American Politics Discussion Thread

[greenline]

There is a large difference between official and unofficial. As far as "perception / what we actually know" all those foreigners killed in Ukraine were volunteers and not under foreign direction. But yes that is why NATO membership along with peace keepers would be nice. You want layers of security guarantees. History is full of times where countries thought a nation wouldn't retaliate in a major way, another country pushed, and then major confrontation happened. You want to be crystal clear that further invasion is a no no.

The most basic security guarantee is your own armed force. You then add layers on top of that. If Russia won't let them have the most basic security guarantee what makes you think they will give them anything else. And no one serious is putting out that Ukraine should be subsumed by Poland. That idea would be unpopular in Russia and Ukraine. I'm not saying it wouldn't work mind you, I'm just saying its a non starter. Just putting them in NATO is probably enough.

I keep bringing up Poland because they are a big and proximate force. Attempts to get NATO involved have mostly been fig leaves for getting Americans involved, both on the hardware and the human side. America is showing it does not want to be involved. So, the most obvious way to offer security guarantees for Ukraine is to make Poland responsible, rather than the UK or France.

I don't think my proposal would be that unpopular to Russia, either. Russia does not like the idea of an independent Ukraine being able to threaten it with missile strikes or rolling tanks across the border. Ukraine split between Poland and Russia can not do this. Ukraine would not be 'happy', certainly the militarist elements would not be, but their legitimacy is dependent on regular western aid, and they aren't popular enough that they can keep their citizens from constantly draft dodging at every opportunity. Another reason that Ukraine itself should be given minimal say in any negotiations.

[Mjmd]

Again, I'm not saying it wouldn't work, but its never going to happen. Just put some Polish troops as part of the EU peacekeepers. And this should be obvious but if Ukraine is part of Poland they are therefore part of NATO. So you can just skip the Polish step and do NATO and avoid the part that will never happen. And just fyi another very relevant country for peacekeepers / part of NATO is Turkey. Who is pretty anti Russia as well and has already volunteered to be part of a peacekeeping force. Turkey is a very very relevant country as much as I don't like Erdogan. Again, you can spread this out. That is what a defensive alliance is for after all.

Russia is just making noises. I've argued this extensively with Charr. They are in no actual danger, but they are just using it as a casus belli. Hell the fact Poland hasn't marched into Ukraine is a great indicator this is crap.

Saying one of the two nations directly involved in the war shouldn't get a say is a TERRIBLE way to make sure the war ends.

[greenline]

Say it with me, one more time:

THE EU DOES NOT HAVE AN ARMY

If you put EU "peacekeepers" there to keep the peace, they have to be backed up by something, or they are not effective as a security guarantee. Who's going to back them up? Which EU member state would best make sense to actually shoulder this burden? 

Turkey would not be a good choice for that role. Turkey does not like Russia because Russia sometimes funds its enemies in the middle east. Turkey cares a lot about controlling the middle east, and focuses the majority of its efforts and military spending into fighting over Syria and using proxies to attack Iran and Israel. Turkey's interest in containing Russian advances in Ukraine is modest. Also, I am not sure why supposed defenders of liberal democracy would want to get Turkey involved in peacekeeping, given their track record of genocide against non Turkish groups and having a very authoritarian president man. 

Ukraine would get a big say in deciding the war if it was independent and winning. It is instead very dependent on foreign aid and losing. Therefore, any negotiations should occur between Ukraine's principal backer, the EU, and Russia, with America playing the role of mediator. This is how various other peace deals were conducted in the past.

[Mjmd]

Repeat after me, defensive alliances are in place so you can split up the burden. So my answer is ALL OF THEM. Yes some EU armies are better than others, but they do have deterrent value combined in say a treaty bound defensive alliance. The more behind such an effort the less chance of it being tested. That is why concrete security guarantees are the best kind.

Listen I'm not a fan of Turkey, but you can work with countries towards common goals without agreeing with everything they do. There is a reason they are in NATO after all. Very strategic country, lot of past conflict with Russia, lot of overlap in anti Russian interests. But again, they are just a piece. I'm not saying put it all on them or Poland, or or or. I'm saying as many as possible. Maybe through some novel defensive alliance network.

It is the country actually fighting and who's people are actually dying. They are the ones who will have to live with the consequences. If they don't get security guarantees now they will just have to fight later probably less prepared. Again, can you force them to make a bad peace? Only maybe; they have a lot of incentive to keep fighting. Should we be forcing a bad peace on them is a different question. And again, as Russia is the one who wants more, getting them to the table in a serious way is also something not to be ignored (which it constantly is).

[greenline]

Right now, various EU countries are providing forces to Ukraine. Mostly they prefer to offload equipment, and many of them have ran out of equipment pretty quickly. This is not a good endorsement of treaty bound defensive alliances. The thing it's most good for is providing money. Sure, Ukraine needs the money, because its economy would implode in a month without endless loans. But it also needs guns and people willing to use them. This plan of throwing in peacekeepers and just hoping that these thirty countries will all happily coordinate to send a big enough force is idiotic, because if they could actually do that, they would be doing it right now. Instead we have the EU promising a commission for what a new army might look like, and Germany and France struggling to spin up shell production so they can refill their depleted stocks.

You know what's easier than scraping twenty dewdrops from a bunch of different rocks? Actually finding someone who will give you the army that you need.


whatever, i'm getting dragged into the weeds on this, feel free to keep jerking off the worlds biggest defensive alliance while it continually accomplishes nothing

[Mjmd]

None of the EU countries are providing forces. Ukraine wasn't part of NATO. They couldn't trigger article 5. For those saying NATO is a huge threat to Russia, this is the problem. Without a clear mandate no one is willing to run afoul of Russian nukes. Along with yes actually coordinating an attack (let alone defense). Now if Ukraine IS part of NATO suddenly if they don't kenetically respond then they know they can be next. So not only is Poland 100% going to come in, but all the other eastern bloc countries + Turkey as well. I can't predict the level of effort from major western EU countries, but honestly just the eastern ones would be enough.

You are making finding one country willing to shoulder the burden of facing Russia alone sound so easy. I would argue yes it is easier to get 20 different countries to do it together and its more effective.

Again, NATO wasn't going to come in directly vs Russia, but saying its done nothing is ignoring that despite not giving enough, Ukraine has done ok for what it is facing. Is it losing; slowly yes. But has it done pretty well considering, also yes and a large part of that is NATO assistance (although the biggest "donor" of equipment is probably still Russia).

[Jabah]

<p>

Russia has violated far too many treaties to be considered a trustworthy actor, especially under Putin or any of his cabal. So European and Ukrainian security must be guaranteed by force. There’s no other effective way to do it.

</p><p><br></p><p>For a start, most of you are probably too young, but at the end of the USSR, Ukraine (like all other former soviet republics) gave all 'its part of the' nuclear weapons to Russia in exchange for safe and recognised borders through international treaties signed by Russia (and USA)</p>

[greenline]

Trump aims the rifle squarely at the whale in the distance. For a long time, he's hinted that he might take the shot. But now, he's actually going to do it. All the bystanders can do now is watch, and wait. And the gods of the copybook headings whisper:

If you're going to take a shot at Hobbes' Leviathan, don't miss.

[Zed-F]

Trump is perfectly happy to be a fascist despot and end democracy in the USA, as Leviathan would prescribe. And he’s perfectly happy to destroy the US and the world economy to do it. This was perfectly obvious before the election; the man has amply demonstrated he cares for nothing but himself and his own ego. Anyone who voted for him is a deluded fool.

[greenline]

It's true that the American state owes just as much to Alexander Hamilton as it does to Hobbes. The ultimate sovereign power that no one could hope to resist, extending dominion over all mankind across the globe. But also utterly free of any monarchs or tyrants, instead exercising absolute authority by means of a small group of 300 assholes who are elected for life, rather than just one. At least, when the system works as it was drafted. There is a great deal about how the American state currently works that would freak out Hamilton, but this is his legacy whether he likes it or not.

What's also true is that the ability of the American state to be an inescapable, totalitarian force will decline as it loses control over the world economy, rather than increasing. The panopticon needs the money printer as much as the money printer needs the panopticon.