Posted on 01/26/2023 2:54:08 PM PST by Mariner
I propose an open discussion on the relative merits of intervention in Ukraine. And a propose as a starting point in the discussion that we examine the real interests of the US and the abstract interests.
Feel free to interject some additional definition for real vs abstract if I've missed something.
Real Interests - This is usually in the categories of commerce, critical resources and geography.
Abstract Interests - Almost always political, religious and cultural.
Do Real Interests and Abstract Interests have a different threshold?
... popping some popcorn....
Seems...fetic.
ooops.
FETID
Looks like you want to actually have an intellectual discussion, but this is just going to devolve into a flame war, I’m afraid.
I hope it does not.
Let’s start right here. Right now.
“real interests of the US and the abstract interests.”
The real interest for the USA is that we have been in charge of the world since 1945. We enforce the rules. One of those rules is you don’t invade your neighbors.
Our role comes with costs, but even greater benefits. It has also been good for the world. The pax-Americana have been the most peaceful and prosperous in human history.
No town survives without a sheriff. The would isn’t the picnic of peace and love that liberals believe it to be. If the USA leaves our job as sheriff someone else (China, the UN) takes over.
IBTF “dirty RuZZian” comment.
We attacked Russia in 1918 or so. They supplied Viet Nam in the 60’s. Russian pilots in Korea-50’s. Who started it? Was it us? One can’t rule Russia without killing a lot of people. Are we fighting on their terms? I think so. They’re always at war with their neighbors. When did we attack Canada or Mexico? So we attack nations overseas. It just might be canary in the coal mine stuff.
“in charge of the world”
So, I think you are saying the US is afforded enormous commercial benefits by policing the world.
Is that correct?
That’s an interesting approach and I am very curious to the concrete real interest, since I have difficulty enumerating any. I have an alternative approach for what it’s worth. It is answering a simple question, based on a hypothetical. Given the escalation of US support to include offensive weapons makes it more likely that US troops will eventually be involved in the fighting, are our interests, whether real or abstract, great enough to send your son to war against Russia?
Alternatively, you can weight the opportunity cost of the spending, weapons depletion and troop deployment to Europe versus to other theaters in the world, i.e., our southern border and south east Asia. Btw, we have 100,000 troops currently in Europe.
“Is that correct?”
Commercial benefits are one thing we gain.
The basic deal we offer the world is: we will protect you, but you must let McDonalds, Coke, Google, Nike, Apple, Disney, and Visa in.
All of those companies will pump money back to America and dictate much of your culture.
.
Yes and no.
On the one hand its done nothing for US exports or balance of trade. This was a known tradeoff at the time, in order to speed the recovery of the European and Japanese economies, and later the Asian “Tigers”. One of the measures the US used to preserve, or create, the “Free World”.
On the other hand it has provided some support for the dollar and enabled large deficits - not initially, but later, post-2000. This is because many foreigners see the US dollar as the safest holding in troubled times. The US is the ultimate haven for capital flight.
Foreign countries beg for McDonalds, Coke, Disney, VISA.
There are near-zero commercial benefits. None of this helps US exports or balance of payments.
The United States only attacked mere Bolsheviks. We were trying to prevent them taking over. The commie bastards were not Russia yet.
You do not need any troops on your southern border. That is a silly idea based on pure rhetoric, or maybe its hysteria. All you need is for an honest President to tell the Border Patrol to resume doing their duty. Trump did it.
I get that the hysteria is born of extreme frustration, but its still hysteria.
As for East Asia, that is a completely different military problem. You do not need 6000 Abrams tanks and millions of rounds of 155mm ammo anywhere there. That will be a Navy and Air Force war.
Even though we live in a shrunken, dangerous world where valid “interests” may be different than they used to be, I think lines still need to be drawn and distinctions made.
For instance, it would probably be in America’s best interests if countries embraced being a free and open society rather than an oppressed and closed society (even though we are rapidly moving toward the latter ourselves). Politically, we have more allegiance from free societies than closed societies. Economically, free societies present great market opportunities for trade and wealth increase.
But does those interests give America the right to invade closed dictatorship nations and force change because that would be in our “best interests”?
We need to re-examine our fundamental beliefs now and then and re-affirm those things that made America a great nation. The Declaration of Independence (DOI) affirms the sovereignty of nations. If America expects to be respected as a sovereign nation, then America must respect the sovereignty of other nations.
IMO, materially supporting another at war or interfering in that war IS going to war against that other’s opposition. That is how the Left got us into Vietnam.
So it is very important to distinguish how, where, and when America has a right to interfere or go to war with another nation. Where is that distinction? It has to be somewhere in the vicinity of imminent danger to our own sovereign nation.
If we were to agree with that as a baseline, then it would then be a matter of agreeing on what constitutes “imminent danger” to America. If we agree with the principle of national sovereignty, then we have only to argue what circumstances call for our interference.
Thoughts?
From FSB Defector Alexander Litvinenko, prior to his assassination in London:
FAKT: Alexander, who, in your opinion, is the originator of this [London] terrorist attack?
A. Litvinenko: You know, I have spoken about it earlier and I shall say now, that I know only one organization that has made terrorism the main tool of solving political problems. It is the Russian special services. The KGB was engaged in terrorism for many years, and mass terrorism. At the special department of the KGB they trained terrorists from practically every country in the world. These courses lasted, as a rule, for a half-year. Specially trained and prepared agents of the KGB organized murders and explosions, including explosions of tankers, the hijacking of passenger airliners, strikes on diplomatic, state and commercial organizations worldwide.
FAKT: Could you name ... some of the terrorists prepared at the "special courses" of the KGB-FSB?
A. Litvinenko: The bloodiest terrorists in the world were or are agents of the KGB-FSB. These are well-known, like Carlos Ilyich Ramiros, nicknamed "the Jackal," the late Yassir Arafat, Saddam Hussein, Adjalan (he is condemned in Turkey), Wadi Haddad, the head of the service of external operations of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hauyi, the head of the communist party of Lebanon, Mr. Papaionnu from the Cyprus, Sean Garland from Ireland and many others. All of them were trained by the KGB, received money from there, weapons and explosives, counterfeit documents and a communication equipment for carrying out acts of terrorism worldwide.
FAKT: Some may object that each of the listed figures, and the forces supporting them, were engaged in solving their own political problems.
A. Litvinenko: Certainly, all these figures and movements operated under their own slogans; however, none of them especially hid their "intimate" ... relationship with the Kremlin and Lubyanka. There is a simple question: whether the Russian special services would train and finance people and groups that were not supervised by Lubyanka and did not serve the interests of the Kremlin? You understand perfectly, they would not. Each act of terrorism made by these people was carried out as an assignment and under the rigid control of the KGB of the USSR. And [the terrorism] ... is not casual after the disintegration of the USSR and [reform of the KGB]....
FAKT: Every terrorist you have named is from 'the old staff' of the KGB. Could you name someone from recent history?
A. Litvinenko: Certainly, here it is. The number two person in the terrorist organization al Qaeda, who they are crediting with the series of explosions in London, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is an old agent of the FSB. Being sentenced to death in Egypt for terrorism and hunted by Interpol, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in 1998, was in the territory of Dagestan, where for half a year he received special training at one of the educational bases of the FSB. After this training he was transferred to Afghanistan, where he had never been before and where, following the recommendation of his Lubyanka chiefs, he at once ... penetrated the milieu of bin Laden and soon became his assistant in al Qaeda.
FAKT: Could you hint at least, where this data comes from?
A. Litvinenko: I can. During my service in one of the most secret departments of the FSB, top officials from the UFSB of Dagestan, who had directly worked with Ayman al-Zawahiri ... were called to Moscow and received high posts.
http://www.konzervativnistrana.cz/temata/prispevek/article/is-al-qaeda-a-kremlin-proxy.html
Defector Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking defector from the Soviet Bloc, mirrors Litvinenko in his statement, and even claims Ltivinenko was killed because of his statements about Al-Qaeda and the KGB.
http://www.konzervativnistrana.cz/temata/prispevek/article/is-al-qaeda-a-kremlin-proxy.html
The book "Red Jihad: Moscow's Final Solution for Israel and America" writes at length on the connection between Russia, Al-Qaeda, and Islamic/Marxist terrorism worldwide. Russia has directly supported Al-Qaeda through its various agents. An example:
"Likewise, we are treated to various Islamic terrorist groups, such as al-Qaeda and ISIS. The Russian hand is behind them, too. The British Inquiry into the Russian role in the murder of Litvinenko referred to testimony about a Russian arms dealer and organized crime figure by the name of Semion Mogilevich, “who was selling weapons to Al-Qaeda,” and whose “contacts with Al-Qaeda are controlled” by the FSB. Mogilevich was described as being “in a good relationship with Russian President Putin and most senior officials of the Russian Federation.” [21] Litvinenko had also asserted that al-Qaeda leader Zawahiri was trained by the FSB, and that Russian intelligence sent him to become Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man. In view of this information, J.R. Nyquist has speculated that Russia secretly supported the terrorists who attacked America on 9/11.[22]
Nyquist, J.R.; Kincaid, Cliff. Red Jihad: Moscow's Final Solution for America and Israel . Unknown. Kindle Edition.
Putin has also signed agreements with North Korea and assisted that country with their arms development, as the book discusses. The same is true of Iran. Japanese military experts believe that the only reason why NORK missiles have the accuracy they do now is because of assistance from Russian experts, per articles I read just a few months ago. And this assistance of North Korea goes back decades, it is not new. It is not a response to the USA stopping Russia from raping and pillaging in Ukraine.
https://www.aim.org/aim-column/how-the-russians-practice-disinformation/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.