In the Russia scenario you lay out, you are describing preventative as opposed to preemptive war, and you’re correct that the distinction is between getting the jump on an imminent attack (to level the bubbles, by imminent we are talking no more than hours, days at the most). A preventive war is on the basis of, like, these guys could be a threat someday — a year, five year, ten years from — so let’s take care of them now. Not saying either is a good idea. That’s situational. But there is an important difference. Iraq in 2003 would certainly fall into the category of preventative in terms of the argument and strategic goals. As I stated earlier Japan in 1941 against the U.S. is another great example of preventative war. They were not particularly interested in taking or holding any of our land, but we were an obstacle they felt they had to deal with. Their strategic goal, frankly, was the conquest of China, but they needed resources (most of which we were denying them) to effect this goal. Their cold military assessment of the situation was that if they seized the resource-rich territory of the British and Dutch East Indies, the U.S. would intervene and use its basing in the Philippines, Guam et al to prohibitively interfere with their operations and continue to deny them the resources they needed for their main effort. So using that crisp logic, they decided to prevent a threat before it happened by hitting first. Examples of preemptive strikes are more rare in history (have two good ones from fiction I’ll share) because so many conditions have to line up. First, your enemy has to be preparing a surprise attack on you. This means no overt buildup, no ultimatums, no saber rattling. Like when Germany launched a surprise attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941. Second, you’ve got to find about it, believe it, and have at least a little time to do something about it. Third, you’ve got to be willing to accept the diplomatic and informational consequences of hitting first, then trying to convince your people, your allies, and world at large that you were about to be attacked and literally had no choice but to hit first (and the other guy is, no doubt, going to deny this and state categorically they are now acting purely in defense). So the only historical example I can think of that might meet those conditions is the Israeli Six Day War against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Israel claims it had actionable intelligence that Egypt was preparing to attack (and that the others were going to intervene at some point in support of Egypt). I’ve seen evidence that might be true, but Egypt argues it was just conducting mobilization exercises (which of course is what they would say in any case). But the evidence against is that Israel was awfully well prepared to execute its ground war for a government that just, like, found out it was going to be attacked. An example of a preemptive strike that wasn’t occurred a few years later. Israel received undeniable intelligence that a coordinated attack from Egypt and Syria would hit within a few hours. Long story made short, they considered but ultimately did not hit first and let the enemy have devastating opening blows. Not optimal militarily, but it mitigated much of the backlash that Israel had received five years earlier. A fictional example occurs in Tom Clancy’s Red Storm Rising (1986) where NATO gets clear indications and warnings of a Soviet invasion of West Germany and hits the Russian AWACS in the air and key bridges in East Germany right before the Soviet attack begins, mitigating some of the Russian numerical superiority at the outset. I loved that as a kid. As an adult, my first thought rereading it was, no President would ever authorize a mission that would let the Russians so easily play victim in international opinion. Like Israel in 1973, we would also deliberately absorb the first hit. About the only scenario where I could realistically see us preemptively striking a peer or near-peer adversary is in the nuclear domain. If we legitimately believed we were about to get a nuclear surprise attack, then I would say all bets are off about hitting first. A scenario like this occurs in Joe Weber’s DEFCON ONE (1990), but of course it’s fiction, so circumstances miraculously intervene before we have to do it. Back to Russia. I don’t know of anyone who is seriously advocating for preventative war against Russia to keep them from retaking the Baltics years from now. I’ve seen prudent calls for more defensive measures, but that isn’t preventative war. That’s just common sense. Russia is no longer a potential aggressor. They are a proven aggressor. But, as I’ve said in here many times, as long as NATO is a thing, I would not predict Russia to overtly invade the Baltics. They would salami slice by fomenting ethnic Russian uprisings and having to send in peacekeepers. Whatever it took to make some of NATO say this is not an Article V matter; it’s a Baltic domestic problem. Based on the meanings of the terms, there’s nothing either preemptive nor preventative about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Only the dumbest of human beings would believe that Ukraine was posturing to attack Russia but — thank Marshal Putin! — he just happened to have the Russian military in place to spoil it. Preventative war is an easier sell, but one would have to believe that Russia genuinely perceived a threat from Ukraine (which I don’t) and wasn’t just trying to take land (they were). We might quibble about how much of Ukraine Russia was trying to take, but there’s no question this is a war of conquest, not of prevention.
Look no further than this thread. Preventative war by proxy doesn't change anything in my book. There are a few posters who are spewing the 'stop Putin now before he invades Poland' nonsense. And you have the SOD stated goal on record is to "depose Vladimir Putin." I suppose you can call it whatever you want to call it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an unnecessary gesture that is not going to serve our interests in the long term. I don't see much sense in spending time on technical definitions of war. It is what it is. And I don't want to sound like a jerk, but you spent a lot of time in the last post talking through technical definitions, but I noticed you spent one sentence on Iraq 2003. So, without getting too far off topic, let me ask you: do you believe the "preventative war" we had with Iraq beginning in 2003 served our short-term and long-term interests? If yes, please explain.
The sanctimony is literally dripping from this last post. Russia started the war. Why are you up the US ass for helping make Russia take it on the chin? For really a low low cost and no loss of us lives? How many times in the last 20 years has Russia armed our enemies? somehow you keep wanting to put responsibility on the us over and over. It’s pretty miserable especially when you act like you know something the rest of us are oblivious too which I hate to tell you just ain’t so.
I'm confident he is perfectly capable of answering my reply to him without your help, if he wants to.
No, and it wasn’t just a good idea poorly executed, though it was poorly executed. And I know. I did three tours in Iraq as a young man then one more as an old man most recently. If I could have one magical power, then I would beam back to Flight 93, stop the highjacking, become a big hero, and translate my success into an opportunity to tell the President to his face to please not invade Iraq and focus that effort in Afghanistan while the iron was hot. Is that a direct enough answer? But I see a big distinction between trying to impose and spread liberal democracy and the rule of law by force and protecting smaller countries from being gobbled up by big ones. I also see the clear national interest in deterring China (now there’s a war you really don’t want) by making an example out of Russia. You may not like the current U.S.-led, rules-based world order, and I can understand that. There’s a lot not to like. But you really will not like what Russia, China, and Iran replace it with. Ukraine is a test case, like Spain in 1936. Is conquest going to be normalized again? No idea. But it will be far more likely if Russia is allowed strategic victory just because it hurts Biden domestically.
That is not a thing. You may not like technical definitions, but that’s the topic you’ve entered, and you’ve passed judgment on strategy. Both preventative and preemptive war require initiative. Russia started this war. Ukraine did not. Hopefully, that is not controversial. Call it a “proxy war” if you want. I don’t find that some kind of dirty term to shy away from. Ukraine is willing to fight for their homeland. I don’t have any problem with arming them to do so. And I would say the same thing regarding of who was in the White House, because the right thing is the right thing.
I appreciate your straightforward answer. It is refreshing. I think the main thing that separates us in thought on this topic is I simply don't see a scenario where Russia backs out of this and retreats. There would have to be a dramatic escalation by the West. You've already seen Biden's hand. He's not going to take any big risk before the election. And you know Trump is going to end it and is currently leading beyond the margin of error in many key swing states. Each day that goes by without a deal is going to be an even more worse deal for Ukraine in the end. Now would be the time to sign the treaty. The closer we get to the election, the more leverage Russia has and they know it. Whether you like that or not, it's certainly not pointing to Russia giving up. Even if Biden wins re-election, there is not enough political will on Capitol Hill for dramatic escalation, so you run the risk of ceding even more territory to the Russians by prolonging the fighting. I'd still be against it even if Ukraine was making more headway, but what we're doing right now is doubling down on really bad foreign policy, from a lot of different angles. And if you look at pretty much anything in foreign policy that has Biden's fingerprints on it, going back decades, it's really gruesome. He sucks.
I’ve over the years been sympathetic to not being the world’s policeman. But I’ve come to realize if we aren’t, somebody else will be and we won’t like the result.
Speaking of the guy who's in an epic free fall in the polls, speaking of Chinese deterrence and all, can you admit Biden actually emboldened Russia in several ways by reinstating the sweetheart deal for Iran and backing off of Trump's sanctions on Nordstream 2? Where was the Russian deterrence then? And in so many ways, the current POTUS is to blame for what's happening in Ukraine today. It was his operatives on the ground in Kyiv in 2013. Merkel warned us in 2008 that Putin would see meddling by the West in Ukraine as a declaration of war. Turns out she was right. What did we do? We continued meddling in Ukraine. Thanks, Joe. Trump becoming president is likely the only reason Ukraine has a 1% of winning this war instead of a 0% chance. By keeping Putin in check with Nordstream 2, sending Ukraine military aid and cracking down on Putin's buddies in Iran, Syria and China, Trump sent a message that the aggression wouldn't be taken lightly. Deterrence. Do you really think China is deterred by what we're doing in Ukraine right now? They know, just like the rest of the world, we're playing save face over there. It's a train wreck. Biden isn't doing anything right at all over there. He's not even a viably intelligent human anymore. Somebody else (likely Nuland and/or Sullivan) is calling the shots.
Taiwan needs to be smacked down by the Biden administration. Taiwanese companies have been supplying Russia with machine tools for the war effort in Ukraine. You would think that with Taiwan under imminent threat from invasion by China, they would be more on board with the need to oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Presumably, this is just a case of ineffective governance by the Taiwanese, and not actively supported within the Taiwanese government. Embarrassing, no doubt, but correctable. Hopefully, some arrests of Taiwanese businessmen will be made quickly. (The U.S. also has found American businessmen that have been smuggling electronics into Russia.) Taiwan emerges as key supplier of machine tools to Russia, investigation shows
Such ignorance! How can Biden do anything in Ukraine if your Republican-led Congress will not authorize any money to be spent on Ukraine? The train wreck is in Congress, and it is because of people LIKE YOU, who put political party over country. "Ha, ha! I owned the libs! Sure, I destroyed American and European security for the next generation and caused inflation to spiral out of control the next decade, but my team's winning, and that's what counts!" Biden is actually one of the smartest people in government, when you stand him next to immature halfwits Greene, Boebert, Gaetz, and Vance, not to mention Dimwit Donald Trump (the con-man). And not to continue thumping you when you are down, but why in the hell would Russia be emboldened by Biden giving a sweetheart deal to Iran? Those are two separate countries. The deal was a mistake, and might have emboldened Iran, but it did nothing for Russia that I can see.
for the record we seem to agree on most but not everything, regardless I appreciate your experience and thoughtful posts
Maybe Pelosi can visit them again soon and commit to doing better with her handjob technique this time around.
Russia has gone a lot further than arming our enemies in the years since WWII. During the Korean War, Russia put a North Korean flag on some of their latest and greatest jet fighters and sent Russian pilots out in them to kill American pilots. I really think that people who understand nearly nothing about foreign affairs, wars, and economics should refrain from voting for the good of the country. The real problem would be getting the arrogant no-nothings to admit they don't know anything. They are remarkably resistant to facts and history lessons and always seem to connect the wrong dots in any logical argument. "The Russians were obviously emboldened by what Biden did for Iran! Derp!"
Ukraine getting crushed in the military war, still winning the PR war … A Ukrainian Model’s Crowning As “Miss Japan” Shows The Spread Of Liberal-Globalism In Asia
Yeah, perfect reason to not support Ukraine… In the US just since December we’ve had more than $100M in fraud uncovered or convictions related to our military operations. Army employee charged with stealing $100 million from fund for military children Three Military Contractors Sentenced in Procurement Fraud Scheme
