Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is Trump embracing aggressive withdrawal?
#61
(02-25-2017, 02:02 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:
Quote:Thus why the Dutch example Mikebert brings up might be the best one.

However, China has always been an inward looking power, not an outward looking one.  They've never had sufficient sustained interest to maintain overseas colonies.  There might be minor border clashes with Russia or on the East and South China Seas, but the risk is accidental escalation, not some expansionary conspiracy.

Emphasis mine.  The first part does not match with the second two.  How is a small, outward-looking, maritime power with overseas colony "the best" model for a large, inward-focused continental power with little history of external colonization?  Is China surrounded by larger, more powerful neighbors?  In fear of being overrun by the same?  Do they have a history of overseas colonies, or expanding their influence along their borders?

Sorry.  The first of those paragraphs was about which example might be the best assuming, for the sake of argument, that China was trying to establish a maritime empire, which I thought was what you and Mikebert were discussing.  The second was why China is more likely not trying to establish a maritime empire, and thus why the first paragraph is moot.

Quote:
Quote:The Russo-Georgian war marked the beginning of actual military adventurism on the part of Russia.  That's something to be concerned about.

Really?  Did the Russians seize Tbilisi while I wasn't looking?  Pretty sure even the EU reported that hostilities began in earnest with the Georgian army invading Tskhinvali.  Why is the Georgian separation from the USSR legitimate, but not the South Ossetian and Abkazian separation from Georgia?  Has Putin annexed those countries?

Are we really going to try to lecture people on "military adventurism" in the 21st century?  Not sure we should be throwing stones while living in this nice glass house we've been building.

Quote:You have to admit, there are parallels between Crimea and South Ossetia and East Ukraine on the one hand, and the Ruhr, the Sudeten, and Austria on the other.

I don't have to admit anything of the sort.  Fatuous comparisons to 1938 have been made every couple of years since the end of the war.  As I have commented previously, for some people, it's always 1938 somewhere.

Quote:Thus far, the US and NATO have been holding this adventurism somewhat in check.  There needs to be a balance, though.  If Europe were to go into full appeasement mode, we might see the rest of Georgia and Ukraine occupied, and then the Baltics and more.  At that point one could easily see Putin's domestic popularity becoming dependent on further adventurism.  And you know what resulted the last time that happened.

Yup, HITLER HITLER HITLER HITLER!  Why?  Because HITLER! Rolleyes

What exactly has prevented Putin from annexing Georgia?  They have no security guarantee from the US or NATO (but I repeat myself), no means of militarily defeating the Russian Army.  Hitler had completely annexed several neighboring countries of some size and launched a bid for hegemony within, what, 6 years of attaining power?  Putin has been in charge for 17 years and he has annexed one region that had historically been part of Russia and tried to join it again in the early 90s, and propped up a handful of microstates along its borders.  He hasn't even annexed Belarus, which at one point was amenable to the idea (Lukashenko liked the idea of a bigger stage).  Not really the stuff of which grand imperial bids are made.

As for the EU, they collectively have several times the population, wealth, and military spending of the Russian Federation.  They are more than capable of defending themselves if they truly wanted to.  And if they don't?  If Putin seizes territory in the Ukraine and Georgia which genuinely doesn't want to be part of Russia, they will have an insurgency to deal with, with all the losses in blood, treasure, and political capital that would entail.  If they really want those problems they are welcome to them, I don't see how that impedes American interests at all.

Quote:That's not hysteria, that's realism.  

It sounds more like the National Review talking to me, and to those people "realism" is an epithet more than a possible.  True realism entails taking a hard look at the US' actual interests, and the means it has available to attain them.  I don't think that picking a fight with a small, weaker nuclear-armed power over inconsequential scraps of land really qualifies.

Check out my earlier post where I pointed out circumstances where we could have allied with Hitler in WWII.  At some point we need to quit using him as a boogeyman so we can learn genuine historical lessons from him.

In answer to your explicit questions, (1) The Russians got their propaganda out quickly regarding the invasion through South Ossetia, but in fact what happened was that US satellite info was shared with Georgia showing the Russian assault columns going into the tunnel first.  Georgian forces raced to confront the Russians at a choke point in South Ossetia, but the Russians made it there first.  The Russians stopped the instant US aircraft touched down in Georgia carrying Georgian troops from Iraq; Putin is not so stupid as to risk direct confrontation with the US in present circumstances.  Western reports were incorrect because western reporters did not see the classified satellite info about the Russians starting their invasion, but did see the Georgian response, and the Georgian government was trying to maintain operational secrecy in order to ambush the incoming Russian column.  It was possible to piece this together from accounts in the Ukrainian press at the time plus later accounts, but it wasn't easy to figure out.  (2) The EU is incapable of defending itself because it has no military.  What's relevant are the individual countries, and the NATO alliance, of which the US is a part.

As for Hitler, check out my earlier post to John regarding realistic circumstances where we could have allied with Hitler in WWII.  At some point we need to quite treating him as a bugaboo so we can draw useful historical lessons from him.

Quote:
Quote:Now, there has been some hysteria since the election started, but that's just motivated by a desire on the left to attack Trump using any tool they have.  That hysteria is tied to being out of political power, so it won't translate to policy.  The Democrats are not going to nominate someone in 2020 on the basis that he advocates war with Russia.

Yeah, those people are scum.  Although, you know, they nominated somebody in 2016 who seemed really enthusiastic about war with Russia.  It's not unreasonable to assume that the 2020 candidate might do the same.

Good point.  Bleh.

Quote:
Quote:Thus far, the Trump administration has been doing an excellent job.  The guy who supported giving all of Ukraine to Russia was kicked out, but there has only been lip service on return of Crimea, without actual action.  We've inserted ourselves back into the process on ISIS by proposing concessions to NATO ally Turkey in return for cooperation with Russia on the rest of Syria, and gaining valuable experience in balance of power politics in the process.  This is a big improvement over the Obama "speak loudly, and flail about randomly with a twig" strategy.

I voted for him, and thus far I am reasonable pleased with the result.  McMaster is a huge improvement over Flynn, even if I find the circumstances of the latter's ouster a little questionable.

The public story on Flynn is not the whole story.  If you're interested, I can dig up some references on what probably actually happened.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Is Trump embracing aggressive withdrawal? - by Warren Dew - 02-25-2017, 04:27 PM
MIC spending is way too high - by Ragnarök_62 - 04-01-2017, 07:52 PM
RE: MIC spending is way too high - by Warren Dew - 04-02-2017, 01:09 AM
RE: MIC spending is way too high - by pbrower2a - 04-02-2017, 02:46 PM
RE: MIC spending is way too high - by Warren Dew - 04-02-2017, 06:15 PM
RE: MIC spending is way too high - by pbrower2a - 04-02-2017, 07:16 PM
RE: MIC spending is way too high - by Warren Dew - 04-16-2017, 02:09 PM

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Trump's real German analog Donald Trump takes office on Friday, and the world hol pbrower2a 2 2,904 02-09-2017, 05:52 PM
Last Post: freivolk

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)