4 ms·

If we can't even defend weak from a bully, what's the point of anything; specially when they seem to be asking for help. There are much unjustified and unasked

If we can't even defend weak from a bully, what's the point of anything; specially when they seem to be asking for help. There are much unjustified and unasked for interventions that have been done even in the recent past. Are all our morals and ideals just for convenience.

SllX 5y ago
This isn’t the goddamned playground with a bigger kid picking on a smaller kid. These are two nations at War and nobody has a defense pact or commitment with Ukraine because the concern was that making that pact would inevitably lead to a Russia-NATO war. Our morals and ideals are not universally shared by our adversaries, and our adversaries include two Nuclear powers with ICBMs. One of them is the instigator in this conflict. So yeah, it would be more than just a little inconvenient to get into a shooting war with the Russians because Europe realistically may not actually survive the conflict and our saving grace would be what, at least Russia didn’t either?
- ROTMetro 5y ago
  Just for clarity, Ukraine pleaded for the defense pact, we refused it because the other side scared us too much. Sure seems like a playground bully. But yeah, stand by the 'we didn't get involved because then Russia would invade', wooh, that worked out well. I think the path you support is leading to a more unstable nuclear environment then if we would have been firm. But sure, it's just Czechoslovakia, I mean Ukraine they are after (never mind their actual words). And this doesn't destabilize the whole Taiwan China calculus (oh wait, it does). Yep, safer.
  - SllX 5y ago
    Three things: 1. I did not share my thoughts on what we should or shouldn’t do, nor what we should have or shouldn’t have done. Don’t presume to know my position. The truth is I don’t know what we should have done or should do now, but I know I’m not in a rush to get in a shooting war with another nuclear power without considering that we may not actually survive it. 2. Treating the battlefield like a playground cheapens the conflict and is disrespectful to those on the battlefield. 3. International conflict and diplomacy is not just playground bullying. The leaders of every single NATO nation including the United States have a responsibility to their own people first and foremost and it is not at all obvious how to deal with Putin. This isn’t the Sudetenland in 1938, nor Poland 1939; Poland actually had defense pacts which were not honored and was invaded by two of the most powerful countries in the world in a world that had not yet invented nuclear weapons nor ICBMs. This is Ukraine 2022 in a very different world with very different power dynamics, communications and much more destructive weapons technologies. There is a lot more at stake and to disregard that is foolishness.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > This isn’t the Sudetenland in 1938, nor Poland 1939 Feels pretty much exactly like it, though. (Crimea was the Sudetenland (unless that was Abkhasia / South Ossetia).) > Poland actually had defense pacts which were not honored So to avoid that, this time around "Poland" wasn't even given any pacts (unless you count the Budapest agreement) but strung along in the hope of them... OK, so not an exact repetition; "History does repeat, but in a funny-house mirror". [Just made that up.] > and was invaded by two of the most powerful countries in the world in a world that had not yet invented nuclear weapons nor ICBMs. Isn't that quite a bit like someone saying "This isn't the start of WW1; we're in a vastly different world with tanks and gas now" about Poland in 1939? Yet most serious historians nowadays (AIUI) see WW2 as a direct continuation of WW1. > This is Ukraine 2022 in a very different world with very different power dynamics, communications and much more destructive weapons technologies. There is a lot more at stake and to disregard that is foolishness. Yeah, so it's still pretty much the same world, with the same power dynamics and weapons technologies as, but somewhat better communications than, in the 1970s and -80s. Just like the 1920s and -30s were only a pause in the 20th Century World War, the mistake now is thinking that the Cold War ended in 1990. It's been going on all the time.
- actuator 5y ago
  While we don't have a pact with Ukraine, let us not forget that they gave up their nuclear arsenal in 1994 because they were given security assurances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... It is better that they had trusted themselves than nations that will give up on them.
  - SllX 5y ago
    Good point, and I can’t disagree. I have for a long time largely felt the same way about Europe and Japan re-militarizing on the theory that while it is good to have allies, it is better to have allies armed to the teeth and prepared to defend themselves too if our politics ever took a turn for the stupid and we indulged our isolationist tendencies again.
systemvoltage 5y ago
There are a lot of bullies (NK, Iran, Russia, China). It is not possible to meddle our way in it. This is and has been the classic liberal stance since the Cold War and the Vietnam War protests. The problem is that progressives of today are unrecognizable from the classic liberals, in the exact same fashion as the right wing has shown all of their cards of American exceptionalism and Trumpism. One side contradicts itself when it wants to meddle in wars and when it doesn't. The other side is apologetic about megalomaniac that Putin is. We need to get back to basics of building exceptional defense, innovating and stop being a world police.

SllX 5y ago

This isn’t the goddamned playground with a bigger kid picking on a smaller kid. These are two nations at War and nobody has a defense pact or commitment with Ukraine because the concern was that making that pact would inevitably lead to a Russia-NATO war. Our morals and ideals are not universally shared by our adversaries, and our adversaries include two Nuclear powers with ICBMs. One of them is the instigator in this conflict. So yeah, it would be more than just a little inconvenient to get into a shooting war with the Russians because Europe realistically may not actually survive the conflict and our saving grace would be what, at least Russia didn’t either?

ROTMetro 5y ago
Just for clarity, Ukraine pleaded for the defense pact, we refused it because the other side scared us too much. Sure seems like a playground bully. But yeah, stand by the 'we didn't get involved because then Russia would invade', wooh, that worked out well. I think the path you support is leading to a more unstable nuclear environment then if we would have been firm. But sure, it's just Czechoslovakia, I mean Ukraine they are after (never mind their actual words). And this doesn't destabilize the whole Taiwan China calculus (oh wait, it does). Yep, safer.
- SllX 5y ago
  Three things: 1. I did not share my thoughts on what we should or shouldn’t do, nor what we should have or shouldn’t have done. Don’t presume to know my position. The truth is I don’t know what we should have done or should do now, but I know I’m not in a rush to get in a shooting war with another nuclear power without considering that we may not actually survive it. 2. Treating the battlefield like a playground cheapens the conflict and is disrespectful to those on the battlefield. 3. International conflict and diplomacy is not just playground bullying. The leaders of every single NATO nation including the United States have a responsibility to their own people first and foremost and it is not at all obvious how to deal with Putin. This isn’t the Sudetenland in 1938, nor Poland 1939; Poland actually had defense pacts which were not honored and was invaded by two of the most powerful countries in the world in a world that had not yet invented nuclear weapons nor ICBMs. This is Ukraine 2022 in a very different world with very different power dynamics, communications and much more destructive weapons technologies. There is a lot more at stake and to disregard that is foolishness.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > This isn’t the Sudetenland in 1938, nor Poland 1939 Feels pretty much exactly like it, though. (Crimea was the Sudetenland (unless that was Abkhasia / South Ossetia).) > Poland actually had defense pacts which were not honored So to avoid that, this time around "Poland" wasn't even given any pacts (unless you count the Budapest agreement) but strung along in the hope of them... OK, so not an exact repetition; "History does repeat, but in a funny-house mirror". [Just made that up.] > and was invaded by two of the most powerful countries in the world in a world that had not yet invented nuclear weapons nor ICBMs. Isn't that quite a bit like someone saying "This isn't the start of WW1; we're in a vastly different world with tanks and gas now" about Poland in 1939? Yet most serious historians nowadays (AIUI) see WW2 as a direct continuation of WW1. > This is Ukraine 2022 in a very different world with very different power dynamics, communications and much more destructive weapons technologies. There is a lot more at stake and to disregard that is foolishness. Yeah, so it's still pretty much the same world, with the same power dynamics and weapons technologies as, but somewhat better communications than, in the 1970s and -80s. Just like the 1920s and -30s were only a pause in the 20th Century World War, the mistake now is thinking that the Cold War ended in 1990. It's been going on all the time.
actuator 5y ago
While we don't have a pact with Ukraine, let us not forget that they gave up their nuclear arsenal in 1994 because they were given security assurances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit... It is better that they had trusted themselves than nations that will give up on them.
- SllX 5y ago
  Good point, and I can’t disagree. I have for a long time largely felt the same way about Europe and Japan re-militarizing on the theory that while it is good to have allies, it is better to have allies armed to the teeth and prepared to defend themselves too if our politics ever took a turn for the stupid and we indulged our isolationist tendencies again.

systemvoltage 5y ago

There are a lot of bullies (NK, Iran, Russia, China). It is not possible to meddle our way in it. This is and has been the classic liberal stance since the Cold War and the Vietnam War protests. The problem is that progressives of today are unrecognizable from the classic liberals, in the exact same fashion as the right wing has shown all of their cards of American exceptionalism and Trumpism. One side contradicts itself when it wants to meddle in wars and when it doesn't. The other side is apologetic about megalomaniac that Putin is. We need to get back to basics of building exceptional defense, innovating and stop being a world police.