering anyways and giving AFU a bunch of export weapon systems we found by rummaging around in the pentagon's couch cushions. This has been a spectacular opportunity for the US because it costs us almost nothing, yet what used to be considered our biggest opponent is teetering on the brink of cultural and economic collapse. Seriously, even if Kiev were to fall tomorrow NATO would be no-contest the victor. Nobody cares about the bear any more.
Yes, we're just sacrificing their lives for the realpolitic of weakening Russia, which is also bad.
Lmao, y'all actually believe this shit.
The US spends nearly a trillion dollars a year on the military, more than the next nine countries in the world combined. Every government program designed to actually help people gets cut to feed more money into the war machine. It's no wonder we have "military equipment between our couch cushions," because military equipment is what virtually all our tax money goes towards, when it's the reason we can't have things like free healthcare or higher education. Notice how we never seem to find money between our couch cushions for those things?
Did it? Who considered the Russian Federation a bigger opponent than the PRC?
Looked in a mirror lately? The US just elected Trump, in part because people think he represents an alternative to the disastrous establishment policies that pour endless money into pointless foreign wars, and to an economy that is working for fewer and fewer people. Seems like "on the brink of cultural collapse" describes the US to a T.
But moreover, the whole American Empire is falling apart around us. Every year, more and more countries that are just as significant as Ukraine are choosing to make deals with China, to start trading and cooperating with them instead of us. Because the US is trying to rule the world through force and intimidation, while China is manufacturing consumer goods and building hospitals and infrastructure for developing and middle-income countries - the things we won't even build domestically. Who would want to side with us when you can look at our domestic situation and see that it's declining and awful? If that's the best we can provide our own citizens, then what could we offer to other countries?
If I were an "accelerationist," like people sometimes baselessly accuse me of, I would 100% support spending more on the military and getting involved in these stupid unwinnable conflicts all over the world, dumping endless amounts of money towards any situation we can use bombs and not sparing a penny for actually making anyone's life better, because those self-destructive policies will ensure the downfall of the US more than anything else could. The problem with that being, the US is likely to start WWIII in that scenario, the more clear it becomes that the military is literally the only tool that we could possibly use to maintain hegemony, since it's the only thing we spend money on.
Oh boy. Only have time for a top three, so in no particular order:
Who considered the Russian Federation a bigger opponent than the PRC?
... Literally everyone. China was aligned as a 'follower' of the Russian Federation's geopolitical lead prior to russia's utter stomping in Ukraine. Was it incorrect? Well, obviously. But the image of the great russian bear was the specter keeping the western world up at night.Looked in a mirror lately? The US just elected Trump
A blatant whatabboutism but just to address it: The US will be fine (diminished geopolitcally no doubt, but still in a powerful position) after this all gets sorted out internally. We survived the last trump admin, we'll come through this one too. This just isn't the fall of the roman empire like oh so many people are claiming, politically it just doesn't even resemble it.building hospitals and infrastructure for developing and middle-income countries - the things we won’t even build domestically.
I... what? We opened half a dozen hospitals in my state alone last year. Additionally, you know the US has been the world's largest source of charity and investment in developing nations for decades, right? Look you're repeating lines from some seriously anti-china propaganda here and it's a little weird. You know about trump canceling USAID and why that's bad, right?There's lots of things to criticize the US on (and it's something I do all the time, lets be clear) but you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
(Okay, honorable mention because I just can't with this shit:)
The reason we don't have healthcare is fascism, not "military spending taking all the money". We could 100% have free uni and healthcare without reducing a cent to the pentagon's budget. In many states we even have (limited) free healthcare, entirely funded by state budgets. You're just repeating bullshit right-wing talking points like they're objective truth, but with a lefty spin on them.
Really? I certainly didn't. The PRC has a much larger economy and military and much greater diplomatic influence. To paint them as a "follower" of Russia at any point in history is ridiculous. I guess lib circles have been obsessing about "Russiagate" and whatnot but that's not really serious analysis.
"Whataboutism" isn't a real thing and if it was, this isn't one. We're literally talking about whether the war is accelerating US decline, and now literally anything I say as supporting evidence is categorically ruled out by this absurdity.
Hilarious that you think that will happen. But of course, Trump and what he represents is just a bump in the road, a strange anomaly that came out of nowhere and may disappear just as randomly. That is, if you have no understanding of where Trumpism came from. It's here to stay, I'm afraid.
Lmao, do you have a source for that?
Corporate wants you to find the difference between these pictures.
The unspoken implication there was credible people. Generally one can assume things like that, if they're discussing in good faith. It's like how I didn't point out you're so unfamiliar with this topic that you can't even spell realpolitik right - it's a minor concession made to ease conversation that costs me nothing. "The benefit of the doubt", as it were.
Oh buddy, no. Just no.
Affecting a condescending tone is not a substitute for having an argument or positions with any basis in reality.
Oh buddy, yes. Just yes.
It's literally made up, it has no logical basis and is just a tool to shut down people pointing out relevant and important context for the purpose of propaganda and controlling the conversation. Or in this case, it's not even shutting down context, it's shutting down points that are directly related to the topic of discussion, which is why I said, even if it were a thing, this isn't it.
I'll take it you don't have the source I requested, btw, meaning that you just made that claim up and it's complete bullshit.
Lmao, just hush dude
Lmao you mean you were talking about donations from individuals? Now that's a "whataboutism." I thought we were talking about policy.
Didn't notice there were multiple links, I take it?
No, I didn't.
The first link is the only one that's at all relevant. That data shows that the US spent more than China, but only in ODA (official development assistance) spending. As one of the sources for the China number notes, "the bulk of Chinese spending focused on other official flows (OOF), which is primarily intended for commercial projects, AidData said." It seems that the numbers provided exclude the bulk of China's massive BRI investments. Please note that you said, "Additionally, you know the US has been the world’s largest source of charity and investment in developing nations for decades, right?"
That source still shows the US ahead in the period from 2000 to 2014, but that data is pretty old at this point and the rate of China's investments has been growing, if I'm not mistaken. Either way, even if the US is narrowly ahead, it's a richer country and it's a much smaller fraction of the military budget compared to the same numbers for China, so my characterization of their approaches is still broadly accurate.
I have no idea what the second link is supposed to be showing.
The third link, as I addressed, is completely irrelevant.
I have no idea what the fourth link is supposed to be showing.
Do you notice when you're doing that? Constantly shifting the conversation to a new topic when you've been batted down over the last one, rejecting things out of hand that might go counter to your position instead of trying to at least understand the intent with which they were shared? Remember when this was about Ukraine, Instead of what you're trying to shift it to, the moral relativity betwixt China and the US?
All those links are highly relevant here (I admit #2 requires you to scroll a little, and #4 is a database frontend so maybe it was unfair to assume you'd be able to interact with it), arguably the third link most of all (it shows a ton of things in that very compact table, individual donations yes and it's a fine example of how China's restrictions on extraterritorial charity affect their potential impact.)
Look I get it, you're pro-china, but you're just assuming I'm opposed to you. It's... I mean, it's the stereotypical reason why so many people dislike .ml users, you're constantly coming in here and intentionally provoking interactions that you comfortably know the dance steps to. You personally are persecuting yourself, and it's kinda embarrassing. Gladhandedly dismissing the other party, focusing only on the things you support, never reflecting on anything that's actually said in favor of attacking in kind.
(edit:) Look you did it again. "Even if you were right, it doesn't matter and anyways I'm still right"
Anyways, here's a fun hypothetical example: I do not support China because of their ongoing public genocide of the uyghur people.
Oh, you edited it:
Which data on that time period wouldn't be pretty old?
That was never the topic of discussion, I was never arguing US vs China, but I'm a nice person so you're free to claim your uncontested victory on this point.
I haven't done that even once this conversation. That would require me first to have been batted down on anything this conversation. Point me where I've done what you're accusing me of, even once.
However...
...You just did exactly that. Projection much?
Also, whataboutism.
Haven't done that either. In fact, I just spent time investigating the data you sent me, and conceded the possibility that you may be right on the relevant point, even if your overall perspective is still wrong.
That's very relevant to the point being discussed. What I said was that the war in Ukraine was contributing US overextension and decline, and the focus on military conflicts over peaceful development is causing it to lose ground to China. Did you lose the train of the conversation? My whole thesis is that the money spent in Ukraine would be better spent on peaceful economic investments, either at home or abroad. I don't recall making any arguments about "the moral relativity betwix the US and China," only comparing the facts of their spending and their general approaches to geopolitics.
See how you're trying to impose artificial limits on the conversation, excluding points that you don't like even when they come up naturally?
One of those links is a fucking search bar. That's like if I sent you a link to www.google.com and then asserted that it was "highly relevant," with no further explanation connecting it to anything. Clown shit.
Edit:
That's... the point. The time period is pretty old.
Ok, cool! So you agree that the US should copy China's approach of avoiding military entanglements like Ukraine and instead focus on peaceful economic development! Glad we got that cleared up.
(Apologies that this response took a minute, there were scythe-related hijinx)
…You just did exactly that. Projection much?
While it's not really a whatabboutism (since I'm not trying to deflect the conversation to an unrelated topic, I don't actually want to talk about the Uyghur right now), you're otherwise 100% correct. Explicitly, even! That's the whole reason I said it, to provide an (ironic) example and to point out your response in a way that is personally unimpeachable. How did you react to it when you read it?
One of those links is a fucking search bar.
Damn, sorry about the OECD link - I didn't catch that it was loading a cached page when I followed it. Public entity webdesign, what a charming thing. This one should be fixed. It's a great site to get familiar with in general, really. An invaluable source for a great many topics.See how you’re trying to impose artificial limits on the conversation, excluding points that you don’t like even when they come up naturally?
Again, you're not wrong and this was the explicit point. That's what all that lampshading I did was about.
[...]even if your overall perspective is still wrong.
I'm not sure I strictly disagree here - I'm curious why you think the US is overextending itself? In what ways have we overextended, or what signs of that are you seeing that I'm not of a potentially catastrophic strategic overinvestment are present in the Ukraine war? I won't argue that China isn't making great strides geopolitically, that is patently true, but the gains they are making are mainly at the Russian Federation's expense - China has moved in to support many regions that were once staunch bastions of Russocentric influence.That's not to say they're not gaining ground against the US, but the US and China's economies and development are closely tied together. Example: China is the #1 home country for foreign students studying in the US, in every university system with which I am familiar (which is west coast and ivy league I admit, I don't know much about student populations in the flyover states except to say that Earlham and OSU both follow this trend the last time I checked) and we sponsor thousands upon thousands of our graduate researchers to Chinese universities in kind. The US has as well entrusted a great deal of technological advances, even licenses for silicon design technology and other secrecy-order technologies like ultra-high-yield solar panels (rumored 45% efficiency) (this is the only S.O. technology I know of to be acknowledged) to China, and that wasn't even done for entirely hubristic or greed-based reasons. Realistically, China is the only near-peer power to the US, and (aside from that little whoops about russia) that's been true for a long damn time.
Anyways, Cooperation between the two states would be beneficial for the whole world. If we can both clear up our issues with homegrown fascists, and oligarch worship we might actually be able to get a whole lot of good done for the world, especially now that Russia has effectively removed itself from the world stage (and now stands impotently in the shadows, trying to be menacing). Joint US/China projects are already some of the most influential in the world, extending this would be to everyone's benefit.
Sorry, things are getting... dumb... here but I think that hits your major points. I don't like to do full point-by-point breakdowns, since it just spirals into longer and longer walls of text if both parties take to it, and I already spend enough of my time bickering with well-meaning randos on this website. This seems like a decent response to your overall thesis, though?
Ah and the edit points:
Oh come on, you're better than resorting to middleschool-tier baiting. We both know it's more complicated than you're presenting even if there's no chinese boots on the ground.
I think we might both be confused here; to my mind, bringing up the age of the data which is being used to address a historical point seems almost ontological. Why are we arguing about it?
Thank you for providing a serious response.
Aside from what I mentioned about countries turning to China because of our militaristic focus, I think the biggest sign is in domestic politics, with Trump.
Before Trump, there was this bipartisan consensus on what I call, "Idealist Interventionism," the idea that US foreign policy is, and should be, driven by benevolence and the defense and expansion of democracy. The abject failure of the War on Terror has bred a strong tendency of skepticism of this approach, manifesting in a variety of beliefs about why it isn't true or doesn't work.
It's a bit of a tangent but worth explaining, as I see it, there are three broad categories of critics of that approach (Liberalism): Nationalists, Libertarians, and Socialists. Nationalists think the problem is that foreign policy should be driven by overtly, aggressively, and unapologetically prioritizing "American interests." Libertarians generally don't like foreign entanglements because it's a form of "the government doing stuff," and they believe it will necessarily be conducted in an inefficient way. Socialists, such as myself, believe that the emphasis on the military over peaceful economic development is the problem.
I believe that the era of "Idealist Interventionism" being singularly dominant in American politics is gone. Trump has been successful because he has been able to court both the Nationalists and the Libertarians, while Kamala told the Socialists to get bent, and instead sought to build a bipartisan coalition represented by the Cheney's who are part of that old, bipartisan consensus. In my opinion, this is a sort of chauvinistic perspective that's failing to adapt to the times, and it will likely continue to fail until the Democrats get it through their heads to at least make gestures towards any of the critic groups - instead of dismissing them all as "Russian bots," which only makes it easier for Trump to paper over disagreements.
Currently, we are in crisis, because the ever-strengthening far-right is the only prominent political faction offering an alternative to a declining status quo that people are increasingly dissatisfied with, and this represents by far the greatest existential threat to the US of anything. Everything else comes second to that, if we hang on to Ukraine, but we turn into the Fourth Reich in the process, then what good is that?
If you want to argue that the conflict in Ukraine is largely unrelated to those economic conditions, you may be right. If you want to argue that military spending in general is, then you are wrong, but regardless, even if you are right, people still see billions going to war in Ukraine and Israel while they struggle to afford groceries, and "Why are we spending my tax dollars to fight a conflict halfway around the world? It's not our problem," is a fairly natural thought for people to have, for better or worse.
Either we need to keep people from having thoughts like that by avoiding such situations, or we need to provide a compelling (and simple/apparent) answer to those thoughts that doesn't involve turning to Trump and the far-right.
Absolutely, I 100% agree. I think that's fairly idealistic, but that's what I grew up envisioning in the 90's, "The End of History," when we could put aside conflicts and work together towards a common future. Unfortunately, I can't say I have confidence in that vision these days, because anti-China sentiment is so high, and there seems to be a bipartisan consensus around it.
My idealistic vision for US-China relations would be more like friendly competition, one where both countries compete to offer the better deal to developing and middle-income countries - while the US reduces military spending and avoids entanglements. Realistically, what I expect to happen is that the US will refuse to play that game and will continue trying to act like Superman as it becomes weaker and weaker, until such time that it starts WWIII in a desperate attempt to hold on to power. Or it could just gracefully accept decline, but like, Americans don't seem particularly prone to doing that.
Must have forgotten that Ukraine became a US state, these edgy kids