Politics Is it time for the west to assemble an army and kick Putin out of Ukraine?

[Patooka]

Because we use our military spending unwisely.

Compared to whom? Have you seen how the US spends it's military budget? Or Australia? I'll give you a few hints:

It's a given that the US contributes to NATO more than any other nation. What is less clear is how that money is spent. I stand by my assertion that you wouldn't see a reduction in effectiveness if the US halved its spending towards NATO.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Because we use our military spending unwisely.

Compared to whom? Have you seen how the US spends it's military budget? Or Australia? I'll give you a few hints:

It's a given that the US contributes to NATO more than any other nation. What is less clear is how that money is spent. I stand by my assertion that you wouldn't see a reduction in effectiveness if the US halved its spending towards NATO.

United States get a lot of shit for how bad their democracy is, how corrupt it is and what a joke their army is. All valid criticisms. The thing is that every other nation is run more badly. There's a reason United States keeps winning wars. There's a reason USA is wealthier than all other countries. Yes, USA was the Saudi Arabia of the world in the early 20'th century. But due to wise policies they didn't piss that money away. Like Russia, Saudi Arabia or Venezuela is doing.

We like slamming USA. But they're actually doing just fine.

The main problem with armies is that they are run by the government. And whenever the government gets involved it's going to turn preposterously inefficient and wasteful. That's just a fact of the world. But this is a problem that impacts every nation. So while this is bad for USA, it's not worse in USA than other places.

 

[Jayjay]

The US army spends its money on an ... empty couch? Sheesh, what a waste!

The problem with military spending is that it's in principle not intended to be actually used in a war, but as a deterrent to avoid going to war. It's very easy for politicians to skimp on it, so that they can fund other projects, or corruption and pork to reduce the efficacy of the money that is spent. You can only really see how well a military performs if you go to war, and if that happens once every 30 years, then you're in for a nasty surprise. This is basically the situation EU has found itself now: they open the fridge and notice all the milk that has gone bad.

 

[Hermit]

Domino theory is specifically about the spread of communism.

Nothing prevents the concept of a falling domino tile resulting in the chain reaction of adjacent tiles falling being applied elsewhere. One example is the dissolution of the Soviet Union and loss of its satellite countries. Another is the Arab Spring.

I'm not sure what your point is? Are you exploring the metaphor of dominos? A poetic exploration of violent ideological spread?

My point is that the term "domino theory" is not an exclusive property of the circumstances in which it was first used. To illustrate this I have mentioned the Arab Spring.

My 1976 copy of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines "Domino Theory" as meaning "that political event etc in one place will cause similar events in others, like falling dominoes." If you search Google for "domino theory definition" the first hit you'll see is: "the theory that a political event in one country will cause similar events in neighbouring countries, like a falling domino causing an entire row of upended dominoes to fall." The Collins Dictionary defines it as "a foreign policy theory speculating that a political event in one nation will cause similar events in neighbouring nations ". Merriam-Webster includes this definition: "the theory that if one act or event is allowed to take place a series of similar acts or events will follow".

That would fit the chain of events following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. One by one all members of the Warsaw Pact left the organisation.

Feel free to insist that the expression "domino theory" can only be validly applied to the context in which it was first used, but know this: You're on your own with this insistence.

 

[skepticalbip]

The US government (when it stays within bounds) has the job of defending the US population. The UK government has the same task with regards to the UK population. The same is true for Germany, France, Italy, Poland, and any other country you could name.

Until and unless a threat is posed to native country, it is not the job of native government to intervene. Violating that attitude caused the 20th Century War, 1914 - 1989, and produced three of the worst and deadliest dictatorships the world has ever seen.

So Russia invading Ukraine is Ukraine's problem, and the US should do nothing until Russia is on their doorstep.

Gotcha. Good plan. Should we dissolve NATO as well? Or should we build a time machine and stop WWI?

There is nothing wrong with NATO but the original purpose has long since been accomplished. It was formed to prevent the USSR from invading Europe after WWII to give Europe time to rebuild from the destruction of the war. The USSR had build a hell of a military equipment manufacturing industry and Europe's infrastructure had been destroyed. Today the USSR no longer exists, Europe has long since rebuilt, the E.U. has five times the population of Russia, and Russia's economy is equivalent to that of Italy. Europe is fully capable of protecting themselves from Russia if they have the will to do so. Although European nations may want to keep NATO but there is no longer any reason for the U.S. to be a member of NATO other than for the war hawks in the U.S. that want an excuse to be in on any war that happens to come up.

But Europe does not have the will to defend itself. Europeans are completely delusional about how armies and power works. We're utterly and completely dependent on USA to protect us. Because we use our military spending unwisely. Now the EU wants to coordinate our armies to create a European super army. That is not going that well. Lots of politics and prestige compromises. The problem is European mentality. The same mentality that led to both world wars. Europeans fucking suck at cooperating and we suck at self preservation.

The European Defence Agency has some non-EU members. For example the Ukraine (since 2015). Did you just ask, where are the European armies coming to the Ukrainian defense? That defence agreement isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

That is an odd argument to convince the U.S. that they should remain in NATO. How do you figure that the U.S. should expend its treasure and the blood of its citizens to protect the E.U. since the E.U. is more concerned with petty squabbles and wasteful spending than protecting themselves? Is that really an argument? From here, such an argument seems to support George Washington's warning that, to prosper, America should avoid entanglements with European disputes and wars. He also warned against political partisanship, We have ignored both to our detriment.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's a given that the US contributes to NATO more than any other nation. What is less clear is how that money is spent. I stand by my assertion that you wouldn't see a reduction in effectiveness if the US halved its spending towards NATO.

Have you not seen the atrocious readiness state of most European forces?

 

[Hermit]

How do you figure that the U.S. should expend its treasure and the blood of its citizens to protect the E.U. since the E.U. is more concerned with petty squabbles and wasteful spending than protecting themselves? Is that really an argument?

No. The US cares no more about protecting the EU than Ukraine, Vietnam, Korea or any other country. When it meddles in foreign affairs it is motivated by protecting its own interests.

From here, such an argument seems to support George Washington's warning that, to prosper, America should avoid entanglements with European disputes and wars. He also warned against political partisanship, We have ignored both to our detriment.

The US is inextricably involved in the global economy to the extent that it must meddle in foreign disputes and wars just about anywhere on earth in order to protect its own interests. Do you have any idea how many US corporations make money from overseas investments?

One day the US will wake up to what China is doing in Africa...

 

[DrZoidberg]

Domino theory is specifically about the spread of communism.

Nothing prevents the concept of a falling domino tile resulting in the chain reaction of adjacent tiles falling being applied elsewhere. One example is the dissolution of the Soviet Union and loss of its satellite countries. Another is the Arab Spring.

I'm not sure what your point is? Are you exploring the metaphor of dominos? A poetic exploration of violent ideological spread?

My point is that the term "domino theory" is not an exclusive property of the circumstances in which it was first used. To illustrate this I have mentioned the Arab Spring.

My 1976 copy of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines "Domino Theory" as meaning "that political event etc in one place will cause similar events in others, like falling dominoes." If you search Google for "domino theory definition" the first hit you'll see is: "the theory that a political event in one country will cause similar events in neighbouring countries, like a falling domino causing an entire row of upended dominoes to fall." The Collins Dictionary defines it as "a foreign policy theory speculating that a political event in one nation will cause similar events in neighbouring nations ". Merriam-Webster includes this definition: "the theory that if one act or event is allowed to take place a series of similar acts or events will follow".

That would fit the chain of events following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. One by one all members of the Warsaw Pact left the organisation.

Feel free to insist that the expression "domino theory" can only be validly applied to the context in which it was first used, but know this: You're on your own with this insistence.

Domino theory is the idea that an inferior idea can gain traction in a community simply from the sheer volume of propaganda. It treats people like empty retarded vessels the puppetmasters of evil can fill. It starts out with the the kind of a world view and axiom as found in Fukuyama's End of History and the Last Man. It completely revolves around the idea that the Enlightenment project is deterministic with free market capitalism and democracy being it's end goal. It's arrogant to the extreme, completely ignores the realities of living in a kleptocracy is like and it is dumb. It also states that capitalism is more important than civic rights and healthy institutions (it's not). In the Cold War and in the War on Terror USA has been unforgivably naive. The American people have allowed themselves to be manipulated by dictators saying the right things on TV. The beneficence of USA has been an intoxicating story Americans can tell themselves, which is why this nonsense has been allowed to keep going for so long.

The Arab Spring was an uprising against the ruling paradigm set up by France and England (following WW1) and kept alive by USA in the Cold War. Some dictators broke with the west and sought support by USSR (because all dictators needed support by either USA or USSR to stay in power). But living in communist dictatorships propped up by USSR wasn't all that different from living in a fascistoid kleptocracy propped up by USA. The end result is that, unless you control some of the army, someone was going to take all your stuff.

When the USSR folded in 1991 and USSR stopped propping up dictators USA also stopped propping up dictators. Great. Now the world can finally become democratic. Yes. But these dictators had no interest in losing power. So this process has been painfully slow. That's what the Arab Spring was about.

The Arab Spring wasn't about Arabs merrily going about their days and then suddenly they got a leaflet on the street telling them about the wonders of democracy, and they then rose up in fury. They've known about and wanted freedom and democracy for about as long as we have in the west. But the west (and USSR) has actively been preventing them until fairly recently.

The Arab spring was an open vat of petrol, that had been building for decades, just waiting for any minor spark to set it off.

And just like any revolution, they usually fail. Revolutions rarely work out. Our world is shaped by successful revolutions, so we tend to think that this is normal. But it's really not. Revolutions are sometimes needed to violently break apart a dysfunctional status quo. But there's no guarantee that what replaces it will be any better. What led to democracy in Europe was an incredibly violent and unstable 19'th century with near continual revolutions and public unrest. Eventually it just wore out the nobility, who got sick of living in perpetual fear from anarchist assassinations, and it led to an orderly transition to democracy. We tend to forget the utter and complete carnage and civic chaos of the 19'th century that eventually led to European democracy. The Middle-East now seem to be on a similar path. They're breaking eggs to make their omelets.

And that's something completely different than the ridiculous domino theory.

Democracy

How democratic is the world? Why do countries become democratic? What is the impact of democratisation on people’s lives?

ourworldindata.org

Propaganda of the deed - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DrZoidberg]

The US government (when it stays within bounds) has the job of defending the US population. The UK government has the same task with regards to the UK population. The same is true for Germany, France, Italy, Poland, and any other country you could name.

Until and unless a threat is posed to native country, it is not the job of native government to intervene. Violating that attitude caused the 20th Century War, 1914 - 1989, and produced three of the worst and deadliest dictatorships the world has ever seen.

So Russia invading Ukraine is Ukraine's problem, and the US should do nothing until Russia is on their doorstep.

Gotcha. Good plan. Should we dissolve NATO as well? Or should we build a time machine and stop WWI?

There is nothing wrong with NATO but the original purpose has long since been accomplished. It was formed to prevent the USSR from invading Europe after WWII to give Europe time to rebuild from the destruction of the war. The USSR had build a hell of a military equipment manufacturing industry and Europe's infrastructure had been destroyed. Today the USSR no longer exists, Europe has long since rebuilt, the E.U. has five times the population of Russia, and Russia's economy is equivalent to that of Italy. Europe is fully capable of protecting themselves from Russia if they have the will to do so. Although European nations may want to keep NATO but there is no longer any reason for the U.S. to be a member of NATO other than for the war hawks in the U.S. that want an excuse to be in on any war that happens to come up.

But Europe does not have the will to defend itself. Europeans are completely delusional about how armies and power works. We're utterly and completely dependent on USA to protect us. Because we use our military spending unwisely. Now the EU wants to coordinate our armies to create a European super army. That is not going that well. Lots of politics and prestige compromises. The problem is European mentality. The same mentality that led to both world wars. Europeans fucking suck at cooperating and we suck at self preservation.

The European Defence Agency has some non-EU members. For example the Ukraine (since 2015). Did you just ask, where are the European armies coming to the Ukrainian defense? That defence agreement isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

That is an odd argument to convince the U.S. that they should remain in NATO. How do you figure that the U.S. should expend its treasure and the blood of its citizens to protect the E.U. since the E.U. is more concerned with petty squabbles and wasteful spending than protecting themselves? Is that really an argument? From here, such an argument seems to support George Washington's warning that, to prosper, America should avoid entanglements with European disputes and wars. He also warned against political partisanship, We have ignored both to our detriment.

I agree with you. The only problem that if daddy USA stops protecting us it will take decades for Europe to get it's act together, during which time Russia will have a free hand to do their dirty deeds. It will happen though. And it might be painful. But Europe is rich. If there's an all out war Europe will rapidly grind Russia to dust. Wealth has always been the best predictor for who wins a fight.

 

[Hermit]

Domino theory is the idea that an inferior idea can gain traction in a community simply from the sheer volume of propaganda. It treats people like empty retarded vessels the puppetmasters of evil can fill. It starts out with the the kind of a world view and axiom as found in Fukuyama's End of History and the Last Man. It completely revolves around the idea that the Enlightenment project is deterministic with free market capitalism and democracy being it's end goal. It's arrogant to the extreme, completely ignores the realities of living in a kleptocracy is like and it is dumb. It also states that capitalism is more important than civic rights and healthy institutions (it's not). In the Cold War and in the War on Terror USA has been unforgivably naive. The American people have allowed themselves to be manipulated by dictators saying the right things on TV. The beneficence of USA has been an intoxicating story Americans can tell themselves, which is why this nonsense has been allowed to keep going for so long.

I can only repeat: Feel free to insist that the expression "domino theory" can only be validly applied to the context in which it was first used, but know this: You're on your own with this insistence.

 

[Jayjay]

Domino theory is the idea that an inferior idea can gain traction in a community simply from the sheer volume of propaganda. It treats people like empty retarded vessels the puppetmasters of evil can fill.

Based on what's happening in Russia, Turkey, Hungary, and even USA, it doesn't seem so far fetched.

 

[Jayjay]

The US government (when it stays within bounds) has the job of defending the US population. The UK government has the same task with regards to the UK population. The same is true for Germany, France, Italy, Poland, and any other country you could name.

Until and unless a threat is posed to native country, it is not the job of native government to intervene. Violating that attitude caused the 20th Century War, 1914 - 1989, and produced three of the worst and deadliest dictatorships the world has ever seen.

So Russia invading Ukraine is Ukraine's problem, and the US should do nothing until Russia is on their doorstep.

Gotcha. Good plan. Should we dissolve NATO as well? Or should we build a time machine and stop WWI?

There is nothing wrong with NATO but the original purpose has long since been accomplished. It was formed to prevent the USSR from invading Europe after WWII to give Europe time to rebuild from the destruction of the war. The USSR had build a hell of a military equipment manufacturing industry and Europe's infrastructure had been destroyed. Today the USSR no longer exists, Europe has long since rebuilt, the E.U. has five times the population of Russia, and Russia's economy is equivalent to that of Italy. Europe is fully capable of protecting themselves from Russia if they have the will to do so. Although European nations may want to keep NATO but there is no longer any reason for the U.S. to be a member of NATO other than for the war hawks in the U.S. that want an excuse to be in on any war that happens to come up.

But Europe does not have the will to defend itself. Europeans are completely delusional about how armies and power works. We're utterly and completely dependent on USA to protect us. Because we use our military spending unwisely. Now the EU wants to coordinate our armies to create a European super army. That is not going that well. Lots of politics and prestige compromises. The problem is European mentality. The same mentality that led to both world wars. Europeans fucking suck at cooperating and we suck at self preservation.

The European Defence Agency has some non-EU members. For example the Ukraine (since 2015). Did you just ask, where are the European armies coming to the Ukrainian defense? That defence agreement isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

That is an odd argument to convince the U.S. that they should remain in NATO. How do you figure that the U.S. should expend its treasure and the blood of its citizens to protect the E.U. since the E.U. is more concerned with petty squabbles and wasteful spending than protecting themselves? Is that really an argument? From here, such an argument seems to support George Washington's warning that, to prosper, America should avoid entanglements with European disputes and wars. He also warned against political partisanship, We have ignored both to our detriment.

I agree with you. The only problem that if daddy USA stops protecting us it will take decades for Europe to get it's act together, during which time Russia will have a free hand to do their dirty deeds. It will happen though. And it might be painful. But Europe is rich. If there's an all out war Europe will rapidly grind Russia to dust. Wealth has always been the best predictor for who wins a fight.

Except that Europe isn't fighting an all out war. It's just helping Ukraine out a bit and hoping for the best.

There is a very real chance, that rest of Europe will just get tired of high energy prices and will throw Ukraine under the bus.

 

[Elixir]

There is a very real chance, that rest of Europe will just get tired of high energy prices and will throw Ukraine under the bus.

Don't they know that the bus will be running over them next if they do that?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The US government (when it stays within bounds) has the job of defending the US population. The UK government has the same task with regards to the UK population. The same is true for Germany, France, Italy, Poland, and any other country you could name.

Until and unless a threat is posed to native country, it is not the job of native government to intervene. Violating that attitude caused the 20th Century War, 1914 - 1989, and produced three of the worst and deadliest dictatorships the world has ever seen.

So Russia invading Ukraine is Ukraine's problem, and the US should do nothing until Russia is on their doorstep.

Gotcha. Good plan. Should we dissolve NATO as well? Or should we build a time machine and stop WWI?

There is nothing wrong with NATO but the original purpose has long since been accomplished. It was formed to prevent the USSR from invading Europe after WWII to give Europe time to rebuild from the destruction of the war. The USSR had build a hell of a military equipment manufacturing industry and Europe's infrastructure had been destroyed. Today the USSR no longer exists, Europe has long since rebuilt, the E.U. has five times the population of Russia, and Russia's economy is equivalent to that of Italy. Europe is fully capable of protecting themselves from Russia if they have the will to do so. Although European nations may want to keep NATO but there is no longer any reason for the U.S. to be a member of NATO other than for the war hawks in the U.S. that want an excuse to be in on any war that happens to come up.

But Europe does not have the will to defend itself. Europeans are completely delusional about how armies and power works. We're utterly and completely dependent on USA to protect us. Because we use our military spending unwisely. Now the EU wants to coordinate our armies to create a European super army. That is not going that well. Lots of politics and prestige compromises. The problem is European mentality. The same mentality that led to both world wars. Europeans fucking suck at cooperating and we suck at self preservation.

The European Defence Agency has some non-EU members. For example the Ukraine (since 2015). Did you just ask, where are the European armies coming to the Ukrainian defense? That defence agreement isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

That is an odd argument to convince the U.S. that they should remain in NATO. How do you figure that the U.S. should expend its treasure and the blood of its citizens to protect the E.U. since the E.U. is more concerned with petty squabbles and wasteful spending than protecting themselves? Is that really an argument? From here, such an argument seems to support George Washington's warning that, to prosper, America should avoid entanglements with European disputes and wars. He also warned against political partisanship, We have ignored both to our detriment.

I agree with you. The only problem that if daddy USA stops protecting us it will take decades for Europe to get it's act together, during which time Russia will have a free hand to do their dirty deeds. It will happen though. And it might be painful. But Europe is rich. If there's an all out war Europe will rapidly grind Russia to dust. Wealth has always been the best predictor for who wins a fight.

Except that Europe isn't fighting an all out war. It's just helping Ukraine out a bit and hoping for the best.

There is a very real chance, that rest of Europe will just get tired of high energy prices and will throw Ukraine under the bus.

Now you changed the subject. I was talking about the next war, in the hypothetical universe where NATO doesn't exist.

Europe has already thrown Ukraine under the bus. No help is coming. They are doomed. That's what my clever friends told me from day 1.

All these Europeans flying Ukrainian flags and using a Ukrainian flag on their Facebook profile pisses me off. Unless we are sending troops, we don't really care.

People's feigned support for Ukraine is pathetic

 

[Tigers!]

There is a very real chance, that rest of Europe will just get tired of high energy prices and will throw Ukraine under the bus.

Don't they know that the bus will be running over them next if they do that?

Oh they know, just don't care.
They hope that feeding everyone else to lions will cause the lions to get full before they alone are left.

Pastor Niemoller's words are still true.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is a very real chance, that rest of Europe will just get tired of high energy prices and will throw Ukraine under the bus.

Don't they know that the bus will be running over them next if they do that?

Oh they know, just don't care.
They hope that feeding everyone else to lions will cause the lions to get full before they alone are left.

Pastor Niemoller's words are still true.

Or that they'll die of old age before the lions get to them.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You think Russia will be on the US doorstep. You call me crazy.

No I don't think that. In fact I consider that highly unlikely. But not impossible. So I'll ask you again - do you agree or disagree that:

So Russia invading Ukraine is Ukraine's problem, and the US should do nothing until Russia is on their doorstep.

Or to paraphrase, do you believe that the US should do nothing about Russia until Russia is on their doorstep?

Do you think that possibly, maybe, even hypothetically, US policy with regards to Ukraine over the last 20 years has brought us to this point?

Before you start trying to cast aspersions on my position, take responsibility for the results of your own position. Then we can honestly determine the best path forward from the mess of the neocon foreign policy.

 

[Jayjay]

You think Russia will be on the US doorstep. You call me crazy.

No I don't think that. In fact I consider that highly unlikely. But not impossible. So I'll ask you again - do you agree or disagree that:

So Russia invading Ukraine is Ukraine's problem, and the US should do nothing until Russia is on their doorstep.

Or to paraphrase, do you believe that the US should do nothing about Russia until Russia is on their doorstep?

Do you think that possibly, maybe, even hypothetically, US policy with regards to Ukraine over the last 20 years has brought us to this point?

Before you start trying to cast aspersions on my position, take responsibility for the results of your own position. Then we can honestly determine the best path forward from the mess of the neocon foreign policy.

Only way to avoid this would have been to provide more weapons to Ukraine and maybe troops, bases and air patrols. But frankly, I'd give the US a pass because Putin going to all-out war and Ukraine surviving it were surprises to everyone.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Wow. Supply troops as well. That's exactly the opposite direction of where we should go.

Are you having problems purchasing an airline ticket to Ukraine to help them out?

 

[Jayjay]

Wow. Supply troops as well. That's exactly the opposite direction of where we should go.

The question was about the past, not the future. Obviously now when there is a shooting war going on, it's not possible, but NATO or US boots on the ground near the border could have acted as a deterrent.

Besides, there were already NATO personnel in Ukraine in a training role so it's not much of a stretch.

So what do you think USA could have done differently in the past 20 years to avoid the current mess?