America vs. Russia

Why the hell is America currently so intent on blundering into a potentially-disastrous war with Russia over the Ukrainian civil war? However rotten a dictatorship Russia is, the Ukrainian dictatorship is worse. And the totalitarians of Ukraine particularly abuse the Russian-speakers in the southeast. Thus they now evidently prefer independence, or even political association with Russia -- which is their right. So why the hell are America and the West so determined to politically assist, financially reward, and even militarily arm the authoritarian monsters of Ukraine, such as "President" Petro Poroshenko?

(Edited by Kyrel Zantonavitch on 3/17, 9:42pm)

(Edited by Kyrel Zantonavitch on 3/17, 9:42pm)

The Military Industrial Complex needs war to justify its existence and consume previously manufactured ordinance. Ukraine had gold but now its gone.  The Feds like their appointed governments in oil rich countries. Hate misdirection of sheeple citizens towards foreigners rather than leaders.  Take your pick.

The war in the Ukraine isn't a "civil war" just as the invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam wasn't  a civil war - both cases are at their root an agression by one government against another.  But the facts regarding Vietnam: the fact that it was naked aggression by the North, or the fact that the North was a communist nation, or the fact that the South was ruled by a corrupt government were not sufficient reasons for our government to enter that war.  We weren't being attacked, we weren't likely to be attacked, and it just wasn't in our national interest.  Yet, we knew then that the Soviet Union was behind North Vietnam, and that over time we would see more of this kind of aggression, and other forms of aggression carried out under the USSR's political philosophy.  It wasn't in our national interest to go to war in Vietnam.  But it was in our national interest to find some other way of dealing with the long-term threat posed by the Soviet Union.

I agree that much US and Western thinking is knee-jerk in its reactions regarding the choice of "ally" versus "anti-Russian" aspects of the situation in the Ukraine.

I know very little about Ukrainian politics.  But from what little reporting I've seen, the Ukrainian people don't want to be annexed, and the major concern being voiced by the wider international community is that Putin is a former KGB thug who is using military force and deception to do what Hitler did just before WWII.  Hitler used a pretext of protecting ethnic Germans in order to roll his tanks across borders.  Now Putin is using the same playbook and claims ethnic Russians are in danger in the Ukraine.  He recently admitted that the 'Green Men' terrorizing Eastern Ukraine are really Russian soldiers that snuck across the border.

Putin is crossing borders with military force - as if he is attempting to recreate the Soviet Union geographically while at the same time, at home, he is diminishing the rights of the people under his control, just as if he was moving towards recreating the Soviet Union with a brutal and violent centralized control over speech and press.

I think it would be unwise to ignore this.  But I am not arguing for military involvement given that our nation is not at threat.... not yet.  But there is some point in a progression that so closely resembles what happened in WWII that it would make sense to act. There is a point somewhere between Neville Chamberlin's approach which wasn't enough, and what eventually had to be done under Churchill which we don't want to face again.

If actions were to occur early enough, say sanctions of the right kind, it would force the Russian Oligarchy to remove Putin on their own, and observe a simple international principle - don't send your military over the border to gain territory.

But if too much time passes, Putin will have gained sufficient power over his country that it will no longer be possible to do that.  Under what circumstances, and at what point is it justified to use sanctions?  Applications of sanction are a violation of individual rights of those who are told they can no longer do business with those in the country being sanctioned - unless a country is under attack, and therefore defending itself in which case those working with the enemy nation are aidding and abetting the enemy.  For example, Iran is an active supporter of terrorist and we are at war with them and sanctions are morally justified.

The Ukraine is under attack, but we aren't.  It is a tough problem.  Stand back and do nothing and eventually (maybe only a few years from now) and we will be in a new cold war that could go on for decades.  A new Soviet Union loose in the world and practicing its own form of territorial aggression and state-sponsored terrorism.  

We are part of Nato.  Will we honor that treaty if the next move by Putin is to "protect" ethnic Russians in a Baltic state that is in Nato?  Or should we get out of Nato?  Or, do we stay in Nato but allow Russia to annex another nation?  

Until such day as enough people around the world are sufficiently enlightened as to not tolerate governments that use force to gain new territory... until that day, there will be rogue governments that will eventually pose a threat to our nation.  So, we have to create the diplomatic and military policies that are most effective in reducing the chances that we will end up going to war, and ensuring we don't go to war unless we are unable to avoid it, and that when we do go to war, it is with great effectiveness.

It is better to do our best to apply sound political reasoning ahead of time so that we have goals in mind and can take whatever actions best support keeping us from a future where we are required to make the harder choices.

Right now, bad actors are rewarded and they see no future downside to the use of aggression to get what they want.   Putin's goals are clear.  But what do we do?

It is a mentality typical of children in an elementary school geography class who learn about "Germany" and "France" to think that on one side of this line, everyone is one way; and on the other side of the line, those people are a different way.  French people speak French.  They want to be in France, sing the Marseillaise, wear berets, eat long loaves of white bread, and drink red wine. Germans drink white wine, but mostly beer, eat black bread, drive BMWs as fast as they can, and of course, speak German.  The truth is more complicated.  x The reality is that people named Brueckner changed their name to Dupont and back again.  So, too in the Ukraine.

The gradients of Slavic languages and peoples only gained meaning in the context of 19th century nationalism.  Until the dissolution of the artifice called "Yugoslavia" Serbo-Croatian was considered one language with two sets of mutually intelligible speakers.  In 1920, the civil engineer Stephen P. Timoshenko  escaped the communists and found a lecture post at the university in Zagreb.  After six weeks, he asked his students if his Serbian was acceptable. One replied, "We thought that we had finally learned Ukrainian."  

Yes, Vladimir Putin is fully conscious of what he wants his role in history to be.  Yes, the Russian army is supporting "Russian separatists."  And those Russians in the Ukraine do exist.  So do Ukrainians on the other side of the line, only we do not hear of them.  You can find Koreans in Manchuria... and Mexicans in Texas....  So what?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 3/21, 7:22pm)

Maybe America should openly state it's willing to support either side in the Ukrainian civil war if they will come out solidly in favor of individual liberty -- and not if they come out solidly in favor of America. Eventually people will likely learn a great lesson: If they're huddled in their crumbling homes, shivering in fear, and suffering greatly from a foreign aggressor, then maybe they just need to bite the bullet, and do what they deeply despise: promise to uphold liberty and justice for all. Then America may intervene on their behalf, possibly sending food and medicine, or weapons, or even actual troops. However much the suffering nation's philosophy and culture emphatically rejects libertarianism, living in freedom may still be better than being conquered or killed.

David,

Even if all that you wrote is true, it doesn't answer these questions: Is Russia, under Putin, moving to exand both its geographical territory and its influence (military and otherwise) around the world.  Isn't it true that what we get from Putin regarding the Ukraine often consists of lies or at best half-truths?  Isn't it true that he has been aggressive in military overflies of NATO territory in a provocative fashion.  Isn't it true that Russia is selling military hardware to states like Nicaragua and others in our hemisphere - mostly those that are hostile towards us?  In other words, isn't it true that Putin is not our friend and is being aggressive in the face of Obama's obvious weakness?  And at what point does his aggressive behavior (which resembles the old Soviet Union which he was fond of) warrant some action that would serve our long-term national interests?

• There are some nations that are our outright enemies and are harming us and killing our people: E.g., Iran
• There are some nations that are not outright enemies, but are not neutral either.  They have only harmed our interests indirectly: China, Russia, etc.
• There are nations that are not our friends, hate us for ideological reasons, but aren't likely to do us serious harm: Venezula, Nicaragua, etc.
• There are nations that pretend to be allies, but act against our interests in some way and sometimes help us: Saudi Arabia, etc.
• There are allies: Britain, Israel, etc.

Foriegn policy should address how we address these simple facts and do so within an Objectivist framework.

Steve,

Also, it equates all deaths resulting from American military use are not examples of attacking totalitarian states or terrorists and without any aim of bringing about greater liberty. That's an ugly relativism.

Go Team America World Police!  Which brings me to the question of:  Are the rumors true that US soldiers are commanded on a regular basis to kick down middle eastern family doors and kill everyone inside (including women/children)?

Thanks for responding, Steve.  As I  said, I have been following this closely for some time and following Putin and Russia for even longer.

"Is Russia, under Putin, moving to exand both its geographical territory and its influence (military and otherwise) around the world."[?]

It appears to be the other way around - at least until the conflict started.  As Henry Kissinger has said, why would Putin spend years trying to show he's a responsible world leader, including spending two weeks hosting the Olympics, and then blow the whole thing by invading Crimea?  Russia has few natural borders to invasion and Crimea in the hands of NATO would have laid Russia vulnerable to subjugation by the West, implicit or explicit.

"Isn't it true that what we get from Putin regarding the Ukraine often consists of lies or at best half-truths?"

What we hear from Western mainstream media and its NATO and State Department and, especially, the Ukraine government sources seems, more to me, to be repeated lies and half-truths.  For example, during Ukraine's two major offensives against the separatists there were claims they made about being on the verge of defeating the separatists.  Then, all of sudden, in both cases, a reversal would take place followed by claims that Russia had invaded with such things as "a column of tanks".  The separatists' army, which was part of Ukraine's, does have a few Russian tanks (Russia and Ukraine had joint military exercises as recently as 2013).  But there is no way a column of 50-ton tanks could have rolled into Ukraine without being photographed, especially given the proliferation of video cameras today.  No such 'column' was ever displayed - just a shot here and there of an occasional old Russian tank that, supposedly, could not have belonged to Ukraine or the separatists.

Then, there is the matter of MH17.  The cockpit voice recorder was retrieved by the separatists and turned over to Malaysian authorities who promptly turned it over to British investigators.  The Ukraine-ATC to pilot voice communications were seized by Ukraine security.  To date there has been no release of these recordings nor any other detailed analysis by Western authorities - and they must surely know more. I did read a report by Russian engineers complete with details including photos of the wreckage and it appears that the plane was not downed by a BUK missile, as Western media has reported, but by a (most-likely rogue) Ukrianian fighter jet.  There was concentrated small-round fire in the cockpit area - the BUK missile is designed to explode near the target and spread shrapnel around in all directions.  Also, the BUK missile, according the report, is extremely audible and leaves a smoke trail that can last a half hour.  As this occurred in a heavily populated area, the lack of photographic evidence of this suggests, to me at least, that it was not a BUK missile.  A Russian satellite - no where near as sophisticated as what we have - detected a Ukrainian jet flying near the plane.  No one believes something from Russian engineers, of course, but why haven't we seen a Western analysis yet?

"Isn't it true that he has been aggressive in military overflies of NATO territory in a provocative fashion.  Isn't it true that Russia is selling military hardware to states like Nicaragua and others in our hemisphere - mostly those that are hostile towards us?"

These 'aggressive' acts started after the crisis (I think it's Venezuela - not Nicaragua).  Before then, Putin and Russia were considered good members of the international community.  Since then, the West has been 'sticking pins' in Putin in the form of sanctions, military aid to Ukraine (I have seen videos of armed men with American accents in eastern Ukraine who are likely employees of 'private' security organizations like Blackwater or Britam) and accusations that Russia is the aggressor.  There are, no doubt, many reasons for this but, I suspect, the mains ones are (1) lots of old NATO bureacrats who should have retired and (2) more defense dollars to make up for what has been sequestered.  But, whatever the reason, Russia's only defense against NATO is the unthinkable.  Many say 'we' must stand up to Russia but many in Russia say that Russia must stand up to US.

"And at what point does his aggressive behavior (which resembles the old Soviet Union which he was fond of) warrant some action that would serve our long-term national interests?"

Ukraine is not a NATO member and shouldn't be.  I can understand the Baltic states fearing Russia, given history, but they are members of NATO.  I doubt that Putin would invade them unless Russia feels a lot more threatened without an invasion.  I don't agree that Russia, half has populated as the old Soviet Union, resembles it.  As for Putin being 'fond' of it, communism doesn't work and he knows it.  If Putin doesn't know it, and tries to bring it back, it will only weaken Russia - which has a flat (rate) tax, btw.  Putin is also a politician who needs votes, including those of old folks nostalgic about the USSR.  Ronald Reagan used to say nice things about Franklin Roosevelt for the same reason.  And, as evil as the USSR was, part of that evil was due to security measures imposed due to fear of another WWII.  Security measures here since 9/11 are getting scary to me.

"Foriegn policy should address how we address these simple facts and do so within an Objectivist framework."

There are very few Objectivists in 'our' government although a few claim to be.  We are not threatened as a nation.  The time to attack Iran was 35 years ago.  Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs and his government was no where near as bad as the Saudi Arabian government - which 'we' are committed to defending and whose religious police, in 2002, beat schoolgirls fleeing from a burning building because they didn't have their headscarves on. 

Ayn RAnd was certainly not one for putting one's self in the shoes of another but, if your enemy is really an enemy (or not), I think it's a good idea to do that.  Both Secretary of State James Baker and long-time West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher promised Gorbachev that the West would not move east.  Starting in 1999 under Clinton, the West has been doing exactly that.

"And the issue is about whether or not they are willing, and able to take over one neighboring nation after another. "

As I implied, NATO and the USG started this conflict.  Were it not for overthrowing Ukraine's government in a most deceitful way (while Putin was hosting the Olympics), Ukraine would still be as much a part of Ukraine as it ever was and in much better economic shape.

"Aren't you only looking at one side here?"

It's hard not to see the Western side of things, especially as our news reporters are beholden to USG sources for their stories.  I try to look at things objectively by reading the other side.  Some of what I read is from old-time 'liberals' like Seymour Hersh and Robert Parry, some is from libertarians like former Reagan administration officials David Stockman and Paul Craig Roberts.  I even read Pat Buchanan when in comes to stuff about Russia.  I am a non-interventionist, pro-individual liberty and pro-private property rights, at least, for Americans.  Many NATO countries, including France and Denmark, are to the left of Russia under Putin.

"And in 1922 the Soviet Union formaly "Unified" the caucaian republics, the ukraine, and Byelorrussia.  In the thirties, the Soviet Union occupied Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bessarabia, northern Bukovina, Finland and eastern Poland.   In WWII they formed the Iron Curtain and took over all the nations behind it, making puppet states like Eastern Germany."

Russia is not the Soviet Union and these things occurred before Putin was even born.  During its worst years, the Soviet Union was controlled by non-Russians like Stalin and his henchmen, Lavrentiy Beria and Merkulov.  And of course there was Vyshynski, the ethnic Pole, born in Ukraine who grew up in Azerbajahn.  He instigated the 'show trials' of the '30s.

"They seek to admit countries that they think would be good additions in protecting against future territorial aggression like that shown by Hitler and Stalin, and if NATO nations agree on a new addition, they seek to get them to join by voting - voluntary. That's not the same as rolling tanks over a border to grab someone elses territory."

There are al kinds of economic benefits that come with NATO membership, courtesy of American taxpayers (and our central bank).  It is not unlike American policians buying votes with taxpayers' money.  I'd prefer that the European members of NATO pay for their own defense which should be easy given their economic clout compared to Russia's.  Russia looks gigantic on a map but it's just a big land mass and land masses don't fight. 

By the way, Steve, when I think of 'America', I do not think of its government.  I think of its relative lack of government. It is possible for leaders to be elected in this country that have world conquest in mind.  I'd prefer to just be part of a big republic that can take care of itself.

I worked for a defense contractor for 10 years before I retired. I saw plenty of waste, including myself.  There was a constant worry about winning the next contract.  I left four days before a huge layoff that would have probably included me.  Many of the people there were more worried about jobs than being attacked by Russia.  I suspect that is true for people throughout DoD - as it is for every other branch of our government.