Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Ken B]

Canada. Explain.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

You should have Option #5: Strongly worded messages of disapproval paired with a meaningless "show of force", where the US and its allies, meaning the US, moves a few ships around, threatens to deploy more missile shields, and so on, but not quite enough to risk actual war.

Also: we can rename vodka "freedom liquor," rename Russian dressing "freedom dressing," rename Russian roulette "freedom roulette," and expel owners of Borzois and Siberian huskies from the American Kennel Club.

I'm not convinced that US restraint in Syria has as much to do with popular disapproval at home as it does with concerns of allies in the region and on-going negotiations with other players in the region.

You may be right. But I would like to believe that the calls and letters to Congress, running over 90% against, made some dim impression in the minds of our representatives.

[Todd]

Since that is all passé these days, well, you have to do the prudent thing before Edward Snowden has time to tell WikiLeaks about it and the bad guys are waiting at the border.

Prudent measures are fine, but is the US limiting itself to prudential actions?

You may be right. But I would like to believe that the calls and letters to Congress, running over 90% against, made some dim impression in the minds of our representatives.

I'm sure they did, particularly in districts where incumbents face potentially tough reelections (not many) and where foreign policy is an important factor for voters (not many).

[Florestan]

To the former, it did not make the US itself less safe.  The people in the US who were primarily affected were financiers and exporters who conducted business with Europe.  The standard presentation of history in US secondary schools, and to a slightly lesser extent in tertiary schools, continues to present the Germans as bad guys in WWI.  That doesn't make it so.  Lenin was right: it was a war between empires.  The US could have sat out the Great War.

Why did they intervene, then? Do you personally believe that momentous decision was right?

To the latter, which is of course only possible because of the former

Well, exactly. Hitler is a direct result of Germany´s humiliation (not defeat, mind you --- HUMILIATION) at the end of WWI. Imagine that Germany and Austro-Hungary had won the war --- and then imagine NSDAP and Hitler gaining momentum in a victorious Germany. Boggles the mind, ain´t it?

I will say that the Nazis represented a more significant threat. [...]National Socialism,and Bolshevism represented something more.  They were ideologies led by ideologues.  Carving up countries and splitting loot were not enough.

Well, it´s interesting that you (correctly) lump together National Socialism and Bolshevism --- but that´s not how the US officially dealt with them. Bolshevism was in full-power-ahead operating mode for a whole 15 years prior to Hitler and the NSDAP getting into power, yet the US never declared war on them --- on the contrary, US bankers, financiers and businessmen operated unhindered in, in the interest of, and on behalf of, the USSR.

To the Nazis, now. What point in the NSDAP program did pose a direct and clear threat to the existence of the US and the safety of her citizens?  When did Hitler ever denied the right of the US to exist? Did Hitler declared war on the US prior to Pearl Harbour?

And yet, the US allied themselves with Stalin, whose ideology painted America as the Empire of Evil, soon to be wiped off the map, against Hitler, who did not even for a second think. of going to war, let alone destroying, the US.

Why?

Now, how would a return to Russian domination of the Baltics affect the security of the US?

I ask you again: how did a German domination of Poland, Czechoslovakia and half of Western Europe affect the security of the US?

[Todd]

Do you personally believe that momentous decision was right?

No.

I ask you again: how did a German domination of Poland, Czechoslovakia and half of Western Europe affect the security of the US?

You can go on about the 1930s all you like.  I'm more interested in the 2030s.  If Russia dominates the Baltics, or Poland, or Romania, or all of Ukraine, how will it affect the security of the US? 

[Rinaldo]

Also absent from pro-NATO rhetoric is any consideration of practicality. Let's say Russia took over Estonia, which it could probably do in a couple of days. What would be our response?:

1. Nuke 'em (yeah right)
2. Engage in a pitched land battle with Russian forces, right on their doorstep, incurring heavy losses (yeah right)
3. Sanctions (like that makes any difference)
4. Strongly worded messages of disapproval

Given the realities of the situation, the only realistic option is #4. What's the point of expanding NATO again?

Interesting. I'd say a brief land battle with NATO involvement is actually a very realistic option, and as the whole world would turn against Russia (not to mention the so-so state of the Russian army), they wouldn't be able to sustain the invasion for long. I'm more of a peacenik, but if Russia tried to take a NATO country, I wouldn't hesitate to enlist. Solidarity and the common urge to fight back a hated aggressor aren't to be underestimated.

[Florestan]

No.

Finally we agree on something.

You can go on about the 1930s all you like.  I'm more interested in the 2030s. 

The latter is related to the former.

[Todd]

Interesting. I'd say a brief land battle with NATO involvement is actually a very realistic option, and as the whole world would turn against Russia (not to mention the so-so state of the Russian army), they wouldn't be able to sustain the invasion for long. I'm more of a peacenik, but if Russia tried to take a NATO country, I wouldn't hesitate to enlist. Solidarity and the common urge to fight back a hated aggressor aren't to be underestimated.

I love the enthusiasm here, and the patently unrealistic proclamation that the "whole world" would turn against Russia.  Can you point out to me some scholarly or even popular articles that support such a contention?

The latter is related to the former.

You are stuck in a rut, and you have still not answered the question. 

[Florestan]

You are stuck in a rut,

So are you.

and you have still not answered the question.

Neither have you.

[Todd]

So are you.


and you have still not answered the question.


Neither have you.

Sigh.

[Florestan]

Sigh.

Oh, my.

[Jo498]

Interesting. I'd say a brief land battle with NATO involvement is actually a very realistic option, and as the whole world would turn against Russia (not to mention the so-so state of the Russian army), they wouldn't be able to sustain the invasion for long. I'm more of a peacenik, but if Russia tried to take a NATO country, I wouldn't hesitate to enlist. Solidarity and the common urge to fight back a hated aggressor aren't to be underestimated.

I do not think Russia would try to take a NATO country. They only do not want the NATO ever closer to their doorstep (Ukraine, Belarus). And even in a really bad crisis I have no idea what China would do (the only relevant "player" besides NATO and Russia), so I guess the rest of the world (incl. China) would probably not do very much. I do not see China invading Siberia to relieve Latvia. This isn't "Risk"...
As the US/EU mess up in third-world countries I would not be very optimistic in any case but the sorry state of the Russian army (if true) would maybe reason for hope that such a crisis would not escalate in first place.
But if it did I would not put any money on US/NATO/EU seriously defending e.g. Latvia. They are at the mercy of Russia anyway.

For me as a German in the 1980s the terrible truth was that Germany would probably have been nuked if Soviet tanks had advanced across the inner-German border because supposedly the Soviet Union was far superior in conventional forces (although I never figured out if this was really true or only a pretext for more Pershings) and nukes would have been the only way to hinder them. Now the nuking would take place in Poland or the Baltic States but I seriously doubt any nuking would happen.

[Todd]

I do not see China invading Siberia to relieve Latvia.

China's reaction to events in Ukraine gives the best indication of how China would react to Russian aggression in the Baltics, at least in the near and middle term.  (If the Chinese ever invade Siberia, it will be for land and control of the oil fields, though some other pretext could be handy.)

It seems to me that if Putin wants to destabilize more countries, he would not be so foolish as to invade.  There are other ways to weaken and break up smaller neighboring countries.

[Rinaldo]

I love the enthusiasm here, and the patently unrealistic proclamation that the "whole world" would turn against Russia.  Can you point out to me some scholarly or even popular articles that support such a contention?

No, I cannot. I base my opinion on the worldwide reaction to the Crimean crisis and the universal hatred of Putin throughout Europe. A direct attack on Estonia for example would bring all that to boil.

t seems to me that if Putin wants to destabilize more countries, he would not be so foolish as to invade.  There are other ways to weaken and break up smaller neighboring countries.

Exactly. And it's happening already, through economic means. Russians buying up businesses / property all over the place are considered a security threat by many European intelligence agencies.

But if it did I would not put any money on US/NATO/EU seriously defending e.g. Latvia.

I would. Even if NATO would show reluctancy in defending a member of the Alliance (which I seriously doubt), the public outcry all over Europe would force the politicians to act.

[Todd]

I base my opinion on the worldwide reaction to the Crimean crisis and the universal hatred of Putin throughout Europe. A direct attack on Estonia for example would bring all that to boil.

What "worldwide reaction"?  A good number of Americans and Europeans got all hot and bothered, possibly or probably a majority, but that's hardly a worldwide reaction.  I don't recall a particularly strong response from the Chinese government.  I recall the Chinese abstained from a Security Council vote on the matter.  India was the first nation to recognize the annexation of Crimea.  Many non-Western nations issued boilerplate responses.  There is no worldwide consensus on Russian actions.  Europe is not the center of the world. 

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

  I don't recall a particularly strong response from the Chinese government.  I recall the Chinese abstained from a Security Council vote on the matter.  India was the first nation to recognize the annexation of Crimea.  Many non-Western nations issued boilerplate responses. 

Hardly a surprise. Russia and India have been close for a long time; Russia and China are close and getting closer, with big energy deals in the works.

[Todd]

Hardly a surprise. Russia and India have been close for a long time; Russia and China are close and getting closer, with big energy deals in the works.

No, it's not surprising, but it points out that there is no "worldwide reaction". Western views and values (and policies) are not universal.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Western views and values (and policies) are not universal.

A lot of people seem to have trouble grasping this. The acronym WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic) has recently been floated. It's basically Western Europe and its colonial offshoots. WEIRDoes tend to think of their values as universal, but they make up probably around 10-15% of the world population.

[Rinaldo]

I concede to your arguments, gentlemen.

That said, I still believe Russia going bonkers and attacking a NATO country would spur a major conflict, with no country of relevance siding with the Russians.

[Ken B]

Interesting. I'd say a brief land battle with NATO involvement is actually a very realistic option, and as the whole world would turn against Russia (not to mention the so-so state of the Russian army), they wouldn't be able to sustain the invasion for long. I'm more of a peacenik, but if Russia tried to take a NATO country, I wouldn't hesitate to enlist. Solidarity and the common urge to fight back a hated aggressor aren't to be underestimated.

The last thing I expected was to be giving Rinaldo a soild plus 1 on this topic. Glad to be shown to be wrong! And your last point is spot on too. Decency is an underestimated force.
+1