I don’t see what the big deal is. Both the Roman Empire and the British Empire felt the need to intervene everywhere. And those empires did just fine.
Oh, wait. Those costly interventions hastened the collapse of both of those empires. Maybe we should learn a lesson from that (but we won’t).
The Dive With Jackson Hinkle
Zelensky is hiding the truth in Ukraine
English-speaking NATO troops in Kharkiv?
The justification for this by neocons, if true, would be “Putin mean, Russia bad” akin to Clinton saying “Slobo mean, Serbia bad” or Obama saying “Gaddafi mean, Libya bad” to justify NATO involvement in those countries, which was against their defensive charter they attacking offensively and especially so since neither Serbia nor Libya attacked a NATO member.
Others have reported similar to this.
Leaked Ukrainian docs from a while back reported on all over the net said Ukraine had lost 50% of its regular, trained troops, a higher percentage than Russia, so they’re spent and recent successes may be due to others efforts.
Sad.
In any case, when was the last time the U.S. invaded another country for the expressly stated purpose of permanently annexing its territory?
Forever War is how they enslaved America.
In early to claim that, at least, the forward-deployed, Preble-powered bloody nose we handed to the musselman Barbary Pirates in the 18 oughties was totally justified.
The last intervention will be when they come for US.
...the vast majority of which were unnecessary and did not involve a vital national interest of the United States.
Colonel, USAF JAGCR (ret)
Don’t forget Antarctica! Operation Highjump.
Thanks for posting this.
Right we’ve got US troops in Russia and China
Nice try
The eastward expansion of NATO is a good example: we had a lot of foot dragging by the US and Western Europeans over their accession, while they clamored to get in.
With the exception of some gunboat diplomacy in China before WWII, since WWI the US has only used its armed forces when it or its allies were attacked or when a regime deemed to be a threat by allying itself with the Soviet Union came to power. With the exception of direct attacks such as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and 9/11, such interventions have almost ceased since the Cold War ended. Leftist, anti-American regimes have come to power in Latin America without US intervention because without the Socviet
Second, for the most part it was not imperial overstretch that broke up the Roman or British Empires but involvement in peer or near-peer conflict. The Romans were exhausted by the need to maintain a huge military force to counter simultaneous growing threats on the Rhine, Danube and Persian frontiers. Similarly, Britain exhausted itself with two world wars fought within the same half-century. And with the Soviet Union supplying weaponry to colonial movements, the military costs of empire increased dramatically after WWII.
The main problem with current American leadership is that, having insulated themselves successfully from the economic and electoral impact of their own mistakes, the American 'republic' is saddled with a despotic, incompetent and utterly corrupt government.
What a disgrace we've become to the legacy of great leaders like Ronald Reagan, whose foreign policy objectives were to free others in the world from tyranny.
Darn those jet airplanes!