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

201–210 of 225 posts

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#201

Post by jdrc »

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"

His point was correct: The most advanced people in the world live under ever-more-liberal democracies. There are vicious dictators in the world, and putin is one, along with Kim, Aliyev, Lukashenko etc, but they are not offering a better alternative to liberal democracy. Where he gets it wrong is that liberal democracy is final, while in reality it is one more extra step in this process towards individual rights set forward by enlightenment.

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#202

Post by jdrc »

klelatti wrote: post #22

The question I don’t have an answer for here is how does Russia control Ukraine if they do win militarily? It seems incredibly unlikely that they have enough troops and doesn’t seem remotely sustainable.

it seems that pootin doesnt want to keep it, hence why the slow approach to kiev etc, he wants to press hard on final negotiations. But OTOH , that is a bluff that the west can call. If he really stays in kiev, with zelenski exiled in poland and active resistance in ukraine, and sanctions having now become permanent, that's a slow disaster for him. Russians were not asked for this invasion nor are they prepared for global isolation, despite their nationalist exuberance

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#203

Post by dragonwriter »

pphysch wrote: post #104
phtrivier wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"surrendering" is really not aanywhere in the spectrum in USA, historically. And, even though the "splitting and surviving" compromise seems almost inevitable to me, I have no idea how long it will take. And I can't blame all parties (Russia / Ukraine / EU / NATO) for trying to "buy time" and reach the négociation table in the best possible situation. I can imagine Putin would have preferred rolling over Kyiv, then n…

Total nonsense. Putin is not going to bomb Lviv, much less Estonia or Finland.

> Putin is not going to bomb Lviv,

Russia just conducted strikes in the area of Lviv.

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#204

Post by jdrc »

MrRiddle wrote: post #68
klelatti wrote: post #22

The question I don’t have an answer for here is how does Russia control Ukraine if they do win militarily? It seems incredibly unlikely that they have enough troops and doesn’t seem remotely sustainable.

Actually it’s fairly easy, they can conduct Balkanization[0] They will find appropriate politicians or in some cases warlords for each region, in most cases they will fight among each other to gain power. This is not WW2 where you need a soldier to stand around every other corner, we’re much more sophisticated now. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanization

this was already happening in ukraine however , cant push it any further

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#205

Post by jdrc »

gumby wrote: post #167

All this discussion of the "endgame" (not just Fukuyama of course, and he at least is worth listening to). But what's the endgame after the endgame? A "Marshall Plan" for Ukraine is a likely possibility. But a Marshall Plan for Russia, who will need it almost as much? Unlikely.

looks like a second 90s, chaos after putin. the marshall plan will be there to ensure a new one does not arise. Not sure how popular such a plan is in the US though

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#206

Post by ogogmad »

pphysch wrote: post #85
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…

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…

Hold on. You've gone from saying "LOL" to the claim that Russia might lose, to providing justification for Russia's war. Not staying on topic. +15 RUB.

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#207

Post by burntoutfire »

hackerfromthefu wrote: post #155
burntoutfire wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why people are calling these tactics "medieval". The same tactics were also widely used in XX century, e.g. in siege of Leningrad, during the pacification of Warsaw Uprising or in Jugoslavia war in 1990s. They're part of the "total war" package that is and always was on the table for leaders determined to win at all costs (or are just seeking revenge - let's not forget that the Alies burned hundred…

Because apparently modern US warfare doctrine and smarter guided weapons causes less civilian casualties.

Even so, they should use term "XX century tactics" and not "medieval tactics" for describing what Russians do (which also acknowledges that XX century wasn't really any less barbaric than the rest of history). I understand the want to smear the opponent, but it doesn't do any good long-term to respond with falsehoods.

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#208

Post by ailef »

wolverine876 wrote: post #187
ailef wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To define NATO as a defensive alliance you need to stretch the definition of the word defensive so much that probably Putin invasion of Ukraine could be considered defensive as well. > 2. NATO doesn't have hypersonic missiles. Russia has hypersonic missiles. I don't know much about this one but wouldn't any NATO member having hypersonic missiles mean that NATO has them?

Who did NATO attack and when?

You can find this information with a 2 minute Google search.

Re: Francis Fukuyama: Preparing for Defeat

#210

Post by tim333 »

pphysch wrote: post #176
tim333 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You maintain peace by attacking those that break it. Letting invading dictators get away with it only encourages them.

Slippery slope fallacy.

By the way re "Ukrainian insurgency" I thought Ukraine was a sovereign country that Russia have claimed they are not even at war with?
Post reply on HN