Posted on 02/03/2015 6:15:19 AM PST by Kaslin
Among Cold War presidents, from Truman to Bush I, there was an unwritten rule: Do not challenge Moscow in its Central and Eastern Europe sphere of influence.
In crises over Berlin in 1948 and 1961, the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and the Warsaw Pact invasion of Prague in 1968, U.S. forces in Europe stayed in their barracks.
We saw the Elbe as Moscow's red line, and they saw it as ours.
While Reagan sent weapons to anti-Communist rebels in Angola, Nicaragua and Afghanistan, to the heroic Poles of Gdansk he sent only mimeograph machines.
That Cold War caution and prudence may be at an end.
For President Obama is being goaded by Congress and the liberal interventionists in his party to send lethal weaponry to Kiev in its civil war with pro-Russian rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk.
That war has already cost 5,000 lives -- soldiers, rebels, civilians. September's cease-fire in Minsk has broken down. The rebels have lately seized 200 added square miles, and directed artillery fire at Mariupol, a Black Sea port between Donetsk and Luhansk and Crimea.
Late last year, Congress sent Obama a bill authorizing lethal aid to Kiev. He signed it. Now the New York Times reports that NATO Commander Gen. Philip Breedlove favors military aid to Ukraine, as does Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. John Kerry and Gen. Martin Dempsey of the joint chiefs are said to be open to the idea.
A panel of eight former national security officials, chaired by Michele Flournoy, a potential Defense Secretary in a Hillary Clinton administration, has called for the U.S. to provide $3 billion in military aid to Ukraine, including anti-tank missiles, reconnaissance drones, Humvees, and radar to locate the sources of artillery and missile fire.
Such an arms package would guarantee an escalation of the war, put the United States squarely in the middle, and force Vladimir Putin's hand.
Thus far, despite evidence of Russian advisers in Ukraine and claims of Russian tank presence, Putin denies that he has intervened. But if U.S. cargo planes start arriving in Kiev with Javelin anti-tank missiles, Putin would face several choices.
He could back down, abandon the rebels, and be seen as a bully who, despite his bluster, does not stand up for Russians everywhere.
More in character, he could take U.S. intervention as a challenge and send in armor and artillery to enable the rebels to consolidate their gains, then warn Kiev that, rather than see the rebels routed, Moscow will intervene militarily.
Or Putin could order in the Russian army before U.S. weapons arrive, capture Mariupol, establish a land bridge to Crimea, and then tell Kiev he is ready to negotiate.
What would we do then? Send U.S. advisers to fight alongside the Ukrainians, as the war escalates and the casualties mount? Send U.S. warships into the Black Sea?
Have we thought this through, as we did not think through what would happen if we brought down Saddam, Gadhafi and Mubarak?
America has never had a vital interest in Crimea or the Donbass worth risking a military clash with Russia. And we do not have the military ability to intervene and drive out the Russian army, unless we are prepared for a larger war and the potential devastation of the Ukraine.
What would Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon or Reagan think of an American president willing to risk military conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia over two provinces in southeastern Ukraine that Moscow had ruled from the time of Catherine the Great?
What is happening in Ukraine is a tragedy and a disaster. And we are in part responsible, having egged on the Maidan coup that overthrew the elected pro-Russian government.
But a greater disaster looms if we get ourselves embroiled in Ukraine's civil war. We would face, first, the near certainty of defeat for our allies, if not ourselves. Second, we would push Moscow further outside Europe and the West, leaving her with no alternative but to deepen ties to a rising China.
Given the economic crisis in Russia and the basket case Ukraine is already, how do we think a larger and wider war would leave both nations?
Alarmists say we cannot let Putin's annexation of Crimea stand. We cannot let Luhansk and Donetsk become a pro-Russian enclave in Ukraine, like Abkhazia, South Ossetia or the Transdniester republic.
But no one ever thought these enclaves that emerged from the ethnic decomposition of the Soviet Union were worth a conflict with Russia. When did Luhansk and Donetsk become so?
Rather than becoming a co-belligerent in this civil war that is not our war, why not have the United States assume the role of the honest broker who brings it to an end. Isn't that how real peace prizes are won?
I don’t think we can risk a direct conflict with them, but douche bag Clinton signed a treaty with them which we are now not honoring. Great, held to honor the agreement of a man with no honor. Super duper.
On top of that, we’re putting “sanctions” on the Russian state which could result in massive destabilization.
I have images of my mind of corrupt Russian generals selling off low yield tactical nukes to the highest bidder.
The whole thing is fracked up.
Who said that? Lol indeed
Oh, ok. You just felt the need to inject some relativism into the thread. Bad relativism, at that.
You think that NATO is going to enslave Libya into a Soviet Union? Thanks for the insight.
Wet boy was a leader among the pro-Putin crowd here before he was banned, and he almost entirely focused on pushing the propaganda that he signed up to push.
ansel112 said, NATO isn’t conquering countries
I asked him about NATO's Libya action, which neither of you illiterate chumps addressed.
Well, how about it, NATO did overthrow Libya. Can you defend that action ?
Who cares if a few NATO troops get some experience helping us in the war on terror, what does that have to do with Russian invasions in Europe, invasions geared to enslaving nations, forever?
Let me know when NATO finishes conquering Libya, if semantics is your gig.
So are we primarily defending England where they now have three parent babies legalized, or Sweden where they arrest homeschoolers? I mean, I like a lot of nations such as Poland and Hungary, but to be honest I couldn’t give a rats ass about the nations west of them.
At the moment, Europe is becoming like the Middle East. A lot of bad people, few to root for. And also, we have a problem right here at home in case you forgot. The DemoCRAP invasion of illegals from Central America.
When the global financial collapse hits, nobody is going to be worrying about Ukraine.
CrimsonTidegirl has a point. After NATO SLAUGHTERED Christians in Serbia all in the aid of not only Muslim Albanians, but the Croat descendents of Ustashe butchers who put babies on bayonets.... why do we care about NATO?
You can choose Russia over the United States and the West, but I don’t, right now you guys are invading right up to our NATO nation’s borders as you try to rebuild what we and Reagan defeated.
Tell me, how did the British react to Margaret Thatcher’s death? This is NOT Reagan’s Europe. This is something else. It’s mutated.
See post 111 comrade.
NATO was needed during the Cold War but not now. Unfortunately, the US is determined to start a war with Russia. Over UKRAINE!! Sorry, but Ukraine isn’t worth the life of one US soldier.
LoL, the Russians invading peaceful countries on the borders of NATO, to reassemble Reagan’s “Evil Empire” proves that we do need NATO.
Russia’s move into actual warfare and combat on NATO’s borders is making making all European countries strengthen their defenses, both NATO and non-NATO, some are like Sweden and Finland are now discussing the need to join NATO for survival.
Oh, and no one is trying to start a war with Russia, Russia is conducting a war that the Western nations are trying to stay out of by making it difficult for them.
Sorry, after what they did to the Serbians, I see NATO as the enemy. Kosovo should be returned back to Serbians. I am no fan of Putin but, unfortunately, Obama is just as bad. I don’t want a nuclear holocaust just because Putin hurt Obama’s feelings. I sympathize with the Ukrainian people but I don’t want this to get out of control.
Sorry, but we are NATO as much or more than all of our NATO allies, and Russia is a threat to us all , it is what they do, and now they are invading again.
You can dislike whoever is the current president and still not switch sides.
I am on the side of the US, not NATO. I would love to see NATO disbanded. NATO is no longer a force for good; the inclusion of Turkey is a great example of that. I will never forgive NATO for slaughtering the Serbs. I am not against helping Ukraine, but I worry about the influence of George Soros, John McCain, etc. If only we had another Reagan...
If you want our defensive alliance disbanded then you are not on the U.S. side, we want a strong and effective NATO.
As far as Reagan, make up your mind, do you want a stronger response against Russian aggression like we would be seeing under Reagan, or a weaker one like we are seeing right now?
Heck, if you had your way, you would deprive Reagan of NATO entirely, which would make him too weak to do anything.
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.