Now the Long Knives are poised right in the back of Ukraine:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26400035

Fucking brilliant approach, this. First the attempt to play divide and conquer in Ukraine pretty transparently crashed and burned with the retun of Ukraine's Benazir Bhutto to political influence. Then, the Russians decide evidently that they really did move in Russian Army soldiers into the Crimea. Because the proper instinct when a risky gamble fails is to raise the stakes. This is not going to end well by any means. Now I'm wondering how long Lucashenko will have a country to rule as dictator, and what might happen with Round II with Georgia. If Tsar Vladimir I of the House of Putin succeeds in this kind of thing, that will only encourage him to expand his wars of aggression further because Ukraine is rather larger than Georgia, and this would permit Russia to begin aspiring to regain aspects of the old Tsarist boundaries. I sincerely expected Russia would use Central Asia for this kind of thing, not Ukraine.

The EU wouldn't give a damn about invading Muslims in Kazakhstan, but invading an EU state? That's not going to lead Russia to do anything but decide to engage in still-larger wars of aggression in the long term.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/europe/ukraine-politics/

And one of the chambers of the Russian legislature just approved this request. Hoo, boy.

Shit got real-er:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26403996

The Ukrainian Army is now on full combat alert. The prospect that the centennial year of the First World War will see the first large-scale conventional European war in decades has risen exponentially.

Comments

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Sooo, trimming the military budget = "the military being shot to hell"? Is that the best hysterically hyperbolic nonsense you could come up with?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Err no.

Our military "is shot to hell" because in addition to our regular training, peacekeeping, and humanitarian missions, we've been fighting two protracted overseas campaigns. Our personnel are stretched thin and even their newest gear is well past the "first 5 years or 50,000 miles" point of being covered by warranty.

ETA:
The intelligent thing to do from a readiness standpoint, would be to start setting aside money for repair, replacement, and rehabilitation, but clearly that's not going happen.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Er, you might like to see the state of other militaries. This "first 5 years" kinda thing sounds too First-World-Problem-ey to me, and looks exactly like the kind of argument that the military industrial complex would rely on, to promote their brand new (and totally unnecessary) gadgets. Hell, the government has kept commissioning the tank producers to keep supplying the military with new tanks, while the Pentagon itself has begged them to stop spamming them with new technology. It's just not necessary to change it every few months, the military could easily sustain a decent enough level of technology and organization without a new tank or jet being introduced every few months, and yet... someone's gotta make a few extra billions, no? JOB CREATORS FTW!

The even more intelligent thing to do is to be smart about international politics and set up a system of checks and balances in various regions, where various interests balance each other out to the best of the US interests. But of course that would actually require some mental effort on the US part, as opposed to flexing sheer muscle through demonstrating military presence - so I ain't seeing it happening any time soon.

On a side note, one'd've expected a libertarian to actually advocate for cutting the military budget, along any other branch of the budget - instead of selectively rooting for one branch of government at the expense of others.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Really what it comes down to is "do we believe in intervention as a moral principal?"

It would seem that the answer favored by the President and most Americans is "yes". As such we have an obligation to be able to do a proper job of it.

As I said above the "tolerability" of a situation is utterly irrelevant without the ability to effect it (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1831445.html?thread=145064469#t145064469).

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Do you believe in intervention as a moral principle?

And what does "believe" mean in this case?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Basically should the US, or any other country for that matter, do things like send mobile airbases/desalinization plants to disaster zones or take shots at killing foreign enemies (or would-be enemies) that do not pose a clear immediate threat. Or would the world be better served if we all just minded our own business.

Personally I lean towards intervention but am still kind of ambivalent, on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being total isolationist, 10 being "we should have invaded Nazi Germany in 1939" i'd probably rank as a 6.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

So it's basically "as it suits us", as opposed to "we have principles".

And on the Crimean case, where do you rank?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Not sure where you're getting that idea.

As far as the Crimean case my answer would be undefined because there's nothing to be done. That said I would rank as a 10 in regards to preparing for future incursions. Mikexyw's proposals would make a good start (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1831445.html?thread=145129749#t145129749), likewise we should be talking to the other former soviet territories like Latvia and Poland, maybe even the Fins and see if there is anything we can do to back them.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I'm getting the idea from your self-admitted ambiguity.

Finland? What's got Finland to do with any of this? Or did you put it in there just because it looks kinda adjacent to Russia?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

So one must think and act without reservations in order to be principled? That strikes me as a very conservative/absolutist path to be taking.

What's got Finland to do with any of this?

Assuming that we want to curb Russia's expansionist tendencies, we should be coordinating with them and consider backing each-other's plays. (http://yle.fi/uutiset/fiia_finlands_security_policy_status_has_changed/7115943)

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Forgive me Finland, but this is sheer scaremongering. Finland's status in no way corresponds to that of any of the former Soviet republics and/or satellites. That's just nonsense. Finland is a NATO member, EU member, has nothing to do with the former Eastern bloc, etc etc. It's just hyping up of paranoia, possibly for domestic consumption.

And yes, principles do matter, at least as far as being the beacon of freedom and democracy in the world is concerned. Otherwise you're nothing more but another regular geopolitical player (royal You). If the US really wants to be a leader in the world, they better be ready to offer an example that's worth emulating, or else they're no better than Putin's Russia flexing its muscle and waving its dick in the face of the minor nations.

Call it a conservative view on things if you like - and one that you, being such a true conservative, might've liked embracing.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

You see, Diplomacy is like a game of Risk.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Risk is a gross over-simplification but otherwise yes.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

That's a very Bushonian approach to diplomacy, indeed.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Bushonian, Machiavellian, Miyamotoan, take your pick.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I don't really see myself as much of a true anything, except maybe an ass. ;)

That said, I actually agree with you. My primary beef isn't with politics per se, it is with the lack of consistency,

If we are going to play the role of leader, beacon of freedom and democracy, we need to be holding ourselves to a much higher standard than we currently are and take a more active role. Diplomacy is not beanbag, things like military strength, trustworthiness as an ally, and perceived seriousness matter. Sadly there seem to be a lot of talking heads who think otherwise.

Likewise if we are going to adopt the notion that American Exceptionalism is passe, just "another regular geopolitical player" is exactly what we are and there's no shame in acting like it.

The contradiction comes from trying to have it both ways.

As 404 and Geezer were saying above, don't go rattling your sabre if you aint gonna draw and don't draw unless you are serious about stabbing someone.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Only an idiot rattles a saber in the expectation that it has to actually be used. Using brinksmanship as the prelude to war is the sign of an incompetent policy incompetently adopted. Real power is in the ability to create the impression of force, actually using it leads to the pattern whereby a bunch of Pakistanis wanting to die as holy martyrs forestalls the might of a superpower by simple willingness to die while the 'draw the saber' types keep obliging them.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

If your beef is with the lack of consistency, then why would you adopt such an ad hoc approach to diplomacy, as expressed in your prior comments?

if we are going to adopt the notion that American Exceptionalism is passe

But is it?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Conventional wisdom says yes. American Exceptionalism is passe and good riddance.

If your beef is with the lack of consistency, then why would you adopt such an ad hoc approach to diplomacy, as expressed in your prior comments?

Because I'm just some jaded asshole on the internet, I don't set policy, and that's probably a good thing. That said if there is to be a set policy then it should be consistent, otherwise why bother?

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

First you say,

"the whole argument is/will be academic soon because the "tolerability" of a situation is utterly irrelevant without the ability to effect it. We can bitch and moan about political or humanitarian crises till the cows come home, it wont matter because we will have given up the ability to act"

Which translates as, "why have a principled position if it wouldn't matter anyway", which is a typical ad hoc approach to principle.

...But now you're arguing in favor of a policy based on consistent principle-based position.

So which is it?

It shouldn't matter if you're setting the policy - you either support having a principled position, or you support having an ad hoc approach. You can't have it both ways.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Apologies for the delayed reply, events in meat-space have been keeping me busy.

It's not so much being "ad hoc" as it is recognizing the validity of the reasoning behind both positions.

The problem comes from people trying to eat their cake and have it to. IE. when a so called "Nihilist" complains about fairness or lack there of, or advocates of pure democracy complain about the majority oppressing a minority. Someone who would drop their principals the moment they become inconvenient was clearly never principled to begin with.

Much as how "a right un-exercised is already lost" a principal that goes undefended isn't really held.

So now we have the situation in Ukraine where the US and EU are saying they support Ukrainian sovereignty. But this is clearly a lie because thus far no one is willing to stand up to Putin and defend it.

I don't want to have it both ways, my position is more "either drop the pretenses, or put your money where your mouth is". .

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Poland hasn't been 'Soviet' territory since 1941. Perhaps you meant 'Belarus.'

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

With what army? The US Army of 1939 was a joke because Americans thought soldiers were un-American menaces to a real Republic and annihilated the soul of any state that had a peacetime standing army. Don't forget that isolationism was real, white, and conservative prior to 1941 and often wore Jew-hating guises.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

What argument do you think you are having right now?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I'm pointing out that 'we' in 1939 means 'not the United States.' Essentially, your argument, since you invoked alternate universes, requires Americans to have an army large enough *to* invade Nazi Germany in 1939. Such a United States would have turned into a military dictatorship in the 1930s, or at least that's what actual Americans of the time believed. If you're going to invoke trite analogies, at least use semi-relevant ones like Saddam Hussein and Kuwait (never mind that the 1980s was a long lesson in how superpower backing and infinite logistics were useless in Iraqi hands).