No indeed. The prospect of a Soviet presence in Cuba is what prompted the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
1 Like
I don’t think it would make a long, bloody proxy war inevitable. I think it would have a significant chance of leading to WW3, though.
Trying to welcome non-whites into full citizenship in the US makes conflict more likely, not less. So we shouldn’t do that!
This take strikes me as sophisticated sophistry. NATO isn’t in the cards for Ukrainian atm. The issue is whether Russia gets to run Ukraine as a puppet state to satisfy the aims of its dictator.
Should we go to war to defend the right of Ukraine not to be a puppet state? Probably not. But Russia has no legitimate claim to Ukraine other than the fake nationalist claptrap that substitutes for Russian history.
I don’t know how all this will shake out, but it will not be to the long term benefit of Russia. Claims of encirclement have always been the pretext for bad guys in European wars.
1 Like
Haven’t read this yet, but I trust it a lot more than a dicy lecture from a foreign policy hack.
Edit: read it and it provides essential context for the discussion.
Jesus Christ. The west created this? Fuck off, Putin is an absolute thug who is going to invade because he’s a POS thug who needs to distract from his domestic weakness.
What the fuck is it with contrarian WELL AKSHUALLY types and going to bat for Putin?
12 Likes
What do you think the US should do in response to the threat you’ve described?
Germany is only interested in the pipeline from Russia so they’re probably out, just UK and US any actual interest in defending ukraine?
if the secondary point was to split US/europe this is a hell of a way to do it probably gonna work
Putin’s been so blatant with wanting to get the USSR back I shouldn’t have been surprised there’s people who don’t see it even on this board
whether he actually invades or not though, still tbd probably purely on if he thinks he can get away with it
Sure, but NATO expansion is dead because of the Russian’s response to it, culminating in the Crimean invasion. They made it clear that they’d do whatever it takes to keep Ukraine from falling into the Western sphere of influence. And yes, that is the issue: is Ukraine in Russia’s sphere of influence or in the Western sphere. So we agree on that at least.
OK, maybe. But should we fight a war to keep Russia from imposing their nationalist claptrap? Again, we seem to agree no. Should we fight a proxy war? I don’t see why. What’s the compelling US interest in keeping Ukraine out of the clutches of the dastardly Putin?
The US should fuck with Putin in Ukraine as punishment for meddling in our elections.
1 Like
I think we should support Ukraine as a matter of US/Western values of self determination and discouraging unwilling client states. Give them plenty of arms. I think Putin made a mistake in Donbas and Crimea by removing many Russian voices from Ukraine politics. I suspect that an acceptable result would be for Ukraine to part with areas dominated by Russian populations so it can focus on becoming a modern state. Would be nice if some kind of referendum could be held.
1 Like
That doesn’t serve American interests though, as far as I can see. Arming the Ukrainians to the teeth only commits Russia to supporting the Russian nationalists in Ukraine with similar arms, and then the Russians might stage raids across the border in support of these nationalists. Why does a bloody balkanization of Ukraine help America, or, for that matter, Ukraine?
Put another way, do you agree with Mearsheimer that Russia would rather wreck Ukraine as a functioning state than allow it to fall into the Western orbit? And, if so, do you think that Russia has that capability? I think the answer to both is clearly yes.
I think there’s plenty of middle ground between Russian client states and “Western orbit.” Afaik, Ukraine isn’t up for EU membership. Russia has never had anything to offer its client states beyond subjugation, the mandate of the divinely inspired czar/Stalin, and supporting God’s favored Slavic race against the Ottomans and maybe the Huns. Russia is still playing 19th century politics, to its own detriment.
Yes! Absolutely, Russia is playing 19th century balance of power politics. That’s it, that’s all they’re doing. But why should we send American money and arms to Ukraine to keep them from doing that there? How does that serve American interests?
I think the goal would be to have a relatively peaceful world of autonomous free states not directed by external dictators. Easier said than done, but Russia doesn’t seem to want to live in such a world. If Russia is so confident in its virtue maybe it should allow free elections and dissent. Instead it just wants to rule others, to no discernable benefit, and to blame others for it’s problems. I think Russia truly believes in Russian superiority, despite all evidence to the contrary. Sad thing is that it could be a great nation but is locked in self defeating aggression and defensiveness.
4 Likes
I think we’re talking about very different things. You’re talking about what you think Russia should do. I’m talking about what Russia is going to do. I agree with you that it’d be great if Russia acted like you think they should act. But they’re not going to do that.
I think the first question is open to debate a bit, but the critical third question is whether it strengthens or weakens Russia’s strategic position to invade a Ukraine that’s getting strong material and diplomatic support from the West. I’d say it materially weakens them, certainly relative to the pre-2014 situation.
Making it costly for Russia to do the immoral thing is a win-win. Either they do the bad thing and get a bunch of tanks blown up with Western missiles, or else they realize that it’s going to be costly and they back off from invading Ukraine. What are we worried about here?
1 Like
Except I don’t think they’ll actually invade. They’ll escalate the proxy war, maybe stage artillery strikes over the border, maybe do a raid. Maybe seize a particularly strongly supportive enclave of eastern Ukraine. Which I guess is to say, for the third question to be relevant you have to ask, does Russia need to invade Ukraine to wreck it as a functioning state? I don’t think so. Certainly not the whole country and I don’t think even the pro-Russian east.
Long time off and on lurker. Don’t post ever. Anyways, I took a Russian history course in college once years ago, and pretty much the only thing I remember is I read that when judging Russian motivation in respect to foreign policy, most Westerns dont properly understand and account for the pathological distrust that Russia has had with the Western World since the time of Napoleon, and how that has fueled their nativism and foreign policy perspectives.
Starting with the invasion of Russia by Napoleon in 1812, Russia has viewed the last 200 years of history as one long episode of the West continually encroaching on and threatening Russian sovereignty. And from their perspective this is the prime motivating factor justifying most of their foreign policy decisions.
I am not arguing this is a valid or accurate perspective. I am just pointing out it is a very prevalent one. Maybe to Putin this is just a cynical power grab, maybe he is sincere, I really don’t know. I am just pointing out that a sizable portion of the Russian populace probably sincerely believes this episode is a defensive exercise to protect Russian sovereignty.
13 Likes
bush sr could have promised anything like that, because again he doesn’t control anything subsequent presidents would do. in fact, poland expansion occurred fully seven years into Clinton’s term.
it’s not a neocon/neolib expansionism at all. it’s simply a mutual defense pact.