Libertarian's Forum › Libertarian's Forum › Freedom Forum › Would use be usign retaliatory force to free ukraine?
Would use be usign retaliatory force to free ukraine? (Read 2152 times)
cutgov90
Would use be usign retaliatory force to free ukraine?
Mar 27th, 2014 at 7:19am
USA promised ukraine if they don't get nukes they will be protected
now we sold them out
why them and not israel or taiwan?
Re: Would use be usign retaliatory force to free ukraine?
Reply #1 - Mar 28th, 2014 at 8:39pm
We've been indicating that we'll sell out Israel and Taiwan for a long time now.
Nobody knows what our commitments to NATO signatories actually mean. Maybe nothing.
Have we taken up the issue of Russia breaking it's treaty to protect Ukraine with the UN? If it's OK with the UN, it's OK with me.
stevea
Joined: Jul 24th, 2011
Jeff wrote on Mar 28th, 2014 at 8:39pm:
I don't disagree, but what exactly are NATO commitments to the US ? It's should be a 2-way street.
For example Germany spent a lot of money on Russian oil & refineries & pipelines despite the fact that anyone who knows even 50 yrs of history or has been to East Germany or Poland would expect Russia to be a bad actor. So why is the US is supposed to spend it's a resources bailing out the Germany/EU ? We pay ~4.4% of GDP on military while the Euros free-ride at ~1.4%, and the Germans benefit by shipping under-priced BMWs based on propping up an eager to grow Russia. Now that they've empowered a bad actor - why should we clean up their mess ?
I'm a lot less sanguine abt UK, Poland and even France who carry a lot more of the load and act more like real allies appropriate to their economic size.
Were I Emperor of the planet for 20 minutes, my first act would be to force the UN to act as a "land office" They should record all disputed&undisputed borders. Any forceful incursions across a recorded border should be consider invalid, a cause for military reaction by any member that chooses, and REQUIRE all UN members to immediately cease all trade w/ the aggressor/intruder nation (after some preliminary investigation of the nation at cause) until the dispute is resolved (by some terms) - else expulsion. No border/national boundaries can be created or revised w/o some well-supervised local plebiscite with a 2/3rd (~) majority vote of all parties - and that is all that is required for independence.
Sadly the "debate society for dictators" akak UN can't address the most fundamental of issues, like borders.
So yeah if the US wants to invade Iraq or Russia wants to invade Ukraine or Crimea *AND* if it's worth their trade isolation - that's the penalty. Why should anyone do business with a shameless criminal ?
stevea wrote on Mar 29th, 2014 at 4:45pm:
I don't disagree, but what exactly are NATO commitments to the US ?� It's should be a 2-way street.
For example Germany spent a lot of money on Russian oil & refineries & pipelines despite the fact that anyone who knows even 50 yrs of history or has been to East Germany or Poland would expect Russia to be a bad actor.� So why is the US is supposed to spend it's a resources bailing out the Germany/EU ?� We pay ~4.4% of GDP on military while the Euros free-ride at ~1.4%, and the Germans benefit by shipping under-priced BMWs based on propping up an eager to grow Russia.� Now that they've empowered a bad actor - why should we clean up their mess ?
Were I Emperor of the planet for 20 minutes, my first act would be to force the UN to act as a "land office"� �They should record all disputed&undisputed borders.� Any forceful incursions across a recorded border should be consider invalid, a cause for military reaction by any member that chooses, and REQUIRE all UN members to immediately cease all trade w/ the aggressor/intruder nation (after some preliminary investigation of the nation at cause) until the dispute is resolved (by some terms) - else expulsion.� No border/national boundaries can be created or revised w/o some well-supervised local plebiscite with a 2/3rd (~) majority vote of all parties - and that is all that is required for independence.
So yeah� if the US wants to invade Iraq or Russia wants to invade Ukraine or Crimea� *AND* if it's worth their trade isolation - that's the penalty.� Why should anyone do business with a shameless criminal ?
As far as I can tell, the commitment of NATO 'allies' to the U.S. is that they allow us to have military bases in their countries so we can protect them.
This is a good deal for them.
People in our country are getting good deals out of the arrangement, but they aren't regular working folks. Except for the considerable number of good (union?) jobs in defense industries.
It's hard to imagine Europe just sitting around watching while the new U.S.S.R., sorry Russian Federation, captures their countries again.
Maybe they will, and if so, they'll deserve what they get.
Reply #4 - Mar 30th, 2014 at 8:30am
Also so we can station 66000 troops in Europe & 50000 in Japan to spend their salaries their and pump up their economies.
It's hard to imagine Europe just sitting around watching while the� new U.S.S.R., sorry Russian Federation, captures their countries again.
No it's easy to imagine. Consider how the Euros sat around jabbering while Hitler gained power. These clowns just sat around and chattered during the Yugoslav wars and ethnic cleansing (Slobedan Milosevic) in the 1990s - right inside Europe, until the US came in and knocked heads. The Euro nations are individually isolationists even when there are threats on their own borders. The UK & France are exceptional in this regard.
If you want my Long Term take on Russia ....
For warm water naval access Russia needs Crimea and some larger port like in Syria - these are serious necessities for their naval power. It's unsurprising that Russia wants to secure these.
If Russia wants the Ukraine (note that Crimea was not a regular province of the Ukraine) it can pretty clearly take it by force, but it means a big expense, likely an extended guerrilla war from insurgents supported from the outside, and a lot of isolation in trade, maybe loss of overseas assets.
The recent anti-government 'color revolution' turmoil in the Ukraine actually destabilizes Putin's position within Russia, so he has strong reason to want to suppress it. It's my understanding that a lot of ethnic Russians in Crimea and the Ukraine have no interest in being part of Russia. Also a lot of Russians want to end the Kleptocracy there.
So my best assessment is that Putin wants to take and control Crimea, and threaten the Ukraine int o submission, perhaps install another puppet government w/o investing in a Ukrainian war. He is just recently getting a bill passed to criminalize anti-government protests within the Russian Federation.
Despite comments in another thread - sanctions can work when you can cut off access to some critical good, but that is not practical against Russia. If the West refuses to take Russian Oil, they will increase and expand exports of oil to China and Asia. Most of the pipelines from Russia to China go through Kazakhstan, making a Russian takeover of Kazakhstan more likely as it would then be critical to their economy.
The way to counter Russia on the cheap is to fund insurgents in Crimea, Chechnya, and especially Syria. I'm not suggesting we do that - just that it could be effective and cheap.
I know, I keep fantasizing that people will learn something from history, but I have to pretend people actually know history to make the fantasy work, so it doesn't.
I don't like to think about expansionist Russia joining up with China, because every time I do think about it, I think they've been planning this for a long time.
I'm more worried about what is happening in the U.S. and what will happen here when the global economy finally quits staggering around and falls down. Nobody has a clue that I can see, or they aren't talking about it much. Can they really believe that the Fed can just keep creating more money and lending it to the government? And that it will have good effects?
I haven't heard anyone predict that it will end well for our economy, or anyone mention a plan to save us from the collapse. Hyperinflation? Or stable money? Even more people out of the labor force? Or an increase in commerce that creates jobs?
No, the only plan is, the Fed is handling it, and will handle it. We hope. How will they do it? Nobody knows.
I do agree that supporting libertarians in Europe is a good idea, but Europe should bear the cost, or most of it.
Shiva_TD
Location: Washington (State)
Joined: Dec 12th, 2011
Reply #6 - Apr 4th, 2014 at 11:41am
The biggest single mistake by the US in the 20th Century was the US becoming involved in WW I where we had not been attacked and no nation had declared war on us. Our involvement in WW I didn't work out well for us or the rest of the world.
Why would we want to repeat the same mistake again in the 21st Century?
Reply #7 - Apr 4th, 2014 at 3:43pm
Shiva_TD wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 11:41am:
Hindsight is great, except it can't extend to predicting what would have happened if different decisions had been made.
I think it's best we be prepared to defend the U.S. from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Jeff wrote on Apr 4th, 2014 at 3:43pm:
Russia isn't going to attack or invade the United States. The movie Red Dawn was fiction remember.
Reply #9 - Apr 6th, 2014 at 9:13am
Shiva_TD wrote on Apr 5th, 2014 at 8:48pm:
What does your crystal ball show that Russia IS going to do?
Do you suppose that Russia is the only enemy of the U.S.?
Maybe we should divide the list of enemies into those who oppose U.S. government interference throughout the world, and those who oppose a system of government that makes the people sovereign and government their servant.