|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 14 2017 02:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 02:08 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2017 02:05 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2017 01:55 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2017 01:32 Plansix wrote:
Do we really need to beat the “Hilary Clinton electability” dead horse some more? Have we not gotten enough blood from that stone over the last 2 months? I mean, it's relevant enough to how we got to where we are now, so it's important to acknowledge it again and again and again. When people question how we got to where we are now... just look at the electable candidate who we had to choose because we couldn't afford risking the loss here. Turns out, if you push people enough in a bad way, they might just elect a meme. I get that, but there are other factors worth discussing and we have beat that horse to death. Though I will concede that it is your favorite topic of discussion and you view it as the most important factor. It's either that or Trump's Twitter feed. Because those are the two stories that come up in here frequently enough to be recurring topics of discussion. I tried to bring up the fact that Russia is literally invading Ukraine and that the western world needs decisive American leadership in response to this. Nobody bit. This is the first international crisis of the Trump era. There needs to be a response to it and so far none is happening. I feel like everyone has gone full Neville Chamberlain and decided that Russia can have Ukraine because ISIS is scary. Mind you, nations taking over other nations is 1000% more scary than 30K fighters getting their ass kicked from all sides, but terrorism.
It's more like the Europeans decided that they just don't want to put another expensive liability on their payroll. Ukraine is a money pit the magnitude of Greece, the size of Italy. For a union dealing with its own share of internal conflict it's just not what they want to deal with.
|
On February 14 2017 02:20 oneofthem wrote:
the bigger danger on the russia front is some sort of mix of signals between trump and the military. trump gives assurance that russia can do some stuff, military command thinks otherwise. we've got a hot one.
it's not really relevant for ukraine, but in places where the u.s. has actual presence.
Well considering Trump is the head of the Military I think we all understand why Putin is happily continuing his attempt to reform the USSR.
This is where the EU should step in but they don't have the spine for it. Especially when the US is unlikely to have our back if things go bad.
|
United States43271 Posts
On February 14 2017 02:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 02:08 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2017 02:05 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2017 01:55 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2017 01:32 Plansix wrote:
Do we really need to beat the “Hilary Clinton electability” dead horse some more? Have we not gotten enough blood from that stone over the last 2 months? I mean, it's relevant enough to how we got to where we are now, so it's important to acknowledge it again and again and again. When people question how we got to where we are now... just look at the electable candidate who we had to choose because we couldn't afford risking the loss here. Turns out, if you push people enough in a bad way, they might just elect a meme. I get that, but there are other factors worth discussing and we have beat that horse to death. Though I will concede that it is your favorite topic of discussion and you view it as the most important factor. It's either that or Trump's Twitter feed. Because those are the two stories that come up in here frequently enough to be recurring topics of discussion. I tried to bring up the fact that Russia is literally invading Ukraine and that the western world needs decisive American leadership in response to this. Nobody bit. This is the first international crisis of the Trump era. There needs to be a response to it and so far none is happening. I brought it up like a week before you did (in a "Ukraine is heating up, be aware" way). Beyond that, none of us want to make this another Ukraine thread. Conventional wisdom suggests that the US would normally posture and huff and puff about some issue far eastward - but if it were to come to the threat of force (from a conventional opponent) it would back off and bark from a safe distance. North Korea launched a missile recently, if you want to look at international crises from a "rogue threat" perspective, by the way.
North Korean situation is stable though. China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and the United States are all fully capable of rolling NK. As far as I understand it NK just wants to be left alone. No real potential to escalate.
For a disaster we need two powerful parties to misjudge the other's red lines and willingness to escalate. Putin is gambling with his invasion of Ukraine that no rival power will prevent him. Now he may be right, but it's an uncertain situation. Uncertainty is bad.
|
On February 14 2017 02:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 02:12 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2017 02:08 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2017 02:05 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2017 01:55 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2017 01:32 Plansix wrote:
Do we really need to beat the “Hilary Clinton electability” dead horse some more? Have we not gotten enough blood from that stone over the last 2 months? I mean, it's relevant enough to how we got to where we are now, so it's important to acknowledge it again and again and again. When people question how we got to where we are now... just look at the electable candidate who we had to choose because we couldn't afford risking the loss here. Turns out, if you push people enough in a bad way, they might just elect a meme. I get that, but there are other factors worth discussing and we have beat that horse to death. Though I will concede that it is your favorite topic of discussion and you view it as the most important factor. It's either that or Trump's Twitter feed. Because those are the two stories that come up in here frequently enough to be recurring topics of discussion. I tried to bring up the fact that Russia is literally invading Ukraine and that the western world needs decisive American leadership in response to this. Nobody bit. This is the first international crisis of the Trump era. There needs to be a response to it and so far none is happening. I feel like everyone has gone full Neville Chamberlain and decided that Russia can have Ukraine because ISIS is scary. Mind you, nations taking over other nations is 1000% more scary than 30K fighters getting their ass kicked from all sides, but terrorism. It's more like the Europeans decided that they just don't want to put another expensive liability on their payroll. Ukraine is a money pit the magnitude of Greece, the size of Italy. For a union dealing with its own share of internal conflict it's just not what they want to deal with.
I stand by my statement of going full Neville Chamberlain and not wanting to get involved for some reason or another. Everything you are saying is what was said back then: address problems at home, we can't afford it, we shouldn't get involved. People like Putin always go for the low hanging fruit first.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 14 2017 02:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 02:20 oneofthem wrote:
the bigger danger on the russia front is some sort of mix of signals between trump and the military. trump gives assurance that russia can do some stuff, military command thinks otherwise. we've got a hot one.
it's not really relevant for ukraine, but in places where the u.s. has actual presence. Well considering Trump is the head of the Military I think we all understand why Putin is happily continuing his attempt to reform the USSR. This is where the EU should step in but they don't have the spine for it. Especially when the US is unlikely to have our back if things go bad.
the degree of trump control is the uncertainty though, and it's a serious one especially given the current deployed commands.
he may install some sort of pro-putin generals but i don't think you can find a single commander who would stand by while russian tanks are rolling by. it's a good thing we don't have troops in ukraine.
btw north korean stability cannot be assumed given the technology (ballistic missile) in question is inherently escalatory. given trump/trump team you cannot rule out unilateral U.S. intervention.
|
The Ukraine isn't an American problem. We have basically zero strategic interest in what happens in the Ukraine beyond the containment of Russia, to the extent that matters. This is a European problem. To the extent that the Europeans care, they are the ones who should do something.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the u.s. does have a strategic interest in the situation if you are interested in maintaining things like international laws and norms. but hey, we are medieval so let's go conquer canada.
|
On February 14 2017 02:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 02:20 oneofthem wrote:
the bigger danger on the russia front is some sort of mix of signals between trump and the military. trump gives assurance that russia can do some stuff, military command thinks otherwise. we've got a hot one.
it's not really relevant for ukraine, but in places where the u.s. has actual presence. Well considering Trump is the head of the Military I think we all understand why Putin is happily continuing his attempt to reform the USSR. This is where the EU should step in but they don't have the spine for it. Especially when the US is unlikely to have our back if things go bad.
Not that Russia is at all innocent or anything, but this seems a bit heavy handed. We shouldn't excuse Russia's actions or anything, but it's not like everything is their doing. How would the USA react if Mexico was on a path to join the USSR (or Cuba)? Historically the US's response to that sort of thing was not so virtuous.
There's a lot to be concerned about with Russia, but I feel like a lot of Russia's actions get whitewashed (almost immediately) to make them seem aggressive without any provocation.
|
On February 14 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:
The Ukraine isn't an American problem. We have basically zero strategic interest in what happens in the Ukraine beyond the containment of Russia, to the extent that matters. This is a European problem. To the extent that the Europeans care, they are the ones who should do something.
The Americans did a nice job kickstarting it though.
"Fuck the EU" - Victoria Nuland.
The consequences of the American diplomatic push within the Ukraine where that quote came from are now being felt. She was complaining how the EU would be too slow to respond, and Ukraine had to do shit on their own: meaning rebel against the Russian influence for whatever reason. They probably thought they had the backing of the US in their rebellion, just like Georgia did.
If the Ukraine had simply waited a year, then the "pro-Russian" president would have likely signed the EU treaty anyway - the same treaty that was delayed for economic reasons even after the rebellion. Then, after that, they could have had an ordinary election cycle and elected the corrupt government of their choosing as they have it now and maybe skipped out on this civil war business entirely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#2016 - they are on the same level as Russia, haha. I suppose Putin is doing a better job of covering it up.
As far as I'm concerned, the Ukraine and the US created this mess, and ad now the EU is supposed to solve it? No thanks.
|
On February 14 2017 02:37 oneofthem wrote:
the u.s. does have a strategic interest if you are interested in maintaining things like international laws and norms. but hey, we are medieval so let's go conquer canada
I'm all for promoting international laws and norms, but that is an expensive luxury that we can't really afford right now. When some other nation decides to cut us a fat check and help subsidize the effort, great, I'll be back on board.
|
Do you guys think Trump will reduce legal immigration?
|
On February 14 2017 02:38 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 02:23 Gorsameth wrote:On February 14 2017 02:20 oneofthem wrote:
the bigger danger on the russia front is some sort of mix of signals between trump and the military. trump gives assurance that russia can do some stuff, military command thinks otherwise. we've got a hot one.
it's not really relevant for ukraine, but in places where the u.s. has actual presence. Well considering Trump is the head of the Military I think we all understand why Putin is happily continuing his attempt to reform the USSR. This is where the EU should step in but they don't have the spine for it. Especially when the US is unlikely to have our back if things go bad. Not that Russia is at all innocent or anything, but this seems a bit heavy handed. We shouldn't excuse Russia's actions or anything, but it's not like everything is their doing. How would the USA react if Mexico was on a path to join the USSR (or Cuba)? Historically the US's response to that sort of thing was not so virtuous. There's a lot to be concerned about with Russia, but I feel like a lot of Russia's actions get whitewashed (almost immediately) to make them seem aggressive without any provocation.
I've been waiting for Russia's move to take Ukraine for about a decade or more, so I'm not really buying this line of reasoning. They have been gearing up to retake those boarder nations since Putin came to power. It just been a waiting game until the US looked weak enough to do it. It came as no shock to me that they pulled the trigger right after congress voted for no military action in Syria and the UK followed suite. We can even go back to the fall out from the Iraq war and its effect on the US's desire to engage with international conflicts.
Post WW1 had the same problem. Everyone was so war weary and afraid of another conflict, they would do anything to avoid it. And those are dangerous times.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 14 2017 02:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 02:37 oneofthem wrote:
the u.s. does have a strategic interest if you are interested in maintaining things like international laws and norms. but hey, we are medieval so let's go conquer canada I'm all for promoting international laws and norms, but that is an expensive luxury that we can't really afford right now. When some other nation decides to cut us a fat check and help subsidize the effort, great, I'll be back on board.
and extending that calculation to other problem regions around the world, you'll find threats and instabilities multiplying.
a contracting sphere of influence, defined as the area where american power sets the rules of behavior, will cause its own pressure as new problem situations are generated in the process of contraction
|
On February 14 2017 02:43 Shield wrote:
Do you guys think Trump will reduce legal immigration?
He said he would, so why wouldn't he? It is within the power of the executive branch.
|
On February 14 2017 02:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 02:22 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2017 02:12 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2017 02:08 KwarK wrote:On February 14 2017 02:05 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2017 01:55 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2017 01:32 Plansix wrote:
Do we really need to beat the “Hilary Clinton electability” dead horse some more? Have we not gotten enough blood from that stone over the last 2 months? I mean, it's relevant enough to how we got to where we are now, so it's important to acknowledge it again and again and again. When people question how we got to where we are now... just look at the electable candidate who we had to choose because we couldn't afford risking the loss here. Turns out, if you push people enough in a bad way, they might just elect a meme. I get that, but there are other factors worth discussing and we have beat that horse to death. Though I will concede that it is your favorite topic of discussion and you view it as the most important factor. It's either that or Trump's Twitter feed. Because those are the two stories that come up in here frequently enough to be recurring topics of discussion. I tried to bring up the fact that Russia is literally invading Ukraine and that the western world needs decisive American leadership in response to this. Nobody bit. This is the first international crisis of the Trump era. There needs to be a response to it and so far none is happening. I feel like everyone has gone full Neville Chamberlain and decided that Russia can have Ukraine because ISIS is scary. Mind you, nations taking over other nations is 1000% more scary than 30K fighters getting their ass kicked from all sides, but terrorism. It's more like the Europeans decided that they just don't want to put another expensive liability on their payroll. Ukraine is a money pit the magnitude of Greece, the size of Italy. For a union dealing with its own share of internal conflict it's just not what they want to deal with. I stand by my statement of going full Neville Chamberlain and not wanting to get involved for some reason or another. Everything you are saying is what was said back then: address problems at home, we can't afford it, we shouldn't get involved. People like Putin always go for the low hanging fruit first.
We cannot wait for the final confirmation. The smoking gun could be in the form of a mushroom cloud.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 14 2017 02:40 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:
The Ukraine isn't an American problem. We have basically zero strategic interest in what happens in the Ukraine beyond the containment of Russia, to the extent that matters. This is a European problem. To the extent that the Europeans care, they are the ones who should do something. The Americans did a nice job kickstarting it though. "Fuck the EU" - Victoria Nuland. The consequences of the American diplomatic push within the Ukraine where that quote came from are now being felt. She was complaining how the EU would be too slow to respond, and Ukraine had to do shit on their own. If the Ukraine had simply waited a year, then the "pro-Russian" president would have likely signed the treaty anyway - the same treaty that was delayed for economic reasons even after the rebellion. Then, after that, they could have had an ordinary election cycle and elected the corrupt government of their choosing as they have it now and maybe skipped out on this civil war business entirely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#2016 - they are on the same level as Russia, haha. I suppose Putin is doing a better job of covering it up. And now the EU is supposed to solve this mess? No thanks.
you do realize nuland was very correct in both the message and the wording. europeans who think they are representing some sort of standard of civilization have much to answer for. they could provide a lot of very meaningful support in economic and institutional terms.
the issue of ukrainian corruption is real, and the main thing blocking a positive solution. a positive solution would be something like, ukraine limits or temporarily accepts territorial losses but focus on improving their economy, get eu market and investment, become prosperous.
this would be a huge disaster for moscow
|
On February 14 2017 02:46 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 02:42 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2017 02:37 oneofthem wrote:
the u.s. does have a strategic interest if you are interested in maintaining things like international laws and norms. but hey, we are medieval so let's go conquer canada I'm all for promoting international laws and norms, but that is an expensive luxury that we can't really afford right now. When some other nation decides to cut us a fat check and help subsidize the effort, great, I'll be back on board. and extending that calculation to other problem regions around the world, you'll find threats and instabilities multiplying. a contracting sphere of influence, defined as the area where american power sets the rules of behavior, will cause its own pressure as new problem situations are generated in the process of contraction
I don't deny the consequences. But like I said, how are we going to pay for it? The EU and our other allies have shown basically zero resolve in substantially bearing the peacekeeper burden. The only notable exception is Libya, where European oil supplies were directly implicated.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 14 2017 02:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 02:46 oneofthem wrote:On February 14 2017 02:42 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2017 02:37 oneofthem wrote:
the u.s. does have a strategic interest if you are interested in maintaining things like international laws and norms. but hey, we are medieval so let's go conquer canada I'm all for promoting international laws and norms, but that is an expensive luxury that we can't really afford right now. When some other nation decides to cut us a fat check and help subsidize the effort, great, I'll be back on board. and extending that calculation to other problem regions around the world, you'll find threats and instabilities multiplying. a contracting sphere of influence, defined as the area where american power sets the rules of behavior, will cause its own pressure as new problem situations are generated in the process of contraction I don't deny the consequences. But like I said, how are we going to pay for it? The EU and our other allies have shown basically zero resolve in substantially bearing the peacekeeper burden. The only notable exception is Libya, where European oil supplies were directly implicated.
it's actually not that expensive. we don't need to park 20k troops in ukraine. just say tough stuff and put in more deterrence in the baltics etc, establish a clearer line.
the really expensive hardware are basically fixed capital investments. you do need to obtain a certain force size, but once you have the force, the effect is global aoe. marginal cost for stabilizing a region vs a nation-state actor is not that high. i think if you are talking about counter insurgency, that is very expensive per additional region.
this is also why people who react to tough talk from hillary as if she wants to start ww3 are so dumb. where political will is a critical element of the reliability of deterrence you have to say tough stuff, but it's still not going to be ww3.
but i do agree the germans should actually buy some planes and the french should buy our planes. germans think hosting some bases for u.s. troops is enough support, and in terms of political cost to the 'pro military' side, having these bases is a very large commitment. but they are not effective power projection in this day and age, but is a relic of cold war style deterrence vs invasion of western europe by the red army. i think they should trade the infantry for 100 f35s and a lot of tanks.
|
On February 14 2017 02:49 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 02:40 a_flayer wrote:On February 14 2017 02:35 xDaunt wrote:
The Ukraine isn't an American problem. We have basically zero strategic interest in what happens in the Ukraine beyond the containment of Russia, to the extent that matters. This is a European problem. To the extent that the Europeans care, they are the ones who should do something. The Americans did a nice job kickstarting it though. "Fuck the EU" - Victoria Nuland. The consequences of the American diplomatic push within the Ukraine where that quote came from are now being felt. She was complaining how the EU would be too slow to respond, and Ukraine had to do shit on their own. If the Ukraine had simply waited a year, then the "pro-Russian" president would have likely signed the treaty anyway - the same treaty that was delayed for economic reasons even after the rebellion. Then, after that, they could have had an ordinary election cycle and elected the corrupt government of their choosing as they have it now and maybe skipped out on this civil war business entirely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#2016 - they are on the same level as Russia, haha. I suppose Putin is doing a better job of covering it up. And now the EU is supposed to solve this mess? No thanks. you do realize nuland was very correct in both the message and the wording. europeans who think they are representing some sort of standard of civilization have much to answer for. they could provide a lot of very meaningful support in economic and institutional terms. the issue of ukrainian corruption is real, and the main thing blocking a positive solution. a positive solution would be something like, ukraine limits or temporarily accepts territorial losses but focus on improving their economy, get eu market and investment, become prosperous. this would be a huge disaster for moscow
Why push to overthrow the government in a democratic country where people can somewhat decently rely on the accuracy of ballots? That makes no sense and is only going to cause problems. They achieving nothing but division.
|
On February 14 2017 02:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2017 02:05 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2017 01:55 Plansix wrote:On February 14 2017 01:41 LegalLord wrote:On February 14 2017 01:32 Plansix wrote:
Do we really need to beat the “Hilary Clinton electability” dead horse some more? Have we not gotten enough blood from that stone over the last 2 months? I mean, it's relevant enough to how we got to where we are now, so it's important to acknowledge it again and again and again. When people question how we got to where we are now... just look at the electable candidate who we had to choose because we couldn't afford risking the loss here. Turns out, if you push people enough in a bad way, they might just elect a meme. I get that, but there are other factors worth discussing and we have beat that horse to death. Though I will concede that it is your favorite topic of discussion and you view it as the most important factor. It's either that or Trump's Twitter feed. Because those are the two stories that come up in here frequently enough to be recurring topics of discussion. I tried to bring up the fact that Russia is literally invading Ukraine and that the western world needs decisive American leadership in response to this. Nobody bit. This is the first international crisis of the Trump era. There needs to be a response to it and so far none is happening.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that there's been an escalation starting after Trump's call with Putin...
President Trump cast doubt on whether Moscow is backing separatists engaged in the recent escalation of fighting in eastern Ukraine, appearing to side with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who has long denied involvement in the conflict despite evidence to the contrary.
Mr. Trump said he did not take offense at the outbreak of a lethal bout of fighting in Ukraine that came within a day of a phone conversation he had with Mr. Putin, saying of the recent clashes, “we don’t really know exactly what that is.”
“They’re pro-forces,” Mr. Trump said of the Ukrainian separatists in an interview that aired on Monday on “The O’Reilly Factor,” on Fox News. “We don’t know, are they uncontrollable? Are they uncontrolled? That happens also. We’re going to find out; I would be surprised, but we’ll see.”
The New York Times
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
