Hey... play nice and stop the personal attacks. If you don't agree with someone, fine... explain, and move on. You don't have to agree with someone's point of view, but you can fucking respect it and behave accordingly. "Fuck you, you're an idiot" isn't behaving accordingly. If you can't say something nice, then shut your pie hole and don't say anything at all. Pointing out an impending trainwreck isn't helpful, and only fucks up the signal:noise. So don't comment on the obvious... we're Idiots, not retards. Take special care to play nice with political and religious topics that may pop up here. That's the one and only warning.
I'm not trolling. Why is it seen as inevitable that there be conflict? Why do people think if these natural resources are cut off or hindered from 1 source it'll be catastrophe for Europe? That's not how economies, millions of people acting on their own interests, work. The US can very properly and promptly butt out of this conflict.
There will inevitably be a conflict because eventually - if left unchecked - real tangible harm will come to the United States. Do you think Putin just wants it so he can have it? Come on now. He's a bully. More power/land he has, the more out of touch with reality his perception of what he can and can't do is. Unfortunately - we have a president who makes comments like "that's my line, don't cross it" and then doesn't back it up when the offending party smirks, jumps over the line, and effectively mushroom stamps him in the forehead. That's never a good thing.
What actually is going on right now, combat-wise? I have a hard time trusting the spokespeople for both countries. Last time I checked Ukrainian soldiers were beginning to use deadly force against these so-called "unknown soldiers" but could beUkraine's government blowing smoke to make their own people feel re-assured. The big problem Ukraine faces is a true crisis of class: the Oligarchs control everything, and most of them are in Russia's pocket with everything from natural resources to tourism. And like many billionaire assholes they don't want to lose a single cent. They're afraid the people will rebel if Klitschko's people take the reigns. I mean, what were the people JUST DOING? A decade ago they were happy, the right party was in charge and the Oligarchs got to keep their money. The Oligarchs should be afraid now, not before. NOW they are angry because they poked the bear too much. I wouldn't be surprised if kidnappings start happening like Latin America because thatscwhat happens when so few have so much. They think if Klitschko's party (sorry I forget its name) wins again they'll strip them of their billions and shower the people with their cash. Which just isn't true. The people want AWAY from Russia and its maniac commander-in-chief. They just want what the rest of us have: a decent life.
Exactly. Isolationism doesnt exactly work, not in the long-term anyway. Two world wars immediately followed by Cold War effectively put an end to that tactic. Im not advocating a hawkish foreign policy to the degree of Kissinger, but you cant sit around and ignore it either. But if were going to draw lines in the sand, we cant have our bluff called. Now on the flip-side of that coin, theres no immediate threat to the United States. but our interests (and yes, oil is a vital interest) could be at stake.
I don't think that's true at all. No harm will come to the US. Russia has no more power to harm the US meaningfully than the US does Russia, excluding an invasion or nuclear exchange. The invader in either scenario would lose categorically, though casualties on both sides would unthinkably high. That is highly unlikely as neither Russian nor US politicians are suicidal. Crown, what's happening in Ukraine, is the same thing that happened in Syria and Libya: NGOs (big quotes around that) sent money and agents into the country to stir up dissent among radical groups to overthrow the existing rulers to destabilize the country and region. The radical groups (actual Nazis in Ukraine) are fighting pro-Russian and Russian forces. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.salon.com/2014/02/25/is_the_us_backing_neo_nazis_in_ukraine_partner/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.salon.com/2014/02/25/is_the_ ... e_partner/</a>
Your post is as wrong as can be. The US has never engaged in isolationism so to say it doesn't work is just wrong. But when the US was close to an isolationist policy, like say, during parts of the 1800s, it worked fine. Having our bluff called might have saved millions of people's lives. I'm glad that Obama is such a pussy he decided not to bomb Syria after being called out by Putin and Americans. Fewer dead women, dead children, dead men, orphans, widows, widowers, destroyed buildings and resources, and dismembered people is not a bad thing. Oil is a vital interest, sure, but it's so vital that it's much smarter not to destroy the countries that sell it, which would just mess up the oil flow. There are many places to get oil, and many corporations that would love to make money selling it to the US.
Ok, I'll play nice. Let's start at the top: 1. Economic sanctions From the Council on Foreign Relations: 'The nature of UN sanctions has changed in the past decade away from comprehensive measures levied against states to targeted sanctions aimed at individuals and small groups or entities. Some experts say this shift, when combined with other levers outside the United Nations, can make sanctions more effective. Others say UN sanctions have had only limited impact in changing the behavior of dangerous regimes or individuals.' 100% success rate? Of course not, nothing ever is. At least moderately successful? Yep. See Libya, Yugoslavia, Liberia. Granted the American sanctions are not UN sanctions, but look, evidence sanctions in general can actually work. And the success rate is climbing. 2. 'If no natural gas ever made it from the East to Europe through Ukraine ever again, the world would keep on turning' Yep, the earth would stay on it's axis, and Europe would look a lot like a picture of North Korea at night, because it would be back in the dark ages. You can't possibly think that losing 1/3 to 1/4 of an entire continent's gas supply isn't going to cripple it? Everything from manufacturing to transportation to agriculture would be impacted. How can that possibly not matter? 3. NATO would lose against Russia and can't do shit: Do you have some reason to think that? Like some actual data or a source? Russia is too large and sophisticated a nation you say, as if everyone else is riding go karts to war? 4. 'There are probably 100 things you know about that I'm clueless on, but the Constitution and foreign policy aren't 2 of them' Wha? The Constitution? Whose constitution are you even talking about? What point are you trying to make here? If you'd like to get into the legalities of nations, perhaps the more appropriate thing to discuss is how 'the U.N. General Assembly...overwhelmingly affirmed Ukraine’s territorial integrity and deemed the referendum that led to Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula illegal.' At least that's topical. 5. 'Thank you Europe for colonization I guess?' Again, what? I don't even understand what this means. Iran was an example, and not something to debate here because it would be it's own topic. Nettdaddy is right, I shouldn't just call you stupid. But the point of discourse is to discuss things and actually think about them, perhaps research and learn something new about them. If you want to just sit there with 'it's not that way because I don't think it is', you're not contributing anything. If you want to disagree with me than please do, I learn from it. But please have an actual argument to present Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false
Having our bluff called should never have happened. There shouldn't have been a bluff. And certainly not such an obvious one.
I'd argue the Libyan sanctions didn't work, since 10 years later the US was illegally bombing the country and assisted in, or carried out, the assassination of its leader. Of course I don't think that. But that's not what would happen. There are lots of places to get natural gas and other resources. The world is a big place and lots of people like making money. Months of economic trouble aren't worth World War 3 or even a minor war where only hundreds of thousands die. The US and Britain couldn't pacify Iraq or Afghanistan, as I mentioned earlier, so how could NATO defeat Russia or even Ukraine? It couldn't. Not without a very large war, which it isn't willing to carry out, I hope. Crown said we should thank Europe for civilization and baby Jesus.
I hate posting in threads like this because it always turns into a research paper instead of a discussion. Rounds of "NUH UH, YOU!" irritate me. So. Yes. Economic sanctions are in fact, or will be in this case, highly effective. They are going to hit Putin's supporters, the oligarchs with international banking ties. For anyone still keeping track, Iran's economy was tanked doing this. Putin will have no choice but to do something soon. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/04/28/heres-how-obamas-sanctions-will-destroy-vladimir-putin/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/ ... mir-putin/</a> Further more, Russia's economy will grow about 0% in 2014 because of this mess. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-russia-economy-ukraine-costs-20140416-story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/l ... story.html</a>
After over a decade of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq the US military is flat burnt out and broke. More importantly the American public as a whole is burnt out and unless American assets/interests are directly attacked on the scale of 9/11 it is unlikely the attitude will change in the near future. Remember NATO is a defensive pact; if NATO countries decide to intervene in Ukraine the US is under no obligation to come to their aid. I don't think the US would avoid involvement but we could see a rather reserved response from the US. Something similar to US support to the air campaign in Libya. I hope Elon succeeds as well. We need more like him to balance out the established old-boy networks. My girlfriend is working on her PhD in planetary sciences and she's mentioned a few examples how the sanctions are starting to negatively effect space exploration cooperation with the Russians. Since you specifically brought up foreign policy, I'll throw out what I know based on over a decade working in the field. I care if Europe can't procure enough petroleum and natural gas. If they cannot obtain it from Russia, they'll look elsewhere which will mean less product supplying current demand. That will drive prices higher worldwide. It's basic economics. Why do you think NATO became involved in Libya? France and Germany dragged NATO into Libyan precisely because both import significant amounts of petroleum from Libya. The amount imported from Russia for all of Europe is exponentially larger. Syria on the other hand has very little in the way of oil and gas. I'd have to look up the specific numbers, but I do know Syria is not an exporter. On a global economic scale Syria doesn't factor. Ukraine does. As Chellie said, if/when conflict starts in Ukraine, there will be a massive economic fallout and given the countries it will involve it's very unlikely a conflict in that area of the world will stay contained to that region of the world. Look at this from a Russian point of view. During the 20th century the Russia was invaded and lost millions of people. Then add the millions purged by their own government. It's safe to say the average Russian is probably subconsciously a little paranoid. They wanted satellite states as a buffer against future invasions and got them with the Warsaw Pact. Today I would say we're seeing a Russia trying to reassert as a major world player and Putin is testing the waters to see what exactly what the world will allow him to get away with and regain some of those buffer areas. Putin likely wants Crimea because Sevastopol is a strategic port on the Black sea that Russia has heavily invested in and Russia similarly views the Black Sea to how we view the Gulf of Mexico. Historical Russian connections and ownership of Crimea just makes it all that easier to pull popular support for action from his people. When the Soviet Union collapsed, most of these satellite countries, quickly realigned with the west for security against the Soviets and a very strong western economy didn't hurt either. Look at how many counties have petitioned to join NATO and how many still want to join. It's the same reason Poland is very pro US despite the US world reputation at low point.
You and me both...in the 45min or so it took for me to write out my response the thread grew by an additional page.
It all feels so dramatic. Like there should be a fellow named Alfred over our shoulder explaining what some men want when we see a picture of Putin in the news.
I guess I find it rather ironic reading some of the opinions in the press and from the political sphere stating that this cannot stand, especially when you consider many of these same people supported the invasion of Iraq. I suppose if Europe or whoever else wants to drag their happy asses out there to flex on Vlad, then they should have at it. America has expended enough blood and treasure, I'm pretty sure most can agree on that. Besides isn't it about time Europe started pulling their own weight again, perhaps France can purchase some tanks whose only gear isn't reverse.
The energy sanctions that the US and Germany have promised in the event of a Russian will throw Europe back into a full blown economic crisis(not that it was entirely out of the first one). That's just fact. With the fighting spreading across the Ukraine, Putin could just act on a "responsibility to protect"* those who are being killed by the Ukrainian military and pro-Ukrainian mobs. The one consequence of this no one is talking about is how this is pushing the Russians back into China's corner. The Russian-Chinese Communist alliance by and large didn't survive too far past Stalin's death(and was dead in the water by Mao's death). This this whole situation however could ensure that China has Russia's support for creating an alternate non-dollar payments system. *This would be a macabre joke; Responsibility-to-protect is a Western doctrine, used to justify Western invasions; I'm sure it would amuse Putin to no end to throw it back in the West’s face.
I've been following this thread, and a lot of good points. For now, I'll start with this. The US, and UK, are involved because we said we would be, back in 1994. For the US to not get involved now, would hurt our standing as a guarantor of agreements that we help broker. I'll get more into the other stuff later, but as far as the agreement, the basic gist of it is that in return for giving up their nuclear arsenal after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia agreed to leave Ukraine alone. Obviously, that does not appear to be happening in recent months, hence the US and UK (and all the other assorted allies) have to do something, not only because of the agreement, but thinking ahead, we will lose credibility in brokering deals with other nuclear nations to give up arms in return for assurances of continued sovereignty (I'm looking at Pakistan, Iran and North Korea, just off the top of my head). I didn't see anyone else reference the 1994 agreement in this thread, and if they did, my apologies. I put it here because it is highly relevant to the discussion.