I’ve seen different perspectives say its either a winning strategy ( they stand to alienate little brother Europe from daddy US, and possibly make them dependent on US natural gas ), or that its a losing strategy ( that in the long term it will only stand to unite China, Russia, India, etc more closely, contribute to de-dollarization, etc)

Do you think the west’s strategy is sound, or are they merely making mistakes typical of dying empires?

  • Free PalestineA
    link
    132 years ago

    It’s really hard to say, and for us armchair military theorists it’s also kinda pointless to spend the mental energy to try to put together all of the pieces to come up with a definitive answer. But with any complex situation that has valid arguments from both sides, we should examine both major arguments.

    Firstly, the argument that is positive for NATO’s goals. Mind you, that’s not necessarily pro-NATO, but rather just acknowledges that it may be exactly what NATO wanted. This argument being that NATO counted on the war in Ukraine to happen (and if not in Ukraine, then in any of the countries they’ve been operating in, like Latvia or Georgia for instance.) and wanted to use it to drive a secondary goal. That goal could be resource acquisition, propaganda, you name it. This argument pivots around the idea that NATO could manipulate the war so they benefit from it, regardless of the outcome of the war. If my assessment is correct, then I’d assume they’re leaning more towards the propaganda end of that spectrum. I.E. by getting Russia to invade Ukraine, they can use it to inspire a new age of pro-western fascism and cripple the leftist movements in NATO’s member countries. That can be used to justify military spending, for instance. Or to justify the signing of laws that remove freedoms from some or all of the nation’s population (such as the call to put Russians in internment camps and seize all of their property and wealth.)

    Secondly, the argument that is negative for NATO’s aims. They planned for something that didn’t happen, or didn’t happen the way they wanted, and are floundering to pick up the pieces. This argument being that, either for the acquisition of resources, political power, whatever, NATO continued pushing for expansion into Russia’s sphere of influence against the objections of Russia, and it blew up in their face in a way they weren’t ready for. Maybe they expected a war to happen in Ukraine eventually, but didn’t expect it yet, and got caught with their pants down and weren’t ready to do what they were initially planning. If this is the case, then yes, it would just be the actions of a multinational empire in decline that will only suffer from it. We’ve already seen that their aggressive expansion has resulted in Russia and China growing closer, and I believe as the situation progresses, we’ll see the rest of the imperialized world grow closer with the two too (and further from NATO).

    I believe it might’ve been a lil column A, a lil column B. They didn’t expect the war so soon and they’ve lost certain things from it, notably hegemony. But they’ve gained a source of propaganda that’s powerful enough to make liberals support politics they’ve claimed to oppose, and move NATO’s member states closer to nationalistic fascism, thus making a lot of rich people even richer, and the small group of people in the member states who hold the power even more powerful.

    • Muad'DibberOPMA
      link
      42 years ago

      I hadn’t thought of this being used to cripple leftist movements in euro countries, but you’re right, it does have that possibility… wrangling to get the eurocommunists to support NATO yet again.

      Column A seems to be:

      • Propaganda
      • Creating war-hungry NATO soldiers in europe, who can do the US’s bidding.
      • War industry profits
      • Alienating Russia from the rest of europe
      • Potential new buyer for US natural gas, kicking out their russian competitor.

      Column B:

      • Brings Russia / China / Syria / Iran / the anti-imperialist camp closer together.
      • Hurts USD hegemony
      • Potentially alienates europe if this backfires and euros realize they’re doing the US’s bidding and getting nothing out of it.
      • Free PalestineA
        link
        2
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I was talking more so about the leftist movements in the anglosphere portion of NATO, as I speak English and I’ve noticed exactly what I mentioned happening in the anglosphere left. But it’s likely also happening in the rest of NATO.

        The group that opposes NATO the most in the west tends to be counter-culture far-leftists, it’s only natural that a decaying empire would act against the elements of their opposition that are the easiest targets.