Without reading the rest of the thread: Because we are slowly breaking down the same way they did in the 70’s and 80’s. We don’t have it in us to be on top of them, along with everything else we are desperately trying to stay on top of around the world.
It seems the main contention here is about the use of other countries as buffer zones. To Russia’s supporters, it’s sensible. To its opponents, it is not.
I’m in the camp that believes in eliminating Russia’s buffer zones wherever possible. I’m coming from a position that does not empathize with Russia’s past, or use the US’s past as a counterfactual argument.
Under present-day conditions, we are strong and Russia is weak by comparison.
Several generations of the nuclear era have come and passed, and shown that direct attacks against the major powers are strongly discouraged, but otherwise small conventional skirmishes can still be waged.
Under present conditions, I see no reason not to continue to reduce Russia’s sphere of influence in any way possible. Again, the goal is not to balance out history or play fair. The goal is to turn the balance of power against our enemies.
QFT. Well said.
Which former Warsaw Pact nations? Would they include Romania, Hungary, and Slovakia, which all enthusiastically contributed soldiers to Operation Barbarossa? Of course Barbarossa was a German initiative, but I don’t think those other three countries particularly objected to it.
I’d say Russia suffered a lot more at the hands of its western neighbors, in the last hundred years, than they suffered from Russia.
The United States did try an invasion of Cuba in the early 1960s, we’ve used various other means to subvert their government since then, and when other countries in the region turned in a pro-Soviet direction (Nicaragua, for instance) the United States used every means short of actual invasion to undermine them.
I don’t believe for a minute that the United States would have tolerated a Warsaw Pact country on its borders.
And now, Donetsk and Lugansk don’t want to be part of the failed state called The Ukraine.
It is Ukraine. “The Ukraine” is, at best, an outdated term. It is one that is much favored by Russian apologists, though.
Consider bringing something other than repeating “Russian apologists” and “HIGH FIVE BRO AMERICA FUCK YEAH +1” to the thread. Like a point or an argument.
And this.
I don’t know that we can really take “The Ukraine” proponents to task too severely; after all, the whole of the Russian language doesn’t use the definite article.
Of course, in Soviet Russia…
Let’s put all this in the context of Crimea, for instance.
Should the USA wink and nod approvingly when Russia annexed Crimea? Say, “Hey, you do your thing, Ukraine’s your neighbor, none of our business?”
I’m quite aware of the connotations of “The Ukraine” vs. “Ukraine”, and I use “The Ukraine” quite deliberately.
So in other words morality and fairness have no role in foreign policy, according to you?
Good to know.
In a perfect world, the influence of the “Government of Ukraine” would be limited to a table in a Winnipeg vodka bar and whoever they can get to sit at the table and hear them complain.
According to me, yes. In a world with no actors higher in greater than nations, we must think only in terms of goals and strategy, not good intentions.
Even more importantly, the policymakers seem to agree.
I will concede that a minimum of moral perception is required to appease the public.
I’ll consider it when you bring more than “poor Russia!” to the table.
I have made an extensive argument with several cohesive ponts. You have not responded to any of those points, nor have you contributed anything else to the thread. You are lying right now when you try to summarize my argument in an obviously false way. You are not only failing to contribute, but actively sabotaging the level of discourse.
That’s one way of looking at what you wrote. None of it, on any closer level of analysis than “gee, he sure used a lot of words,” amounts to more than “poor Russia.”
It’s obvious to everyone at this point, even those who happen to be on your side in this, what you are. You will get no more response from me.
So come brothers and sisters
For the struggle carries on
The Internationale
Unites the world in song