5 ms·

An actual lasting peace deal requires some sort of security guarantee, else it's not really a "peace deal", but rather something more like a capitulation. If US

An actual lasting peace deal requires some sort of security guarantee, else it's not really a "peace deal", but rather something more like a capitulation. If US political leadership didn't have at least some solution for security in mind to begin with, then they wouldn't have been negotiating in good faith. That said, Security Guarantees don't necessarily directly mean boots on the ground, certainly not straight away. It could mean a deterrence framework where there a clear commitments that certain actions would mean certain responses, which itself reduces the chance those responses are necessary. Security guarantees can specify escalating measures before reaching an actual troop deployment. And European nations have already promised to provide the initial boots on the ground, though they really would like an American backstop. The deterrence aspect is crucial - formal security frameworks often prevent conflict precisely because they make aggression too costly, reducing the likelihood they'd ever need to be activated.

rayiner 2y ago
That makes it seem like a security guarantee would risk deeper US involvement, as eventually happened with Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq I. It seems to me that your logic would make the Iraq War quite defensible. Iraq had already invaded Kuwait. We had already guaranteed Kuwait’s security, so we would’ve had to send troops if Saddam invaded again. So if the CIA was correct that Saddam was rearming, there was a logic to deposing him now and resolving the situation on terms favorable to us, instead of reactively getting involved at a future date. Without the benefit of hindsight—knowing Saddam didn’t have WMDs—it seems like the only basis for opposing the Iraq War under your logic would have been to quibble about how much of an affirmative step Saddam had to take before our obligation to put boots on the ground kicked in.
- Kim_Bruning 2y ago
  You're right, it really depends on what the security guarantees are, how they're stated, and whether they're credible. As an example of a case that has worked, the mutual security guarantees within NATO have prevented WWIII so far. (knock on wood) Obviously, we should be trying to go for something more like the latter. Alternately, of course, no security guarantees, and both sides continue to fight. China is already closely watching how the west responds to Ukraine, with potential implications for Taiwan. This increases the likelihood that American security commitments/requirements will eventually be tested more directly.
kelipso 2y ago
> though they really would like an American backstop. It's not a really would like. In all of their speeches by key politicians, European boots on the ground is conditional on US backstop. So it's not happening without US support.
_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Stop. Dude isn't interested in a real answer, he's concern trolling. He propogandizes his position over and over on this site.
- rayiner 2y ago
  I’m not concern trolling. I don’t want a single U.S. soldier on Ukraine soil. It’s a red line. I’m asking whether a security guarantee increases the risk of that happening.
  - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
    Ah, ok, it's a red line for you. Good that you make that explicit, but you are being a thrifty with information there. This site is for curious conversation, so I'd love to see you elucidate a bit further! What's the nature of the red line? For instance, Are you worried they'd get hurt? Are you worried about political implications? Or, does the fact that there are already American volunteers to fighting in Ukraine change your calculus? [1]? What's your idea on whether this applies to Taiwan too? How about Canada or Greenland? Is this a red line that is shared by many? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlgWI0FzjKc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlgWI0FzjKc "US volunteer soldiers appear in Ukraine frontline footage"
    - rayiner 2y ago
      I don’t want the U.S. to bear the cost (in money and lives) of a war that doesn’t directly relate to protecting the american homeland. I think U.S. foreign policy has been a failure since the 1950s—we shouldn’t have gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, etc. The only justifiable war in that time, in my opinion, was Afghanistan, where the Taliban harbored terrorists that had attacked the U.S. I think the premise of a “rules based international order” and democracy promotion hurts Americans. In Iraq and Syria it led us to overthrow dictators who were brutal to their own people and threatened their neighbors, but who suppressed terrorists that could attack the U.S. It also causes tremendous collateral damage (millions of dead civilians). While I acknowledge that Ukraine presents less risk of those things, to me it’s a test case. If we can’t resist involvement in Ukraine, there is little hope of turning the ship around on American imperialism generally. The next Iraq War will also be billed as a just war. As of mid 2024, 2/3 of americans opposed sending US troops to Ukraine: https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/americans-see-high-stakes-western-security-russia-ukraine-war https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/ame.... I acknowledge that a security guarantee wouldn’t start with boots on the ground. But there is a historical pattern of deepening involvement where we start out with something like a security guarantee, and that becomes the rope around our ankle that drags us into putting boots on the ground.

rayiner 2y ago

That makes it seem like a security guarantee would risk deeper US involvement, as eventually happened with Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq I. It seems to me that your logic would make the Iraq War quite defensible. Iraq had already invaded Kuwait. We had already guaranteed Kuwait’s security, so we would’ve had to send troops if Saddam invaded again. So if the CIA was correct that Saddam was rearming, there was a logic to deposing him now and resolving the situation on terms favorable to us, instead of reactively getting involved at a future date. Without the benefit of hindsight—knowing Saddam didn’t have WMDs—it seems like the only basis for opposing the Iraq War under your logic would have been to quibble about how much of an affirmative step Saddam had to take before our obligation to put boots on the ground kicked in.

Kim_Bruning 2y ago
You're right, it really depends on what the security guarantees are, how they're stated, and whether they're credible. As an example of a case that has worked, the mutual security guarantees within NATO have prevented WWIII so far. (knock on wood) Obviously, we should be trying to go for something more like the latter. Alternately, of course, no security guarantees, and both sides continue to fight. China is already closely watching how the west responds to Ukraine, with potential implications for Taiwan. This increases the likelihood that American security commitments/requirements will eventually be tested more directly.

kelipso 2y ago

> though they really would like an American backstop. It's not a really would like. In all of their speeches by key politicians, European boots on the ground is conditional on US backstop. So it's not happening without US support.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago

Stop. Dude isn't interested in a real answer, he's concern trolling. He propogandizes his position over and over on this site.

rayiner 2y ago
I’m not concern trolling. I don’t want a single U.S. soldier on Ukraine soil. It’s a red line. I’m asking whether a security guarantee increases the risk of that happening.
- Kim_Bruning 2y ago
  Ah, ok, it's a red line for you. Good that you make that explicit, but you are being a thrifty with information there. This site is for curious conversation, so I'd love to see you elucidate a bit further! What's the nature of the red line? For instance, Are you worried they'd get hurt? Are you worried about political implications? Or, does the fact that there are already American volunteers to fighting in Ukraine change your calculus? [1]? What's your idea on whether this applies to Taiwan too? How about Canada or Greenland? Is this a red line that is shared by many? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlgWI0FzjKc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlgWI0FzjKc "US volunteer soldiers appear in Ukraine frontline footage"
  - rayiner 2y ago
    I don’t want the U.S. to bear the cost (in money and lives) of a war that doesn’t directly relate to protecting the american homeland. I think U.S. foreign policy has been a failure since the 1950s—we shouldn’t have gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, etc. The only justifiable war in that time, in my opinion, was Afghanistan, where the Taliban harbored terrorists that had attacked the U.S. I think the premise of a “rules based international order” and democracy promotion hurts Americans. In Iraq and Syria it led us to overthrow dictators who were brutal to their own people and threatened their neighbors, but who suppressed terrorists that could attack the U.S. It also causes tremendous collateral damage (millions of dead civilians). While I acknowledge that Ukraine presents less risk of those things, to me it’s a test case. If we can’t resist involvement in Ukraine, there is little hope of turning the ship around on American imperialism generally. The next Iraq War will also be billed as a just war. As of mid 2024, 2/3 of americans opposed sending US troops to Ukraine: https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/americans-see-high-stakes-western-security-russia-ukraine-war https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/ame.... I acknowledge that a security guarantee wouldn’t start with boots on the ground. But there is a historical pattern of deepening involvement where we start out with something like a security guarantee, and that becomes the rope around our ankle that drags us into putting boots on the ground.