People Twitter

Thank you for providing a serious response.

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?

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.

Anyways, Cooperation between the two states would be beneficial for the whole world

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.