The Ukraine - This Ain't No Board Game Of RISK...!


Selene

Recommended Posts

Thought these maps were helpful just for "flat" view of the area...I had forgotten that Chernobyl [http://www.amazon.com/Visit-Sunny-Chernobyl-Adventures-Polluted-ebook/dp/B007W5MQSA/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1/190-6187499-4928757] was there...

Yalta I did know was there...so much evil in the land bridge between Europe and Asia...

Damn - the map details did not transfer here is the link to the NY Times piece:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/02/27/world/europe/ukraine-divisions-crimea.html?_r=0

0227_UKRAINE_LANGUAGES-945.jpg

0227_UKRAINE_GAS-945.jpg

Warsaw

Gas flows into Ukraine

from Belarus and Russia

Gas Pipelines

BELARUS

About 80 percent of Russian gas exports to Europe pass through Ukraine. Europe, in turn, depends on Russia for 40 percent of its imported fuel.

According to Mikhail Korchemkin, head of East European Gas Analysis, a consulting firm in Pennsylvania, the most important pipelines that run through Ukraine are the ones leading to Slovakia. They will eventually take gas to Germany, Austria and Italy.

RUSSIA

POLAND

Kiev

Lviv

SLOVAKIA

UKRAINE

HUNGARY

MOLDOVA

Rostov-on-Don

Odessa

Gas continues

to Europe through

Poland, Slovakia

and Hungary

ROMANIA

RUSSIA

CRIMEA

BLACK

SEA

Simferopol

Bucharest

Sevastopol

100 MILES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Woops, typo, should be"whatever we want". A 0.1 rise in interest rate is a pretty big deal, especially when the Federal Government is trying to deficit spend by as much as it is. Russia pointing out that they are willing and able to dump their US Treasuries (which historically were used for international trade) points out that the US is losing its good/trustworthy borrower credit rating.

By the way, private company credit ratings of government credit worthyness are worthless when the company owners fear the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 0.1 rise in interest rate is a pretty big deal, especially when the Federal Government is trying to deficit spend by as much as it is. Russia pointing out that they are willing and able to dump their US Treasuries (which historically were used for international trade) points out that the US is losing its good/trustworthy borrower credit rating.

By the way, private company credit ratings of government credit worthyness are worthless when the company owners fear the government.

Ah, that is what I thought you were referring to.

The link did not make that an automatic conclusion for me.

Thanks for the clarification.

I agree and also agree that trusting any data, from any source that is beholding to the government is extremely suspect.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some snips from Matt Ford who wrote Mar 1 2014, 10:40 PM ET:

Russia's Seizure of Crimea Is Making Former Soviet States Nervous. The crisis in Ukraine has countries formerly in Russia's orbit fearing Putin's next moves.

Fifteen independent countries, including Russia, emerged from the Soviet Union's disintegration. Six of them—Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, and the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—are in Europe, and all of them have a complicated relationship with modern Russia. Seven other countries once belonged to the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet Union's military alliance in Eastern Europe. With the Cold War's end, none of them had faced the threat of military intervention by the communist superpower's successor state—until now. (In discussing Europe here, I'm not including Eurasian countries like Georgia, which fought a war with Russia in 2008, or the military support Russia offered Moldova's breakaway Transnistria region in the early 1990s.) . . . . Estonia, along with Latvia and Lithuania, joined NATO in 2004.

"The Baltic states have been among the most vocal EU states during this crisis, urging Russia to abandon its military intervention in Ukraine and respect Ukrainian territorial integrity," Erik Brattberg, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told me. "They will watch the events in Ukraine closely to see if the U.S. and NATO will stand up against Russian aggression."

Russia has only one remaining ally in the region: Belarus, often referred to as "the last dictatorship in Europe." Other European powers see reflections of their own history in the Crimean crisis. Czech President Milos Zeman said Russia's intervention reminded him of the Soviet-led military suppression of Czechoslovakia's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"form a new Warsaw Pact against Russia, a US-sponsored military alliance of states which, like Ukraine, are the borderlands between Russia and the West . . . ."

I would need to think about such a tripwire.

Peter

Robert Tracinski writes:

With this implicit defense in place, we should immediately begin helping Ukraine transform itself into a porcupine state capable of filling the Russian bear's nose with prickles.

Putin's pause after taking Crimea is a brilliant strategy, if he assumes that Western leaders don't want to have to think about Ukraine and really don't want to have to do anything about it. But if anyone in Kiev, Europe, or Washington has any gumption, then this pause is a colossal blunder. It will allow the new Ukrainian government an opportunity to regroup, to assure the loyalty of its armed forces (placed in doubt by a few key defections), and to consolidate its hold over Ukraine's Eastern provinces. A few days ago, I was concerned that the Russians might be able to drive a column of tanks straight into Kiev without any organized resistance. But Putin's pause has probably ensured that Crimea is all he can take without a nasty fight.

And Crimea may well be untenable on its own. It is, after all, a peninsula, connected to the mainland by the narrow little Perokop Isthmus, through which moves most of Crimea's electricity, water, and food. So why not tell the Russians that if they want to occupy Crimea, they will be dark, hungry and thirsty? Putin's approach to the remaining loyal Ukrainian forces in Crimea has been, not to shoot them, but to lay siege to them and wait them out. Once the government in Kiev feels secure in its hold on the East, it can besiege the besiegers. If Ukraine wants to be more provocative, it should launch a raid to sabotage the ferry terminal at Kerch, the closest point in Crimea to Russia, to prevent Russian reinforcements and resupply, tightening the siege.

The Ukrainian armed forces are much smaller than Russia's—about 130,000 troops versus Russia's 850,000. But those Russian troops have a whole lot of other territory to defend, so in practice, a fight in Ukraine would be a lot more balanced, even accounting for some mixed loyalties and defections on the Ukrainian side. Ukraine even makes its own anti-tank missiles, which would come in handy. Where Ukraine is overmatched, and where we can help the most, is with its air defenses. As a start, how about deploying an American-staffed battery of Patriot anti-ballistic missiles to Ukraine?

. . . . But military opposition is just the beginning. Just as potent is our economic power.

We should immediately impose economic sanctions on Russia, freeze the assets of its top officials, cut off its banks from the international economy, and impose trade restrictions—and we should require others to do it, just as we did when we were still trying to impose sanctions on Iran. We don't do a lot of business with Russia, but Western Europe does, so this means we're going to have to be tough will some of our allies, particularly Britain, which may want to protect the business it does with Russia's politically connected billionaires, its "oligarchs."

But Russia is only about 2% of the global economy. They need us a whole lot more than we need them.

Moreover, Putin is weak at home. His rule depends on shutting up his critics, and he may not have public support for his Ukraine adventure. Meanwhile, Russians are snapping up dollars and euros in a panic.

For the past twenty years, Russians have gotten used to the benefits of being connected to the global economy. There is the general benefit of being in an economy that is connected to global trade, and there is the individual benefit of being able to buy goods from abroad and also to seek business and employment abroad. What if we cut off those benefits? Let's make sure every Russian knows how much Putin is going to cost them.

The only thing we would really miss if we shut off Russia's economy is its oil and gas. Europe is particularly dependent on it. Fortunately, the fracking revolution in America makes us perfectly capable of solving this problem by flooding the world with cheap oil and gas. We could help provide for the immediate needs of Europe and Ukraine with shipments of liquid natural gas. Over the long run, what would really hurt Russia is an increase in supply that drives down oil and gas prices, reducing one of the Russian economy's main sources of revenue.

This is what helped bury the Soviet Union. High oil prices in the 1970s propped up the Brezhnev regime—but the lower prices of the 80s left his successors unable to pay their bills. We can do that again. All that is required is to lift restrictions on exploration and production in the US, and to lift the ridiculous ban on exporting American oil. And while we're at it, we can help the Ukrainians frack their own natural gas.

Then there's diplomacy. Over at RealClearWorld, Alex Berezow has a good run-down of actions to take against Putin, which includes, "All democratic embassies in Russia should be closed." But this is perhaps a bit too symbolic. Putin fancies himself a hard man who only respects action. So here's something more substantive. The United States has entered into a couple of big international agreements, on Syria and Iran, that were brokered by Russia and are dependent on cooperation with Putin. These agreements serve Putin's interests by allowing him to cultivate client states in the Middle East while blocking US action in the region. What they do for our interests isn't so clear. So throw out the agreements with Syria and Iran. They're falling apart anyway. Tell Putin that if he wants those agreements back, he's going to have to talk to us.

Finally, we should resume the great project of expanding NATO. Certainly, we should renew our commitment to existing NATO nations that are under Russian threat, sending US troops to places like Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia as a guarantee against further aggression. We should then start putting Ukraine on a fast track to prepare it for NATO membership.

In the meantime, we should encourage our NATO allies in Eastern Europe—the ones who are also under Russian threat—to help defend Ukraine. As an intermediate step, I'll return to a suggestion Jack Wakeland and I offered during the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008: form a new Warsaw Pact against Russia, a US-sponsored military alliance of states which, like Ukraine, are the borderlands between Russia and the West. Such an alliance would have the advantage of being more willing to assert itself in this kind of conflict because all of its members would share the same vital interest in stopping even small acts of Russian aggression.

Finally, we need to do as much of this as we can right now. We shouldn't start by merely threatening to do these things or offering to negotiate about them. Let's not treat Putin's aggression in Ukraine as if it were the first provocation that indicates that maybe Putin's heart isn't in the right place. That happened a long time ago. Treat this as the last provocation that demonstrates Putin's evil intent and makes it an urgent necessity to shut him down.

So far, Putin has been way inside our decision cycle, moving troops on the ground while our leaders are still just trying to figure out what's going on. In the OODA loop—Observe, Orient, Decide, Act—Putin has been in the "A" mode, while President Obama can't quite manage the first "O." Let's put the shoe on the other foot. We need to act in a way that is big, sweeping, complex, and fast, leaving Putin as the one who is confused and scrambling to catch up, So implement all of this fully, right away. If Putin wants us to reverse any of it, he can ask to negotiate after we've made our move.

These are the things we might do if we had real, decisive leaders in the Washington. Perhaps that's too much to expect from this administration, but let's at least stop pretending that good options don't exist. They do, and if we don't use them, the fault isn't our resources. It's our leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per the retired Major General (Scales?) on Fox news. The size of the Russian army is 766,000 spread around their large country as of October 2013, and many of them are conscripts who are terrible soldiers. They back talk their superiors and count the days until they are out of the Army. Nato has five million highly trained soldiers.

Russia has one, “operating” ship in the Black Sea. Its navy is antiquated and almost useless except for some submarines. If you combined the Russian navy with the 12 other largest navies in the world it would not equal the United States Navy.

General Scales attitude was “Fuck those commie bastards. We would kick their asses in a few weeks." I actually think it would be over before it started, but then we have the nuclear option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Per the retired Major General (Scales?) on Fox news. The size of the Russian army is 766,000 spread around their large country as of October 2013, and many of them are conscripts who are terrible soldiers. They back talk their superiors and count the days until they are out of the Army. Nato has five million highly trained soldiers.

Russia has one, “operating” ship in the Black Sea. Its navy is antiquated and almost useless except for some submarines. If you combined the Russian navy with the 12 other largest navies in the world it would not equal the United States Navy.

General Scales attitude was “Fuck those commie bastards. We would kick their asses in a few weeks." I actually think it would be over before it started, but then we have the nuclear option.

Yeah, I'll bet we can kick their commie asses in less time than it took Bush to defeat Al Qaeda and win the War on Terror back in 2003. We could probably do it with half our brain tied behind our back. It will be a cakewalk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francisco chided me:

Yeah, I'll bet we can kick their commie asses in less time than it took Bush to defeat . . . .

end quote

This would not be an attack on terrorism. It would be a conventional war, that a suicidal Russia would promptly lose. AND it is not the US that is threatening to expand its borders – it is Russia. Conventional war, with the threat of nukes, is Putin’s strategy.

How does a greatly superior NATO and The European Union, along with all the former Soviet client states, and some of the current Russian client states (they want out of the Russian sphere,) counter this Russian aggression? CALL THEIR BLUFF. Use everything in your arsenal just short of war to keep the thief out of the jewelry store.

The greatest threat for an all out conventional war is from the Ukraine going toe to toe with Russia, when Russian fires that first shot to kill. What are we to do then, Francisco? I watched a confrontation with about 90 unarmed Ukrainian soldiers who marched up to 3 armed Russian soldiers guarding a road. The Russians fired their weapons into the air.

Former Secretary of State James Baker who was the last Secretary of State during the Cold War appeared on “Face the Nation.”

From Wikipedia: Baker served as the Chief of Staff in President Ronald Reagan’s first administration and in the final year of the administration of President George H. W. Bush. Baker also served as Secretary of the Treasury from 1985 to 1988 in the second Reagan administration, and Secretary of State in the George H. W. Bush administration.

James Baker has known Putin since Vlad was an aide to the Mayor of Saint Petersburg, Russia. Putin is crafty but he is not crazy. Above all, Putin is a Russian nationalist. Putin’s moves are calculated moves to expand the empire. Baker recommended economic sanctions. He dreads the start of a Cold War Lite. Obama, the guy who knocked off Osama, is not soft on Statist, international crime but he is extremely inconsistent. That sends a mixed message which is why Putin will continue to strike . . . then pause the action. He will do it in the Ukraine and then in any other “softened” point, just as he did in Georgia.

The next guests were also for Capitalist methods of thwarting Russia, and one lady actually said the word “Capitalist,” which is odd on a network that is a mouthpiece for the State Run Media. Some were convinced the Ukraine will militarily strike Russian forces on their territory. I think the opposite is more likely; that Russia will do some awful, bloody thing.

So come on Francisco. Tell us your strategy. Pacifism?

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francisco chided me:

Yeah, I'll bet we can kick their commie asses in less time than it took Bush to defeat . . . .

end quote

This would not be an attack on terrorism. It would be a conventional war, that a suicidal Russia would promptly lose. AND it is not the US that is threatening to expand its borders – it is Russia. Conventional war, with the threat of nukes, is Putin’s strategy.

Would the Russians lose it as quickly as the last time they were invaded?

How does a greatly superior NATO and The European Union, along with all the former Soviet client states, and some of the current Russian client states (they want out of the Russian sphere,) counter this Russian aggression? CALL THEIR BLUFF. Use everything in your arsenal just short of war to keep the thief out of the jewelry store.

By all means use every weapon in your arsenal to keep your jewelry store safe. However, my jewelry store is not under attack by Russians. I need my arsenal to fight another, much closer aggressor.

The greatest threat for an all out conventional war is from the Ukraine going toe to toe with Russia, when Russian fires that first shot to kill. What are we to do then, Francisco? I watched a confrontation with about 90 unarmed Ukrainian soldiers who marched up to 3 armed Russian soldiers guarding a road. The Russians fired their weapons into the air.

Former Secretary of State James Baker who was the last Secretary of State during the Cold War appeared on “Face the Nation.”

From Wikipedia: Baker served as the Chief of Staff in President Ronald Reagan’s first administration and in the final year of the administration of President George H. W. Bush. Baker also served as Secretary of the Treasury from 1985 to 1988 in the second Reagan administration, and Secretary of State in the George H. W. Bush administration.

James Baker has known Putin since Vlad was an aide to the Mayor of Saint Petersburg, Russia. Putin is crafty but he is not crazy. Above all, Putin is a Russian nationalist. Putin’s moves are calculated moves to expand the empire. Baker recommended economic sanctions. He dreads the start of a Cold War Lite. Obama, the guy who knocked off Osama, is not soft on Statist, international crime but he is extremely inconsistent. That sends a mixed message which is why Putin will continue to strike . . . then pause the action. He will do it in the Ukraine and then in any other “softened” point, just as he did in Georgia.

The next guests were also for Capitalist methods of thwarting Russia, and one lady actually said the word “Capitalist,” which is odd on a network that is a mouthpiece for the State Run Media. Some were convinced the Ukraine will militarily strike Russian forces on their territory. I think the opposite is more likely; that Russia will do some awful, bloody thing.

So come on Francisco. Tell us your strategy. Pacifism?

Peter

In the past year there were mass rapes of women in Egypt, ethnic cleansing in Burma, brutality in North Korea's gulags, hundreds of new cases of violence against women and girls in Afghanistan, more ethnic cleansing in the South Sudan, and appalling human rights violations in Mali.

Any one of these cases is just as bad as anything that has happened in the Ukraine. Do I think these abuses should be stopped? You bet. Do I think that the United States taxpayer can do it? Hell, no.

Item: The US government spends $121,067 per second of which it has to borrow $52,162 each second.

Item: The U.S. has not even brought the last two wars it launched to a successful conclusion.

And now we're supposed to march off to another cakewalk in that land that buried Napoleon and Hitler's best? If so, it will only hasten the demise of whatever is left of our republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francisco wrote:

Would the Russians lose it as quickly as the last time they were invaded? . . . Do I think these abuses should be stopped? You bet. Do I think that the United States taxpayer can do it? Hell, no . . . . The U.S. has not even brought the last two wars it launched to a successful conclusion . . . And now we're supposed to march off to another cakewalk in that land that buried Napoleon and Hitler's best? If so, it will only hasten the demise of whatever is left of our republic.

end quote

Those are points well taken. I am always impressed with your substantive posts, Francisco. The “smaller” atrocities you mentioned are horrible but not of the strategic scope we see in the Ukraine. The Ukraine is one country geographically removed from NATO. It is a whole country, one act of conquering away from our stealth bombers, damn good artillery, and potentially the humiliation of Putin. Of course, we will not invade a country with nuclear weapons without softening up the target while eliminating their nukes, with nuclear weapons. I do not want nukes to hit our soil or for the radiation to circle the globe for years to come. Or that collateral damage occur. Therefore I am not suggesting we invade Russian territory nor bomb Russian territory, and not even as a Next To Last resort.

That brings up what I see as yours and my biggest differences. I think of your objectivist? / libertarianism philosophy as impracticable, isolationist and if not naïve then short sighted. If we can, should we? Your answer is always no. You answer the question of “Is it moral?” with “Maybe, but let volunteers pay for it. Waiter, don’t put that drink with an umbrella in it on my tab.” I maintain that we can do the moral on the cheap. I maintain America should always pass moral judgment and step on roaches, but not squander a fortune or our lives, and some times not even to pay the price of a margarita.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the answer....

250px-Flower_Power_demonstrator.jpg
magnify-clip.png
A female demonstrator offers a flower to military police at an anti-Vietnam War protest in Arlington, Virginia, 21 October 1967

We even have guys too...

PH2007031701301.jpg

George Harris sticks carnations in gun barrels during an antiwar demonstration at the Pentagon in 1967. (By Bernie Boston -- The Washington Evening Star)
Flowers, Guns and an Iconic Snapshot
PH2007031701301.jpg
George Harris sticks carnations in gun barrels during an antiwar demonstration at the Pentagon in 1967. (By Bernie Boston -- The Washington Evening Star)
Sunday, March 18, 2007

The most lasting image from the last big march on the Pentagon, on October 21, 1967, survives in the collective memory as summing up an era. Carnations in gun barrels were the essence of Flower Power. "I knew I had a good picture," says photographer Bernie Boston, 73, who took the photo for the Washington Star. His editors, not imagining the significance, buried it deep inside the A section.

What became of the young demonstrator? By most accounts, he was George Harris, about 18 years old, a young actor from New York. He was on his way to San Francisco, where he would come out of the closet, take the name Hibiscus, and co-found the flamboyant, psychedelic gay-themed drag troupe called the Cockettes, according to filmmaker David Weissman, who made a critically acclaimed documentary of the group in 2002. Harris died in the early 1980s of complications from AIDS, at the dawn of that epidemic.

So Boston's iconic photo, so emblematic of one era, was also secretly a harbinger of another.

There problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is this war with Russia to be financed? Where's the loot to come from? From Janet Yellen and Her Incredible Wealth Machine? From the IRS which has an unblemished record of morality and fairness (if we are to believe its boss, Mr. Obama)? From the sale of Russian oil fields (the same way Bushites once told us we'd finance the Iraq War)? Or by borrowing just a little bit more from our good friends the Chinese?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francisco wonders, “How is this war with Russia to be financed?”

If America had plunged into a depression I would share your constant drum beat of “Show me the money!” But there is more to governance, self defense, and morality than “paying the bills.” Crap, Is that an earthquake? I can hear the rumble coming!

I just filled out a questionnaire from John McCain that us “big donors” get. I had to choose one overriding issue, though I tried to pick two: The Debt and Obamacare. I finally chose Obamacare. As McCain said, “I am with you amigo about the debt and taxation.” So what trumps a crushing debt? Emergency situations. The invasion of the Ukraine is an emergency situation.

A person on Fox mentioned the debt of the Russian Federation and now they will be picking up the heavier debt from the Crimea or the entire Ukraine, including pre-negotiated pensions. Of course that won’t stop Attila, Joseph, (Orange, almost Red) Julius, Vlad, Adolph, Mao Putin. No, America has not been directly attacked but the barbarians are at the gate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francisco wrote:

This is not an answer. It is the equivalent of "You'll find a way, Mr. Rearden."

end quote

Your thinking is just fine and is in sync with that of Rand Paul. How did we come to such a point that overspending is almost traditional? However, “emergency situations” require a quick response. If our reaction to the invasion of a European democracy is bluster, then it does pave the way for one more invasion, and one more, until Putin runs out of a desire for MORE, MORE!

What was there to stop Hitler? America was in a depression, and the world was feeling drowsy. Germany was a burgeoning totalitarian state with a “philosophy” as were its main supporters, Italy and Japan. In Today’s Russian IS there a philosophy to generate expansionist actions? Are there any true believers in a bigger, United Federation of Russia? I hope not, but those pro-Russian supporters in the Crimea are voting themselves into a “less free state,” so I wonder if there is some inspirational thinking behind their actions. Certainly “speaking my language” is a draw. I would even despise living in Canada with two languages.

So, where is the money coming from, to fund an emergency reaction to a Russian invasion? Out of a hat. Progressive America will cut back on deficit spending a little bit “here” to pay for larger deficit spending “there.” We will debase the currency and put our nation in hock for more billions of dollars, and I am not happy about that situation. I will approve of saving the world in the cheapest way possible, as American, lovers of freedom fight The System on our soil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francisco wonders, “How is this war with Russia to be financed?”

If America had plunged into a depression I would share your constant drum beat of “Show me the money!” But there is more to governance, self defense, and morality than “paying the bills.” Crap, Is that an earthquake? I can hear the rumble coming!

I just filled out a questionnaire from John McCain that us “big donors” get. I had to choose one overriding issue, though I tried to pick two: The Debt and Obamacare. I finally chose Obamacare. As McCain said, “I am with you amigo about the debt and taxation.” So what trumps a crushing debt? Emergency situations. The invasion of the Ukraine is an emergency situation.

A person on Fox mentioned the debt of the Russian Federation and now they will be picking up the heavier debt from the Crimea or the entire Ukraine, including pre-negotiated pensions. Of course that won’t stop Attila, Joseph, (Orange, almost Red) Julius, Vlad, Adolph, Mao Putin. No, America has not been directly attacked but the barbarians are at the gate.

How is the invasion of Ukraine an emergency situation for the United States?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob wrote:

How is the invasion of Ukraine an emergency situation for the United States?

end quote

Rhetorically speaking, if (and when) Israel is attacked and bombed by an Iranian coalition is it an emergency situation for the United States?

Consider recent WWII history from Wikipedia:

The Empire of Japan aimed to dominate East Asia and was already at war with the Republic of China in 1937, but the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939 with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and the United Kingdom. From late 1939 to early 1941, in a series of campaigns and treaties, Germany formed the Axis alliance with Italy, conquering or subduing much of continental Europe. Following the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Germany and the Soviet Union partitioned and annexed territories between themselves their European neighbours, including Poland, Finland, and the Baltic States.

end quote

Will Iran’s attack on Israel be America’s concern? Were the Axis invasions Britain’s and America’s concern? Is an attack on a NATO country the same as an attack on America? Darn it Bob, I hope you will answer those questions, then reconsider your nonchalance about the Ukraine. Do you see a domino affect possible as occurred from 1937 to 1941? I do. “Russia” has been doing “this shit” since 1941.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob wrote:

How is the invasion of Ukraine an emergency situation for the United States?

end quote

Rhetorically speaking, if (and when) Israel is attacked and bombed by an Iranian coalition is it an emergency situation for the United States?

Consider recent WWII history from Wikipedia:

The Empire of Japan aimed to dominate East Asia and was already at war with the Republic of China in 1937, but the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939 with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and the United Kingdom. From late 1939 to early 1941, in a series of campaigns and treaties, Germany formed the Axis alliance with Italy, conquering or subduing much of continental Europe. Following the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Germany and the Soviet Union partitioned and annexed territories between themselves their European neighbours, including Poland, Finland, and the Baltic States.

end quote

Will Iran’s attack on Israel be America’s concern? Were the Axis invasions Britain’s and America’s concern? Is an attack on a NATO country the same as an attack on America? Darn it Bob, I hope you will answer those questions, then reconsider your nonchalance about the Ukraine. Do you see a domino affect possible as occurred from 1937 to 1941? I do. “Russia” has been doing “this shit” since 1941.

I have already been "dominoed" by the Viet Nam War. 60,000 Americans killed and all based on Dominoes. I don't believe it.

How does the Russian Incursion into Crimea threaten the U.S. Be specific.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob wrote:

How does the Russian Incursion into Crimea threaten the U.S. Be specific.

end quote

Just a minute “Mr Ba’al!” I set a perfectly good “emotional response trap” when I asked you, should we defend Israel? and you refused to step into it. Answer my question first. Now let me see. Where’s my map of the Ukraine? The Crimea is here, with a port here, these Russian ships have been sitting idly rusting, with no fuel, Poland is here with NATO forces here and here, Russia has 11,000 troops here, . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francisco wrote:

This is not an answer. It is the equivalent of "You'll find a way, Mr. Rearden."

end quote

Your thinking is just fine and is in sync with that of Rand Paul. How did we come to such a point that overspending is almost traditional? However, “emergency situations” require a quick response. If our reaction to the invasion of a European democracy is bluster, then it does pave the way for one more invasion, and one more, until Putin runs out of a desire for MORE, MORE!

There is always an emergency. If the latest crisis du jour raised by nervous neocons and the perpetually frantic media were not the Ukraine, it would be Syria or Venezuela or the Sudan or North Korea or some other hellhole that needs immediate U.S. taxpayer money, and I mean right now, folks, because the worst bully since Hitler has just launched a campaign of world conquest and New York City is next and if you don't want your grandchildren growing up speaking Russian (or Arabic or Spanish or Korean) it's in your rational self-interest to depose the dictator and bring the oppressed of the world some freedom and laissez-faire capitalism just like we enjoy right here under Obama.

Sorry, but the old sales pitch for world intervention just doesn't exhort us as it did when the last bully was on the world stage.

What was there to stop Hitler? America was in a depression, and the world was feeling drowsy. Germany was a burgeoning totalitarian state with a “philosophy” as were its main supporters, Italy and Japan. In Today’s Russian IS there a philosophy to generate expansionist actions? Are there any true believers in a bigger, United Federation of Russia? I hope not, but those pro-Russian supporters in the Crimea are voting themselves into a “less free state,” so I wonder if there is some inspirational thinking behind their actions. Certainly “speaking my language” is a draw. I would even despise living in Canada with two languages.

If people really think what happened in the Ukraine is horrible, let them do something about it. There is no U.S. law that forbids a private citizen from traveling to that troubled region and volunteering his life, time and fortune to liberate the victims of naked aggression.

Oh, I see, perhaps it's in one's rational self-interest to get some other sucker to risk everything he's got in the cause.

So, where is the money coming from, to fund an emergency reaction to a Russian invasion? Out of a hat. Progressive America will cut back on deficit spending a little bit “here” to pay for larger deficit spending “there.” We will debase the currency and put our nation in hock for more billions of dollars, and I am not happy about that situation. I will approve of saving the world in the cheapest way possible, as American, lovers of freedom fight The System on our soil.

Tell you what, you use your money to go round the globe to fight the Russians, and let me use mine to fight the socialists on our own shores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

I can help you out a little.

As I was traveling to Barbara's Memorial, my flight got several hours late. To pass the time at the airport, I went to a bookstore and a title caught my eye:

Hitler's Charisma: Leading Millions into the Abyss by Laurence Rees

So I got it. This is a fascinating book, but the one thing it underscores is that each victory before the outbreak of war did not appease Hitler. It emboldened him and reinforced his belief in a mission of destiny.

The trick is to see if Putin has that same stuff in his own sense of mission. If he does, failing to oppose the Ukraine mess will only be the beginning of a long, painful slog where we will have to go into an unthinkable war in the end and it will probably be nuclear.

How's that for a national interest?

People with this sense of mission are very much aware of what the public mentality can bear at any point along the way--similar to the Overton Window. They know this is something they have to move along a sequence, not something static like an on-off switch.

The German people needed to be coaxed into supporting war, one step at a time. Nobody wanted war when Hitler gained power. Nor did they want war when he started getting aggressive. If he had tried to go to war immediately with Austria or Czechoslovakia, there probably would not have been a WWII. He would have lost his popular support.

He used what Rees called his charisma and propaganda to help move the war agenda along in the public mind. He backed off a few times, too, not because he felt Germany was weak or because he did not want war. Rees speculates it was because he felt the German public was not sufficiently softened up to the idea yet.

I think this stuff is fascinating, which is why I study it so much, but when I look at Putin at this point in time, it becomes something more than academic.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francisco: I have the sneaky suspicion that fighting taxation won't get 'us' to freedom.

It's an effect not the cause.

Taxation won't be rolled up by fierce debate of the money blown overseas - to repeat my refrain, it will be on principles. (And individual rights is the one at the end of that line).

Ha, I'm imagining four guys fighting over the restaurant bill -

"I'm not paying!"

"Me neither!"

"Not me!"

...

"Um ... I'll pay?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francisco: I have the sneaky suspicion that fighting taxation won't get 'us' to freedom.

It's an effect not the cause.

Taxation won't be rolled up by fierce debate of the money blown overseas - to repeat my refrain, it will be on principles. (And individual rights is the one at the end of that line).

Ha, I'm imagining four guys fighting over the restaurant bill -

"I'm not paying!"

"Me neither!"

"Not me!"

...

"Um ... I'll pay?"

Taxation has a special place in American history for it was one of the key complaints that sparked our Revolution of 1776.

I do not dismiss the essential role of ideas in political change. However, direct action, i.e. the willingness of the average person to switch from his everyday labors to unlawful and dangerous measures is generally motivated by specific grievances.

By the way, America had a second rebellion in 1791 after the Constitution was adopted. It was, regrettably, suppressed by President Washington, but it too was over taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taxation has a special place in American history for it was one of the key complaints that sparked our Revolution of 1776.

I do not dismiss the essential role of ideas in political change. However, direct action, i.e. the willingness of the average person to switch from his everyday labors to unlawful and dangerous measures is generally motivated by specific grievances.

By the way, America had a second rebellion in 1791 after the Constitution was adopted. It was, regrettably, suppressed by President Washington, but it too was over taxes.

Can we call Shay's Rebellion the pre-second rebellion? Or, should the Whiskey Rebellion take it's respectful seat as the Third Rebellion?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francisco: I have the sneaky suspicion that fighting taxation won't get 'us' to freedom.

It's an effect not the cause.

Taxation won't be rolled up by fierce debate of the money blown overseas - to repeat my refrain, it will be on principles. (And individual rights is the one at the end of that line).

Ha, I'm imagining four guys fighting over the restaurant bill -

"I'm not paying!"

"Me neither!"

"Not me!"

...

"Um ... I'll pay?"

Taxation has a special place in American history for it was one of the key complaints that sparked our Revolution of 1776.

I do not dismiss the essential role of ideas in political change. However, direct action, i.e. the willingness of the average person to switch from his everyday labors to unlawful and dangerous measures is generally motivated by specific grievances.

By the way, America had a second rebellion in 1791 after the Constitution was adopted. It was, regrettably, suppressed by President Washington, but it too was over taxes.

Allow me enough gross over-simplification (btw I know quite a bit of US history, if not deeply) to say that in my experience people generally want to feel 'right'.

Heinlein had it there'd always be the makers, takers and fakers. Eventually, many can - and I believe will - want to be more aware of the ideas that shape them -the unknown philosophies which control them - and will coax themselves to the good ideas. Even those takers and fakers have a sense of the injustice of being on the receiving end, at others' expense. To say nothing of guilt. Or of pride.

Briefly, I'm not too sure about taxation as the traditional rallying cry for freedom, any longer.

I believe the more it is about money, the more it seems to confirm the worst impressions the left have of capitalists holding onto their misbegotten wealth. My way (obviously not alone here)would be to push the ideas of individualism, self-interest and personal liberty, uncompromisingly - without their attendant efficacy even, and outside of Party Politics, and with little mention of taxation - until those principles become part of the common discourse. A generation or two, and things can change drastically. If not in the USA, where else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now