this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
117 points (99.2% liked)

news

23527 readers
607 users here now

Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.

Rules:

-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --

-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --

-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --

-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --

-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--

-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--

-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --

-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FunkyStuff@hexbear.net 55 points 2 months ago

Do you promise?

[–] Aquilae@hexbear.net 54 points 2 months ago
[–] ashinadash@hexbear.net 48 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Old news, banger news. At the time I thought this was really mask off and also very funny.

[–] miz@hexbear.net 36 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

oh shit I didn't check the date. my bad. mods will probably nuke me again

[–] ashinadash@hexbear.net 33 points 2 months ago

nerd get got lol

( heart-sickle )

[–] AndJusticeForAll@hexbear.net 9 points 2 months ago

Mods, I give you permission to nuke this douchegoblin.

[–] FortifiedAttack@hexbear.net 43 points 2 months ago

Don't threaten me with a good time Boris.

[–] someone@hexbear.net 34 points 2 months ago (1 children)

When Ukraine loses the war.

[–] vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net 22 points 2 months ago (1 children)

German people: "wait, what's the difference?"

(In German, "wenn" is used both for "when" and for "if", and the distinction isn't always super clear depending on the context)

[–] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 15 points 2 months ago

In German, "wenn" is used both for "when" and for "if", and the distinction isn't always super clear depending on the context

curious-marx

[–] CommunistBear@hexbear.net 33 points 2 months ago
[–] newmou@hexbear.net 31 points 2 months ago (3 children)

They will lose, and no it won’t

[–] vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net 26 points 2 months ago (2 children)

It depends on how you define "the end of hegemony". The first important imperialist war lost against the "BRICS" could very well be treated historically as a good chronological starting point of the change in global hegemony (which is a progressive process with a gray barrier)

[–] newmou@hexbear.net 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Personally I define the end of hegemony as the end of it, instead of the beginning of the meaningful decline

[–] vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah but you have to put the border historically at some point. Wouldn't you put the end of the hegemony at the point where it stops winning everything (meaning it's no longer the hegemon), rather than at the end of the empire?

[–] newmou@hexbear.net 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I just don’t think hegemony is binary like that. I’d say it’s fought for, achieved, maintained, and then fought to preserve until you can say there is no more unipolarity. I don’t think Ukraine losing would bring multipolarity yet imo

[–] CarmineCatboy2@hexbear.net 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

If anything I'd go so far as to say that unipolarity is already over and it's been over for years. There is a coup government in Perú right now, with american boots on the ground. Chinese investment and soft power continues more or less unabated, and the only thing staying on the path of BRI's projects is that the peruvians want to lengthen the route of the transoceanic railway. SOUTHCOM complains about chinese ports, but the fact of the matter is that the US has no use for peruvian minerals or brazilian soybeans and the pull of chinese money is too strong even for a comprador elite. The clown president in Buenos Aires wishes he could throw his lot in with the Americans, but the trade realities mean that he can't and neither could the junta joke that ruled Brazil not long ago.

South America might be a particularly edge case example in my view, but the most normative one should be the existence of countries like India and Turkey. Not massively powerful or isolated, not defined by anti-americanism, and still playing at their own game, talking to everyone at once according to their own interest.

The 'Suez Canal moment' is often taken as the siren song of european hegemony, not because it is the perfect chronological moment where european imperial power ceased to exist, but because all of a sudden something that was beyond the pale was not only possible but felt only natural. It is nonetheless true that, at the same time, the european empires were both collapsing before losing the Suez and still exist to this day formally (for the french empire) and informally (for all the other empires). The greatest material change is that those neo-colonial empires were subsumed into the American one.

So TL;DR just as european multi-polarity gave way to Soviet-American bipolarity without entirely dismantling european structures of power, American unipolarity has already given way to defacto global multipolarity. Too many countries simply don't take marching orders from Washington. There are far too many opportunities to raise capital aside from just New York and London. High tech weapons systems have been commoditized to the point where many can be produced, in house, by the Yemenis. And there are too many countries at the periphery of the American Empire who cannot but engage in political and commercial relations with the Empire's enemies.

It is not healthy to try and see the future, however it is not for nothing that the former british prime minister feels that Ukraine is a new Suez Moment. Things changing and are changing very fast. New settlements need to be reached.

[–] BynarsAreOk@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think it would be wrong for any historian to not at least acknowledge that idk some 80% of Russian military technology and current capabilities were inhereted from the USSR. Indeed the war was fought primarily with cold war era weapons from old NATO stocks and former USSR countries all sent to Ukraine. Its basically the cold war went hot scenario but 30 years later.

Even at the worst times the USSR was a far bigger geopolitical opponent than BRICS is or will likely ever be imo exactly because China doesn't want to fight the US military or otherwise and as such their strategy is to be friends with everyone at the same time.

The end result is even if the US ends up having to readjust their behavior they're still the only major power willing to force others to do their bidding.

[–] vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net 13 points 2 months ago

Even at the worst times the USSR was a far bigger geopolitical opponent than BRICS is or will likely ever be imo exactly because China doesn't want to fight the US military or otherwise and as such their strategy is to be friends with everyone at the same time.

I think this part is a bit disingenuous. The USSR didn't invest in military because it wanted to do so against the US, it's because despite the constant pleas to de-escalate militarily, the US kept on increasing their military expenditure, forcing the USSR to do the same. China is now much more powerful compared to the US than the USSR ever was, possibly not militarily but definitely economically, and the ramp-up in military expenditure that NATO has forced for the past 2 years is only an appetizer of what it will do in order to preserve the status quo. The US sadly won't be dethroned front the hegemony without a fight that it will itself begin.

[–] Collatz_problem@hexbear.net 11 points 2 months ago

I do think it would be a heavy blow to Western hegemony, but it will still persist for some time afterward.

[–] BeamBrain@hexbear.net 4 points 2 months ago

no it won’t

Don't take away my hope

[–] Midnight_Pearl@hexbear.net 28 points 2 months ago
[–] Palacegalleryratio@hexbear.net 28 points 2 months ago
[–] kleeon@hexbear.net 24 points 2 months ago
[–] pooh@hexbear.net 22 points 2 months ago
[–] grandepequeno@hexbear.net 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Not even? I mean if Ukraine loses then ukraine loses, ukraine losing for them means de facto accepting SOME type of security arrangement with Russia that doesn't involve expanding NATO closer and closer to their borders, or at least not through Ukraine.

The west still has overwhelming economic power and influence. "End of western hegemony"? Over what? Over Ukraine? Well not over what's left of it.

Over the balkans? Maybe.

Over the world? Definitely not the end, in fact I expect some adventurism as overcompensation.

[–] theturtlemoves@hexbear.net 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

NATO losing to Russia in Ukraine, and to the Houthis in the Gulf of Aden, will send a message to a lot of neutral countries that (1) NATO can't / won't protect you anymore, and (2) you can push back against NATO and win or at least gain concessions. NATO will still be the single largest military bloc in the world, but they'll actually have to negotiate, maybe even compromise.

[–] Ericthescruffy@hexbear.net 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah...only thing that makes me feel like this is still semi-hyperbolic is...didn't Afghanistan and the last quarter of a century plus already kinda show that to be the case? Ukraine itself already kinda seems like the result of that sense that the west is insurmountably powerful being squashed.

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 20 points 2 months ago

If he loses Zelensky pushes the big red "end America" button he's been holding for Michael Flynn ever since Flynn got word the FBI was gonna raid his house.

[–] Commiejones@hexbear.net 19 points 2 months ago

heh heh "if" heh heh. More like "when." Whos gonna tell him?

[–] Rom@hexbear.net 12 points 2 months ago
[–] UlyssesT@hexbear.net 11 points 2 months ago

A VOTE FOR BART IS A VOTE FOR ANARCHY wojak-nooo

[–] sewer_rat_420@hexbear.net 9 points 2 months ago
[–] wtypstanaccount04@hexbear.net 9 points 2 months ago

Cmon Russia PLS

[–] EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net 9 points 2 months ago
[–] REgon@hexbear.net 7 points 2 months ago

A vote for Bart is a vote for anarchy!

[–] josie@vegantheoryclub.org 6 points 2 months ago
[–] EmoThugInMyPhase@hexbear.net 6 points 2 months ago

I mean… why specifically this war exactly? Is it because it’s a near peer war which means that Russia shows it can defeat western weapons? Because almost the entire eastern bloc is in NATO, and Azerbaijan is crushing Armenia which is also a near peer war.