What Happened in the Ukraine?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If Mexico came out today and said, “Russia if you invade the Ukraine we will defend the Ukraine at all cost”. How long do you think Russia would laugh?

Now substitute America for Mexico. Does Russia laugh or do they take a step back and think about the consequences of their actions?

What is the difference?

Being strong is well a strong deterrent, but you have to look the part. It’s hard to bluff if you look weak.

[/quote]

I see your larger point, but foreign policy is not often something you should bother bluffing with when stakes are high. Most certainly not in this case.

222

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Pure 100% isolationism, no. [/quote]

I’m not asking about economic isolationism, for what it’s worth. Have we tried anything even close to military isolationism? [/quote]

I would say, prior to WWI, in general we were isolationists. Not to say there aren’t exceptions you could easily point to. [/quote]

Did we have more or less conflict prior to WWI? How many years since WWI have we not been at war(Obviously we haven’t been in constant declared wars, but how many years have we not been involved in what would have been called a war throughout the rest of history?)? Now that we are technologically so far ahead of most of the world, how often would other countries try to invade us if we minded our own business?
[/quote]

What you fail to understand is that the US became a great power after the Spanish American War. Great powers have far flung and myriad interest. One would expect conflict to rise proportionally with an increase in potential conflict dyads created by virtue of being a great power.

223

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
People can take it as they like, but I don’t consider this to be a win/lose us vs. them type of thing. He’s taking care of business in his neck of the woods the way that they do it in that neck of the woods. Cultural relativism if you will.

Future world leaders could learn a lot from Putin as far as when to step in and when to stay out. He showed great restraint and judgement in not turning the Ukrainian uprising into an absolute blood bath by letting it calm down before rolling in and great timing for when he stepped in on that debacle that was Syria.

It seems like these past few months make it really clear (to me) that a lot of American people get all caught up in emotion and want to jump in and save the world when what we really need to do is let the rest of world sort it self out and we try to save our own asses.

As a country we’re about as fit to jump into another war as Biggie Smalls is to run a marathon. (which is to say that we are a bullet ridden bloated corps with a bunch of fucked up priorities)

[/quote]

Well said.
[/quote]

I agree and it was Skyz’ post that prompted my previous one.

Then again, after I thought about it a bit history reminded me how much you, Skyz and I sound like Joe American Citizen Blow circa 1935. And that bothers me a little. Is there a reason why it shouldn’t?[/quote]

There probably aren’t any reasons why it shouldn’t at least a little…

[/quote]

I wonder how many others will answer my question.[/quote]

Push, that has been my thought while catching up on this thread. We’ve tried isolationism before. [/quote]

But this isn’t isolationism. This isn’t even close. This is a regional problem with a regional hegemon stepping in, well inside their sphere of influence. The inverse of isolationism isn’t “we must step into every damn problem that rears its head in International Relations”.

Isolationism is dead and gone with WW1 and 2, and if it hadn’t died then it would have been killed all over with globalization and nuclear power.[/quote]

I agree, like I said, it was just a thought. The basic thought being, will this be the first domino to fall leading to WWIII.

I’m not trying to turn this into a comparison debate, but when Germany began invading neighboring countries wasn’t that just a “regional hegemon stepping in, well inside their sphere of influence.”?[/quote]

Only one great power has concrete interests in Ukraine.

Germany wasn’t the regional hegemon of Europe, as Britain and France were both great powers in the region.

224

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I agree, like I said, it was just a thought. The basic thought being, will this be the first domino to fall leading to WWIII.

I’m not trying to turn this into a comparison debate, but when Germany began invading neighboring countries wasn’t that just a “regional hegemon stepping in, well inside their sphere of influence.”?[/quote]

Not at all. This is completely different.

  1. Russia has a pre-existing treaty with the Ukraine allowing them to place up to 25,000 troops inside the country, Germany did not.

  2. Germany invaded, Russia has not.

  3. Germany had no reason to be in these neighboring countries, no interests, no “peacekeeping” missions, no humanitarian missions, no aid missions. No reasons at all.

  4. Putin =/= Hitler (crazy occultism)

  5. Putin doesn’t want to have to fight if he doesn’t need to

  6. Russia has been able to take Ukraine for a long, long time and hasn’t, Germany not so much

  7. Taking Ukraine would not accomplish any political ends he can’t accomplish already with simple pressure and would bring about a ton of complications that could go poorly, the juice not worth the squeeze.

  8. Putin has a strong hand to play as he is playing now, an actual annexation would kill his hand and seriously weaken his standing.

225

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
People can take it as they like, but I don’t consider this to be a win/lose us vs. them type of thing. He’s taking care of business in his neck of the woods the way that they do it in that neck of the woods. Cultural relativism if you will.

Future world leaders could learn a lot from Putin as far as when to step in and when to stay out. He showed great restraint and judgement in not turning the Ukrainian uprising into an absolute blood bath by letting it calm down before rolling in and great timing for when he stepped in on that debacle that was Syria.

It seems like these past few months make it really clear (to me) that a lot of American people get all caught up in emotion and want to jump in and save the world when what we really need to do is let the rest of world sort it self out and we try to save our own asses.

As a country we’re about as fit to jump into another war as Biggie Smalls is to run a marathon. (which is to say that we are a bullet ridden bloated corps with a bunch of fucked up priorities)

[/quote]

Well said.
[/quote]

I agree and it was Skyz’ post that prompted my previous one.

Then again, after I thought about it a bit history reminded me how much you, Skyz and I sound like Joe American Citizen Blow circa 1935. And that bothers me a little. Is there a reason why it shouldn’t?[/quote]

There probably aren’t any reasons why it shouldn’t at least a little…

[/quote]

I wonder how many others will answer my question.[/quote]

Push, that has been my thought while catching up on this thread. We’ve tried isolationism before. [/quote]

But this isn’t isolationism. This isn’t even close. This is a regional problem with a regional hegemon stepping in, well inside their sphere of influence. The inverse of isolationism isn’t “we must step into every damn problem that rears its head in International Relations”.

Isolationism is dead and gone with WW1 and 2, and if it hadn’t died then it would have been killed all over with globalization and nuclear power.[/quote]

I agree, like I said, it was just a thought. The basic thought being, will this be the first domino to fall leading to WWIII.

I’m not trying to turn this into a comparison debate, but when Germany began invading neighboring countries wasn’t that just a “regional hegemon stepping in, well inside their sphere of influence.”?[/quote]

Only one great power has concrete interests in Ukraine.

Germany wasn’t the regional hegemon of Europe, as Britain and France were both great powers in the region.
[/quote]

Well that was much more succint than me.

226

[quote]H factor wrote:
So we didn’t wait on Iraq and it very well could have hurt us (would be hard to argue how, but ok)
[/quote]

First I would argue we did wait. How many sanctions did we put on Iraq in the last 25 years?

We don’t know what affect waiting even longer would have had on a number of key players especially having just gone through 9/11. Hussein of course being one, but what about Iran? Hell they already test our resolve on the nuclear issue, imagine if we hadn’t pressed and ultimately dethroned Hussein?

We may have “rushed” in, by your standards, but the war in Iraq ended almost immediately. It was the “rebuilding” decade that cost of all that money and all those lives. You can thank Congress for that.

You’ve got me here.

Except the situation is much different.

[quote]
I believe looking “weak” in that regard is far superior to what we actually did. [/quote]

Or, looking in my crystal ball here, we have a nuclear Iraq and possibly Iran. Maybe some dirty nukes in Al Qaeda’s hands.

227

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If Mexico came out today and said, “Russia if you invade the Ukraine we will defend the Ukraine at all cost”. How long do you think Russia would laugh?

Now substitute America for Mexico. Does Russia laugh or do they take a step back and think about the consequences of their actions?

What is the difference?

Being strong is well a strong deterrent, but you have to look the part. It’s hard to bluff if you look weak.

[/quote]

I see your larger point, but foreign policy is not often something you should bother bluffing with when stakes are high. Most certainly not in this case.[/quote]

Ukraine isn’t under the protection of US extended deterrence. Through the lens of self interest and realpolitik, why should it be?

228

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

I agree, like I said, it was just a thought. The basic thought being, will this be the first domino to fall leading to WWIII.

I’m not trying to turn this into a comparison debate, but when Germany began invading neighboring countries wasn’t that just a “regional hegemon stepping in, well inside their sphere of influence.”?[/quote]

Not at all. This is completely different.

  1. Russia has a pre-existing treaty with the Ukraine allowing them to place up to 25,000 troops inside the country, Germany did not.

  2. Germany invaded, Russia has not.

  3. Germany had no reason to be in these neighboring countries, no interests, no “peacekeeping” missions, no humanitarian missions, no aid missions. No reasons at all.

  4. Putin =/= Hitler (crazy occultism)

  5. Putin doesn’t want to have to fight if he doesn’t need to

  6. Russia has been able to take Ukraine for a long, long time and hasn’t, Germany not so much

  7. Taking Ukraine would not accomplish any political ends he can’t accomplish already with simple pressure and would bring about a ton of complications that could go poorly, the juice not worth the squeeze.

  8. Putin has a strong hand to play as he is playing now, an actual annexation would kill his hand and seriously weaken his standing.[/quote]

Again, let’s backtrack here, I did not say we needed to take take military action here.

I agree the situation is vastly different, which is why I asked the question. That does not mean the outcome won’t be the same. I would rather be prepared for the worst and hope for the best than have another Pearl Harbor.

229

I can’t see your comments Bismark, I have you on ignore.

230

What is a “dirty nuke”, exactly? The war in Iraq only gave Iran an even greater incentive to become a nuclear weapon state. Iran also has much more influence in Iraq since the US invasion. Not exactly a prudent war especially considering it very likely lost the war in Afghanistan.

231

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I can’t see your comments Bismark, I have you on ignore. [/quote]

:frowning:

232

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
So we didn’t wait on Iraq and it very well could have hurt us (would be hard to argue how, but ok)
[/quote]

First I would argue we did wait. How many sanctions did we put on Iraq in the last 25 years?

We don’t know what affect waiting even longer would have had on a number of key players especially having just gone through 9/11. Hussein of course being one, but what about Iran? Hell they already test our resolve on the nuclear issue, imagine if we hadn’t pressed and ultimately dethroned Hussein?

We may have “rushed” in, by your standards, but the war in Iraq ended almost immediately. It was the “rebuilding” decade that cost of all that money and all those lives. You can thank Congress for that.

You’ve got me here.

Except the situation is much different.

We do know the effect of going in before we knew whether or not they had WMD’s. They did not ultimately and our justification for that action was completely lost at that point. We had an opportunity to wait for confirmation before acting and we ignored it.

Of course the “war” ended soon because Iraq was not even remotely close to a military power like they were during Desert Storm. After fucking everything up in there AND then realizing they didn’t have the shit we said they would it became necessary to stay to make it “worthwhile.” Remember how our President and politicians had to sell everyone on the progress they were making and Democracy and all that other hokey “oops we fucked up so let’s nation build?”

You can thank President Bush and Congress for not showing restraint here. You can thank the President for building the weak case that we couldn’t wait. That we must show strength. The start of one terrorist attacking dictating a foreign and domestic policy that has arguably robbed us of liberty and certainly our own soldiers lives and much economic and political turmoil.

The rest of your post is well maybe if we hadn’t then really bad things would be happening right now. You know maybe if we hadn’t things would be BETTER and not worse. We have no way of knowing. All we know is the results of the actions we took. And right now history isn’t smiling much on those results.

233

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Again, let’s backtrack here, I did not say we needed to take take military action here.

I agree the situation is vastly different, which is why I asked the question. That does not mean the outcome won’t be the same. I would rather be prepared for the worst and hope for the best than have another Pearl Harbor. [/quote]

This is fine but is sound foreign policy actually based on “let’s be careful because of what happened in World War II?” The world is vastly different right now and the peace we have seen in the 21st century so far is vast compared to the peace seen during the initial 50 years of our last century.

We would be wise to do everything in our power to not fuck that up. And rushing to military action simply because of what happened a long time ago doesn’t seem that wise to me in the least bit. Nor does comparing this current situation to an older one simply because of bad things that have happened before.

People who are arguing look strong say it in terms of preventing World War III. I think showing restraint has a better chance in preventing World War III than making all sorts of threats in a situation that is nothing like Germany.

234

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If Mexico came out today and said, “Russia if you invade the Ukraine we will defend the Ukraine at all cost”. How long do you think Russia would laugh?

Now substitute America for Mexico. Does Russia laugh or do they take a step back and think about the consequences of their actions?

What is the difference?

Being strong is well a strong deterrent, but you have to look the part. It’s hard to bluff if you look weak.

[/quote]

I see your larger point, but foreign policy is not often something you should bother bluffing with when stakes are high. Most certainly not in this case.[/quote]

Ukraine isn’t under the protection of US extended deterrence. Through the lens of self interest and realpolitik, why should it be? [/quote]

No, I agree with you. We have no real interests there from a purely practical standpoint, just making a more general point.

235

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Again, let’s backtrack here, I did not say we needed to take take military action here. [/quote]

Yeah I get that. You asked the question though and I presumed you wanted an answer so I did.

Certainly agreed here in the general sense, but there’s no conceivable threat of this happening at all in this situation, or from Russia as a whole. We would be much more likely to suffer the equivalent via a terrorist operation rather than a state actor anywhere in the foreseeable future. The game is largely different now than then and I don’t see a similar occurrence being realistic as the world stands currently.

236

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
If Mexico came out today and said, “Russia if you invade the Ukraine we will defend the Ukraine at all cost”. How long do you think Russia would laugh?

Now substitute America for Mexico. Does Russia laugh or do they take a step back and think about the consequences of their actions?

What is the difference?

Being strong is well a strong deterrent, but you have to look the part. It’s hard to bluff if you look weak.

[/quote]

I see your larger point, but foreign policy is not often something you should bother bluffing with when stakes are high. Most certainly not in this case.[/quote]

Ukraine isn’t under the protection of US extended deterrence. Through the lens of self interest and realpolitik, why should it be? [/quote]

No, I agree with you. We have no real interests there from a purely practical standpoint, just making a more general point.[/quote]

Oops. I quoted the wrong post. That was directed towards the intervention crowd, not you.

237

[quote]Bismark wrote:
What is a “dirty nuke”, exactly? The war in Iraq only gave Iran an even greater incentive to become a nuclear weapon state. Iran also has much more influence in Iraq since the US invasion. Not exactly a prudent war especially considering it very likely lost the war in Afghanistan.[/quote]

Not sure who brought up the “dirty nuke” but I agree with you here. Afghanistan could have been a success. Iraq…not as likely. However, my opinions have changed and likely will continue to do so concerning that sandbox.

238

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Again, let’s backtrack here, I did not say we needed to take take military action here.

I agree the situation is vastly different, which is why I asked the question. That does not mean the outcome won’t be the same. I would rather be prepared for the worst and hope for the best than have another Pearl Harbor. [/quote]

This is fine but is sound foreign policy actually based on “let’s be careful because of what happened in World War II?” The world is vastly different right now and the peace we have seen in the 21st century so far is vast compared to the peace seen during the initial 50 years of our last century.

We would be wise to do everything in our power to not fuck that up. And rushing to military action simply because of what happened a long time ago doesn’t seem that wise to me in the least bit. Nor does comparing this current situation to an older one simply because of bad things that have happened before.

People who are arguing look strong say it in terms of preventing World War III. I think showing restraint has a better chance in preventing World War III than making all sorts of threats in a situation that is nothing like Germany. [/quote]

I don’t think we need to worry about being careful I think we need to be prepared.

Look I don’t care if we say zero in regard to the situation in Ukraine going forward and let Europe take care of it. But I also think it’s poor foreign policy to just hope everything works out in the end without being prepared if it doesn’t.

You can look strong AND show restraint.

239

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Again, let’s backtrack here, I did not say we needed to take take military action here.

I agree the situation is vastly different, which is why I asked the question. That does not mean the outcome won’t be the same. I would rather be prepared for the worst and hope for the best than have another Pearl Harbor. [/quote]

This is fine but is sound foreign policy actually based on “let’s be careful because of what happened in World War II?” The world is vastly different right now and the peace we have seen in the 21st century so far is vast compared to the peace seen during the initial 50 years of our last century.

We would be wise to do everything in our power to not fuck that up. And rushing to military action simply because of what happened a long time ago doesn’t seem that wise to me in the least bit. Nor does comparing this current situation to an older one simply because of bad things that have happened before.

People who are arguing look strong say it in terms of preventing World War III. I think showing restraint has a better chance in preventing World War III than making all sorts of threats in a situation that is nothing like Germany. [/quote]

Yes. No need for arrogance or bellicosity akin to Wilhelmine Germany. If the UNSC can be compared to the Concert of Europe, why should any of the other great powers care about Ukraine? There are no common vital interests that could serve as an impetus for great power war.

240

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

Again, let’s backtrack here, I did not say we needed to take take military action here. [/quote]

Yeah I get that. You asked the question though and I presumed you wanted an answer so I did.

Certainly agreed here in the general sense, but there’s no conceivable threat of this happening at all in this situation, or from Russia as a whole. We would be much more likely to suffer the equivalent via a terrorist operation rather than a state actor anywhere in the foreseeable future. The game is largely different now than then and I don’t see a similar occurrence being realistic as the world stands currently. [/quote]

I wanted to make sure my stance was clear.

Again, I agree. I don’t see the problem with being prepared for a worst case scenario. We know world wars have happened and they weren’t that long ago. We also don’t know what will spark the next one.

Hopefully nothing will, but like my mom always says, “Hope in one hand and shit in the other, see which one you get first.”