All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

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

...because we can no longer pay for it. The EUros aren't doing enough, fast enough. Ukraine is a bottomless sink hole.

[DocBarrister]

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

...because we can no longer pay for it. The EUros aren't doing enough, fast enough. Ukraine is a bottomless sink hole.

Nonsense.

The Europeans are doing their part. We triggered their NATO obligations after 9/11 and they came through.

You are parroting far-right, pro-Russia talking points.

Just complete and utter nonsense.

DocBarrister

[PizzaSnake]

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.

“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.”

Not so sure the DRC would agree. The CIA did us no favors assassinating Patrice Lumumba. While it is hard to argue rhe counterfactual, DRC is in a pretty bad way now.

[MDlaxfan76]

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

...because we can no longer pay for it. The EUros aren't doing enough, fast enough. Ukraine is a bottomless sink hole.

Nonsense.

The Europeans are doing their part. We triggered their NATO obligations after 9/11 and they came through.

You are parroting far-right, pro-Russia talking points.

Just complete and utter nonsense.

DocBarrister

As he has done for years...fully aware that they are pro-Putin Russian talking points.

[old salt]

...Pat Buchanan & I were saying it before Putin came to power.

[old salt]

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 ?

I still believe in strategic ambiguity re Taiwan. I wouldn't go as far as Biden has.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/1 ... d-00057658

I'd say Taiwan's on their own if our economy & standard of living were not so dependent on their technology.
It will take a decade or longer to close the chips gap.
I remain ok with selling Taiwan anything (short of WMD) that they are willing to pay for.
I also want to relocate more of our forces & deployments to W Pac from Europe to deter China, reassure our allies & protect our forces & territory already there. That's a major reason I don't want to get sucked into Ukraine.
The goal is to deter China, so we don't have to go to war.

[old salt]

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.

We need to keep talkin' up the military as a haven & spawning ground for White Christian Nationalist extremists.

[DMac]

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.

We need to keep talkin' up the military as a haven & spawning ground for White Christian Nationalist extremists.

Indeed.

[old salt]

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?

As he has done for years...fully aware that they are pro-Putin Russian talking points.

Pat Buchanan & I circa '96.

https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/pat-buch ... gn-policy/

Buchanan laid the intellectual foundations for an “America First” foreign policy. And that foundation was best expressed in two of his books: A Republic Not an Empire (1999) and Day of Reckoning (2007).

Buchanan started writing A Republic Not an Empire after his unsuccessful run for the GOP’s nomination for president in 1996. Buchanan sensed that the United States, in the aftermath of its Cold War victory—Buchanan was present in the White House during the Nixon and Reagan presidencies and was a Cold War hawk... U.S. leaders of both parties “from arrogance and hubris,” Buchanan wrote, were engaging in “imperial overstretch” even as they were reducing defense expenditures as a result of what was termed a post-Cold War “peace dividend.” “As we pile commitment upon commitment, in Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Middle East, and the Persian Gulf,” he continued, “American power continues to contract—a sure formula for foreign policy disaster.”

Buchanan viewed the Cold War as an “exceptional time” in American history when U.S. security required entering into, in George Washington’s words, “temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.” With the collapse of the Soviet empire, Europe, Japan, and South Korea, he believed, were now more than capable of providing for their own defense. Instead of recognizing the new security situation, the United States made more overseas commitments, including expanding NATO to Russia’s borders. Buchanan agreed with George F. Kennan that this move was “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold war era.” NATO, Buchanan argued, had shifted from being a necessary Cold War alliance to a United States protectorate. “NATO expansion,” Buchanan wrote, “is a rash and provocative act, unrelated to our true security interests and rooted in an ignorance of American history and traditions.”

One consequence of NATO expansion, Buchanan predicted, would be the formation of a “strategic partnership” between China and Russia, effectively undoing the brilliant triangular diplomacy of the Nixon administration which exploited Sino-Soviet political divisions to America’s benefit. Buchanan’s observation here was geopolitics 101: American security depended on the geopolitical pluralism of Eurasia. Yet, the Clinton administration seemed oblivious to this possibility. It moved ahead with the first round of NATO expansion and set in motion a process that added 14 more countries to the alliance, including Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Slovenia, Croatia and North Macedonia. America’s nuclear guarantee eventually was extended to all of those nations. And in 2007-2008, the George W. Bush administration talked about inviting Georgia and Ukraine into the alliance.

But the bulk of A Republic Not an Empire showed that America’s latest commitments were a dramatic break with the most cherished and prudent traditions of American foreign policy. Washington’s Farewell Address was front and center in this story. Washington and all other presidents up to William Howard Taft would have been astonished at the notion that the United States should seek to spread democracy to other nations and that alliances should outlive the reasons for their existence. Yet most twentieth and twenty-first-century presidents have fallen into the ideological trap of equating our interests with our values. The two are not the same. That is why John Quincy Adams urged Americans to recognize that while we are the well-wishers of freedom and liberty for all, we are the champions and vindicators only of our own.

The great German chancellor Otto von Bismarck said that “it is unworthy of a great state to dispute over something which does not concern its interests.” Buchanan argued that no U.S. interests were involved in pushing NATO closer to Russia’s borders, especially after George H. W. Bush’s administration told Russian leaders we would not do so. As Buchanan noted, “By pushing a U.S. alliance up to Russia’s borders, we are violating solemn pledges given when Moscow agreed to German unification.” Russia’s reaction was predictable. As Susan Eisenhower noted, “it is not surprising that NATO expansion has been viewed with great hostility across the entire Russian political spectrum.” And this was before Vladimir Putin became Russia’s president.

Buchanan also criticized the Clinton administration’s military efforts in the Balkans, which were undertaken on the basis of values, not strategic interests. He warned that we were engaging in a “neo-imperial” policy that would involve us in unnecessary wars without concrete national interests. He even speculated that a second Gulf War could result in a region-wide Islamic jihad designed to drive America out of the Middle East.

Buchanan did not have to wait long to see some of his predictions come true. NATO expansion, as he warned, resulted in reviving Russian nationalist-imperialist impulses and helped drive Russia further into the arms of China. The United States launched a second Gulf War, and in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, transformed the war into a messy and costly occupation and a crusade to spread democracy throughout the region. In the midst of further NATO expansions and the second Gulf War, Buchanan wrote Day of Reckoning.

Day of Reckoning was to some extent an “I told you so” book. Buchanan had been right. So, he reminded everyone, was Jeane Kirkpatrick, who had advised post-Cold War America to return to being a “normal” country. But American policymakers did not listen. The hubris and arrogance of Cold War victory led to the nemesis of imperial overstretch. Buchanan identified the so-called Wolfowitz memorandum, written by Bush 41 Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, as the intellectual seed of future trouble. Wolfowitz essentially portrayed America as the new Rome that needed to prevent the rise of other great powers who might challenge U.S. hegemony.

At first, Buchanan noted, George W. Bush sounded like anything but a Wilsonian. But then 9/11 happened and Bush 43 the pragmatist became Bush 43 the “democratist.” Not only would the United States preemptively strike other nations if we believed those nations posed an “imminent” threat to U.S. interests, but we would launch a crusade to democratize the Middle East because America could only be safe, Bush claimed, if those nations became democracies. Buchanan presented Bush quote after Bush quote to show how the ideology of democratism dominated the president’s foreign policy approach to the world. Bush, Buchanan wrote, was worse than Wilson: Wilson wanted to make the world safe for democracy; Bush wanted to spread democracy throughout the world. George Washington and John Quincy Adams would have been appalled.

Buchanan characterized the Bush 43 foreign policy as “messianic” and “utopian.” He predicted that the ideology of democratism would “bleed, bankrupt, and break this republic in endless crusades and interminable wars.” “We have crossed the line between republic and empire,” Buchanan wrote, and “[o]ur situation is unsustainable, and retreat inevitable.” He urged U.S. policymakers to heed the wisdom of Walter Lippmann who defined an effective foreign policy as one that aligns commitments with resources. That meant, for Buchanan, “retrenchment”—a return to the foreign policy approach of Washington and Adams, an end to crusades abroad, a return to foreign policy normalcy.

And Buchanan sensed that the new foreign policy debate in the United States was between globalists and populists; between those foreign policy elites who seek multinational solutions to global problems and promote global governance, and populist conservatives who want a foreign policy committed to America’s interests—period. Buchanan’s presidential campaigns and foreign policy books are the intellectual foundations of the “America First” movement that catapulted Donald Trump into the White House. Indeed, the last sentence of Day of Reckoning is: “Time to put America first.”

Sometimes Buchanan got carried away with his own arguments. He failed to fully appreciate the strategic benefit to the United States of our alliance with Israel. He wrote an entire book trying to explain why World War II was an “unnecessary war,” and even called Winston Churchill, who saved the civilization that Buchanan cherishes, a failed statesman. Sometimes Buchanan’s pugilism got the better of him.

But Buchanan was right more often than wrong. His weekly literary pugilism will be missed as he retires his syndicated column. One looks forward to the completion of his memoirs, especially the insider tales of the Nixon and Reagan years. He has always been courageous and compelling in debate and unflappable in his commitment to conservative populist principles. He, perhaps more than any public figure, waged the culture wars with grit, determination, and eloquence. And he tried his very best to return America back to its best foreign policy traditions.

[Typical Lax Dad]

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.

We need to keep talkin' up the military as a haven & spawning ground for White Christian Nationalist extremists.

Indeed.

Here you go:

https://www.armytimes.com/news/pentagon ... the-ranks/

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php ... 0674286078

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... s-military

https://www.rollcall.com/2021/02/16/pen ... -military/

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... st-problem

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1010221

https://www.wusa9.com/amp/article/news/ ... 53a0b05b83

Woke folk writing these articles

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://theconversation.com/amp/white-p ... ves-200417

https://eji.org/reports/targeting-black-veterans/

https://www.military.com/daily-news/202 ... s.html/amp

https://aintmarching.net/2022/06/20/the ... a-history/

[DMac]

From one of your many woke writer's articles.

While neo-Nazis and other extremists are rare in the U.S. armed forces, exactly how rare is not known.

Also noted in these writer's articles is the military's implementation of more stringent background checks/screening processes. Sleep tight, the military doesn't want these types either.
We'll be okay. Meanwhile, try to figure out a way to get our unhealthy, obese youth in good enough condition to be able to get in the military. Bigger pool = more selectivity.

[Typical Lax Dad]

From one of your many woke writer's articles.

While neo-Nazis and other extremists are rare in the U.S. armed forces, exactly how rare is not known.

Also noted in these writer's articles is the military's implementation of more stringent background checks/screening processes. Sleep tight, the military doesn't want these types either.
We'll be okay. Meanwhile, try to figure out a way to get our unhealthy, obese youth in good enough condition to be able to get in the military. Bigger pool = more selectivity.

I sleep good! Who said the military wants them?

[DocBarrister]

...Pat Buchanan & I were saying it before Putin came to power.

That explains a few things ….

In his role as a political commentator for the mainstream media, former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has increasingly advanced an anti-Semitic, racist, and anti-immigrant ideology. Many of the views he holds are identical to those of self-declared "white nationalists." Buchanan repeatedly demonizes Jews and minorities and openly affiliates with white supremacists. Among his frequent claims is that the sovereignty of the United States is being undermined by Israeli control and Mexican incursion, a belief which he disseminates on mainstream cable and network television and in his prolific writings. Buchanan has released a book nearly every two years, many of which take the view that non-white immigrants destroy Western culture.

https://www.adl.org/resources/profile/p ... tant-bigot

DocBarrister

[cradleandshoot]

From one of your many woke writer's articles.

While neo-Nazis and other extremists are rare in the U.S. armed forces, exactly how rare is not known.

Also noted in these writer's articles is the military's implementation of more stringent background checks/screening processes. Sleep tight, the military doesn't want these types either.
We'll be okay. Meanwhile, try to figure out a way to get our unhealthy, obese youth in good enough condition to be able to get in the military. Bigger pool = more selectivity.

I think there is rather large cadre of Drill Instructors foaming at the mouth to have at the heavy drops in the civilian world. I remember very well stepping off the bus at Ft Moore around 3 am with a gaggle of angry Drill Instructors screaming at us to form up at the bottom of the hill. Our instructions were to grab a duffle bag and form up ASAP. One poor young trainee was searching in the bus compartment for HIS duffle bag. The drill instructor put his boot in his ass and screamed " did I tell you to look for your duffle bag" Welcome to the US Army young lad. You will leave here in 3 plus months in the best shape of your life. They accomplished in 3 months what your Total Gym could never give you in 3 years.

[MDlaxfan76]

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.

We need to keep talkin' up the military as a haven & spawning ground for White Christian Nationalist extremists.

Good, you read the article. That was your only takeaway?

[MDlaxfan76]

From one of your many woke writer's articles.

While neo-Nazis and other extremists are rare in the U.S. armed forces, exactly how rare is not known.

Also noted in these writer's articles is the military's implementation of more stringent background checks/screening processes. Sleep tight, the military doesn't want these types either.
We'll be okay. Meanwhile, try to figure out a way to get our unhealthy, obese youth in good enough condition to be able to get in the military. Bigger pool = more selectivity.

I sleep good! Who said the military wants them?

This is indeed the point.
The military doesn't want them and that bothers some people quite a lot.
It has become popular in some circles, now much of the GOP and right wing media, to complain that the military has become 'soft' and 'woke'.

[MDlaxfan76]

...Pat Buchanan & I were saying it before Putin came to power.

That explains a few things ….

In his role as a political commentator for the mainstream media, former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has increasingly advanced an anti-Semitic, racist, and anti-immigrant ideology. Many of the views he holds are identical to those of self-declared "white nationalists." Buchanan repeatedly demonizes Jews and minorities and openly affiliates with white supremacists. Among his frequent claims is that the sovereignty of the United States is being undermined by Israeli control and Mexican incursion, a belief which he disseminates on mainstream cable and network television and in his prolific writings. Buchanan has released a book nearly every two years, many of which take the view that non-white immigrants destroy Western culture.

https://www.adl.org/resources/profile/p ... tant-bigot

DocBarrister

That's indeed a valid description of Buchanan.
Part of his appeal was that he dog whistled as a core part of his messaging.

We see it on here.

[Farfromgeneva]

From one of your many woke writer's articles.

While neo-Nazis and other extremists are rare in the U.S. armed forces, exactly how rare is not known.

Also noted in these writer's articles is the military's implementation of more stringent background checks/screening processes. Sleep tight, the military doesn't want these types either.
We'll be okay. Meanwhile, try to figure out a way to get our unhealthy, obese youth in good enough condition to be able to get in the military. Bigger pool = more selectivity.

So now you trust government?

Bigger pool means conscription. So you don’t have fat f**ks like trump scamming their way out only to years alter comment the way he did about McCain.

Or manage to eradicate food desserts so these impoverished people don’t have to shop at dollar general for their grocers.

Either way it’s the mental health that’s the issue of these folks not their boy fat %

[Farfromgeneva]

...Pat Buchanan & I were saying it before Putin came to power.

That explains a few things ….

In his role as a political commentator for the mainstream media, former Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan has increasingly advanced an anti-Semitic, racist, and anti-immigrant ideology. Many of the views he holds are identical to those of self-declared "white nationalists." Buchanan repeatedly demonizes Jews and minorities and openly affiliates with white supremacists. Among his frequent claims is that the sovereignty of the United States is being undermined by Israeli control and Mexican incursion, a belief which he disseminates on mainstream cable and network television and in his prolific writings. Buchanan has released a book nearly every two years, many of which take the view that non-white immigrants destroy Western culture.

https://www.adl.org/resources/profile/p ... tant-bigot

DocBarrister

All those bankers and lawyers…