Are permanent alliances in America's interests?

[Stevicus]

Arbitrary cut off point. Now keep doing more research. Russia's west will always be vulnerable due to geography.

Well, you're the one who brought it up by claiming the Russia has been a threat to Poland "for centuries." Now you're calling it an "arbitrary cut off point." You claim that you want to confine the discussion to just recent history, but then you keep going back and forth like this.

You want to turn a non-hostile act into a hostile one. I'm not as I am using recent history.

Hostility is in the eye of the beholder.

The West had cause. Russia doesn't.

Again, that's in the eye of the beholder.


Besides, the West had no cause to whine about communism. Greedy capitalists worried about losing their profits do not constitute valid "cause" for the West to consider them a threat or to take any hostile action against them.

Dissolution of the USSR which recognized Ukraine's new government as legitimate.

And if they want to renegotiate that?

None of which give Russia a right to do anything.

Again, that's not your call. One can just as easily argue that no country has the right to do anything, such as the right to interfere or take sides in other countries' disputes.

Which was proceeded by USSR acts. Another arbitrary cut off point while ignoring modern history. Russia acknowledge Ukraine as legitimate for decades until Putin changed his mind. I am hand waving that away.

You're stuck on technicalities.

So?

Ever hear of buyer's remorse?

Crimea joined Ukraine by vote without a military looking over it's shoulder.


Ifs are not facts.

The fact is, Crimea has a Russian majority, and they seem to be okay being ruled by Russia.

Hardly. Ukraine just has no chance to take it back without a war.

That's beside the point. They don't need to take it back, as evidenced by their business-as-usual attitude. They're doing just fine without it.

Invasions are not negotiations.

Doesn't matter. It's not our business, not our call.

Yes we should ignore advice from one that not only has no knowledge of the present but has been dead for centuries.

He was talking about general principles which are still valid today. Among other things, he suggested that playing favorites among foreign powers can lead to divisions within the country and could lead to foreign influence in our own affairs. According to many sources, that's exactly what is happening now.

Ukraine aligning with the US and EU strength both economically and militarily.

You mean we should add another country to the long list of those who, according to you, are incapable of defending themselves? I don't see how that strengthens the US; it just adds more to our already heavy burden.


As I said, we the American people get nothing out of this. It's a net loss for us.

I am talking about modern agreements not history from 2 centuries ago you happen to drag up which was undone years ago or irrelevant even 100 years ago.

You're the one who opened up the discussion to centuries ago when you said this:

Russia has been a threat to Poland for centuries.

In any case, it should be noted that not everyone in the world has as short an attention-span as those of us in the West. While you might arbitrarily seek to handwave history away as "irrelevant," not everyone sees it that way.

Pure bull or you are naive.

Or maybe you just don't know enough about the history of the region to be passing judgment.

Power where? Over what?

Over Russia? He does appear to have the strong support of the people, and that will continue as long as he can point to an external enemy which is encroaching upon their territory and sovereignty.

Both are part of Georgia. Russia can not declare a part of another nation is not part of that nation no more than the US can declare Saint Petersburg is no longer part of Russia.

Except that St. Petersburg still has a majority Russian population. The population of the territories in question do not have a majority of Georgians. (Likewise, Crimea does not have a majority of Ukrainians.)


We've done much the same thing, such as when we sent troops into the former Yugoslavia.

Who says that even a majority wants that?

Who says they don't?

Declaring wars of conquest does not really fly these days. Hence why limited pretexts are used.

Yet, isn't that what you're calling it? A war of conquest? You've been comparing this to Hitler's invasion of Poland, but it actually seems pretty piddly by comparison.


I mean if they wanted to do a war of conquest, they could certainly try. But it appears they're not doing that, so these invasions can be viewed no differently than the US invasions of Panama or Grenada (or Iraq or Afghanistan or Kosovo or any other place on earth). We invade countries, they invade countries. Who are we to be passing judgment?

Except the claim Russia made was about peace keeping not liberation.

Still, it comes down to the same thing. We send out peacekeeping forces, too. Why is it when we do it, it's good, but when they do, it's bad?

Conquered

Ultimately, history will make that determination.

Except Russia was not nearly as belligerent until Putin took office. He ruined it not the West.

By the time Putin took office, the West had already shown its true colors to Russia. They recognized that we weren't their friend, because we weren't acting like a friend. So, as a consequence, they started becoming more belligerent. This isn't rocket science. They didn't start becoming unfriendly out of the blue. They had reasons.

Hah

Your capacity for brilliant rebuttals never ceases to amaze me.

Ukraine wanted membership. Too bad for Russia and Putin

Why do you keep saying "too bad for Russia"? If international tensions rise and the risk of war increases because of all our saber-rattling, then it will be "too bad" for all of us.

Go look up Russia whining about joint military exercise in Poland with NATO members

Yeah, sure, okay. I found this: Nato troops in huge exercise in Poland


Russia says Nato troops close to its borders are a threat to its security.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said: "We do not hide that we have a negative attitude toward the Nato line of moving its military infrastructure to our borders, drawing other countries into military unit activities.

"This will activate the Russian sovereign the right to provide its own safety with methods that are adequate for today's risks."




Doesn't sound like "whining" to me. Their statement seems rather measured and reasonable.

Except for the fact that you claimed that was the purpose. Defense. Beside you are still wrong as many weapons are for defense not offense. AAA for example. AT is often used for defense as it does not have the mobility for offense.

The weapons are built and designed to kill, so that was my point. You said "nukes are not defensive weapons," but they can be used defensively, if someone invades their territory or fires the first shot against them. Anti-air and anti-tank weapons still involve killing people (in tanks or planes), so however they're used is however they're used. But that's beside the point.


Your whole point rested on the belief that we have troops in Europe for defensive purposes only and that NATO was strictly a defensive alliance. All of that rests on the vague promise that "we won't attack you first."


It was the same with the weapons in Cuba. They were saying "we won't attack you first." So, if both sides kept their promise, no worries.


But we didn't trust them, and they didn't trust us. Your entire position here rests on your assumption that the Russians are horrible people for not trusting us, while we are paragons of virtue for not trusting them.


A lot of Americans don't even trust their own government, so what does that make us?

It was a threat just as nukes in Turkey were a threat to the USSR.

As is the existence of NATO.

Which the USSR took advantage of.

Of course they did. What was that you were saying earlier about "whining"?

The US has been aggressive as well. I never denied this. Beside those CA nations had major issue without the US being involved anyways. Haiti isn't in the situation it is in now only because of the US.

Wait. You openly admit that the US has been aggressive, and you can't see the connection to how that would lead to other nations becoming aggressive as well? Did it ever occur to you that multiple US aggressions on multiple continents, along with a military force spread all across the globe, might be perceived as threatening to other nations? Not everyone sees us as "white knights" rushing in to save the world from itself.


That's why I reject the disingenuous sanctimony that's often found in Western rhetoric, much of which you're repeating here. You should realize that there's nothing here you're saying which is particularly original or anything I haven’t heard before.


As I see it, there are two directions our foreign policy can go:


1. We can take on the role you would have America take on, as some kind of "white knight" and moral guardian to save the world from evil. All in the name of Truth, Justice, and the American way.

2. We can pursue our own national interests on a practical level, setting policy based on what is beneficial to the American people, while letting the rest of the world take care of itself.


We can do one or the other, but we can't do both.

It is still speculation that this will happen. You are using what ifs to counter my facts. Try again

It's not a "what if." It's a very legitimate concern, just as you're obviously concerned about the possibility of Russian aggression or that they might even attack Europe. Isn't it reasonable that they could be just as equally concerned about the possibility of NATO aggression?

Yes I can as Russia does not have the East Bloc nor the USSR with it.

They never really had any real strong allies anyway. Just as you say NATO is nothing without the US, the Warsaw Pact was nothing without Russia. Likewise, the USSR was nothing without Russia.

NATO isn't a threat. The US is. Without the US NATO couldn't fight any war of moderate length.

My point was that there are other countries in this world which would willingly embrace a Russian-led anti-American alliance. If they see Putin as their champion against the "Yankee imperialists," then they might very easily be persuaded to rally behind him.


For our side, we have Trump to lead us, but he seems to be alienating a lot of countries. This could have the effect of further isolating the United States. I don't advocate isolationism, but I think that we should step back and take a long, circumspect look at the world today and our role in it.

 

[Stevicus]

China needs the US economy.

"Need" is overstating it.

You are speculating and disregarding previous agreements Russia has made. I can wave your speculation away without effort as it is speculation. Now cite something from Russia

I haven't seen you make a single citation throughout this exchange. At least I posted a map, and I've cited historical facts which are easily verifiable in any decent survey of Russian history.

I don't care for your speculation as that is all your provided. Cite something.

You know, you have no room to talk on this point. Not one bit.


This is the basic gist of our very long discussion:


You: Russia is secretly planning to conquer the world!!!

Me: No, they're not.

You: Speculation! Cite something!


You're saying that I should have to cite something when you're the one coming up with all the wild speculation about what the Russians are planning.


Besides, this isn't really a discussion about Russia as much as it is about NATO and America's role in it. You're insinuating that without NATO or without American involvement, Russia would just roll over Europe like a steamroller. That's the speculation here. You want me to find some statement from the Russian government to that effect?


Here I have an idea: Why don't you send Putin an e-mail and ask him if he has any plans to attack Europe? If he says no, then there's your citation.

I just am blunt and to the point. If Poland wants to join NATO it is too bad for Russia as Poland is a sovereign nation. Much like how no one is doing anything in Georgia about Russia. It is too bad for Georgie. That what happens when a weak nation faces a strong one with the rest of planet isn't going to risk anything for that weak nation. Poland was smart enough to seek protection against a long time threat that occupied it for 50 years.

Are we doing more "arbitrary cut off points"?


I don't mind if you're blunt and to the point. I prefer that, but you jump back and forth like this, dismissing valid arguments as "irrelevant" when inconvenient, but then they suddenly become relevant when they are convenient.


I have nothing against Poland or Russia – or any other nation for that matter. However, I know that in the history of Europe, there have been times when they've expressed profound nationalistic sentiments, bordering on tribalism. After WW2, it seemed as if they were moving away from that and towards greater unity and cooperation, but lately, they seem to be getting their blood up again.


If we're helping to enable that by giving Europe a blank check, then it's not unlike the Kaiser giving Austria a blank check which plunged Europe into WW1.

Something that you are using as a basis for Russian "concerns" which really seem to be your opinion

Well, I do have some room to talk here, since I studied their history and culture for years. I've visited the country and met the people. I've had long discussions with them about America, Russia, and how they see the world. They don't want war. That point was driven home by the numerous WW2 monuments I saw, along with listening to countless personal stories about how bad it was, how much death and destruction there was. Most Americans have no idea.


Call it "naïve" or "BS" if you wish, but when the Russians said they didn't want to go through that again, I believed them. They seemed pretty sincere to me.


Of course, these were just ordinary people. They weren't speaking for their government, so maybe their government did have some secret, villainous agenda.


Regardless, one thing that was also clear was that, while a lot of them were against the Soviet government, they still loved Russia very deeply. They're very proud of their country, and I think Putin appeals to that national pride.

I have. You just do not read close enough. Something being irrelevant is a refutation of context

No, it's just handwaving unless you can provide some basis for declaring something "irrelevant." Just because you say it is does not make it so.

Lines on a map Russia agreed to for almost a century until Putin changed his mind.

Well, you yourself said that Russia is not a successor to the USSR, so you can't have it both ways.

Seems like it to me

Not really. All I'm really doing is looking at the other side of the hill and telling you what I see.

Given what you say hardly

The whole reason the conversation has touched upon this at all is because a lot of your own statements are based on your own projections about how the Russians feel. All this "too bad for Russia" talk. You call them conquerors and aggressors, which also carries the assumption that you know how they feel.


You claim that I'm "naïve" because I do not perceive these actions as a prelude to some insidious plot to start a world war, which also carries an implied claim of knowing what they're feeling. You've made numerous references to Hitler, as if to draw parallels between what Hitler was feeling and what Putin is feeling now.


Once you opened the discussion with your projections of how the Russians feel, it's perfectly valid that I respond on that basis. It doesn't mean that either of us knows for certain, but I'm only saying that there are multiple ways of looking at a situation.

You mean your arbitrary cut off points in history that end at the point you want? Impressive. Like your point about Napoleon but inability to even look 40 years before that regarding Poland and Russia?

I'm not making any arbitrary cut off points. If you want to counter what I said with other historical evidence or going even further back, I can't stop you from doing so. We could even go back as far as 200 years before Napoleon and talk about Poland and Russia during the Time of Troubles, the interregnum between the Rurik and Romanov Dynasties.


And if you're so concerned about the well-being of Ukraine, what about Poland-Lithuania occupying much of that territory for centuries?


As I said, I have nothing against Poland or any other country, but I don't see any need to be so one-sided as to paint the Russians as big bad villains while everyone else is some hapless, innocent victim. Countries do what they do, and sometimes their actions have consequences.


You mockingly say "impressive" here, but look what you're doing. Your entire position is common in Western rhetoric, filled with sanctimony and appeals to emotion about the Russians being "conquerors" and "aggressors." They are the fabled "black knight" holding the "damsel in distress," while we are the "white knights" who must rush in and save her.


It's upon this principle that US foreign policy has been based for over a century. All I'm saying is that we might consider taking a more realistic and practical approach.

My point was appeasement.

Appeasement? I guess it depends on how you define it. Did we "appease" the British Empire? Did we "appease" the French Empire? Did they "appease" us?

 

[Stevicus]

The US already formed it's own views long before WW2.

The US has changed its views significantly as a result of WW2 and the post-war period which included the Cold War. For the longest time, US foreign policy mainly required us to have to understand and deal with the British and French, since they were the only two powers with the ability to threaten us. Of course, we also had relations with other European powers, and also made inroads in opening up relations with Japan and China (mainly for trade purposes). We eschewed foreign entanglements and getting involved in other nations' wars, mainly because it was bad for business. We wanted to have good relations with all nations so we could do commerce with all nations.


Our only real foreign policy objective was freedom of the seas, which meant having a strong enough navy to maintain security on the open seas. We did have some problems with both the French and the British in this department, but after the War of 1812, we all ostensibly agreed that the safety and security of the high seas was in all our mutual interest and benefit. Our only real stipulation is that they stay out of the Americas and not form any new colonies apart from what they already had (Monroe Doctrine).


At that point, apart from expanding across the continent and wiping out the indigenous peoples (along with enslaving the Africans who were brought over), all we really needed to do was sit and watch as the Spanish Empire slowly crumbled to our south. We really didn't concern ourselves much with what was going on in Europe, the revolutions, the nationalistic squabbles, the monarchist intrigue. We also didn't care much about what the British were doing in India, China, or Africa, nor what the French or Germans or Russians were doing either.


The British and the French involved themselves in the Crimean War, but we didn't. Why would we?


Neither did we get involved in the Franco-Prussian War. US views were very different back in those days.


Of course, that didn't mean we were peaceniks. We were more than willing to fight when we felt we had cause – or something to gain...like a "land grab." As long as it didn't threaten or infringe upon the British and the French, they tended to stay out of it. They didn't care if we grabbed a few pieces of the declining Spanish Empire.


The US view of the world was somewhat expansionist, but also continuing the emphasis on freedom of the seas and neutrality when it came to European wars. Britain and France were the leading powers, but they seemed to have a serious problem with an increasingly nationalistic Germany, and to a lesser extent, they feared Russian expansionism into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Far East (since it encroached their own expansionism in these regions).


From the US view, that was just more of the same. We had already seen Britain and France fight over colonies, so if Germany and Russia join the "fight over colonies" game, then that's what it is. This is the point when the US view started to change. Although, the US declaration of war on Germany was justified not because we wanted to really side with Britain and France, but because Germany chose to be aggressive and hostile towards us and challenge our foreign policy objective of freedom of the seas. Unrestricted submarine warfare threatened freedom of the seas, so that was our basis for entering the war. That, and the Zimmermann Note.


Wilson expanded on the idea in his "making the world safe for democracy" speech, but he was ultimately discredited in many Americans' eyes because Versailles turned out to be more of a feeding frenzy and the spirit of his Fourteen Points was tainted. A lot of people blame the US for becoming "isolationist" and refusing to join the League of Nations, but they fail to take into consideration the profound disgust many Americans felt at the time.


We just didn't believe that it was our job to prop up the status quo in Europe. If they got stuck in a stew of their own making, then that's their problem, not ours.


As far as when the US changed its views, most would point to (as the OP article also does) December 7, 1941. That's the day that the US changed its views on the rest of the world. Prior to that, there had been much public discussion about "isolationism" and many strong opinions on both sides of the question. We weren't really isolationist anyway, not at that point. Once Lend-Lease started up, our days of isolationism and neutrality were over.


But December 7th is really the big "wake up call" in the minds of Americans, and it's had an effect on the American psyche and our way of looking at the world ever since. Related to this is whole "Appeasement" angle which is commonly brought up whenever the US is dealing with some kind of crisis of this nature.

Neither has the force projection to protect the area short of nukes. China has no combat carriers and the few Russia has are inferior and obsolete by decades. You can not control the sea without air power which means CVs which the US has 11 of just for super-carriers let alone smaller types

Yes, although all of this undermines your point about Russia or China being some grave "threat" to the United States. Nevertheless, they didn't need force projection to threaten us with Cuba. Reagan went into a near apoplectic panic over a possible Soviet foothold in Nicaragua and Grenada. He was so scared of Nicaragua that he resorted to underhanded dealing with Iran so he could funnel money to the Contras.

Sure but they like our economies.

It's not like they have much of a choice.

Defense is not longer confined to region when it comes to the US. This was established even before WW2 but was ignored by the US at great cost.

We're not talking about "defense" of the homeland as much as it's the protection of overseas possessions. There's a distinction which should be noted.

It was a scenario.

It's just a scenario? That's all? You chide me for saying "what if," but you want to base our entire foreign and military policy on a "what if"?

Which EU has not bothered with for decades.

Then it's their problem, not ours.

The EU does not have a large military as something called the US military protects most of those nations.

Yes, that's part of what we're discussing now. Trump and many others have been saying for years that the other nations of NATO need to carry their own weight. They need to contribute more towards their own mutual defense. I think this is one of the few points you and I agree upon, but why aren't they doing it?

Merkel says otherwise.

But that's Merkel. I don't think everyone in Europe is of one like mind on this issue. Besides, I think their actions speak louder than their words. If they really thought Russia (or the Soviet Union) was a threat, they would have put more effort into preparing for that threat. The fact that they didn't speaks volumes.

Sure. That what happens when nations have nukes with no military of worth.

Or when they see other nations and their leaders as threats, too.

They had 2 reasons they didn't. One was the US military and the other was the US military with nukes.

Those are the only reasons, huh? Again, you criticize me for opining on how the Russians might have felt, but here you are, practically claiming to be a mind-reader of the Russian political and military leadership.

Yawn

I realize that you're tired, but you're free to withdraw at any time.

Eastern bloc ring a bell?

It wasn't because they wanted "territory" or "Lebensraum," as you're implying. They wanted a buffer zone, precisely because they were afraid of possible US aggression, just as we were afraid of Soviet aggression. We also maintained troops in West Germany, Italy, and elsewhere in Europe, so we had our "Bloc" and they had theirs.

Haha see above. The West had nukes while the USSR didn't in 45.

Well, that also figured in to their perceptions of the West. We actually used nukes on innocent civilians, but they never did.

But about that, while we did have nukes in '45, we didn't have that many, not enough to totally annihilate the Soviet Union. Plus we didn't have missiles back then. (We were years behind in rocket technology, as we found out.) We would have had to send planes in with nuclear bombs, which would have had to contend with the Soviet Air Force and whatever anti-air defenses they had. They also had the largest standing army in Europe, and taking out a Russian city or two wouldn't have deterred them.


And they would get nukes soon enough anyway.

Eastern Bloc....

You sound like a broken record. I've already disposed of this argument, so you'll have to try again.

Russian fought in the NK airforce and supplied it weapons. Trained and supplied NV. China entered the Korean war of it's own accord. Your grasp of history is lacking. MBT of NK? T-34. Main fighter? Migs..... It is called a proxy war. Look it up.

Actually, I knew all that, so your assessment that my "grasp of history is lacking" is wildly inaccurate and irrelevant to this discussion. Please try to stay on topic.


The Chinese entered the war because we had troops on the other side of the Yalu River. If the Chinese invaded Mexico and had troops on the Rio Grande, you can bet your last Canadian dollar that we would have gone to war. I guarantee it.


Yes, the Soviets did supply weapons to NK, just we did with SK. We could have stayed out and let NK and SK fight it out with their imported weapons.

I can look at history myself which apparently you have issues with. See the above

You're just saying silly things. I think that we both have an above-average grasp of history. Maybe we've studied different things, different points of view, but that doesn't make your view more valid than mine, nor does it mean that I haven't "looked it up."

Better to overestimate than underestimate.

Except when it gets us involved in unnecessary wars and causes the deaths of our people, not to mention the overall psychological damage it has done to this country.

There is no doubt military personal and politicians that were hawks benefits from those wars and build ups.

Yes, and the same thing is going on today. I say it's time to stop this insanity.

 

[Stevicus]

It isn't about priority but capability

I think the Chinese have demonstrated that they are certainly capable of understanding Western technology. They know how to build boats. They can even build carriers if they wanted to. It might take a number of years before they could match us carrier for carrier, but they're certainly capable of it.


They're not helpless on the seas. They have guided missile cruisers and submarines which are capable of taking out our carriers.

Ergo your just undermined your point about Latin America. Lack of projection power means military options are off the table

At present, that may be true, but things can change in 5 or 10 years. That's what we need to be thinking about.

That isn't my thinking. NATO has one major partner (US) with a lot of minor partners (everyone else). Due to that relationship disparity and other disparities NATO is far more about US interest than other members.

I don't see any direct evidence that this is about US interests, other than vague theories and speculations about what other countries might do.

Sure. Those people can always get their nations to create something called a functional military or leave via politics.

Then maybe that's what they should do. As for us, if they don't want us there, then maybe we should be decent enough to honor their wishes and withdraw. Is that such an unreasonable stance to take?

It is mess that is smaller but hard to contain and confront using conventional warfare. Saddam's Iraq was a huge target compared to ISIS and such groups.

It just goes to show that, for every action we take, there are multiple counter-reactions which can become harder to contain. This is, perhaps, a good reason to think about things before rushing recklessly into situations. You call it "naïve," but I call it careful and considerate planning.

Do I need to explain force projection?

You don't need to explain anything to me. I know your position quite well. I've argued with it numerous times for decades. As I said, you haven't said anything here that I haven't already heard before.

The citizen benefits as their nation isn't open to attack like it was pre-ww2.

Was our nation open to attack because we were not part of a permanent alliance? At this point, I would say that China is not open to attack. Russia is not open to attack. They don't need a permanent bloc of nations to accomplish this goal, and neither do we.

I presented several facts but you eat up Russian propaganda so ignore it.

Russian propaganda? Are you seriously. Up above you were criticizing me for not citing anything from Russia. Now, you're saying that I'm eating up Russian propaganda? Can you make up your mind on this point?

Nope as Russia isn't talking to anyone it just seizes land. That is called an invasion.

If it was an invasion, we'd see Russian troops in Kiev and Tbilisi right now. We don't see that, so I guess that disposes of another of your arguments.

 

[Stevicus]

US has a general problem of overspending.

Overspending is generally linked to capitalist corruption, such as the famous example of the military buying $15,000 toilet seats and things like that.

It kept those forces there to keep Poles and Hungarians under control not. The Eastern Bloc was created to protect Russia.

And why do you suppose the Russians believed they needed to protect themselves? The US government has justified quite a number of questionable actions in the name of national security or protecting our way of life. But only we're allowed to do that, while everyone is considered "evil" for doing the same things we are.

That had little to do with the West but Russia dominated USSR itself.

It had everything to do with the West. They didn't create the Iron Curtain to defend themselves against Lilliputians.

That was due to Russian lack of defensive terrain to the west and communism itself. Communism at a national level must treat capitalism as a threat

Just as capitalism must always treat communism as a threat. Even when it's on an extremely small scale, such as in Grenada or Nicaragua. If the U.S. can justify its paranoid, morbid fear of tiny Grenada, then we're hardly in any position to judge the USSR as "paranoid."

Yet had no issues occupying other nations..... No threat to see here folks, move along!

Well, we didn't really give them much of a choice, did we? Besides, we've occupied plenty of nations, too, so we can't criticize them for doing the same things that we have done. That's called "hypocrisy," and hypocrisy is bad.

I am talking about what Russia did by their own accord.

No, you're not just talking about what the Russians did. Most of your position is based on your own supposition of what you think the Russians are planning to do – and you base it on what the Nazi Germans did, not anything the Russians ever did (or any precedents in Russian history).

Other nations are weak or lack will power to act.. The EU has become comfortable and "fat" China and Russia do not care. There is no one else.

Well, again, it's not America's fault that other nations are weak or lack the willpower to act. And we're certainly much fatter than either China or Russia.

Most of world has told you it needs the US. Sure the religious reasons may not work on you or I but the principles behind it are solid if one is religious

The thing is, the U.S. does not have inexhaustible resources. We keep sinking deeper and deeper into debt. Europeans and Canadians (even those here on RF) routinely brag about how much better their standard of living is, how they have free healthcare and better treatment for workers. They often criticize the U.S. (not just the government either) and ridicule our people, as if they think we're just a bunch of uncouth, unsophisticated, gun-toting bumpkins.


I can certainly understand where they're coming from, but many Americans see their leaders as a bunch of suckers who have turned America into the doormat of the world. If most of the world truly needs the U.S., then they'll have to do a heck of a lot more than simply "tell us."

That is not how many see themselves. That is what many actually are.

I have to keep reminding myself that you're not actually from the U.S.

Russia held the area anyway. Russia did declare war on Japan. You are repeating something but it isn't history

You're trying to build a case about Russia being some sort of villainous, evil country, and you're cherry picking historical examples and only telling half the story.


If you want to paint history as some kind of comic book drama of "heroes" and "villains," then go right ahead. But don't confuse it with actual "history." Human society is far more complex than that.

America didn't hand over arms to SK like Russia did with China nor NK.

Well, actually we did supply arms to South Korea.

Yes I did. You repeat half-truth to outright fictional history at time

I was just putting it into a larger perspective based on the standards we've set for ourselves and other Western powers.


Let me ask you this: Are you prepared to accept the proposition that "any country which uses military force against any other country or people is a despicable, evil threat to world security"? Is this the principle you're arguing for when you cite a few isolated incidents and pass judgment on them as "unrestrained aggressors"?

As the US had nukes first while demonstrating it would use nukes.

I think you're overstating it. The U.S. has not been threatened with foreign invasion since the War of 1812. And even in that war, despite the British burning our Capitol, they still got their butts handed to them at Baltimore and New Orleans. By the time of the Civil War, the rest of the world saw that America had come into its own and we were not a weak country to be messed with, at least not in our own backyard. We didn't need nukes to get to that point.


Even during the World Wars, the U.S. was never in any serious danger of invasion. The only reason we needed nukes was to subdue Japan and force their unconditional surrender. By that time, Japan was already on the ropes, and any danger to the U.S. (however remote) had long since passed. Germany couldn't even cross a 20-mile Channel to invade Britain, so how could anyone imagine they had the wherewithal to cross a 3000-mile ocean to invade America?


You've repeatedly mentioned "projection power," but it should be noted that Russia had far less projection power in 1945 than they did in later decades. They were not a threat to the United States. You've as much as confirmed this by your repeated points regarding "projection power."

The risk was not worth the gains.

Sounds like they took a restrained and reasonable approach, don't you think?

Eastern Bloc...

Already addressed and refuted.

Working against a common enemy is not the same as working with an ally of a similar ideology.

It depends on how you define "similar ideology." The USA and USSR were federal republics, while many of the Western Allies were monarchies.

Actually if France and the UK had the will power they could have ended WW2 during the invasion of Poland. Neither nation did. Great War fatigue or whatever you want to call it

Yes, that may have happened if they tried. It's all speculation and "what if" now. Another thing they could have done was accept Hitler's peace offer, let him have his conquests, and then just sit back and wait for the Germans and Russians to start fighting. Let the West's two main adversaries fight it out and weaken both countries. That would give Britain and France even more time to build up their forces to attack Germany at a later time.

MacArthur wanted to nuke China not invade it.

Nuking a city or two wouldn't have been enough.

Except the US did several times until the alliance with the USSR which would trigger MAD.

US attempts to invade or undermine Cuba failed because we were in a situation where we couldn't just invade openly. That's why the Bay of Pigs was staged in such a way as to make it look like they were Cuban insurgents, not US soldiers. They were playing a political game which appeared to take precedence over common sense military strategies.


It's like sending only Free French guerrillas to storm the Normandy beaches. That would have been a miserable failure too, except that they didn't have to worry about "appearances" back then. We could use full force back then without any political repercussions, but the Cold War and its various manifestations were different. We couldn't use full force against Cuba because it would have made the U.S. look bad (not that it made any real difference in terms of our overall reputation).

Wouldn't. NV had no defensive treaties with China nor the USSR.

We were also bound by treaties, although again, a lot of it had to do with keeping up appearances. We might have had greater success if we just decided to replace the French as the colonial masters of Indochina, but again, world opinion was down on that sort of thing. And we really wanted the world to think highly of us. Appearance and image became far more important than anything else at that point. It was no longer a matter of simply pursuing U.S. interests on the world stage. It was not enough to be able to project our power all over the world; we wanted the world to like us as well.


But in the end, our government has exuded an appearance similar to that of Mafiosi trying to pass themselves off as running a "legitimate" business. Even if the paperwork is clean and everyone has a degree of plausible deniability, it still has that smell about it.

Defensive alliance with China.

I think China is more embarrassed by NK than anything else at this point.

Russia wouldn't be involved directly but covertly "open" like it has since Korea

Maybe. I think some countries might be getting weary of the US military gallivanting around the Middle East and doing whatever they want. If we invade Iran without a genuine, provable casus belli, then that could lead to sharp reactions from other world powers, possibly including Russia and China.

That isn't what that means.

The word "tinpot" means "inferior" or "cheap." In terms of nations, it tends to refer to weaker countries, such as "banana republics" who can't really stand on their own, can't defend themselves against outside powers, and are invariably dominated by some larger foreign power.

 

[Stevicus]

It is a failing/failed state with nukes with terrorist inside the military.

And how did they get the wherewithal to acquire weapons like that?

The alliance was due to India really. India was non-aligned but the US wanted a military partner in the area. Pakistan was it. That was how the world was divided then. It was a mistake in hindsight 20/20

Yes, I would agree that it was a mistake, but the real question is: Have we learned from our mistakes?

Most still stand no chance. The US does not trade cutting edge technology with minor powers that have no ideological, historical nor cultural links. The US will gut much of it's own equipment in sales. The buyer will install replacements with are a generation or more behind the US and available on the open market for years

Still, even weapons from a generation ago are still pretty devastating. It's not as if they're fighting with muskets. Moreover, as you say, Pakistan has nukes. NK has nukes. We were worried about Iraq getting nukes, and now, we're worried about Iran getting nukes. There are dozens of countries with nuclear power plants.


Besides, most of these countries don't really even need cutting edge technology, since we're mostly selling to dictators who use these weapons against their own people.

He failed to build up public will power.

I don't think that's something you can blame solely on Chamberlain. He wasn't prime minister in 1936 when the Germans remilitarized the Rhineland (which was a greater direct threat to the West than the invasions of Austria, Czechoslovakia, or Poland). He also wasn't prime minister in 1925 when the Locarno Treaties were signed. Also, Chamberlain was the one who issued the British guarantee to Poland, which was something he didn't have to do. That's what compelled Hitler to make a non-aggression pact with Stalin.


Without that, Germany and Russia might have started fighting in 1939, while Western Europe could have been spared the onslaught. Or, Poland might have made a deal with Germany in exchange for a defense treaty against Russia. (If they had a crystal ball and could see that defying Germany over a border dispute would lead to 40 years of Soviet occupation, they might have agreed to revert to their pre-1914 borders.)

Wrong. Germany was baffled that the allies didn't invade during the invasion of Poland. Germany had 200k on the border of France. France had millions on the border.

I was referring more to air power. I think the Allies faced another problem due to Belgium's refusal to allow the Allies military access through their territory.


It still would have been a gamble if the French had invaded Germany at that point, even if they did enjoy a numerical advantage. But the Allies also knew that time was on their side. Germany was the one under pressure to win a quick war, while the Allies had the manpower and resources for a longer-term, sustained conflict.

That was due to the lack of will not weapons nor manpower. Even during invasion of France the allies outgun and numbered Germany. Germany had better tactics and strategy combined with a will to fight.

It seems kind of baffling when you think about it, at least as far as not having the will to fight when there are enemy troops pouring into their country.

China is mostly contain due to economic necessity of the Chinese needing trade.

Many people in the US also believe the US needs trade.

What manner is that exactly?

Unnecessarily provoking them on matters which have little or nothing to do with US interests or the direct defense of the United States. If we're actually defending legitimate US interests, then okay, but if we're just going around and messing with them just to get our jollies, then that's another matter entirely.


It doesn't really even have anything to do with trade. If the big thing nowadays is global capitalism and free trade, then it seems more practical to deal with them on that basis alone.


If globalism is what our politicians want, then maybe they should act like practical businessmen instead of disingenuously passing themselves as global crusaders. If nothing else, it's costly, wasteful, risky – and does absolutely nothing to make Americans safer, nor does it improve the economy of the United States.


I know that's important to them and a large part of their devotion to "public image" (to be seen as Captain America saving the world) but nobody is really buying it anyway, so they might as well just give it up and act like normal human beings.

Some do in my view.

Not on a national scale. You've cited "will to fight" as an important factor. Most Americans live in a kind of luxurious, consumer-driven bubble of insularity. Sure, we have a strong defense which helps contribute to that insularity, along with a certain degree of geographical detachment from the more troubled areas of the world.


I think of my parents' and grandparents' generation who endured the Depression and WW2 (and even then, America was not nearly as affected the countries of Europe and Asia). They viewed the succeeding generations as too soft and spoiled.

Who said anything about saving Crimea? The risk isn't worth the reward. I am just using it as a point of Russian aggression to advocate for considering Russia a threat.

A threat to whom?

Depends if reactionary nationalist parties/movements take political power. I do not see the UK changing under Labour nor Tory at this time. This is without Russia outright provoking a EU nation.

I just don't see them doing that.

No one in their right mind would start a war over Ukraine against Russia. It is about being more prepared which the EU is not.

And if they feel the need to get better prepared, then so be it. In the meantime, though, we still have other geopolitical matters to consider and look at the larger picture.


For example, some people might point to Iran as a dangerous rogue nation, as well as North Korea. We don't seem able to do anything about those nations mainly because they are ostensibly by larger powers we don't want to have to fight.

What right does the US to negotiate over territory not part of the US.

What right does the US have to do anything regarding territories not part of the US? What right did France or the UK have to negotiate over Czechoslovakia or Poland? As you recall, the reason the USSR ended up in control of NK and Eastern Europe was because of negotiations by the Big Three (Stalin, FDR, Churchill).


What right did any of these powers have to do what they did? In the end, it doesn't really matter, since they just did it anyway.

Ethic Russians blah blah casus belli. Russia has been open about this

You don't think that's a valid complaint? If Americans were mistreated in a foreign country, our government would certainly take notice of that. We would complain too. Our main pretext for invading Grenada was that there were American medical students down there who needed to be rescued.

Sure. Now consider which side you think should get arms in modern issues

Neither. If they're not capable of manufacturing their own weapons or taking even the most rudimentary steps towards their own defense, then too bad for them. It's not our place to get involved in other people's fights.

Preparation and alliance building.

Preparation, yes. Alliances should only be on an "as needed" basis.

You do this with a number of your comments.

No, I don't. I look at alleged acts of "Russian aggression" no differently than I would look at alleged "US aggression" in places like Panama, Grenada, Iraq, or elsewhere in the world. I put it into the category of "these things happen." I don't think it's accurate to characterize any of these invasions as a prelude to any secret plan to conquer or control the world. You're the one doing that, not me.

Which is often how authoritarian gain power.

Yes, but by threatening them and saber-rattling as we have been doing, we push them into the arms of authoritarianism. We made the same mistake back in 1917. When will we ever learn?

Putin provided that threat fine by himself.

Well, we're talking more than a decade before Putin's rise to power.

They are incapable of protecting themselves. They whine but the status quo remains.

That's why it might be better for America to take a different course. We don't really need a Eurocentric foreign policy anymore.

Have you seen the US military?

I see them nearly every day. I also hear them overhead on a daily basis. That's one of the perks of living near a major AFB. We also have a major installation called Fort Huachuca not too far from here. One of my closest friends was stationed there. I've had family and friends in the military. I've seen them.

That type of war would be nuclear if involving the US. Right now there are 3 powers to align with worth a damn. The US, Russia and China. EU does not have the will nor military. The rest of the planet isn't stable enough for any long term conventional war.

Well, then, why doesn't the US, Russia, and China get together to restore order and stability to the world? Each country could have its own sphere of influence, and all we'd have to do is deal with each other. It might not be the ideal situation, but it would reduce the number of random elements, ragtag terror groups, rogue nations, and tinpot dictators.

No I am advocating for alliance building and a bit more spending on the military by the EU.

If you want to build an alliance, then let's build one that makes sense, not one that pits giant vs. giant where nobody wins.

 

[Shad]

Snip.

Thanks for the discussion. You have not convinced me by putting forward any objective reason to disband NATO nor change my mind about Russia. You sound like RT with half your comments while other points sound like RT fan fiction mixed with pseudohistory. Russia being upset or thinking something is hostile does not make the world stop for it. You ask questions you can easily look up the answers to yourself but you do not. I do not have time to educate you. Half your facts are wrong but correctable with an easy search but you do not bother to put in much effort.

Like all your research you merely stop when you reach a point you want, nothing more.

 

[Stevicus]

Thanks for the discussion. You have not convinced me by putting forward any objective reason to disband NATO nor change my mind about Russia. You sound like RT with half your comments while other points sound like RT fan fiction mixed with pseudohistory. Russia being upset or thinking something is hostile does not make the world stop for it. You ask questions you can easily look up the answers to yourself but you do not. I do not have time to educate you. Half your facts are wrong but correctable with an easy search but you do not bother to put in much effort.

Like all your research you merely stop when you reach a point you want, nothing more.

I think I'm on pretty solid ground with what I've said. I don't watch RT. Even you said that I was just stating my own opinions and wanted me to cite something from Russia. Now you're claiming that I'm getting it all from RT.

I never asked you to "educate me." I was trying to educate you, so that you and others would try to understand. Even if Russia really was our enemy, then it's a wiser course to study and learn about our enemy. You know nothing about Russia. One of the most basic concepts in Russian history is learning about Kieven Rus', but you never even heard of that.

And you presume to "educate" me on Russia, a subject you know nothing about?

 

[Shad]

I think I'm on pretty solid ground with what I've said. I don't watch RT.

You do not need to watch RT to repeat Putin PR.

Even you said that I was just stating my own opinions and wanted me to cite something from Russia. Now you're claiming that I'm getting it all from RT.

No I said you sound like RT.

I never asked you to "educate me."

You do not need to ask.

I was trying to educate you,

Via your opinions which are not objective facts? Hilarious

so that you and others would try to understand.

Understand your opinion instead of objective facts? Impressive.

Even if Russia really was our enemy, then it's a wiser course to study and learn about our enemy.

Sure that is what intelligence organizations are for.

You know nothing about Russia.

Assertion

One of the most basic concepts in Russian history is learning about Kieven Rus', but you never even heard of that.

Assertion. I know about Kieven Rus. Kieven Rus isn't Russia. You are assuming what I know or do not know just to grandstand. Now try again son. Less fiction from your head next time.

And you presume to "educate" me on Russia, a subject you know nothing about?

Assertion just made for you to knock down all while your shoddy research ignored why Poland wants to join NATO. "But Napoleon!!!! Wah!" Try again son. Maybe do as I said, look at that history 20 years before. Look up the battle of Warsaw. Eastern Bloc ring a bell? But nope some Frenchmen from 2 centuries ago which Poland aligned with for good reasons is the pretext for Russia seeing Poland joining NATO as threat is the key. Hilarious. You had to go back two centuries just for a point I knocked down in seconds....

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Permanent alliances seem to be in your interest if you wish to be thought of as loyal, reliable and trustworthy. If those are unimportant to you, then maybe not.

 

[Stevicus]

You do not need to watch RT to repeat Putin PR.

This is pointless. If you have anything factual to offer, then feel free to try again. I see no reason to respond to your continual ranting and raving.

 

[Cooky]

As long as we have countries like China, Russia and Venezuela acting dictatorial and threatening western interests, we need NATO.

 

[Cooky]

This is pointless. If you have anything factual to offer, then feel free to try again. I see no reason to respond to your continual ranting and raving.

What's RT?

 

[Cooky]

Permanent alliances seem to be in your interest if you wish to be thought of as loyal, reliable and trustworthy. If those are unimportant to you, then maybe not.

I would think loyalty would take the back seat to common interests. As long as Western nations share common interests, permanent alliances are necessary.

 

[Cooky]

With third world countries exporting their ideologies and cultures through social media in a more globalized, kaleidoscope style culturality, it's going to be more difficult to retain the typical nation-style NATO alliance though... In the future.

 

[Shad]

What's RT?

Russia Today. State media. I said the user sounds like RT repeating propaganda and reaching for a rational for Russia to act how it is today as justifed. My point was he sounds like a stooge especially as he ignores the whole Cold War era to find something that offended Russia two centuries ago. Which was caused by Russia and Prussia itself 20 years before his arbitrary cut off date

 

[Shad]

This is pointless. If you have anything factual to offer, then feel free to try again. I see no reason to respond to your continual ranting and raving.

I have offered plenty. You just ignored it and look up arbitrary history while babbling how Poland joining NATO is a threat and hostile action against Russia. You ignore the Cold War unless it bolsters a point about Russia not Poland nor Hungary. You offer opinions then whine to me about presenting facts, which I have. Try again son.\

Heard of the battle of Warsaw son?

 

[Cooky]

I have offered plenty. You just ignored it and look up arbitrary history while babbling how Poland joining NATO is a threat and hostile action against Russia. You ignore the Cold War unless it bolsters a point about Russia not Poland nor Hungary. You offer opinions then whine to me about presenting facts, which I have. Try again son.\

Heard of the battle of Warsaw son?

Why would someone be worried about what Russia thinks anyway? They're not the power they once were, since the collapse of the Soviet Union... In fact, they stand virtually no threat at all to the United States.

 

[Shad]

Why would someone be worried about what Russia thinks anyway?

Well the one of the topics is about NATO and what Russia thinks about it. It was a debate topic in the last few exchanges.

They're not the power they once were, since the collapse of the Soviet Union...

Which to me is one of the reasons Russia is whining. It wants to have the power it once did if not in the same manner.

In fact, they stand virtually no threat at all to the United States.

Any war between the two will trigger MAD. My points were without NATO and America is Russia a threat to Europe? Also does America benefit from NATO. Which I say yes.

 

[Stevicus]

I have offered plenty. You just ignored it and look up arbitrary history while babbling how Poland joining NATO is a threat and hostile action against Russia. You ignore the Cold War unless it bolsters a point about Russia not Poland nor Hungary. You offer opinions then whine to me about presenting facts, which I have. Try again son.\

Heard of the battle of Warsaw son?

You can babble all you want, but you (and anyone else reading) can clearly see that in all of your posts here, you have not posted a single link, not one citation to back up anything you've said. In other words: Nothing. No facts. Just McCarthyite propaganda.