3 ms·

You're still hung up on messaging. As far as preparation.. I'm sure, if necessary, we have an extensively prepared joint military plan with our allies to figh

by jbooth 13y ago

You're still hung up on messaging. As far as preparation.. I'm sure, if necessary, we have an extensively prepared joint military plan with our allies to fight over the Black Sea. I'm also sure we're not going to do that. What else do you want? You think different messaging would change those facts? I'm prepared to snort and chuckle.

jerf 13y ago
No, I'm talking about messaging, on purpose. Generally speaking, getting the messaging right is significantly easier than getting a military response somehow set up. Yes, different messaging would indeed be helpful. Not being so surprised would be helpful. In particular, having a clear message for the Ukranians would be helpful. Certainly something better than what, say, the Syrians got. Or the Iraqis that stood with us. Or the Afghanis that stood with us. I recognize that the correct answer to things is not a military one, by all means, but vague promises that we still have no intention of keeping despite their vagueness, such as "Vice President Biden just spoke with Prime Minister — the Prime Minister of Ukraine to assure him that in this difficult moment the United States supports his government’s efforts and stands for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and democratic future of Ukraine." [1] No, we don't. He can't count on us for anything more expensive than words, at least in the short term. I'd appreciate it if we stop assuring people of how we're going to help them, only for us to just hang them out to dry later when they actually think we're serious. We've done an awful lot of that in the past decade. [1]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/28/there-will-be-costs-text-of-obamas-statement-on-ukraine/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02... That whole message is damn near meaningless when unwrapped from the diplospeak. I had to search for anything that even resembles a statement of what actions we might take, which is what I quoted, and even that is basically meaningless (certainly very unspecific, and in diplospeak that's not an accident). We can't even muster up a sufficient level of concern to do more than broadly promise consequences... we certainly don't have anything like a plan to actually impose even the faintest of economic sanctions for this. (My browser reports that the word "sanctions" doesn't even appear in that text.) Perhaps something more concrete will come out later; if so that would support my thesis that we were unprepared. (Of course, unpacked from the diplospeak, the only alternative other than "Uhh... whatever." that that could translate to is a declaration that Russia is welcome to the Ukraine, it's fine with us. "Uhh... whatever" is the charitable reading of this statement....)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jbooth 13y ago
  Well, on public diplospeak, people don't want to tie their hands in the future with clear public statements, so they're going to deliberately say nothing while the real action happens in private. On preparation.. well, my opinion is that there are a lot of potential situations that can happen in the world, in order to have a 10-country-coordinated gameplan for every possible situation, kept up to date between the countries as governments change.. you're not going to have a script for this. What they can have is exhaustively updated briefs and intelligence on as many relevant players/interests as possible and really good communication between allies, both enabling leaders to 'wing it' as effectively as possible.

by jbooth 13y ago

jerf 13y ago

No, I'm talking about messaging, on purpose. Generally speaking, getting the messaging right is significantly easier than getting a military response somehow set up. Yes, different messaging would indeed be helpful. Not being so surprised would be helpful. In particular, having a clear message for the Ukranians would be helpful. Certainly something better than what, say, the Syrians got. Or the Iraqis that stood with us. Or the Afghanis that stood with us. I recognize that the correct answer to things is not a military one, by all means, but vague promises that we still have no intention of keeping despite their vagueness, such as "Vice President Biden just spoke with Prime Minister — the Prime Minister of Ukraine to assure him that in this difficult moment the United States supports his government’s efforts and stands for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and democratic future of Ukraine." [1] No, we don't. He can't count on us for anything more expensive than words, at least in the short term. I'd appreciate it if we stop assuring people of how we're going to help them, only for us to just hang them out to dry later when they actually think we're serious. We've done an awful lot of that in the past decade. [1]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02/28/there-will-be-costs-text-of-obamas-statement-on-ukraine/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/02... That whole message is damn near meaningless when unwrapped from the diplospeak. I had to search for anything that even resembles a statement of what actions we might take, which is what I quoted, and even that is basically meaningless (certainly very unspecific, and in diplospeak that's not an accident). We can't even muster up a sufficient level of concern to do more than broadly promise consequences... we certainly don't have anything like a plan to actually impose even the faintest of economic sanctions for this. (My browser reports that the word "sanctions" doesn't even appear in that text.) Perhaps something more concrete will come out later; if so that would support my thesis that we were unprepared. (Of course, unpacked from the diplospeak, the only alternative other than "Uhh... whatever." that that could translate to is a declaration that Russia is welcome to the Ukraine, it's fine with us. "Uhh... whatever" is the charitable reading of this statement....)

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
jbooth 13y ago
Well, on public diplospeak, people don't want to tie their hands in the future with clear public statements, so they're going to deliberately say nothing while the real action happens in private. On preparation.. well, my opinion is that there are a lot of potential situations that can happen in the world, in order to have a 10-country-coordinated gameplan for every possible situation, kept up to date between the countries as governments change.. you're not going to have a script for this. What they can have is exhaustively updated briefs and intelligence on as many relevant players/interests as possible and really good communication between allies, both enabling leaders to 'wing it' as effectively as possible.