Less Than $28 To Go!!
Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR
This Quarter
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 03/02/2014 3:10:12 PM PST by annalex
Not to worry: it will very soon will your problem when China acts in Asia, Putin acts either against a rump Ukraine or the Baltic states, and Iran acts to control the Persian Gulf.
I understand what you are getting at, but there is (and has been) an even greater fundamental at work. Not even a monarchy or any other gov’t can stay safely behind its own borders if it has something another powerful nation wants, almost irregardless of their respective locations on the globe. (I’ll repeat my hint: 1853. And... The US was the protagonist.)
Well, yes. You have detailed what I’d say more briefly: An external agent or agents is generally not going to have success starting a “hot” revolution unless a gov’t is treating its citizens very badly, and in that case, usually the revolution will come eventually, anyway. Or at least the seeds are there. Obviously, outside agents can affect the outcome: Gaddafi would have crushed the uprising in Libya had not the West intervened, but that intervention became essentially an open war against Gaddafi, much different than the situations in either Egypt, Syria, or the Ukraine (at least so far.)
It sort of amazes me that a substantial number of Freepers are ignorant, apparently, of the Ukraine’s history of brutal repression by outside actors, plus its own corrupt governments, yet the people (for the most part) are of a cultural background that would lead them to yearn for better. Put another way, some Freepers do not seem to understand the desire of oppressed others to be free?
I suspect that NATO’s fear is that Russia can simply turn off the gas. It is still winter, too...
That said, and perhaps someone can answer this: Is not France (by virtue of its nuclear power plants and expanded oil / gas from Libya) somewhat less dependent on Russian gas? France did sign on to at least one, if not more, of the Security Assurances when the Ukraine gave up its nukes. Perhaps France could act unilaterally to assist the Ukraine? Putin would be on pretty thin ice if he tried shutting down gas to Europe because of what the French were doing.
The question then might be, outside of “prestige”, “what’s in it for France?”
We’re talking about France’s socialist leader Hollande, right? He’d settle for a 20 year old Ukrainian hottie but that’s kind of a harsh thing to ask someone to do.
;>)
Heh - nothing like a little humor to lighten up a serious thread!
Still... A beautiful Ukranianian seductress / agent? I’ll bet the old KGB employed more than one, back in the day. For the Ukrainians to successfully use such now — that’d be the ultimate payback! And, God knows, many Ukrainians have sacrificed far more in the past.
Of course; I am simply pointing out that we all agree Obama is useless in this, but I think NATO might have a few men left, counting Merkel.
You are right, — especially with modern warfare and information infrastructure. I was pointing out probabilities and tendencies.
I thought you meant the (1st) Crimean war in 1853. The US was not involved.
I don't' think it is as sinister or cold-hearted as that. Americans have a healthy instincts to stay away from foreign wars that has not yet aired out completely despite the neocon efforts. Especially now that we get about a war a year. Second Inaugural by Washington and all that...
Don't discount prestige for prestige's sake. It is France we are talking about, the land of napoleons. Also, it is always good to sell energy if you have the capacity.
This being said I just saw this, -- no source nor comment. The blogger is a Jewish man of international mystery with hand on the pulse everywhere:
Ping to the above.
Nope. Japan. Commodore Matthew C. Perry.
Well, that’s not a bad point.
Ah, I see.
Then let me iterate on my favorite subject. Any kind of trade is predicated on a firm concept of property. “This here - mine, that over there - yours; want to swap?” However, in a republic, the country itself is not a property in the same clear, crisp sense. People elect, journalists calumniate, politicians hustle, — no one is really the Owner. That is what corrodes the national interest.
I a monarchy, the king is the owner. Not of the people, not of the property of others, — that is a popular caricature of monarchy, — he is the owner of the national infrastructure: the mint, the posts, the courthouses, the army. That very thing that in a democracy belongs to everyone in rhetoric and to the churn of the governing elite in reality, — who, in a churn of elections are not owners but renters, — now has an owner. Like every owner the king plans to improve, increase and protect for eons, because his children will inherit it, and then grandchildren. So for example, the national shame of generational, deliberately undertaken fiscal debt that we have and no one seems to be in charge, — that is impossible in a monarchy, at least not if the king can help it.
So anecdotally, a closed culture may get transformed by trade that would open it. It should not be confused with loss of national identity: the Japanese now are the most self-contained, clear-identity people in the civilized world. There is nothing in trade, old-fashioned or on the Internet that is philosophically incompatible with monarchy. We only think so because we associate monarchy with the long gone past, when we should associate it with the future.
I have posted previously about the Ukraine giving up their nukes in return for security assurances from the US. But here’s something I don’t understand: The Ukraine is a fairly major arms exporter, a quite “high tech” country, and pretty much capable of manufacturing anything they need to defend themselves from conventional attack. Yet the picture I have from news reports (mostly MSM, I will grant you) is that the Ukraine has the manpower, but not the arms, to defend itself. Given the Ukraine’s history, this seems, well, foolish. What am I missing here? Is the Ukraine, despite its considerable capabilities, just too poor? Did they give up their 5000 nukes far too cheaply?
Can someone more knowledgeable enlighten me?
Ukraine has spent almost no money on its armed forces.
Well... Germany and France could afford to be armed to the teeth if they’d back off a little on the whole socialist / green thing. (Is Germany still limited by post WW2 restrictions?)
Suggestions for the West (I’m sure others can think of more and / or better):
US / NATO countries to initially provide arms, also provide reasonable terms loans and / or subsidies for Ukraine to divert entire arms production to self, in return for mineral rights (leases), and “severe” (and enforced) anti-corruption measures, along with market reforms.
EU to commence major(!) pipeline projects to Qatar and Saudia Arabia; at least some of these can connect to Ukraine gas pipeline network. US, Ukraine, and EU to provide expertise and manpower to assist SA and Qatar in ramping up gas production as fast as possible. NATO and involved nations to provide security (will NOT be easy.)
US also to provide expertise / assistance for Ukraine to develop remaining petro reserves as possible, plus look for new discoveries.
Hmmm... Shades of “Prof” in “The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress”. It sort of depends on the King being benevolent, though, and not letting power, er, immunity, actually, go to his head — not such a good track record, there...
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.