What is the US interest in Ukraine?

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have long thought that the UN should have a military force under their authority that is like the French Foreign Legion, made up of volunteers from member nations. They have pacekeepers much like this but they are seldom, if ever, allowed to use force. Such a force would be highly trained and used in crisis situations where there is threats of small conflicts growing into civil war or regional war.

Wouldn't work. Noble idea, but won't work in current system.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Yes, that would be fair. I don't think "isolationist" would be the correct term, but more "neutral" and "non-aligned." I have studied a fair amount of Russian history, but just because I understand some of their position and how they might perceive the world, I don't believe it makes me a Putin apologist. There are many Russians who strongly oppose Putin and don't like what he's doing. Even if Putin never existed, Russia itself would still have legitimate grievances and understandable fears about the expansion of NATO. For those who are unwilling or unable to understand that, I'm sorry, but I say what I say based on my knowledge and understanding of history - both Russian and American history. It's not a "thoughtless and uniformed view," and it's not RW propaganda or the imaginings of Tucker Carlson (who I've never watched anyway), as some people in this thread are trying to portray it (and failing badly).

All I would really ask is that we try to keep the discussion somewhat grounded in historical fact.



I understand the point you're making. I perceive it as well-intentioned, although there's an old saying that the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. Sometimes, doing the right thing could trigger a thousand different unintended wrong things. Outside interventionism can often make a bad situation even worse. I'm not saying the US should do nothing, but again, we should think about what we're doing carefully and with clear heads.



Technically speaking, the US did not invade South Vietnam. We were there at the official request of their government, at least on paper. The US government is very "legalese" oriented, and this, in and of itself, can be considered a questionable tactic when applied to complex geopolitical questions where "the law" itself may be in dispute or somewhat vague. Likewise with the Bay of Pigs and Chile. All of the legal niceties were considered and addressed, but it still led to a very messy situation. US-flagged troops did not invade either Cuba or Chile, yet we found native personnel willing to do our bidding just the same.

But on the grand scale, sometimes these "native personnel" may also have their own agenda - smiling and friendly and saying "Go USA!" Yet, they might still be playing both sides of the fence and may prove to be treacherous (or maybe we are, it's hard to tell sometimes). Ho Chi Minh was once a US ally, and so was Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. What made them turn against us? Did they suddenly decide to go rogue for no reason?




I don't think anyone is letting Putin have his way. Part of the reason why he's getting his way now is probably because the Russian people feel threatened, which usually leads to strong support for a heavy-handed leader like Putin. They sense the hostility of the West towards their country and people, which makes them feel fear, which translates into even more fanatical support for Putin. Cause and effect. It's unintended consequences, just as the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War had the effect of practically handing the former Russian Empire to the Soviets on a silver platter.

Just as the Allied leaders at Versailles in 1919 made unfortunate choices which led to an even greater conflagration a few years later. (It's also how the French managed to get control of Syria and screw that country up to what it is now, as you mentioned Syria above.)

Other examples might include the Iranians in 1979. They may have had very righteous and justifiable reasons for hating the US and President Carter at the time, giving a great deal of political capital to Carter's opponent in the 1980 election, who was a staunch militarist and interventionist who made America into an even greater monster than we were before. Maybe they thought they were doing right, according to their point of view. But their actions merely triggered an even more aggressive America. Likewise with the terrorists on 9/11. They might have genuinely believed they were striking a blow for whatever cause they were fighting for, but all it did was make us even angrier.

In a very real sense, Putin is making the same mistake by invading Ukraine and provoking the West in this manner. He may have a Napoleon complex, but he ain't Napoleon. Not even close.




I understand. There are certain realities we have to deal with here. The most obvious of which relates to the existence of nuclear weapons and the modern tools of warfare which are much different than we saw in WW2 or the Napoleonic Wars. Even smaller regimes led by tinpot dictators who commit atrocities are not necessarily something that we can deal with in totality, even if they don't have nukes and can't really fight back (such as in Iraq and Afghanistan).

Also, considering the economic position of the West at present, especially here in America, we are reaching the breaking point. We keep hearing the same refrain when it comes to helping the people and improving their lives: "We can't afford it." There are currently widespread protests and strikes in France because they're also being told the same lie of "We can't afford it." Well, maybe we can't afford it. Maybe there is some truth to that, but if we can't afford it, then we can't afford it. What else can we do when we're so hobbled like this? We're not same country we were during WW2. We've expended so much of our resources, time, and energy on making the rest of the world safe for democracy that we risk losing it here at home. And then where we will be?

I appreciate the thought and detail you've put into this post, as with many of your other posts. I would give it a "useful" rating if that were still available.

I would discuss this further, but offline life has been a bit busy for me lately, so I'm not able to be engaged in lengthier discussions here. Thanks for sharing your perspective in so much detail.

 

[Father Heathen]

I see no honor in opposing a large, corrupt, authoritarian regime by supporting a smaller, yet equally corrupt, authoritarian regime.

Doesn't this ignore the Ukrainians as a people?

 

[Kathryn]

Well, I try to hold other humans as just as important as me. So it is not just about many words.

So did your country go defend the brown people of Rwanda?

 

[Kathryn]

How would you have handled US policy re: Ukraine differently since the invasion? Provide no military aid to Ukraine and pretend the conflict isn't happening? You understand that means Ukraine would've swiftly lost, and best case scenario Russia annexes Eastern Ukraine and installs a puppet pro-Putin government in the West. Is that...a preferable outcome, to you?

It's a conundrum. But\ I'd take care of my own people before I took care of other people. So far, we've committed about 34 BILLION dollars in security assistance alone to Ukraine. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040#:~:text=the Biden Administration has committed,start of the 2022 war.&text=(USAI; P.L.,by the situation in Ukraine.”

 

[Kathryn]

Well, I try to hold other humans as just as important as me. So it is not just about many words.

Or few words. LOL

 

[Stevicus]

I see no honor in opposing a large, corrupt, authoritarian regime by supporting a smaller, yet equally corrupt, authoritarian regime.

The US hasn't had a very good track record when it comes to fighting proxy wars.

Also, I'm old enough to remember when the GOP were the "warmongers" and the Democrats were the ones saying "give peace a chance".

The times -- they are a changin'.

(EDIT - I don't know why I wrote "old enough to remember". It was only about twenty years ago, after all.)

It was the same back in the Vietnam era, although the Democrats were sharply divided over that, but starting to lean more towards the anti-war cause. By the 80s, the perceptions of Democrats as "peaceniks" started to become politically inexpedient. When Michael Dukakis was running for President in 1988, he wanted to show everyone that he was a tough, pro-military candidate. And how did he do that? He made a big spectacle of himself riding on a tank.

His campaign really tanked.

He was quoted as saying "If I had my way, I'd meet Bush face to face; him in his tank and me in mine. We'd meet out there somewhere... salute each other, maybe drink a toast, then we'd button up and do battle. The winner would decide the outcome of the election."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So did your country go defend the brown people of Rwanda?

Yeah, if not totally perfect it is totally wrong. So if you haven't helped all people you have met for all cases regardless of factors, you are evil.
That is your standard reductio ad absurdum and no, you are not evil, because I don't use evil and I don't use your standard to judge any human including myself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Or few words. LOL

Yeah, it is all a joke and you are the best one as for being funny as that is all that counts. Or in other words, it is all your feelings, right???

Or please tell us, that you can hold the world and all the humans as a complex process and not just black and white for really wrong or right?

 

[Left Coast]

It's a conundrum. But\ I'd take care of my own people before I took care of other people. So far, we've committed about 34 BILLION dollars in security assistance alone to Ukraine. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040#:~:text=the Biden Administration has committed,start of the 2022 war.&text=(USAI; P.L.,by the situation in Ukraine.”

I know that sounds like a big number, but it's a small slice of our defense budget.

The world is interconnected. "Taking care of our own people" is an understandable instinct, but ignores how events overseas affect everyone, especially the world's superpowers. Ignoring Russian aggression would be deeply foolish.

 

[taykair]

Doesn't this ignore the Ukrainians as a people?

Perhaps so, but only in the same way that "opposing Putin" ignores the Russian people.

 

[Father Heathen]

Perhaps so, but only in the same way that "opposing Putin" ignores the Russian people.

The Russian people aren't the ones being subjected to brutal war crimes as a result of foreign occupation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I see no honor in opposing a large, corrupt, authoritarian regime by supporting a smaller, yet equally corrupt, authoritarian regime.

The US hasn't had a very good track record when it comes to fighting proxy wars.

Also, I'm old enough to remember when the GOP were the "warmongers" and the Democrats were the ones saying "give peace a chance".

The times -- they are a changin'.

(EDIT - I don't know why I wrote "old enough to remember". It was only about twenty years ago, after all.)

Equal corruption in Ukraine & Russia?
Pbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbtttttt!

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, I try to hold other humans as just as important as me. So it is not just about many words.

Some humans are more important.
Ukrainians stand against a threat posed to NATO.
Rwandans, worthy people though many are, lack
that function.

 

[taykair]

It was the same back in the Vietnam era, although the Democrats were sharply divided over that, but starting to lean more towards the anti-war cause. By the 80s, the perceptions of Democrats as "peaceniks" started to become politically inexpedient. When Michael Dukakis was running for President in 1988, he wanted to show everyone that he was a tough, pro-military candidate. And how did he do that? He made a big spectacle of himself riding on a tank.

His campaign really tanked.

He was quoted as saying "If I had my way, I'd meet Bush face to face; him in his tank and me in mine. We'd meet out there somewhere... salute each other, maybe drink a toast, then we'd button up and do battle. The winner would decide the outcome of the election."

I think Dukakis' silly "General Mikey" photo was about 50% responsible for his defeat. The other half was probably due to his being flummoxed by Bernard Shaw's question in the debates concerning whether or not Dukakis would favor the death penalty for someone who had murdered Dukakis' wife.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Some humans are more important.
Ukrainians stand against a threat posed to NATO.
Rwandans, worthy people though many are, lack
that function.

Yeah, I do get the German concept of Realpolitik and all the other aspects of foreign politics.

 

[taykair]

Equal corruption in Ukraine & Russia?
Pbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbtttttt!

I believe that the latest CPI score for Russia is 28 and Ukraine is 33, so it's pretty close.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I know that sounds like a big number, but it's a small slice of our defense budget.

The world is interconnected. "Taking care of our own people" is an understandable instinct, but ignores how events overseas affect everyone, especially the world's superpowers. Ignoring Russian aggression would be deeply foolish.

@Kathryn
Here is a real world example. Allowing Russia control of Ukraine changes the balance of who controls a part of the world's grain product. That can lead to instability that can effect the USA.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's a conundrum. But\ I'd take care of my own people before I took care of other people. So far, we've committed about 34 BILLION dollars in security assistance alone to Ukraine. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040#:~:text=the Biden Administration has committed,start of the 2022 war.&text=(USAI; P.L.,by the situation in Ukraine.”

Yeah, you are not in the world and yet alone in the world. You are not interconnect to the rest of the world, because you are so special.
The price of trading with the world and making money off that, is that the stability of the world becomes important.

So you want to have your cake and eat it too.

 

[taykair]

The Russian people aren't the ones being subjected to brutal war crimes as a result of foreign occupation.

I suppose you forgot to add the words "yet" or "as far as we know" to the end of your statement, so I'll let it go.

Also, I'm not sure what a "non-brutal" war crime would entail, so I'm guessing that you added this adjective to give a little more emotional weight to your statement.