• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine

What I find surprising about the American aspect of this issue is how bumbling we've been. Where are the realists in the State Dept? Why wasn't this scenario gamed out long before?

Instead we've been championing World World Gay against the Russians, patting ourselves on the back for sending Billie Jean King to Sochi. Oh, that will show the Russians.

From the outside it sure looks like a smug group think has metastasized in our foreign policy establishment. The days of annexation are far past, no one would do this. Why not? What are the downsides? What effective stick can be wielded to deter such annexation? If there is no effective deterrent, then why would countries refrain? Because the new standards of international affairs frown on this and because it hasn't happened in a long while. Well, why hasn't it happened in a long while? If those deterrent conditions change, then why expect a behavior to remain checked?

Everyone in the world doesn't think like a Westerner nor like a liberal Westerner.
 
donsutherland1 said:
Finally, to maintain military credibility in a world in which the balance of power is dynamic, the President and/or Congress need to abandon planned drastic cuts in military expenditures and manpower, even if that means reducing other expenditures, larger budget deficits than would otherwise be the case, or some combination of reallocated spending/larger budget deficits. Otherwise, the U.S. will be perceived as a great power, but one with declining capabilities. That outcome would rightly worry American allies. It could invite challenges to peripheral American interests by hostile actors.
Click to expand...

The problem with what you are putting forward here is that the US is going to find it impossible to continue to spend one trillion dollars on defense. It has been able to do so only because of the dollar. However, after the financial crisis of 2008, the dollar's power is on the wane as countries move away from using it as a reserve currency. What the US needs to do is focus more on developing relationships with countries, especially some that it has previously viewed as hostile, that could serve to hinder Russia's influence in the world. Iran would be a great place to start. If the US and Europe had good relations with Iran, Russia would be completely thrown off balance, especially in the Middle East.
 
Montecresto said:
Or maybe, the US and NATO pulled a stunt that backfired.
Click to expand...
Got a link for that Montecresto?
Actions of KGB Komrade Putin have consequences and have kicked off Cold war 2.0 .
 
Moot said:
Putin said Russia has no intention in taking eastern Ukraine.....
Click to expand...
What about Putin's actions so far in power, such as his massacres in Georgia, would lead you to believe that?
unless the ethnic russians are attacked.
Click to expand...
How do you and Putin, the same or differently, define an ethnic Russian?
For it's part, Ukraine parliment voted to over turn a law banning the russian language and moderate leaders are trying to soften the far right nationalists image and warning Right Sector to behave themselves so as not to give Putin an excuse for invading.
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with the Crimean invasion?
If push comes to shove, they want to make it look like Russia is the aggressor.
Click to expand...
So in your mind, sinking ships in a harbor to blockade the Ukrainian Navy is not the act of an aggressor, just for beginners .
 
donsutherland1 said:
From CNN:



Kremlin: Crimea and Sevastopol are now part of Russia, not Ukraine - CNN.com

This development is not surprising for a number of reasons:

1. Russia has long viewed Crimea as constituting a crital national interest (naval base, majority ethnic Russian population, history).
2. The balance of power favored Russia in moving to regain control of Crimea. Ukraine lacked the military power to impose high costs.
3. Neither the U.S. nor Europe have sufficient interests at stake to consider military options.
4. A military approach would be impractical under any reasonable circumstances.
5. The costs of non-military measures are not likely to be so high relative to the gains Russia perceives it will make so as to reverse Russian policy. Russia also has capabilities of retaliating ranging from restricting access to its resources to withdrawing cooperation on major geopolitical matters e.g., Iran's nuclear program. It expects that its ability to complicate U.S. geopolitical goals will constrain the degree of U.S. economic and other non-military sanctions.
6. Past precedent concerning Kosovo's being separated from Serbia with NATO military force playing a role during what amounted to a civil war.

In his national address, Russian President Putin has cited a number of those factors. He did disavow intentions to become more broadly involved in Ukraine, but he has shown a willingness to act decisively where he perceives major Russian interests are at stake.

This development also speaks anew of the need for the U.S. to develop a clear and coherent foreign policy doctrine and relearn how to engage in contingency planning (military and broader foreign policy). It needs to tighten its integration with existing NATO members so as to make clear that NATO members will be safeguarded under any circumstances, even if the use of force is required. In Asia, the U.S. needs to strengthen ties with its leading allies. Japan and South Korea need to know that American commitments to their security are reliable.

Finally, to maintain military credibility in a world in which the balance of power is dynamic, the President and/or Congress need to abandon planned drastic cuts in military expenditures and manpower, even if that means reducing other expenditures, larger budget deficits than would otherwise be the case, or some combination of reallocated spending/larger budget deficits. Otherwise, the U.S. will be perceived as a great power, but one with declining capabilities. That outcome would rightly worry American allies. It could invite challenges to peripheral American interests by hostile actors.
Click to expand...

These are conflicts where strict military power is of little importance, Russia is grossly outmatched by NATO but that clearly hasn't stopped them in the past in going after non-NATO nations. What we need instead of military power is economic and deployment power, we need to provide Ukraine with monetary aid and expertise so their economy doesn't collapse and they can run a working government. Russia can and will use every criminal means to expand its power in Ukraine, undermining the local and national government to prevent the government from standing on its own and moving out of its sphere.

Seriously Russia aint going to back down from this ****, and now its time to fight for Ukraine and give them all the support they need.
 
Yes, and France formed an government submissive to Germany in the Vichy government during Germany's military occupation of France too. Same thing with Crimea.

And the same as with the Vichy government, the actual federal government of Ukraine has declared those of the Vichy-pro-Russian Crimean government to be traitors who will ultimately be brought to justice.
 
Wiseone said:
These are conflicts where strict military power is of little importance, Russia is grossly outmatched by NATO but that clearly hasn't stopped them in the past in going after non-NATO nations. What we need instead of military power is economic and deployment power, we need to provide Ukraine with monetary aid and expertise so their economy doesn't collapse and they can run a working government. Russia can and will use every criminal means to expand its power in Ukraine, undermining the local and national government to prevent the government from standing on its own and moving out of its sphere.

Seriously Russia aint going to back down from this ****, and now its time to fight for Ukraine and give them all the support they need.
Click to expand...

We need to put a nuclear arsenal with delivery systems in the Ukraine and American forces on the ground in Ukraine, put American troops in Ukraine controlled Crimean military bases, and offer an military alliance and forces with former Eastern and South USSR block nations to call Putin's bluff. If he is willing to go to war with the USA, that then would be his decision.

Since this was a done-deal with the USA prior to it happening in my opinion, I don't expect anything but words until Americans get bored with their fruit-fly attention span.
 
joko104 said:
We need to put a nuclear arsenal with delivery systems in the Ukraine and American forces on the ground in Ukraine, put American troops in Ukraine controlled Crimean military bases, and offer an military alliance and forces with former Eastern and South USSR block nations to call Putin's bluff. If he is willing to go to war with the USA, that then would be his decision.

Since this was a done-deal with the USA prior to it happening in my opinion, I don't expect anything but words until Americans get bored with their fruit-fly attention span.
Click to expand...

That would be a ridiculously escalation, and you know we can launch a nuke anywhere on Earth they don't really need to be in Ukraine to be more effective. Russia just declared Crimea to be part of their territory and you want us to forcibly enter it?

But I agree with bringing Ukraine into NATO
 
Wiseone said:
What we need instead of military power is economic and deployment power, we need to provide Ukraine with monetary aid and expertise so their economy doesn't collapse and they can run a working government.
Click to expand...

What's with you interventionists always stomping around the world getting the US involved in conflicts that don't affect our national interest? My kids are already on the hook for the reckless spending of previous generations, they don't need to take on more debt so that you can feel good about yourself for being a buttinski. If you feel so strongly about this, buy a plane ticket and go over there to fight.

Wiseone said:
But I agree with bringing Ukraine into NATO
Click to expand...

Because we need to remain strong against the awesome power of the Warsaw Pact. Wait, what, there's no Warsaw Pact anymore? Then what's the purpose of Nato?

Besides, there's nothing like antagonizing Russia by screwing around with their Near Abroad. I'm sure the US would have always been happy, and will be happy in the future too, if Russia ever wanted to put nukes into our neighborhood, say in, oh I don't know, Cuba.
 
MMC said:
Moreover while France made this move. They also came out and told all that are standing with the Election that goes back to May. Which means they Validate Yanokovich as the Official Elected Government of the Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Are you quite certain they weren't referring to the upcoming elections to be held on May 25 of this year?
 
RiverDad said:
What I find surprising about the American aspect of this issue is how bumbling we've been. Where are the realists in the State Dept? Why wasn't this scenario gamed out long before?

Instead we've been championing World World Gay against the Russians, patting ourselves on the back for sending Billie Jean King to Sochi. Oh, that will show the Russians.

From the outside it sure looks like a smug group think has metastasized in our foreign policy establishment. The days of annexation are far past, no one would do this. Why not? What are the downsides? What effective stick can be wielded to deter such annexation? If there is no effective deterrent, then why would countries refrain? Because the new standards of international affairs frown on this and because it hasn't happened in a long while. Well, why hasn't it happened in a long while? If those deterrent conditions change, then why expect a behavior to remain checked?

Everyone in the world doesn't think like a Westerner nor like a liberal Westerner.
Click to expand...

The American electorate trivialized the office of the Presidency by electing an unproven community organizer to the most important position in the free world. They in turn demeaned themselves by forming a circle around this incompetent by refusing any investigations into his background, his relationships, the scandals that have plagued his presidency and his foreign policy screw-ups. I hope lessons are learned by some of the brighter members of the left.
 
joko104 said:
Since this was a done-deal with the USA prior to it happening in my opinion, I don't expect anything but words until Americans get bored with their fruit-fly attention span.
Click to expand...

What makes you think this was a done deal?
 
Grant said:
The American electorate trivialized the office of the Presidency by electing an unproven community organizer to the most important position in the free world. They in turn demeaned themselves by forming a circle around this incompetent by refusing any investigations into his background, his relationships, the scandals that have plagued his presidency and his foreign policy screw-ups. I hope lessons are learned by some of the brighter members of the left.
Click to expand...

But look on the bright side, all those liberals proved that they weren't racists by committing racism and voting for a man only because he was black. Being able to feel good about yourself is surely worth any price that the rest of the country and the world has to suffer. Besides, a bunch of dudes in Oslo concurred and gave him a Nobel Peace Prize and nominated him after he had only served in office for two weeks. See everyone gets to feel good and enlightened about themselves.

Competence and experience? Man, you're just asking too much from liberals.
 
RiverDad said:
But look on the bright side, all those liberals proved that they weren't racists by committing racism and voting for a man only because he was black. Being able to feel good about yourself is surely worth any price that the rest of the country and the world has to suffer. Besides, a bunch of dudes in Oslo concurred and gave him a Nobel Peace Prize and nominated him after he had only served in office for two weeks. See everyone gets to feel good and enlightened about themselves.

Competence and experience? Man, you're just asking too much from liberals.
Click to expand...

What's that whining noise?
 
Wiseone said:
These are conflicts where strict military power is of little importance, Russia is grossly outmatched by NATO but that clearly hasn't stopped them in the past in going after non-NATO nations. What we need instead of military power is economic and deployment power, we need to provide Ukraine with monetary aid and expertise so their economy doesn't collapse and they can run a working government. Russia can and will use every criminal means to expand its power in Ukraine, undermining the local and national government to prevent the government from standing on its own and moving out of its sphere.

Seriously Russia aint going to back down from this ****, and now its time to fight for Ukraine and give them all the support they need.
Click to expand...

Russia understands that there is no effective military response without the parties to the conflict incurring prohibitively high costs relative to the military objectives involved. Hence, it has calculated that it has the strategic flexibility to act as it has.

As noted elsewhere in this thread, I support providing economic and financial assistance to Ukraine. Hopefully, that assistance can help it overcome its substantial economic and financial problems, begin developing a stable and response political system, and improve the living standard of its people.
 
MildSteel said:
The problem with what you are putting forward here is that the US is going to find it impossible to continue to spend one trillion dollars on defense. It has been able to do so only because of the dollar. However, after the financial crisis of 2008, the dollar's power is on the wane as countries move away from using it as a reserve currency. What the US needs to do is focus more on developing relationships with countries, especially some that it has previously viewed as hostile, that could serve to hinder Russia's influence in the world. Iran would be a great place to start. If the US and Europe had good relations with Iran, Russia would be completely thrown off balance, especially in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating anything close to trillion dollar annual budgets. I do believe a budget that maintains the military's manpower at current levels and is at least stable as a share of GDP at current levels would be a better approach than the sharp reductions that have been proposed.

With respect to Iran, both the U.S. and EU have significant differences and concerns with Iran. Whether Iran is willing to accommodate those needs in exchange for a peaceful civilian energy program remains to be seen. Moreover, Iran has shown little indication that it will cease supporting its proxies e.g., Hezbollah, who pose threats to strategic U.S. Mideast allies.
 
Wiseone said:
That would be a ridiculously escalation, and you know we can launch a nuke anywhere on Earth they don't really need to be in Ukraine to be more effective. Russia just declared Crimea to be part of their territory and you want us to forcibly enter it?

But I agree with bringing Ukraine into NATO
Click to expand...


This is poker game. Nuclear weapons are irrelevant as weapons neither US nor Russia could use them. But they are a massive PR statement.

The question is whether Russia can claim without dispute that the Crimea is their country now. There are still Ukraine military posts that have not been surrendered and held by 20,000 Ukraine troops (unless that has since changed.) Even a few American forces or NATO forces there would make it impossible for Russia to drive them out.

Would they shoot down American supplies being flown in? Is Russia going to start a shooting war with the USA? Think of history and West Berlin. Just 200 Marines - 100 each in a couple Ukraine held base in Crimea would be a constant huge PR thorn in Putin's side. What the hell is he going to do?

This SHOULD have been done before the "vote" and immediately when Russia started declaring basically military take-over of Crimea. I think it still could be done.

The same for NATO or USA troops on the border of the rest of Ukraine.

Why nuclear weapons in Ukraine? We could unite virtually all of former Soviet Eastern and Southern block countries to our side if we'd show some courage - ie turning them rather solidly "pro-West" and any agreed upon (with the country) USA and/or NATO presence in that country keeps Russia out. There also is inherent connection between FRIENDLY foreign troops on invitation by the locals as soldiers bring $$ in their pockets.

The nukes (which would technically remain in our control) are huge PR for the entire former Eastern bloc countries. Since all this is on Russia's border, not ours, complexities are against Russia's advantage and favoring ours.
 
Dezaad said:
Come on. We spend profoundly so much more on defense than the next two powers, you can't possibly tell me that we can't cut back and still remain enough ahead for the time being. Well, actually, maybe you can :) but I would like to hear what you have to say.

It seems to me that our posture of having to spend such an incredible amount is a paranoid one. I have not tied our defense policy "solely to domestic desires". However, spending as much as we are cannot be sustained if we slip economically. And stubbornly trying to do so, no matter what the security environment, will certainly lead to economic decline that results in our being even less able to do so. Domestic strength is the foundation of military strength, and if we must choose between them at this point, it should be domestic first.

In the long term, being capable of maintaining World military supremacy is not a given.

Looking at the demographics, it may very well be that the future "natural" order of things is that China will one day surpass us in power. There may be nothing we can do about it without bankrupting ourselves. It seems to me that Empires which have failed to see that their sun is setting and thereby failed to yield to and manage it have imploded more completely than those that were more perceptive.
Click to expand...

It is true that the dollar expenditures on defense are very high. However, one should note that the cost structure of U.S. defense is higher than it is in other countries. The equivalent of a dollar in spending might purchase more elsewhere. For starters, wages for American soldiers are higher than those in some other countries. The development of weapons systems also cost less in other countries.

At the same time, there is considerable lack of cost control that does need to be addressed. The Pentagon simply cannot function as it currently does where there is little predictability in costs of developing new weapons and cost overruns are par for the course. Budgetary mechanisms need to be developed and enforced to assure that projects such as the Joint Strike Fighter project are completed both on a timely basis and on budget. Given the delays in the project and costs involved, it is somewhat uncertain whether the new fighter jet will, in fact, be qualitatively superior to anything else available once it finally goes into service.

The military also needs to improve its costs relative to waging war. It cannot maintain a cost structure where it consumes $300 million per day in Afghanistan (https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gNQ3JbWwd6t-PzkuECkRJvsAlNkA?hl=en) without limiting its capacity to sustain a war effort. Otherwise, enemies will attain a competitive advantage from a strategy of waiting out the U.S.

Also, I'm not arguing for an unrealistic goal of military preeminence. I am arguing that the U.S., along with its allies, should pursue a position of maintaining a relatively stable balance of power so that their major interests are safeguarded. Preeminence is not required for deterrence. One only need sufficient strength that the perceived costs of an enemy's pursuing an objective are prohibitive relative to the objective it is seeking.

All in all, I'm not calling for a dramatic increase in military spending. I am suggesting that the planned cuts should be reduced. In the longer-term, the Pentagon needs to do much to improve its cost structure and such improvements will yield savings.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I'm not advocating anything close to trillion dollar annual budgets. I do believe a budget that maintains the military's manpower at current levels and is at least stable as a share of GDP at current levels would be a better approach than the sharp reductions that have been proposed.

With respect to Iran, both the U.S. and EU have significant differences and concerns with Iran. Whether Iran is willing to accommodate those needs in exchange for a peaceful civilian energy program remains to be seen. Moreover, Iran has shown little indication that it will cease supporting its proxies e.g., Hezbollah, who pose threats to strategic U.S. Mideast allies.
Click to expand...

At this point Iran would be totally nuts to not pursue its nuclear weapons program as its #1 national priority. Ukraine - potentially militarily as powerful towards Russia as Iran is in relation to the USA - gave up the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world - - and it cost them military defeat otherwise impossible with the nukes. The result is a trillion dollars in oil, gas and natural resources have been stolen from them, their most critical defensive territory taken, and their now perpetually in economic dependency on Russia.

There is no deal we can make with Iran since it is known that deals made with the USA, the EU or anyone else are absolutely worthless and basically just trickery. A rational view of Iran for what has happened to Ukraine is to believe "we're next without nuclear weapons."
 
Last edited:
Ukraine isn't just some country. It is THE country that gave up the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world in exchange for a promise from the USA, UK, Russia and many other countries that Ukraine's borders would be secure. It was a lie, a trick to disarm Ukraine leading to permanent massive harms and risks to the people of Ukraine basically forever. Every person in Ukraine will suffer for them and Ukraine has been reduced to beggars of Russia in lose of Crimea.

The lose is about the same as if the USA lost California, Oregon, Washington and Alaska to China - only worse because China isn't also right on our border.
 
donsutherland1 said:
It is true that the dollar expenditures on defense are very high. However, one should note that the cost structure of U.S. defense is higher than it is in other countries. The equivalent of a dollar in spending might purchase more elsewhere. For starters, wages for American soldiers are higher than those in some other countries. The development of weapons systems also cost less in other countries.

At the same time, there is considerable lack of cost control that does need to be addressed. The Pentagon simply cannot function as it currently does where there is little predictability in costs of developing new weapons and cost overruns are par for the course. Budgetary mechanisms need to be developed and enforced to assure that projects such as the Joint Strike Fighter project are completed both on a timely basis and on budget. Given the delays in the project and costs involved, it is somewhat uncertain whether the new fighter jet will, in fact, be qualitatively superior to anything else available once it finally goes into service.

The military also needs to improve its costs relative to waging war. It cannot maintain a cost structure where it consumes $300 million per day in Afghanistan (https://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gNQ3JbWwd6t-PzkuECkRJvsAlNkA?hl=en) without limiting its capacity to sustain a war effort. Otherwise, enemies will attain a competitive advantage from a strategy of waiting out the U.S.

Also, I'm not arguing for an unrealistic goal of military preeminence. I am arguing that the U.S., along with its allies, should pursue a position of maintaining a relatively stable balance of power so that their major interests are safeguarded. Preeminence is not required for deterrence. One only need sufficient strength that the perceived costs of an enemy's pursuing an objective are prohibitive relative to the objective it is seeking.

All in all, I'm not calling for a dramatic increase in military spending. I am suggesting that the planned cuts should be reduced. In the longer-term, the Pentagon needs to do much to improve its cost structure and such improvements will yield savings.
Click to expand...

The USA needs to STOP defending our allies and let them spend their own money to defend themselves - and then have an alliance with them. To date, Germany has never backed up the USA on anything. How many gbillion dollars have we spent defending Germany - the wealthiest country in East and West Europe? It's absurd.
 
joko104 said:
The USA needs to STOP defending our allies and let them spend their own money to defend themselves - and then have an alliance with them. To date, Germany has never backed up the USA on anything. How many gbillion dollars have we spent defending Germany - the wealthiest country in East and West Europe? It's absurd.
Click to expand...

As noted earlier, I do believe our allies should also take measures to strengthen their defense capabilities. At the same time, I don't favor a policy of abandoning allies for numerous reasons:

1. The benefits that have flowed to the U.S. from a stable, prosperous, and peaceful Europe have repaid the costs of U.S. security investments and the Marshall Plan many times over. The dividends continue to flow to this day.

2. Had the U.S. essentially left war-ravaged Europe on its own and returned to neo-isolationist policies, that situation would almost certainly have been exploited by the Soviet Union. Consolidation of western Europe in the Soviet sphere might well have laid the foundation for a different ending to the Cold War. An alternative scenario might have been the re-emergence of nationalist elements. Such elements might have creating a dangerously divided Europe and there's no assurance that new conflicts might not have reignited. IMO, President Truman and his administration showed extraordinary foresight and courage in launching NATO and pursuing the Marshall Plan. They put the nation and all of Western Europe on a trajectory that would ultimately lead to a peaceful conclusion of the Cold War.

3. Germany has contributed manpower and equipment to U.S. conflicts, including in Afghanistan. So, Germany has been actively backing the U.S., and even losing lives in the process.

4. Had the U.S. listened more carefully to German and French reservations about Iraq and chosen not to go to war, it might have saved some $2 trillion or more in direct and indirect costs, not to mention avoided human war casualties.

All said, the U.S. is fortunate that it has a large number of dependable strategic allies with broad and enduring shared interests. Not many countries enjoy such relationships and partners whose efforts have proved mutually beneficial in economic, political, and security realms. Without a prosperous and stable Europe, it is very unlikely that the U.S. economy and U.S. standard of living would be what it is. It is probably more likely than not that the U.S. would have been confronted with far more security threats than it has and just maybe the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War, creating a vastly different world than the one in which we live.
 
donsutherland1 said:
I'm not advocating anything close to trillion dollar annual budgets. I do believe a budget that maintains the military's manpower at current levels and is at least stable as a share of GDP at current levels would be a better approach than the sharp reductions that have been proposed.
Click to expand...

What you said you would like to see is this

It needs to tighten its integration with existing NATO members so as to make clear that NATO members will be safeguarded under any circumstances, even if the use of force is required. In Asia, the U.S. needs to strengthen ties with its leading allies. Japan and South Korea need to know that American commitments to their security are reliable.
Click to expand...

In order to do that, it's going to require spending at least at current levels, which all total is about one trillion dollars. The US simply can't afford that. It's not going to be possible to maintain, for the reasons I mentioned.

donsutherland1 said:
With respect to Iran, both the U.S. and EU have significant differences and concerns with Iran. Whether Iran is willing to accommodate those needs in exchange for a peaceful civilian energy program remains to be seen. Moreover, Iran has shown little indication that it will cease supporting its proxies e.g., Hezbollah, who pose threats to strategic U.S. Mideast allies.
Click to expand...

The US and Saudi Arabia have significant differences in the way they view Israel. It doesn't stop the US from working constructively the Saudi Arabia. The will to do it has to be there. Moreover, I think the US may be able to exploit the fact that Russia essentially threw Iran under the bus not to long ago to accommodate the US. If the deal is right, Iran may be persuaded that they have a better future with the US rather than Russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom