02-25-2017, 07:26 PM
(02-25-2017, 04:51 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:Quote:(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.
I'd like to see some sources on that. Ideally from something a little more reputable than the "Ukrainian press", if you don't mind.
I'm going to cop out a bit and send you to a wikipedia article that seems to have the story straight. It has plenty of references so you can likely find what you want there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibi...orgian_War
Okay, p14 of this (which I found through another Wikipedia article) provides some more detail:
http://www.webcitation.org/6NfjIqxcy?url...gia-PP.pdf
Quote:Quote:(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.
That seems like their problem, not ours. Russia does not have the power to overrun the whole continent (and I doubt much of a desire, either), and if it seemed like they were looking to make the effort the Europeans have the resources and structures in place to resist on their own. If Putin or a successor like Rogozin (just throwing names out there) actually made the effort to occupy and absorb the Ukraine, it might even have a salutory effect for US geopolitical interests by reducing their ability to project influence elsewhere and convincing the EU to spend money on something other than subsidies for French farmers and Arab refugees.
Just a thought.
It's our problem because we're part of NATO. And we want NATO to stick around because, basically, it's an alliance that gives us control over the European military and prevents them from becoming a geopolitical rival.
Keep in mind that the EU, along with the rest of the world, pay us hundreds of billions in "inflation tax" for our protection and policing of the world in general, and trade routes in particular.
Granted we should use our leverage to negotiate more favorable trade arrangements with the EU, which are currently slanted against us. In retrospect, when globalization was happening after the fall of the Soviet Union, we should have taken more pains to make sure it benefited us rather than just benefiting the rest of the world; we should work on fixing that now.
Quote:Quote: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.
I saw it, and I agree with you. As I mentioned in the Bannon thread, it is fairly easy to imagine a scenario where the West allied with fascists against the Communists rather than the other way round, in the same way that we propped up right-wing dictatorships during the Cold War.
I have no objection to treating him as a historical figure, I was simply objecting to you reaching for a lazy historical reference that has been used repeatedly to justify US intervention just about anywhere, for any reason.
There was nothing lazy about it: I pointed out actual parallels. I would agree that "Saddam Hussein is Hitler" was a big stretch back in 1990 - I interpreted it as an aging Bush wanting to relive his glory days - but the parallels here are closer.
Quote:Quote: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.
If you don't mind, I would love to read them. It wasn't something I followed that closely (I have been fairly busy recently).
https://geopoliticalfutures.com/the-flynn-drama1/
Flynn's rumored plan to install a Russia friendly administration in Ukraine I may have read in another source, but while that was a pretty specific rumor, it was still only a rumor.