Or just ran out of things to say. We all oppose Russia’s actions … how many times do we need to repeat that it’s awful and we condemn Putin, etc.?
3 Likes
It would presumably avoid the need for further aid and hopefully unwind some of negative effects of prolonged conflict. Are we not considering how costly defending Ukraine has been and will be over time? What does resistance at this point even accomplish, tangibly, other than rhetorical statements like Putin being a big bully? After all, the tangible benefits seemingly need to be quite large given the costs.
The primary goal of a defensive war is to make your opponent regret starting it.
5 Likes
“Negative effects of a prolonged conflict”.
Give me liberty!.. when it’s convenient…
I thought the primary goal of defensive war was to expel the invading forces.
I think we’re all familiar with the rhetoric. What I asked about was tangible benefits
.
Which would very likely make your opponent regret starting it…
1 Like
Self-determination tangible enough?
1 Like
Not good enough, if they can come back next year and try again.
And hopefully Russia will think twice before invading any other country. The Afghanistan debacle weakened the Soviet Union militarily and hastened the collapse of the USSR. Hopefully the Ukraine invasion will hurt Russia’s expansionary plans.
2 Likes
Not tangible, and also unlikely to be worth the cost. It’s still valuable in theory but probably would be more valuable when derived from projects that actually help Americans, like high speed rail, internet, or perhaps even student loan relief assuming the Ukraine conflict is protracted and we keep sending aid.
In addition to helping Americans, spending money on domestic projects would presumably come with proper oversight, unlike the aid we’re sending to one of the world’s most corrupt countries. I wonder if there’s any oversight at all for the $6 billion transfer account. I think Rand Paul tried to add an Inspector General but was unsuccessful.
Not a primary goal.
It is a goal; but not the primary one.
1 Like
Political leaders of Europe asked that very question (“what are the (tangible) benefits?”) when Hitler started acquiring land (and its subsequent resources) in the 1930’s.
1 Like
Some things never change. Putin’s military ambitions in Eastern Europe (and to a lesser extent Syria) have been extensively discussed for years, but Europe/NATO were still unprepared militarily and failed to avoid becoming dependent on Russian energy. This is even after invasions of Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014, after which the world did little to nothing, merely imposing economic sanctions that failed to stop this broader invasion in 2022.
My question about benefits was focused on the US, though. I ask because the US goals are so ill-defined and so it seems prudent to avoid the blank check scenario.
Oh anyone who bought gas from Russia after August 9, 1999 has blood on their hands, IMO. He’s more or less been saying “redraw the old Soviet borders” his entire political career.
I suppose it’s a matter of personal opinion, but strategically speaking I disagree. Tit-for-tat is what keeps the world turning (and occasionally keeps the world burning). Also not a tangible, but it’s more important than saving lives or holding territory.
Is there any European country that you think is “worth it” in terms of US aid in fighting Russia?
The theory of course is that without US aid, Russia would have overrun Ukraine in a month or so. Putin would now control the industrial and agricultural output of Ukraine and would be moving military equipment to the Baltics’ borders. If the US is going to help stop Russia somewhere, where’s the better line than Ukraine?
If we’re not going to worry about any part of Russian invasions in Europe, the next question becomes Is there any place in the world where we would try to stop an expansionary China?
2 Likes
NATO’s current borders.
After German reunification and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in the early 90s, NATO pledged to not include any of those Soviet Bloc countries with Secretary of State Baker assuring that “if we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO 1 inch to the east.” Russia should have demanded this in writing if it was so important to them, but the fact remains that NATO has continued expanding eastward and Ukraine has expressed interest in joining NATO for many years now.
In my opinion, now that Putin has shown a willingness for significant military aggression, NATO needs to defend their own borders and cease their eastward expansion at least temporarily. Of course, if Putin can be defeated, then I would conversely expect even more NATO expansion to the east.
I’m sure that was the personal opinion of SoS Baker, but he doesn’t/didn’t unilaterally set NATO policy. Even during his tenure, the US was one of 16 member states.
And on what grounds could Russia or the USSR have demanded anything in writing? Not their club; they shouldn’t get to say who’s in it.
2 Likes
So you think the US has a national interest in defending the Baltic nations. Why?
I don’t think that’s what CSPAN necessarily getting at.
Rather, until that particular threat pops up, the US should not spend any $$$.
And once that threat does pop up, then it becomes a matter of determining how to keep a promise explicit in the NATO agreements.
1 Like