Hi Dezaad,
A slippery slope is a logical fallacy where a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question.
I don't think I made an assertion that the downfall of Ukraine would inevitably lead to the recapture of East Germany, for instance. Just to make clear, I was asking a question... if they can take Ukraine, what's to stop them from taking East Gemany?
If your question was rhetorical, then there it is an assertion that there is no difference, and thus is a slippery slope argument. Given the tone of the post in which it occurred, I think you meant it rhetorically. But, ok.
That's one to think about, and I'd like to hear your thoughts.
My thoughts would be the same if I was responding to a rhetorical question as to a serious one: The situations are very, very different. Any grab of East Germany would be met by a huge war, probably a war seeking the unconditional surrender of Russia. This would be the goal of the war that I would support.
You are correct that the situations in Germany and Ukraine differ, however what you maybe haven't considered yet is how Russia itself would differ, hypothetically, were it to succeed unequivocally in Ukraine by taking control of that country. Surely they would be just a little bit bolder than before, right?
Perhaps, but it isn't worth our blood to seek to prevent that greater boldness.
On the same train of thought, how would the perception of the United States differ, in that hypothetical scenario? Surely the world would look at us and, where in the past it was implied that we would come to the aid of our allies in need, to what extent would that faith in the United States diminish? Would the Germans, Poles, Taiwanese, etc feel the need to rethink their international allegiances given this new information?
The Taiwanese certainly should. The Germans and Poles should not, and I don't think they will. The difference is agreements in place. The fact of the matter is that even though we have military might, this is a defacto multipolar world. Taiwan should probably face the fact that eventually, they will be back with China.
If I'm Taiwan, or Poland, or Japan, and the United States sits on its hands while Russia takes Ukraine, I'm going to think long and hard about my allegiance with the United States, and possibly consider allying with the Russians or Chinese instead to save my country from future invasion.
Something to consider.
Again, if I am Taiwan, I agree with you. But the fact is that China's claim has some legitimacy, and we don't have a military agreement. Exact same thing in Ukraine. Japan can count on us, and they know it. However, we should encourage them to change their Constitution and take a not so pacifist stance. Asia is changing, and Japan needs to be part of the balance of powers.
Bottom line: WE don't need to stop EVERY act of aggression. We have agreements with countries with whom we ought to stop acts of aggression. The others cannot count on us, and we have made that clear by not having agreements with them. They cannot count on us because we don't want them to count on us.
On the other hand, we can (and should) attempt to punish Russia in other ways. Those other ways may or may not be effective, but if Europe isn't going to step up, I seen no reason for us to do so.
On the third hand, if Europe wants to put together a big army consisting of European people to go an defend Ukraine, I could possibly be persuaded that U.S forces should be involved as a minority of that force.
