Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic: On rivalries between potencies.  (Read 2536 times)

Tomcost

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
On rivalries between potencies.
« on: August 29, 2013, 11:27:27 am »

As a citizen of what is called sometimes "The third world" or "undeveloped countries" I have always wondered why on Earth do countries like the USA and Russia often choose different sides to support (like in this recent Syria conflict) and the like. Is there a struggle for power? Are they bored and so they engage in these war games? Do they want to go around the world saying "my gun is bigger than yours"?

So, enlighten me, internet people who hopefully has more contact with this subject than me.

i2amroy

  • Bay Watcher
  • Cats, ruling the world one dwarf at a time
    • View Profile
Re: On rivalries between potencies.
« Reply #1 on: August 29, 2013, 11:48:14 am »

Basically two big factors:
1) We want whatever side is most similar to our beliefs to win - If one side is communist, for example, then the US is going to try to step in and make sure it loses. This is also why sometimes countries will intercede if there is genocide or something similar happening. We don't approve of that so we will try to have the side that isn't doing it win.
2) Barring this, we want whatever side is easier to work with to win - This is especially evident in middle eastern countries where conflict can cause gas prices to rise. Larger countries don't want that, so they will try to intervene and end conflict sooner to ensure that prices don't stay higher.
Logged
Quote from: PTTG
It would be brutally difficult and probably won't work. In other words, it's absolutely dwarven!
Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead - A fun zombie survival rougelike that I'm dev-ing for.

Tomcost

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: On rivalries between potencies.
« Reply #2 on: August 29, 2013, 12:12:38 pm »

I see. But why there is always the same opposed views between western countries and China and Russia? (I don't ask about North Korea because they are nuts, so there is a motivation)

Vector

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: On rivalries between potencies.
« Reply #3 on: August 29, 2013, 12:17:05 pm »

Previously there was the point of view that Russia, China, and North Korea were all similarly and equally nuts.

It's a Communism/Capitalism thing.  The first world decided that, because fighting with each other would be too painful, they'd back different sides of conflicts in the third world and fight each other that way--so someone else could lump the casualties and they'd still get the ideological victory.  It's kind of disgusting.
Logged
"The question of the usefulness of poetry arises only in periods of its decline, while in periods of its flowering, no one doubts its total uselessness." - Boris Pasternak

nonbinary/genderfluid/genderqueer renegade mathematician and mafia subforum limpet. please avoid quoting me.

pronouns: prefer neutral ones, others are fine. height: 5'3".

Tomcost

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: On rivalries between potencies.
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2013, 12:21:18 pm »

So, we are still in Cold War? I feel slightly lucky to not be inside all this crap.

Vector

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: On rivalries between potencies.
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2013, 12:26:03 pm »

Previously it was the Cold War.  Now it's just attendant mistrust and revenge.
Logged
"The question of the usefulness of poetry arises only in periods of its decline, while in periods of its flowering, no one doubts its total uselessness." - Boris Pasternak

nonbinary/genderfluid/genderqueer renegade mathematician and mafia subforum limpet. please avoid quoting me.

pronouns: prefer neutral ones, others are fine. height: 5'3".

Tomcost

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: On rivalries between potencies.
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2013, 12:28:03 pm »

Right, so this stuff hasn't got any rational sense. Well, thanks for answering my question.

PatriotSaint

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: On rivalries between potencies.
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2013, 12:30:09 pm »

Right, so this stuff hasn't got any rational sense. Well, thanks for answering my question.

As if anything that has to do with anyone's foreign relations of any kind with anybody for any reason makes any rational sense. We can't even decide who's on anybody's side.
Logged

Hotfire90

  • Guest
Re: On rivalries between potencies.
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2013, 12:31:07 pm »

.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2014, 04:50:58 pm by Hotfire90 »
Logged

EnigmaticHat

  • Bay Watcher
  • I vibrate, I die, I vibrate again
    • View Profile
Re: On rivalries between potencies.
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2013, 12:40:46 pm »

Warning: cynical essay I started writing before anyone replied to this thread.  There's a summary at the bottom if you aren't in a wall of text mood.

Do you know what a "Casus Belli" is?  It means a reason to go to war.  Its part of the idea that countries need a justification to go to war, and in recent history the aggressor in a war will typically provide a justification for why when they declare war.  This is not necessarily the actual reason, its more of a PR thing.  In WW1, for example, the US Casus Beli was the sinking of the Lusitania by a German U-Boat.  The president already wanted Britain to win and we were supporting them with arms, but the isolationist feelings at the time meant they needed a reason before they could declare war.

Now, look at how the US styles itself as world policeman.  Look at how government talks about "defending democracy", even though historically we've supported democratic and non-democratic regimes equally.  The USA, as with most countries, believes in a realistic (read: serving the interests of yourself, your friends, and your country, and nothing else) attitude towards politics.  By playing up Enemies of the State such as dictators, non-democrats, non-capitalists, fundamentalist non-Christians, or terrorists, Congress and the President give themselves an unlimited Casus Belli on almost every country that isn't in Europe or East Asia.  And the really great thing, from their perspective?  They don't have to use it.  Most governments in the world have some characteristic the US considers objectionable, but we don't fight them.  Yet as soon we stand anything to gain from fighting someone, all we have do is look on this list:

  • Is its government communist or a dictatorship?
  • Does it have any ties, real or imagined, to any terrorist or insurgent group?
  • Is it small enough a certain amount of Marines could overthrow the government quickly with no one noticing?  (this one is a loophole: no CB is needed, since its not war by our definition)
  • Is it currently involved in a revolution, AND the government has a bad reputation?
  • Is it in conflict with any of our allies?   Note: new allies can be made for this one.
  • Do terrorists have influence there?
  • Does it have a WMD program, real or imagined?
  • Are ANY amount of US citizens in danger there?

If ANY of those are true, congratulations, the USA can wage war on you whenever it wants, because its people are primed to accept that kind of war.  Convincing them to continue supporting a war that doesn't truly affect them, that's a different story...

Now, I'm not saying our elected officials are always pragmatic bastards seeking some deeper interest.  I honestly think they believe some of their own rhetoric.  But the motive to maintain this mindset is there, and they can't possibly not be aware of that.  I also believe that the whole Arab = terrorist, Muslim = terrorist, Israel = the noble kingdom we must defend thing has been played up by the government because they want to be able to pick their fights in the Middle East.

Now, what's the US government's interest in the Middle East?  I... don't know.  But there is a certain logic behind all recent US military actions.  The thing is, we have an extremely powerful lobby group called the Military-Industrial Complex, that provides constant pressure to expand the military and that combined with a certain diehard military cheerleader faction of the Republican party makes it unfeasible to cut the military down.  Yet are military is STUPIDLY LARGE.  Ignoring things like nukes and focusing on pure numbers, if the entire world were to simultaneously wage war on the US, we would stand a chance.  Seriously.  Our military buildup is that large.  And that costs money, loads and loads of money.  So our pragmatic, selfish government (as most are) has this extremely expensive tool that they can't get rid off.  So what do they do?  Use it, whenever they have anything that even slightly needs fixing.  Country not supporting our corporate or trade interests?  Looks like there's some poor brown people that need to be liberated from their horrible dictator.  One terrorist group exploited a flaw in our security to blow up two buildings and kill a bunch of people?  Let's wage literal war on the entire concept of terrorists, as if terrorists had a country we could invade.  Want... whatever it is we want in the Middle East (oil?  Preventing a powerful rival state from forming?  Pushing some religious or moral agenda?  who knows)?  Pick one of like 4 different things from the above list, we can basically fight any Arabic nation we want at this point.

As you might be able to tell, I disagree with my government on what our foreign and military policy should be, and and also have a cynical view on this issue.  There are probably more optimistic viewpoints here.  But to keep some distance I should mention that this is very historically common: a powerful nation pushes around weaker nations for its own interests.  The US is not unique in this respect.

Also, there is an element of defensiveness to all this.  The idea is we need to stay on top, counter rival world powers, or else we might eventually be invaded or strong-armed ourself.

tl;dr:  Our military costs money so we need to use it.  To use the military we need to declare war.  To declare war we need a reason to war.  To have a reason to war with as many countries as possible, we need to take advantage of the bad feelings many US citizens have for other worldviews.  To do that, we need to dress up our wars as fighting nebulous evils such as "tyranny" or "terror". 
Logged
"T-take this non-euclidean geometry, h-humanity-baka. I m-made it, but not because I l-li-l-like you or anything! I just felt s-sorry for you, b-baka."
You misspelled seance.  Are possessing Draignean?  Are you actually a ghost in the shell? You have to tell us if you are, that's the rule

Tomcost

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: On rivalries between potencies.
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2013, 12:42:02 pm »

The reason why the US supports the rebels in Syria is rather simple Syria is allied with Iran and Iran is selling its Oil in other currencies that the dollar.

The value of the Dollar is given by Oil,because Oil is needed for industry it creates a demand for the Dollar.

Because Syria is allied with Iran removing the current Syrian Government means that Iran won't have Syria as an ally anymore.

These Videos will tell you what i have already included in this post with sources more information and perhaps better worded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_uLwHFR2aA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE2kMWNJomo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tsUZinrCo8

I only cover Syria but i think that explains it rather well why the Us is helping the Syrian Rebels.
*Tomcost suspiciously opens the videos to see the source.
*Tomcost realizes that the source is the same conspirational stuff that had a thread about the USA incriminating the Syrian goverment of using chemical weapons.
*Tomcost checks the loonie's posts and register date.
*Tomcost finally tries to see the videos.


I would post something constructive, but the sound effects the guy uses are pretty annoying, and I'm not so good at hearing. Can you sum up what they say?

[This post has been ninja'd two times]

Tomcost

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: On rivalries between potencies.
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2013, 12:51:24 pm »

Ok, derails aside. What I got:

-The US engages in war because of pragmatic reasons (I already knew this).
-Every powerful country is paranoid that somebody stronger may invade them, so that's why they don't want anybody to get stronger.
-There is still anger from the Cold War.
-Humans are bassically assholes (another thing I already knew)

Culise

  • Bay Watcher
  • General Nuisance
    • View Profile
Re: On rivalries between potencies.
« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2013, 12:52:58 pm »

I see. But why there is always the same opposed views between western countries and China and Russia? (I don't ask about North Korea because they are nuts, so there is a motivation)

Great powers always have their own vested interests, which may or may not coincide.  Where they do not coincide, this results in rivalry; where they coincide, they result in partnership.  There aren't always the same opposed views between western countries and China and Russia; the Sino-Soviet split resulted in a period of several decades where America viewed China as an important (albeit necessary; this was still the Cold War) partner in Asian stability.  This opposition goes back quite some time, but is far from constant; Russia and Britain were rather friendly due to the mutual threat of Sweden and due to mutual trade interests (especially the Baltic trade, from whence came timber and tar for British ships) for quite some time, with English merchants prominent in Russian cities.  The present view of Russia as hostile to "western" interests is largely a product of the Napoleonic era and particularly the post-War era, but is even there far from certain - witness the rapprochement that occurred between France and Britain, and France and Russia, which was every bit as revolutionary as the first Diplomatic Revolution.  Countries don't have friends; they have interests.  Even in ideological wars, this concept of realpolitik has governed many of their relations (witness Sino-Soviet split and Nixon's visit to Beijing, which converted China from an enemy to a critical American partner in Asian stability). 

The present Russian-American hostility in Syria is largely a consequence of many factors.  Russia has a vested interest in maintaining Bashar's Syria, which is their last remaining ally in the Middle East at all, and permits them to maintain a forward military base on the far side of the Bosporus, in the Mediterranean.  As an oil power themselves, they have an interest in counterbalancing American interest in Israel and Saudi Arabia.  More practically, they are avowed enemies of jihadists (here used as a short-hand for various ultra-conservative, militant Islamic movements typically founded on authoritarian and theological platforms; let's not get into an argument about this particular semantic debate) - Chechnya is not a fully healed wound at all, and could easily start bleeding again in a heartbeat.  Jihadists, for much the same reason, are avowed enemies of Russia; a democratic or Islamist victory would end Russia influence in Syria and force them back behind the Bosporus.   Iran, similarly, has been friendly with Bashar's Syria for sometime for ideological as well as pragmatic reasons; the two share common enemies and interests, and the two lack in friends elsewhere, which has resulted in a relatively close partnership. 

By contrast, America has very little interest in Syria itself to justify the cost of any intervention, hence its lack of involvement beyond shipment of minor small arms, talk, and general continued dithering even as chemical weapons (the originally-claimed "red line") are deployed in theatre, but its allies Saudi Arabia and Israel have an extremely powerful interest in Syria for varying reasons, which could easily drag America into the fight.  In Israel's case, the present government of Syria has been uncompromisingly hostile to Israel and Israeli interests for the entire history of their existence as a state (channeling Iranian support through Syria to Hezbollah, the Lebanon Civil War), but what they fear most is the Islamists and jihadists in the opposition, who are not only uncompromisingly hostile, but aggressively and bluntly so; the fear in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would be that an Islamist government in Syria would result in another war over the Golan Heights, which Israel would likely win, but at significant cost.  In their position, the ideal situation is to see the two bleed each other white, which is why they haven't intervened directly except where necessary to protect their own forces.  In Saudi Arabia's case, it's actually and fully a proxy war against Iran - as the most powerful of the Gulf states, they have frequently taken the forefront in anti-Iranian positions out of both religious (Shi'a versus Sunni) and geopolitical (oil, hegemonic ambitions in the Gulf and Hormuz) concerns.  Iran is one of the very few allies of Bashar, and this makes Saudi Arabia an enemy of Bashar in order to stem the influence of Iran, which is an even greater risk to the Gulf states since the Iraqi War resulted in a neutral verging on pro-Iran government being elected there.  Saudi Arabia is as leery of certain jihadists as Israel is (witness their support of the Egyptian military of late and their own hostile treatment of the Muslim Brotherhood), but they themselves support their own brand of Islamic extremism (Wahhabi), and their fear only exists insofar as these Islamic ultraconservative movements could form an independent power base among their own population in opposition to the royal house of Saud.  America is unlikely to intervene directly in any extended fashion to ensure the victory of one side or another (hence all this talk about "limited bombardment only to ensure chemical weapons are not used"), due to, in large part, revulsion domestically to any protracted engagement along the lines of Iraq or Afghanistan; Obama would like to see the Democrats not lose the government after his term, if for nothing more than selfish reasons (money alone can't buy power, not against overwhelming opposition in popular opinion, and politics is about power even more than it is about money).  There is also concern that, should particular factions among the rebels win, they would prove just as inimical to American interests in the region as Bashar has, and Bashar at least is a known entity.  There is some pressure for intervention, but it is nowhere near as strong as it once was, and there is opposition to full intervention even in the rarefied ranks of the Pentagon's upper staff (General Dempsey warned against intervention in July, due to cost and potential "unintended consequences"). 

In essence, it is fundamentally a matter of rationality, but in the case of divergent interests and goals, naturally, the two sides end up in opposition in order to secure benefits to themselves. 

EDIT: 11 new posts since last...well, I'm still posting it.  Perhaps it will help.
Logged

Tomcost

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: On rivalries between potencies.
« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2013, 01:12:04 pm »

Thanks for the wall of text! That clarified a lot. Ahh, the game of the powerful. I feel surpassed by the complexity of these international politics, as my country still has internal struggles to even worry about these things.

I'm partially glad to know that we are not AS bad, just pragmatic and selfish assholes, but not crazy ones. Still, I see no point in this paranoia to be the most powerful country, but that could be because where I live. Most of the thrid world is ignored, and, after seeing what happens to those countres who are not ignored, I feel that it's better this way.

Hotfire90

  • Guest
Re: On rivalries between potencies.
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2013, 01:21:59 pm »

.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2014, 04:51:24 pm by Hotfire90 »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3