Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

americanpurpose.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 225 posts

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#81

Post by bambax »

rayiner wrote: post #71
ogogmad wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we know that this is not another Afghanistan/Chechen-1 for Russia? They lost both of those, and I don't think those got off to the same troubled start (for Russia) as this one did. Think flight from the country, brain drain, economic meltdown, loss of 3 generals in one fortnight , Ukraine being flooded with weapons, equipment loss, major logistical failures, the loss of the information war... An outright defea…

The difference is that afghans and Chechnyans won’t surrender even if you turn their country into rubble around their feet. They’re accustomed to a brutally hard existence. I’m not sure Ukrainians are in the same situation.

I'm not sure either, but so far they have proven to be incredibly resilient.

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#82

Post by nickpinkston »

slim wrote: post #13

this guy is a fortune teller. the nerve he has is incredible. still predicting the future from a future he predicted would never exist in his book "the end of history"

Yea, that was my first thought too.

Now I'm expecting him to write: "The End of the End of the End of History".

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#83

Post by pphysch »

zozbot234 wrote: post #63
jonahbenton wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, have to disagree. His repeated "Putin is a brilliant strategist" is right out of right wing orthodoxy. Putin is a nascissist and a ruthless bully. His will to power is generally worshipped on the right, and mistaken for strategic brilliance, but it is not. For instance the endemic corruption in the regime is virtually absent from Mearsheimer analyses, but is critically important from a realist assessment. Puti…

"Realist" IR theory in general misses the importance of self-sustaining structures, systems and institutions. The peaceful international order itself is a cooperatively self-sustaining institution, and this handily explains why a huge amount of countries which benefit from a workable international order are reacting so quickly to Russia's actions.

How do you rationalize 'the West just loves peace' (paraphrasing) with our current policy of funneling huge amounts of weapons to back an Ukrainian insurgency, and the resolute opposition to Ukraine surrendering and saving thousands of lives on any terms?

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#84

Post by zozbot234 »

rayiner wrote: post #74
jonahbenton wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, have to disagree. His repeated "Putin is a brilliant strategist" is right out of right wing orthodoxy. Putin is a nascissist and a ruthless bully. His will to power is generally worshipped on the right, and mistaken for strategic brilliance, but it is not. For instance the endemic corruption in the regime is virtually absent from Mearsheimer analyses, but is critically important from a realist assessment. Puti…

> Sorry, have to disagree. His repeated "Putin is a brilliant strategist" is right out of right wing orthodoxy. Putin is a nascissist and a ruthless bully. It’s not a right wing versus left wing thing. It’s an idealist versus realist thing. Idealists tend to analyze international affairs in terms of ideology or the personality of individual leaders, rather than concrete facts on the ground, is precisely what has led…

There are idealism-heavy views of IR, but the most credited alternative to the narrow "Realist theory" that Mearsheimer falls back on would be "Liberal" theories. These share the basic Realist assumption about the importance of "facts on the ground" in terms of power and basic rationality, but they augment it with an understanding drawn from modern social science of how sustained cooperation among selfish actors can nonetheless arise even in such circumstances.

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#85

Post by pphysch »

ogogmad wrote: post #69
pphysch wrote: post #28

I read the title and assumed Fukuyama would be humbly accepting the "defeat" of his "end of history" vision for a unipolar world... > 1. Russia is heading for an outright defeat in Ukraine. LOL

How do we know that this is not another Afghanistan/Chechen-1 for Russia? They lost both of those, and I don't think those got off to the same troubled start (for Russia) as this one did. Think flight from the country, brain drain, economic meltdown, loss of 3 generals in one fortnight , Ukraine being flooded with weapons, equipment loss, major logistical failures, the loss of the information war... An outright defea…

Afghanistan was about Soviet/American imperial conquest & controlling Asia.

Chechnya was about suppressing separatism / national security.

Ukraine is also about national security, but a rung up from Chechnya because Moscow is concerned about a hostile military empire putting hypersonics there. Cuban Missile Crisis but even more extreme (imagine if Cuban extremists were shelling and killing Cuban Americans in Florida and ethnically cleansing the minor islands of "Americanism").

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#86

Post by pavlov »

frozencell wrote: post #23
ch4s3 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even supporting the Ukrainian side, it’s clear that they’re taking heavy losses and doubly so on the civilian side. What I think people are correctly surprised by is how well the Ukrainians are utilizing NATO training an arms, and how badly the Russians are performing.

We don’t have a cryptographic proof on each statistics both sides news give us.

How would that even work? Do you expect dying soldiers to bravely sign "I am dead" blockchain transactions with their private keys?

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#87

Post by thriftwy »

ogogmad wrote: post #69
pphysch wrote: post #28

I read the title and assumed Fukuyama would be humbly accepting the "defeat" of his "end of history" vision for a unipolar world... > 1. Russia is heading for an outright defeat in Ukraine. LOL

How do we know that this is not another Afghanistan/Chechen-1 for Russia? They lost both of those, and I don't think those got off to the same troubled start (for Russia) as this one did. Think flight from the country, brain drain, economic meltdown, loss of 3 generals in one fortnight , Ukraine being flooded with weapons, equipment loss, major logistical failures, the loss of the information war... An outright defea…

The USSR spent less time (wall clock) in Afghanistan than the USA and left Afghanistan on way, way better terms.

It managed to build a secular Afghanistan state which was able to survive past the fall of USSR and will only collapse around 1993. The USA has left with people falling off its airplanes and the state has collapsed in two weeks I believe.

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#88

Post by pphysch »

jonahbenton wrote: post #53
pphysch wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dismissing Mearsheimer as a "right wing thinker" that is "blinded by ideology". Oh the irony. Mearsheimer may be blinded by silly IR theories, but he is a realist (i.e. not ideologue) through and through.

Sorry, have to disagree. His repeated "Putin is a brilliant strategist" is right out of right wing orthodoxy. Putin is a nascissist and a ruthless bully. His will to power is generally worshipped on the right, and mistaken for strategic brilliance, but it is not. For instance the endemic corruption in the regime is virtually absent from Mearsheimer analyses, but is critically important from a realist assessment. Puti…

Admitting your political enemies are "brilliant strategists", if accurate, is practically a defining characteristic of realism.

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#89

Post by yyyk »

Regretfully too optimistic.

1) I can see the Russians being bogged down indefinitely, but outright defeat in the manner Fukuyama suggests requires either a counteroffensive or mass mutiny.

Ukrainian forces have proven they could defend and execute ambushes, but there haven't been many successful counterattacks, and no large scale counterattacks - and I guess they are right not to try. If the Ukrainians get the timing wrong and Russians aren't entirely out of ammo, they get cut down by Russian artillery, which is one thing the Russians seem to have an endless supply of.

2) Strategic counterattack requires heavy weapons, the weapons Fukuyama suggests not giving Ukraine with a very silly reason ('narratives' are less important than giving weapons the Ukrainians need). I suspect he lets his feelings towards the current US administration get in the way - Ukrainian generals are better suited to know what they need and we should listen.

3) There will be no effect on the fortunes of populists all over the world. The reasons that led to their original success are local and still exist. Also frankly the record of non-populist politicians regarding Putin is less than stellar. For example, if history went a bit differently and the US did not pressure France, Putin would be attacking using Mistral ships sold by France.

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#90

Post by jeffreyrogers »

slim wrote: post #13

this guy is a fortune teller. the nerve he has is incredible. still predicting the future from a future he predicted would never exist in his book "the end of history"

He pretty much says the opposite of what everyone claims he said in that book. People who've never read the book read the title and assume they know what his argument is.
Post reply on HN