Is Crimea still in possession of Russia? We spoke out but none the less we let it happen. No one came to Crimea's aid. You must be referencing the cold war which was anything but peaceful. Really did you forget the colonies against England or the annexation of Texas against Mexico?
They certainly claim that they are. Of course, many of the people are leaving. And we will see if that survives this war. But that is a good example of why we shouldn't follow your preferred policies: Russia took that as evidence that they could take any land that they felt like taking. You would prefer to prove them right, because Alexander the Great once took over countries, or something. This period of time is the most peaceful in world history. That is empirically true. The likelihood of dying due to violence was lower in the Post-World War II era than in any time period. And that continues to be true. Which is why it is in our interests to defend this world order against your preferred world order of might makes right and countries regularly taking over other countries. Lol. I said decades. But yes, during the colonial era, there was more violence due to the acceptance of your preferred system of countries taking over other countries. But the reason you have to return to distant times is that it no longer happens, to the benefit of us all, after the end of World War II. There has not been an annexation of an entire country not related to the end of Colonialism (India had some weird areas not under control of the British that voluntarily were subsumed into an independent India) since World War II. That is good and a record we should look to continue.
So you don't understand the difference between a contagious disease and warfare? How are you able to operate a computer?
Well, that’s the way Russia wants it. But it’s our job to be in harm’s way. I know what you mean, though.
So, in your mind, freedom has no value? It's not worth fighting for, under any circumstances? What matters most is the current conditions? If the current conditions would improve by surrendering and living life as oxen living under the yoke, then that is automatically the best option? It's not Zelensky and the U.S. that are forcing Ukrainian troops to fight; they are willing to fight for something they believe in. There are no Ukrainian barrier troops pointing a rifle at front line troops preventing them from walking away. Ukraine's soldiers could easily walk away from the fight and disappear into the countryside. Obviously, Ukrainians believe that their conditions will be a lot better if they defeat Russia than if they surrender to Russia, and can bear the burden of the current conditions. Something that Americans from 245 years ago can probably relate to. It's sad that you cannot.
Hypothetical ... Russia establishes stability in its four new oblasts, pushes west to Odessa, reducing Ukraine to a rump state with no access to the sea. Ukraine’s military machine is broken, having suffered hundreds of thousands of casualties. Western weapons reserves have dried up. Europe is suffering. NATO in disarray. General malaise in the US. Republicans have swept the midterms and are moving on from proxy war, turning their sights towards antagonizing China. Americans have well and truly put Ukraine in the rear view mirror. Ukrainian flags are a rare sight. Biden orders the puppet Zelensky to sue for terms of piece ... This outcome will be spun as plucky Ukrainians, with no small help from the West, thwarting a megalomaniacal Putin’s designs to take the whole of Ukraine and the possibly Poland and The Baltics besides. A victory for freedom and democracy.
Ukraine had the responsibility to begin the fight for Crimea and provide manpower for that fight. Then I think the West would have supported it. The Cold War was very peaceful compared to WWI and WWII. It is the height of ignorance to suggest otherwise. The conflicts were small and localized compared to those wars. Let's say in the last 150 years. Those events were more than 150 years ago. The U.S. was a different country back then, and the world was a different place back then. Most of civilization has moved past the Colonial Age--why haven't you?
Your hypothetical scenario is certainly a possibility. But it is not a victory for freedom or democracy. It is almost certainly a temporary truce, until Putin can rebuild his armies and finish the job. And then he will move on the next country on his list. It is hard to see NATO in disarray when NATO troops have yet to fire the first shot in this war. And the U.S. has recovered from malaise before.
I place contagious disease and Putin just waking up one morning and wanting to take over s*** in the same category: non-existent.
I was being facetious. The US just apes the democracy trope to provide cover for feeling entitled to shape the world in its image. I’d be interested in seeing a before and after of countries that the US has ‘spread democracy’ to.
Spreading democracy is not a reason that the U.S. has gone to war, with the possible exception of Vietnam (in that case, it was to preserve "democracy"). Once the U.S. has conquered a country, like Iraq for example, it tries to set up democracy, for the simple reason that if it catches on, then it will be more peaceful and economically competitive than any other type of government, and require less support from the U.S. An economically viable and stable country is more likely to accept international law, and less likely to support terrorism or fights with neighboring countries, which are positive things. The U.S. is generally accepting of countries with non-democracy forms of government. We have had normal relationships with several countries that are ruled by a monarchy, for example. We've never tried to overthrow Saudi Arabia.
Of course you do, comrade. And no one said that Putin decided on a whim to invade Ukraine. On the contrary, most believe that he has been planning this invasion for a couple decades, which makes the current situation that more pathetic for him and those who worship him (you know, the person in your mirror).
Did I say they were right? Hint I did not so don't twist my words suit your intentions. What I have presented to date is why this is a bad idea at this point in time. My preferred policy is to strengthen our posture and live to fight another day. NATO is of no help as these nations are grappling with their own problems. There is little to cohesion within the EU let alone members of NATO. Of course reading nothing but American media accounts of this war would indicate otherwise. Introduction: An Assessment of U.S. Military Power America is a global power with global interests. Consequently, its military is tasked with defending the country from attack and protecting its national interests on a corresponding global scale. The United States does not have the luxury of focusing only on one geographic area or narrow challenge to its interests. Its economy depends on global trade; it has obligations with many allies; and it must account for several major competitors that routinely, consistently, and aggressively challenge its interests and seek to displace its influence in key regions. It follows that its military should be commensurately sized for the task and possess the necessary tools, skills, and readiness for action. Beyond that, the U.S. military must be capable of protecting the freedom to use the global commons—the sea, air, space, and cyberspace domains on which American prosperity and political influence depend. As noted in all preceding editions of the Index, however, the U.S. does not have the necessary force to address more than one major regional contingency (MRC) and is not ready to carry out its duties effectively. Consequently, as we have seen during the past few years, the U.S. finds itself increasingly challenged both by major competitors such as China and Russia and by the destabilizing effects of terrorist and insurgent elements operating in regions that are of substantial interest to the U.S. Russia’s large-scale, conventional invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 is proof that war in regions of interest to the U.S. remains a feature of modern times—something that is not lost on China as it expands its military power and threatens Japan and other U.S. allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific region more aggressively. Poland, Germany, Lithuania, Japan, and several other countries have taken note of this and are committed to substantially improving the capacity, capability, and readiness of their military forces. The United States, however, has not made a similar commitment. The SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes the COVID-19 disease affected the ability of U.S. forces to train, exercise, and deploy for much of 2020 and 2021. It also caused disruptions in supply and maintenance activities similar to those experienced in the civilian community. In 2022, its impact was less troublesome as measures to reduce risk and mitigate challenges took effect. Some of the readiness that was lost has been regained, but other factors, like inadequate funding for parts and flight hours, have slowed the pace of progress. Peaceful? You might want look at the number of invasions from 2000 to present not to mention the list from 1945-1999. I assume you have some documentation for your claim. List of invasions Perhaps a better example for you would be the break up of Yugoslavia? Bosnia and Herzegovina (1991) / Montenegro (2006).
Fixed it for you. Once the US Russia ravages a peaceful people it tries to install a puppet government.
As of now, nobody else has invaded another country in order to take it over and we aren't dedicating US military might to this conflict. Instead, we are increasing the cost of attempting to annex a country to a level that discourages the future behavior. You would prefer that we not discourage countries to do this, despite the fact that this policy has been historically successful in lowering violence rates, because previously the world didn't work that way, when it was more violent. You just don't like when it is pointed out, and would prefer that you could just hand over Ukraine to Russia without implications for the future. Of course there is conflict. Just much less of it because one of the primary reasons for conflict in past centuries, the intent to expand your country by absorbing other countries, is not something accepted currently. The concept of the post World War II decline in violence is generally known as "The Long Peace" and has been continually documented by many sources. You can go the Pop-lit route of things like Pinker or Friedman, who have each documented this phenomenon or the more academic route, like this: The long peace, the end of the cold war, and the failure of realism | International Organization | Cambridge Core That is not an annexation. In fact just the opposite, it is creating multiple countries out of one. That is not inconsistent with the current system.
