4 ms·
> invading North Korea in 2003 would have been a far better choice This sounds just like the rationale for the Vietnam war or the recent annexation of Crimea.
by pps43 10y ago
> invading North Korea in 2003 would have been a far better choice
This sounds just like the rationale for the Vietnam war or the recent annexation of Crimea.
- rl3 10y agoIt does, actually. A cynical person might say the Vietnam War constituted payday for the defense industry. Crimea was about strategic resources (which ultimately boil down to money), and global posturing. Barely even a pretense of an underlying moral justification beyond nationalist rhetoric.
- pps43 10y agoThere are no strategic resources to speak of in Crimea. Black Sea fleet has no strategic importance for Russia because it is locked by Turkey, still a NATO country. All strategic ports are in the North and on the Pacific. It was more like "Wag the Dog" play. A little war to boost morale and avoid orange revolution in Russia. Cost a lot of money due to sanctions and tanking ruble, so clearly not driven by economic considerations.
- rl3 10y agohttps://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/world/europe/in-taking-crimea-putin-gains-a-sea-of-fuel-reserves.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/world/europe/in-taking-cr... "When Russia seized Crimea in March, it acquired not just the Crimean landmass but also a maritime zone more than three times its size with the rights to underwater resources potentially worth trillions of dollars."
- pps43 10y agoKey word here is "potentially". There's not much oil production in Black Sea. There are much better oil fields in Caspian sea nearby (which the linked article even mentions), let alone Siberia.