All Things Russia & Ukraine

[kramerica.inc]

You used those words.
"Let me say it more bluntly: How about before we declare defeat, we support Ukraine winning?"
The US supported Ukraine winning to the tune of $77 Billion this year. You mentioned we spend 3x as much on military, but are sending 10X as much financial aid as the next country. That's embarrassing. Every one of those countries I mentioned are financial world powers. They don't need to fight. Just pony up and cover the tab for a change.
As for the Baltics, the only one paying their NATO bill is Lithuania. But my guess is they will all want Nato's help if Putin wins. Just start writing the checks now.
Its time to stop messing around in foreign affairs. Let the EU figure out their own neighbor. Isolationism is best.

You are clearly pretty far down that new right wing isolationist rabbit hole. MAGA

But your stated facts are incorrect. We’ve previously covered this in detail with clear citations.

It’s always disappointing to see facts not matter to otherwise reasonable people.

Which facts are incorrect?

https://app.23degrees.io/view/tAuBi41Lx ... _csv_final

Hell I'm even with Obama on this one- "Free riders aggravate me."
You can be a UN member nation apologist like the author of this article:

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/n ... s-critics/

[MDlaxfan76]

You used those words.
"Let me say it more bluntly: How about before we declare defeat, we support Ukraine winning?"
The US supported Ukraine winning to the tune of $77 Billion this year. You mentioned we spend 3x as much on military, but are sending 10X as much financial aid as the next country. That's embarrassing. Every one of those countries I mentioned are financial world powers. They don't need to fight. Just pony up and cover the tab for a change.
As for the Baltics, the only one paying their NATO bill is Lithuania. But my guess is they will all want Nato's help if Putin wins. Just start writing the checks now.
Its time to stop messing around in foreign affairs. Let the EU figure out their own neighbor. Isolationism is best.

You are clearly pretty far down that new right wing isolationist rabbit hole. MAGA

But your stated facts are incorrect. We’ve previously covered this in detail with clear citations.

It’s always disappointing to see facts not matter to otherwise reasonable people.

Which facts are incorrect?

https://app.23degrees.io/view/tAuBi41Lx ... _csv_final

Hell I'm even with Obama on this one- "Free riders aggravate me."
You can be a UN member nation apologist like the author of this article:

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/n ... s-critics/

Did you read the full Atlantic Council article?

The truth about European defense spending

European NATO members’ defense spending in 2022, as collected in the recently released volume The Military Balance: 2023, provides three pieces of evidence that defy the free-riding critique.

1) Sixteen NATO members (over half the Alliance) increased their defense spending in 2022 relative to 2021 in current US dollars. This was after significant increases in European defense spending in 2021. Europe was an exception to the global norm here, as global military spending declined by roughly 2 percent in 2021 and 2022, according to The Military Balance.

2) In 2022, twelve NATO members increased their defense spending as a percentage of GDP. For example, Lithuania increased its defense spending from $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion (in current US dollars) and as a percentage of GDP from 2.07 percent to 2.34 percent. Given the aforementioned economic headwinds and other budgetary demands (such as pandemic expenditures and economic stimulus), increasing defense spending as a percentage of GDP was extremely challenging in fiscal and political terms. For example, the United States increased defense spending from $759 billion in 2021 to $766 billion in 2022, but defense spending as a percentage of GDP declined from 3.3 percent in 2021 to 3.06 percent in 2022.

3) An additional seven NATO governments have pledged to raise defense spending as a percentage of GDP in the near term: the Czech Republic, Denmark, Italy, Latvia, Norway, Poland, and Romania. For example, in March 2022, Latvia’s cabinet approved an increase in defense spending from 2.2 percent to 2.5 percent of GDP by 2025.

What should one take away from these defense spending figures? While the United States’ massive military budget and reinvigorated commitment to defend Europe provided incentives to free ride in 2022, many of the United States’ European allies responded to the increased threat from Russia by increasing their defense spending immediately or announcing that they would do so in the coming years.

I think you're going to see 2023 be even more significant, as the Germans have come around and are investing in their defense production capabilities.

And the $ figures you presented were not as a percentage of GDP, or adjusted for such.

This is a better analysis. Some countries are providing a greater % of GDP to support than the US, most are less.

We do significantly more in military aid, but many countries make up for that in various forms of humanitarian assistance...it all takes dough.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-agai ... t-tracker/

[kramerica.inc]

I did read it. I just don't get why you're so impressed by the numbers.

I guess we should be excited because 8 of 16 countries facing an actual REAL military threat from a superpower neighbor with a whackjob dictator decided to finally take defense spending a little bit more seriously?

Yay?

We have been asking countries to spend their own money to defend themselves for years. The threat is real, on their doorstep, and we have gotten a 50% participation rate. That tells you all we need to know about the mindset of the freeloaders. These countries sure have selective memories about WW2. I guess the only thing that sticks out is: "The US will come and save us."

[Typical Lax Dad]

I did read it. I just don't get why you're so impressed by the numbers.

I guess we should be excited because 8 of 16 countries facing an actual REAL military threat from a superpower neighbor with a whackjob dictator decided to finally take defense spending a little bit more seriously?

Yay?

We have been asking countries to spend their own money to defend themselves for years. The threat is real, on their doorstep, and we have gotten a 50% participation rate. That tells you all we need to know about the mindset of the freeloaders. These countries sure have selective memories about WW2. I guess the only thing that sticks out is: "The US will come and save us."

[MDlaxfan76]

I did read it. I just don't get why you're so impressed by the numbers.

I guess we should be excited because 8 of 16 countries facing an actual REAL military threat from a superpower neighbor with a whackjob dictator decided to finally take defense spending a little bit more seriously?

Yay?

We have been asking countries to spend their own money to defend themselves for years. The threat is real, on their doorstep, and we have gotten a 50% participation rate. That tells you all we need to know about the mindset of the freeloaders. These countries sure have selective memories about WW2. I guess the only thing that sticks out is: "The US will come and save us."

Fascinating how you've become so captured by the current far-right wing zeitgeist.

Serious question:

Were you always an isolationist/defeatist?
Salty may have voted for Buchanan in the GOP primary (or might not have, but he cites him now); did you?

Or did you think that Reagan's view of the world and America's role in it made sense? HW's ?
Tougher choice, did you vote for Gore or even Kerry over W?

Obama over McCain???

[old salt]

F-16 training for Ukrainian pilots :

Useful background - https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/b ... our-months\

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/05/us- ... in-europe/

the latest - https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/co ... 023-06-12/

[old salt]

I did read it. I just don't get why you're so impressed by the numbers.

I guess we should be excited because 8 of 16 countries facing an actual REAL military threat from a superpower neighbor with a whackjob dictator decided to finally take defense spending a little bit more seriously?

Yay?

We have been asking countries to spend their own money to defend themselves for years. The threat is real, on their doorstep, and we have gotten a 50% participation rate. That tells you all we need to know about the mindset of the freeloaders. These countries sure have selective memories about WW2. I guess the only thing that sticks out is: "The US will come and save us."

Fascinating how you've become so captured by the current far-right wing zeitgeist.

Serious question:

Were you always an isolationist/defeatist?
Salty may have voted for Buchanan in the GOP primary (or might not have, but he cites him now); did you?

Or did you think that Reagan's view of the world and America's role in it made sense? HW's ?
Tougher choice, did you vote for Gore or even Kerry over W?

Obama over McCain???

You refuse to consider that conditions change over time. We all took a peace dividend after the Cold War. Our EU allies took a bigger dividend & they didn't maintain a global presence. 9-11 forced us to re-arm. Our NATO allies didn't get serious about it until Putin invaded a neighbor. They have 3 decades of under-investing to catch up on. We can't afford to carry this disproportionate share of the common defense much longer.

[MDlaxfan76]

I did read it. I just don't get why you're so impressed by the numbers.

I guess we should be excited because 8 of 16 countries facing an actual REAL military threat from a superpower neighbor with a whackjob dictator decided to finally take defense spending a little bit more seriously?

Yay?

We have been asking countries to spend their own money to defend themselves for years. The threat is real, on their doorstep, and we have gotten a 50% participation rate. That tells you all we need to know about the mindset of the freeloaders. These countries sure have selective memories about WW2. I guess the only thing that sticks out is: "The US will come and save us."

Fascinating how you've become so captured by the current far-right wing zeitgeist.

Serious question:

Were you always an isolationist/defeatist?
Salty may have voted for Buchanan in the GOP primary (or might not have, but he cites him now); did you?

Or did you think that Reagan's view of the world and America's role in it made sense? HW's ?
Tougher choice, did you vote for Gore or even Kerry over W?

Obama over McCain???

You refuse to consider that conditions change over time. We all took a peace dividend after the Cold War. Our EU allies took a bigger dividend & they didn't maintain a global presence. 9-11 forced us to re-arm. Our NATO allies didn't get serious about it until Putin invaded a neighbor. They have 3 decades of under-investing to catch up on. We can't afford to carry this disproportionate share of the common defense much longer.

Taking this narrative initially as gospel, the clear answer is that the allied West is indeed increasing their "proportionate share of the common defense". That's definitely happening even as we increase our own capacities.

What you (and a whole lot of isolationists) are ignoring of course, is that for 7 decades the US constructed this global imbalance for our own purposes, and we have profited immensely from this position.

You won't get any argument from me that it is good that some/many of our allies are beginning to invest more in important capacities and are increasingly contributing more and more. Yes, this is because of a shock to the zeitgeist with the invasion of Ukraine.

It is important not only for the defeat of the Russian menace, but also because a much more serious challenge could well emerge with China...we should do all in our collective power to prevent that becoming hot, both because of the demonstrated costs of aggression repelled, but also through soft power competition that enables 'larger pie' rather than "zero sum" logic.

What I somewhat disagree about is the statement "9-11 forced us to re-arm"...no, the decisions we made to invade Afghanistan and especially Iraq demanded that we increase production...as we used up existing supplies. We were not "forced" to make those decisions in response. In retrospect, those decisions were not wise, (especially Iraq) despite their seeming exigency at the time.

If you'll recall, unlike the response to the invasion of Kuwait in which we were joined by our allies in a multilateral effort, the decisions made with regard to Iraq were made unilaterally. And unlike the HW decision to repel and punish Iraq swiftly and then step back, the W decision was disastrously mired in notions of regime change and nation building. While appealing in all sorts of ways, the realities on the ground did not support that decision. So we paid a huge price. Yup, those who disagreed did not.

Finally, I do not think we want our leadership position in both hard and soft power to erode to the point that we no longer have real leadership. So, while we should welcome our allies' contributions, it's important that we provide the stability of our own ongoing leadership.

This is all the more important if we are correctly identifying the threats from an ideology of autocratic rule, especially with China's rise, in competition with the ideology of democracy, human rights, and international rule of law.

Trump's erratic and hyperbolic thrashing around dramatically eroded our soft power influence and created a level of distrust in the US that we hadn't seen from many of our allies in decades, perhaps ever since 1945? Even during Vietnam...which was largely opposed by our allies.

Leadership requires steadiness, with a commitment to multilateralism as well as preeminent hard power capacities.

[PizzaSnake]

I did read it. I just don't get why you're so impressed by the numbers.

I guess we should be excited because 8 of 16 countries facing an actual REAL military threat from a superpower neighbor with a whackjob dictator decided to finally take defense spending a little bit more seriously?

Yay?

We have been asking countries to spend their own money to defend themselves for years. The threat is real, on their doorstep, and we have gotten a 50% participation rate. That tells you all we need to know about the mindset of the freeloaders. These countries sure have selective memories about WW2. I guess the only thing that sticks out is: "The US will come and save us."

Fascinating how you've become so captured by the current far-right wing zeitgeist.

Serious question:

Were you always an isolationist/defeatist?
Salty may have voted for Buchanan in the GOP primary (or might not have, but he cites him now); did you?

Or did you think that Reagan's view of the world and America's role in it made sense? HW's ?
Tougher choice, did you vote for Gore or even Kerry over W?

Obama over McCain???

You refuse to consider that conditions change over time. We all took a peace dividend after the Cold War. Our EU allies took a bigger dividend & they didn't maintain a global presence. 9-11 forced us to re-arm. Our NATO allies didn't get serious about it until Putin invaded a neighbor. They have 3 decades of under-investing to catch up on. We can't afford to carry this disproportionate share of the common defense much longer.

Taking this narrative initially as gospel, the clear answer is that the allied West is indeed increasing their "proportionate share of the common defense". That's definitely happening even as we increase our own capacities.

What you (and a whole lot of isolationists) are ignoring of course, is that for 7 decades the US constructed this global imbalance for our own purposes, and we have profited immensely from this position.

You won't get any argument from me that it is good that some/many of our allies are beginning to invest more in important capacities and are increasingly contributing more and more. Yes, this is because of a shock to the zeitgeist with the invasion of Ukraine.

It is important not only for the defeat of the Russian menace, but also because a much more serious challenge could well emerge with China...we should do all in our collective power to prevent that becoming hot, both because of the demonstrated costs of aggression repelled, but also through soft power competition that enables 'larger pie' than zero sum logic.

What I somewhat disagree about is the statement "9-11 forced us to re-arm"...no, the decisions we made to invade Afghanistan and especially Iraq demanded that we increase production...as we used up existing supplies. We were not "forced" to make those decisions in response. In retrospect, those decisions were not wise, (especially Iraq) despite their seeming exigency at the time.

If you'll recall, unlike the response to the invasion of Kuwait in which we were joined by our allies in a multilateral effort, the decisions made with regard to Iraq were made unilaterally. And unlike the HW decision to repel and punish Iraq swiftly and then step back, the W decision was disastrously mired in notions of regime change and nation building. While appealing in all sorts of ways, the realities on the ground did not support that decision. So we paid a huge price. Yup, those who disagreed did not.

Finally, I do not think we want our leadership position in both hard and soft power to erode to the point that we no longer have real leadership. So, while we should welcome our allies' contributions, it's important that we provide the stability of our own ongoing leadership.

This all the more important if we are correctly identifying the threats from an ideology of autocratic rule, especially with China's rise, in competition with the ideology of democracy, human rights, and international rule of law.

Trump's erratic and hyperbolic thrashing around dramatically eroded our soft power influence and created a level of distrust in the US that we hadn't seen from many of our allies in decades, perhaps ever since 1945? Even during Vietnam...which was largely opposed by our allies.

Leadership requires steadiness, with a commitment to multilateralism as well as preeminent hard power capacities.

“While appealing in all sorts of ways, the realities on the ground did not support that decision.”

Still paying. Is it any wonder the Army recruitment numbers are low? Iraq and Afghanistan are shaping up to be “super-Vietnams” in terms of civilian disillusionment re use of military force.

[MDlaxfan76]

I did read it. I just don't get why you're so impressed by the numbers.

I guess we should be excited because 8 of 16 countries facing an actual REAL military threat from a superpower neighbor with a whackjob dictator decided to finally take defense spending a little bit more seriously?

Yay?

We have been asking countries to spend their own money to defend themselves for years. The threat is real, on their doorstep, and we have gotten a 50% participation rate. That tells you all we need to know about the mindset of the freeloaders. These countries sure have selective memories about WW2. I guess the only thing that sticks out is: "The US will come and save us."

Fascinating how you've become so captured by the current far-right wing zeitgeist.

Serious question:

Were you always an isolationist/defeatist?
Salty may have voted for Buchanan in the GOP primary (or might not have, but he cites him now); did you?

Or did you think that Reagan's view of the world and America's role in it made sense? HW's ?
Tougher choice, did you vote for Gore or even Kerry over W?

Obama over McCain???

You refuse to consider that conditions change over time. We all took a peace dividend after the Cold War. Our EU allies took a bigger dividend & they didn't maintain a global presence. 9-11 forced us to re-arm. Our NATO allies didn't get serious about it until Putin invaded a neighbor. They have 3 decades of under-investing to catch up on. We can't afford to carry this disproportionate share of the common defense much longer.

Taking this narrative initially as gospel, the clear answer is that the allied West is indeed increasing their "proportionate share of the common defense". That's definitely happening even as we increase our own capacities.

What you (and a whole lot of isolationists) are ignoring of course, is that for 7 decades the US constructed this global imbalance for our own purposes, and we have profited immensely from this position.

You won't get any argument from me that it is good that some/many of our allies are beginning to invest more in important capacities and are increasingly contributing more and more. Yes, this is because of a shock to the zeitgeist with the invasion of Ukraine.

It is important not only for the defeat of the Russian menace, but also because a much more serious challenge could well emerge with China...we should do all in our collective power to prevent that becoming hot, both because of the demonstrated costs of aggression repelled, but also through soft power competition that enables 'larger pie' than zero sum logic.

What I somewhat disagree about is the statement "9-11 forced us to re-arm"...no, the decisions we made to invade Afghanistan and especially Iraq demanded that we increase production...as we used up existing supplies. We were not "forced" to make those decisions in response. In retrospect, those decisions were not wise, (especially Iraq) despite their seeming exigency at the time.

If you'll recall, unlike the response to the invasion of Kuwait in which we were joined by our allies in a multilateral effort, the decisions made with regard to Iraq were made unilaterally. And unlike the HW decision to repel and punish Iraq swiftly and then step back, the W decision was disastrously mired in notions of regime change and nation building. While appealing in all sorts of ways, the realities on the ground did not support that decision. So we paid a huge price. Yup, those who disagreed did not.

Finally, I do not think we want our leadership position in both hard and soft power to erode to the point that we no longer have real leadership. So, while we should welcome our allies' contributions, it's important that we provide the stability of our own ongoing leadership.

This all the more important if we are correctly identifying the threats from an ideology of autocratic rule, especially with China's rise, in competition with the ideology of democracy, human rights, and international rule of law.

Trump's erratic and hyperbolic thrashing around dramatically eroded our soft power influence and created a level of distrust in the US that we hadn't seen from many of our allies in decades, perhaps ever since 1945? Even during Vietnam...which was largely opposed by our allies.

Leadership requires steadiness, with a commitment to multilateralism as well as preeminent hard power capacities.

“While appealing in all sorts of ways, the realities on the ground did not support that decision.”

Still paying. Is it any wonder the Army recruitment numbers are low? Iraq and Afghanistan are shaping up to be “super-Vietnams” in terms of civilian disillusionment re use of military force.

Interesting article on the topic: https://warontherocks.com/2023/03/addre ... ng-crisis/

Complicated.

Might deserve its own thread if folks are interested in discussing.

[Farfromgeneva]

I did read it. I just don't get why you're so impressed by the numbers.

I guess we should be excited because 8 of 16 countries facing an actual REAL military threat from a superpower neighbor with a whackjob dictator decided to finally take defense spending a little bit more seriously?

Yay?

We have been asking countries to spend their own money to defend themselves for years. The threat is real, on their doorstep, and we have gotten a 50% participation rate. That tells you all we need to know about the mindset of the freeloaders. These countries sure have selective memories about WW2. I guess the only thing that sticks out is: "The US will come and save us."

Fascinating how you've become so captured by the current far-right wing zeitgeist.

Serious question:

Were you always an isolationist/defeatist?
Salty may have voted for Buchanan in the GOP primary (or might not have, but he cites him now); did you?

Or did you think that Reagan's view of the world and America's role in it made sense? HW's ?
Tougher choice, did you vote for Gore or even Kerry over W?

Obama over McCain???

You refuse to consider that conditions change over time. We all took a peace dividend after the Cold War. Our EU allies took a bigger dividend & they didn't maintain a global presence. 9-11 forced us to re-arm. Our NATO allies didn't get serious about it until Putin invaded a neighbor. They have 3 decades of under-investing to catch up on. We can't afford to carry this disproportionate share of the common defense much longer.

Taking this narrative initially as gospel, the clear answer is that the allied West is indeed increasing their "proportionate share of the common defense". That's definitely happening even as we increase our own capacities.

What you (and a whole lot of isolationists) are ignoring of course, is that for 7 decades the US constructed this global imbalance for our own purposes, and we have profited immensely from this position.

You won't get any argument from me that it is good that some/many of our allies are beginning to invest more in important capacities and are increasingly contributing more and more. Yes, this is because of a shock to the zeitgeist with the invasion of Ukraine.

It is important not only for the defeat of the Russian menace, but also because a much more serious challenge could well emerge with China...we should do all in our collective power to prevent that becoming hot, both because of the demonstrated costs of aggression repelled, but also through soft power competition that enables 'larger pie' rather than "zero sum" logic.

What I somewhat disagree about is the statement "9-11 forced us to re-arm"...no, the decisions we made to invade Afghanistan and especially Iraq demanded that we increase production...as we used up existing supplies. We were not "forced" to make those decisions in response. In retrospect, those decisions were not wise, (especially Iraq) despite their seeming exigency at the time.

If you'll recall, unlike the response to the invasion of Kuwait in which we were joined by our allies in a multilateral effort, the decisions made with regard to Iraq were made unilaterally. And unlike the HW decision to repel and punish Iraq swiftly and then step back, the W decision was disastrously mired in notions of regime change and nation building. While appealing in all sorts of ways, the realities on the ground did not support that decision. So we paid a huge price. Yup, those who disagreed did not.

Finally, I do not think we want our leadership position in both hard and soft power to erode to the point that we no longer have real leadership. So, while we should welcome our allies' contributions, it's important that we provide the stability of our own ongoing leadership.

This is all the more important if we are correctly identifying the threats from an ideology of autocratic rule, especially with China's rise, in competition with the ideology of democracy, human rights, and international rule of law.

Trump's erratic and hyperbolic thrashing around dramatically eroded our soft power influence and created a level of distrust in the US that we hadn't seen from many of our allies in decades, perhaps ever since 1945? Even during Vietnam...which was largely opposed by our allies.

Leadership requires steadiness, with a commitment to multilateralism as well as preeminent hard power capacities.

The key is early on-risk transference. Of course this type of persons mentality is “I earned everything, it’s all me” but doesn’t want to pay for it.

[jhu72]

Large scale Russian disinformation campaign exposed.

[kramerica.inc]

I did read it. I just don't get why you're so impressed by the numbers.

I guess we should be excited because 8 of 16 countries facing an actual REAL military threat from a superpower neighbor with a whackjob dictator decided to finally take defense spending a little bit more seriously?

Yay?

We have been asking countries to spend their own money to defend themselves for years. The threat is real, on their doorstep, and we have gotten a 50% participation rate. That tells you all we need to know about the mindset of the freeloaders. These countries sure have selective memories about WW2. I guess the only thing that sticks out is: "The US will come and save us."

Fascinating how you've become so captured by the current far-right wing zeitgeist.

Serious question:

Were you always an isolationist/defeatist?
Salty may have voted for Buchanan in the GOP primary (or might not have, but he cites him now); did you?

Or did you think that Reagan's view of the world and America's role in it made sense? HW's ?
Tougher choice, did you vote for Gore or even Kerry over W?

Obama over McCain???

I'm not captured by anything. Everyone on here ignores that some people have nuanced opinions. There are shades of beliefs. It's not cut and dry.

Not always a military isolationist, but I saw a number of close friends serve and go overseas repeatedly- multiple trips to Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and put their life at risk and on hold for, well, no great reason. Heard their stories. See their challenges today. Then I got into the defense industry myself and saw additional challenges, confirmation of threats, so I understand why the US may have decided to participate in some of these conflicts, to keep the fight over there. That has lead to the perspective.

And if you really want to categorize/label me, I'd say, I'm a selective military isolationist. Based upon immediate threats to US soil and populations.

As for my voting record, we also get back to nuance. I'm not a one-issue voter and have always picked what I deemed to be the lesser of two evils and sometimes that was the 3rd candidate.

[MDlaxfan76]

I did read it. I just don't get why you're so impressed by the numbers.

I guess we should be excited because 8 of 16 countries facing an actual REAL military threat from a superpower neighbor with a whackjob dictator decided to finally take defense spending a little bit more seriously?

Yay?

We have been asking countries to spend their own money to defend themselves for years. The threat is real, on their doorstep, and we have gotten a 50% participation rate. That tells you all we need to know about the mindset of the freeloaders. These countries sure have selective memories about WW2. I guess the only thing that sticks out is: "The US will come and save us."

Fascinating how you've become so captured by the current far-right wing zeitgeist.

Serious question:

Were you always an isolationist/defeatist?
Salty may have voted for Buchanan in the GOP primary (or might not have, but he cites him now); did you?

Or did you think that Reagan's view of the world and America's role in it made sense? HW's ?
Tougher choice, did you vote for Gore or even Kerry over W?

Obama over McCain???

I'm not captured by anything. Everyone on here ignores that some people have nuanced opinions. There are shades of beliefs. It's not cut and dry.

Not always a military isolationist, but I saw a number of close friends serve and go overseas repeatedly- multiple trips to Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and put their life at risk and on hold for, well, no great reason. Heard their stories. See their challenges today. Then I got into the defense industry myself and saw additional challenges, confirmation of threats, so I understand why the US may have decided to participate in some of these conflicts, to keep the fight over there. That has lead to the perspective.

And if you really want to categorize/label me, I'd say, I'm a selective military isolationist. Based upon immediate threats to US soil and populations.

As for my voting record, we also get back to nuance. I'm not a one-issue voter and have always picked what I deemed to be the lesser of two evils and sometimes that was the 3rd candidate.

nuance is very appreciated, which is why I bothered to ask. I'd like to think I bring some nuance as well.

From your comments, you seemed to be caught up in this current right wing isolationist zeitgeist, so I was wondering how deep seated and long term that was.

Ok, let me challenge a piece of your self description of "immediate threats"...do you extend your views at all to the longer term? You indicate some appreciation of why it may be prudent to confront threats overseas before they actually get to our physical shores. Do you agree that our interests, and thus threats to those interests, include an interest in maintenance of international rule of law that enables trade to be free of piracy and other forms of aggression? Do you agree that what happens elsewhere in the world is very likely to reverberate elsewhere, including mass migrations?

I voted 3rd party in '80 and '16. Rest of the cycles GOP for POTUS until 2020. I cross over on a local basis at times based on candidate, but was otherwise reliable GOP down ballot until this past decade started popping up more extremism accepted in the GOP.

[kramerica.inc]

Young and dumb, I believed if you mess with the US or any of our interests we should 100% get involved and flex. Burn those resources and money because well, you asked for it.

After seeing what my freiends experienced in the 90s, 00s, 10s, I've most certainly become a "not until pressed" type thinker with regard to military interactions. Especially things that can turn into long-term stays.

As for long-term vision- I used to believe it was wise. Now I've also seen how quickly a threat can emerge/shift these days given technology, communication and the exchange of information. So I think, in general, our military efforts are probably better served with the low hanging fruits- those with limited, specific engagements that squelch immediate threats.

Perhaps not the wisest vision, so I'm open to concrete examples of where longer involvements have been highly beneficial to the US. And I do understand that it's difficult to quantify "everything is (relatively) ok over here in the US!" during those interactions.

I may be wrong or naive, but that's just the way I see it right now.

[a fan]

Young and dumb, I believed if you mess with the US or any of our interests we should 100% get involved and flex. Burn those resources and money because well, you asked for it.

After seeing what my freiends experienced in the 90s, 00s, 10s, I've most certainly become a "not until pressed" type thinker with regard to military interactions. Especially things that can turn into long-term stays.

As for long-term vision- I used to believe it was wise. Now I've also seen how quickly a threat can emerge/shift these days given technology, communication and the exchange of information. So I think, in general, our military efforts are probably better served with the low hanging fruits- those with limited, specific engagements that squelch immediate threats.

Perhaps not the wisest vision, so I'm open to concrete examples of where longer involvements have been highly beneficial to the US. And I do understand that it's difficult to quantify "everything is (relatively) ok over here in the US!" during those interactions.

I may be wrong or naive, but that's just the way I see it right now.

Really helpful to understand how you arrived at the place I landed in the early 90s. Thanks, Kram, and welcome aboard! Next step is to close some bases, particularly those in the ME.

Direct our money domestically for a few decades.

Are you like I am with Taiwan: we don’t have a senate ratified treaty with them, so they’re not our problem ?

[PizzaSnake]

I did read it. I just don't get why you're so impressed by the numbers.

I guess we should be excited because 8 of 16 countries facing an actual REAL military threat from a superpower neighbor with a whackjob dictator decided to finally take defense spending a little bit more seriously?

Yay?

We have been asking countries to spend their own money to defend themselves for years. The threat is real, on their doorstep, and we have gotten a 50% participation rate. That tells you all we need to know about the mindset of the freeloaders. These countries sure have selective memories about WW2. I guess the only thing that sticks out is: "The US will come and save us."

Fascinating how you've become so captured by the current far-right wing zeitgeist.

Serious question:

Were you always an isolationist/defeatist?
Salty may have voted for Buchanan in the GOP primary (or might not have, but he cites him now); did you?

Or did you think that Reagan's view of the world and America's role in it made sense? HW's ?
Tougher choice, did you vote for Gore or even Kerry over W?

Obama over McCain???

I'm not captured by anything. Everyone on here ignores that some people have nuanced opinions. There are shades of beliefs. It's not cut and dry.

Not always a military isolationist, but I saw a number of close friends serve and go overseas repeatedly- multiple trips to Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and put their life at risk and on hold for, well, no great reason. Heard their stories. See their challenges today. Then I got into the defense industry myself and saw additional challenges, confirmation of threats, so I understand why the US may have decided to participate in some of these conflicts, to keep the fight over there. That has lead to the perspective.

And if you really want to categorize/label me, I'd say, I'm a selective military isolationist. Based upon immediate threats to US soil and populations.

As for my voting record, we also get back to nuance. I'm not a one-issue voter and have always picked what I deemed to be the lesser of two evils and sometimes that was the 3rd candidate.

This is where it gets tricky. What is a threat and what is immediate? And what if policies and strategies meant to effect those goals results in “blowback” like say, Saddam Hussein, the invention of Dick Cheney et al.?

“And if you really want to categorize/label me, I'd say, I'm a selective military isolationist. Based upon immediate threats to US soil and populations. ”

[MDlaxfan76]

Young and dumb, I believed if you mess with the US or any of our interests we should 100% get involved and flex. Burn those resources and money because well, you asked for it.

After seeing what my freiends experienced in the 90s, 00s, 10s, I've most certainly become a "not until pressed" type thinker with regard to military interactions. Especially things that can turn into long-term stays.

As for long-term vision- I used to believe it was wise. Now I've also seen how quickly a threat can emerge/shift these days given technology, communication and the exchange of information. So I think, in general, our military efforts are probably better served with the low hanging fruits- those with limited, specific engagements that squelch immediate threats.

Perhaps not the wisest vision, so I'm open to concrete examples of where longer involvements have been highly beneficial to the US. And I do understand that it's difficult to quantify "everything is (relatively) ok over here in the US!" during those interactions.

I may be wrong or naive, but that's just the way I see it right now.

We likely have a lot of overlap in views.

I may be a bit more forward leaning in the importance of international engagement and prevention versus reaction, but I’m likewise skeptical of large scale, hot engagements. We have quite a lot of history of unintended consequences.

I would lean much harder on soft power influence and more patience with such.

I differentiate with aggression that, if unchecked, is highly most likely to gain strength and brutality.

I see the Russian aggression in that light.

[old salt]

It is important not only for the defeat of the Russian menace, but also because a much more serious challenge could well emerge with China...we should do all in our collective power to prevent that becoming hot, both because of the demonstrated costs of aggression repelled, but also through soft power competition that enables 'larger pie' rather than "zero sum" logic.

What I somewhat disagree about is the statement "9-11 forced us to re-arm"...no, the decisions we made to invade Afghanistan and especially Iraq demanded that we increase production...as we used up existing supplies. We were not "forced" to make those decisions in response. In retrospect, those decisions were not wise, (especially Iraq) despite their seeming exigency at the time.

If you'll recall, unlike the response to the invasion of Kuwait in which we were joined by our allies in a multilateral effort, the decisions made with regard to Iraq were made unilaterally. And unlike the HW decision to repel and punish Iraq swiftly and then step back, the W decision was disastrously mired in notions of regime change and nation building. While appealing in all sorts of ways, the realities on the ground did not support that decision. So we paid a huge price. Yup, those who disagreed did not.

Our decision to go to war in Iraq & to nation build in both Iraq & Afghanistan, is not a valid excuse for the rest of NATO to let their defense capabilities atrophy to the point that they were helpless to counter a re-emerging threat from Russia.

[MDlaxfan76]

It is important not only for the defeat of the Russian menace, but also because a much more serious challenge could well emerge with China...we should do all in our collective power to prevent that becoming hot, both because of the demonstrated costs of aggression repelled, but also through soft power competition that enables 'larger pie' rather than "zero sum" logic.

What I somewhat disagree about is the statement "9-11 forced us to re-arm"...no, the decisions we made to invade Afghanistan and especially Iraq demanded that we increase production...as we used up existing supplies. We were not "forced" to make those decisions in response. In retrospect, those decisions were not wise, (especially Iraq) despite their seeming exigency at the time.

If you'll recall, unlike the response to the invasion of Kuwait in which we were joined by our allies in a multilateral effort, the decisions made with regard to Iraq were made unilaterally. And unlike the HW decision to repel and punish Iraq swiftly and then step back, the W decision was disastrously mired in notions of regime change and nation building. While appealing in all sorts of ways, the realities on the ground did not support that decision. So we paid a huge price. Yup, those who disagreed did not.

Our decision to go to war in Iraq & to nation build in both Iraq & Afghanistan, is not a valid excuse for the rest of NATO to let their defense capabilities atrophy to the point that they were helpless to counter a re-emerging threat from Russia.

Easy for you to say, but these are democracies whose populations and leadership have definitely seen the world through very different lenses than we do from the vantage point of the dominant global power. None of them has that lens, though the Brits probably wish otherwise. Our developed country allies have certainly awakened to the need to increase their capacities, which we should (IMO and I assume yours) embrace as positive, given the rise of China and other autocracies.

Now, as to be "helpless to counter a threat from Russia", I'm not so sure that, absent the US, these democracies would have actually been "helpless" to counter such a threat, though undoubtedly not to the same effect in Ukraine...indeed Ukraine may have fallen or at least not regained as much territory as they have so far. But the Europeans, even without US support, have very lethal, modern capabilities which would repel, I believe, a direct Russian attack. Rather definitively. All the more so, now that we understand how inept the Russian military actually is.

But here's the thing, yet again... we're the dominant global power by our own design and the opportunity presented post WWII. We insisted on major cultural changes in Germany and Japan, taking advantage of the crumbling of colonialism of the British, French, Dutch, etc, as we thrust ourselves into global leadership.

The Soviet Union's challenge to that leadership brought the allies together, led by the US. The Cold War was immensely dangerous, but we navigated it successfully, not through isolationism but rather through international leadership. Plenty to critique, lots of blunders along the way (yeah American history is full of such), but pretty darn successful overall.

And this has been immensely beneficial to the American economy, and for at least most of the time and in most places, it's been pretty darn beneficial to most of the world to participate in the global economy we constructed and led.

I see no reason to whine about the success of that strategy of 7 decades.