> There was plenty of time to maneuver and make clear that we would defend Ukraine.
But, they never were going to. Because nobody really cared about Ukraine other than as a means to take something away from the Russians. And that spectacularly backfired. You see, the problem is if you underestimate your opponent when you're bluffing you will lose. And it was a bluff, and a transparent one to boot.
> People were criticizing Obama for inaction in Ukraine before the Russians took Crimea.
So, there's a good signal that nothing would come of it, that was interpreted as a 'go ahead and do what you want' by Putin and that's just what happened afterwards. Don't make threats you are not willing to make good on.
> One of the nice things about red lines is that people don't cross them if they think you're serious about it. The Russians smelled weakness and took advantage, knowing that they'd probably never again be contending with such an impotent American regime.
It's not America that's impotent, it's that the Russians had de-facto control over Crimea all along because they could take it if they wanted to and all NATO achieved is to force their hand. The situation we had before was the better one.
> The only thing keeping the Russians out of the Baltics is that they know that we'd (probably) defend NATO countries, and are well-positioned to do so.
That 'probably' in there is exactly the problem. Would NATO do that? I honestly don't know and if it ever becomes a significant possibility that we would not - which it very well might be - then only trouble can come from showing that. So NATO did a really dumb thing here, they made people wonder if it would act at all, and such moves are not made without consequences.
> Had we indicated that we considered the disarmament-for-integrity deal with Ukraine with the same seriousness, and backed that by deploying forces to the area on alert, Russia would probably not have invaded.
Another probably. But probably doesn't cut it.
> And we do have a playbook for denying Russia new territory without nuking Moscow or starting WW3.
Only madmen would consider that.
> We did it under much less favorable circumstances in Afghanistan in the 80s. Today, we won't even arm the Ukrainians fighting for their freedom.
Yes, and how did that play out? Or have you forgotten about the outcome there?
> Your arguments could have come right from Neville Chamberlain's mouth.
> Peace for our time! And for those people whose freedom we negotiate away, too bad. The Russians need their Lebensraum. And Anschluss for the Russian-speaking people. Right?
Yes, if you're not for us you're against us and more such crap.
Look, I've lived in Poland and I've seen major change up close. This isn't the way to achieve that and your whole attitude on this shows that you haven't a clue about geopolitics and what actually makes it possible to have major change on the globe without having set-backs like these.
For all your talk of war and confrontation you use a lot of qualifiers - weasel words, if you like - and the outcome of those actions is absolutely unsure.
Ukraine would have become a full NATO member, the Crimea need not be under de-facto Russian control if everybody had kept their heads cool. The losers are the Ukrainian people and to some extent the Russian populace now dealing with all kinds of sanctions. Don't think for one second that the Russian fat cats have given in even a 10th of a mm on their life-style, if anything this played right into their hands by giving them a good reason to re-ignite a bunch of nationalism.
It's like playing chess on a very large board, and Chamberlain has fuck all to do with it. If you really want to win you have to plan, and going off half-cocked isn't going to help anybody but your enemy.
So your arguments for aggression are not going to find a willing ear here, not unless you personally are going to end up paying the price if it goes wrong. The Russians will - sooner or later - collapse inward another step if we don't give them enough fertile ground to sow another batch of nationalism in, all is not well in Russia and that discontent is what should be fed, not the threat of NATO slowly encroaching on what some of them still think is 'their' territory.
For perspective, imagine the Russians annexing Mexico and then pretend the US would not act in response.
>Ukraine would have become a full NATO member, the Crimea need not be under de-facto Russian control if everybody had kept their heads cool. The losers are the Ukrainian people and to some extent the Russian populace now dealing with all kinds of sanctions.
What are you talking about? The West did show the very restraint that you're advocating, and the result is the situation now. Or are you suggesting that the Ukrainian people should just have accepted their lot to be ruled by Russian puppets? Just put their heads down and obey. There are those of us in this world who would rather die than surrender to such tyranny.
No, the West did what they could to make Ukraine a NATO member / EU member without the intention to actually move forward with this because of the situation with Russia if Russia would object in any meaningful way. And they did (surprise!). (The EU was never fully united on getting Ukraine to join anyway, it was just power politics and division being sown, see also: Turkey.)
The time for restraint was before making promises that would not be kept. It's not as if we haven't seen this kind of behavior before either.
There was a time when Ukraine could have been made a memberstate of the EU and a full NATO member, but since then the times have changed and that window has closed. Part of this was the EU wasting time they didn't have and part of it was Ukraine internal politics. If Yanukovich would have played ball in 2010 it might have gone off without a hitch but all the delays and the new nationalism wave in Russia (and the Russian destabilization of the Crimea in response to that very bid) made this a plan that was bound to fail.
Note that that was a democratic and (eventually) uncontested election and that 'the people of Ukraine' did not exactly sat there and held their hands in joint misery. They simply decided that at the time.
Which is a pity because it would have been a good thing to get this behind us but you can't make a move like that on half-baked plans and promises, it would have taken some considerable risk taking and contingency planning to do in the first place and with the Russians - belatedly - figuring out what was at stake it was a little late to do this half-assed.
If we really wanted to do this we're in fact well over a decade late, back when Russia was internally very much in turmoil this would have been a much bigger possibility.
So no, the 'very restraint' that I'm advocating has nothing to do with making empty promises in the hope that it would all go without any backlash from Russia. Dumb.
But, they never were going to. Because nobody really cared about Ukraine other than as a means to take something away from the Russians. And that spectacularly backfired. You see, the problem is if you underestimate your opponent when you're bluffing you will lose. And it was a bluff, and a transparent one to boot.
> People were criticizing Obama for inaction in Ukraine before the Russians took Crimea.
So, there's a good signal that nothing would come of it, that was interpreted as a 'go ahead and do what you want' by Putin and that's just what happened afterwards. Don't make threats you are not willing to make good on.
> One of the nice things about red lines is that people don't cross them if they think you're serious about it. The Russians smelled weakness and took advantage, knowing that they'd probably never again be contending with such an impotent American regime.
It's not America that's impotent, it's that the Russians had de-facto control over Crimea all along because they could take it if they wanted to and all NATO achieved is to force their hand. The situation we had before was the better one.
> The only thing keeping the Russians out of the Baltics is that they know that we'd (probably) defend NATO countries, and are well-positioned to do so.
That 'probably' in there is exactly the problem. Would NATO do that? I honestly don't know and if it ever becomes a significant possibility that we would not - which it very well might be - then only trouble can come from showing that. So NATO did a really dumb thing here, they made people wonder if it would act at all, and such moves are not made without consequences.
> Had we indicated that we considered the disarmament-for-integrity deal with Ukraine with the same seriousness, and backed that by deploying forces to the area on alert, Russia would probably not have invaded.
Another probably. But probably doesn't cut it.
> And we do have a playbook for denying Russia new territory without nuking Moscow or starting WW3.
Only madmen would consider that.
> We did it under much less favorable circumstances in Afghanistan in the 80s. Today, we won't even arm the Ukrainians fighting for their freedom.
Yes, and how did that play out? Or have you forgotten about the outcome there?
> Your arguments could have come right from Neville Chamberlain's mouth.
Don't be an idiot.
I'm sure you feel Jackson is a coward too?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/aug/02/balkans3
> Peace for our time! And for those people whose freedom we negotiate away, too bad. The Russians need their Lebensraum. And Anschluss for the Russian-speaking people. Right?
Yes, if you're not for us you're against us and more such crap.
Look, I've lived in Poland and I've seen major change up close. This isn't the way to achieve that and your whole attitude on this shows that you haven't a clue about geopolitics and what actually makes it possible to have major change on the globe without having set-backs like these.
For all your talk of war and confrontation you use a lot of qualifiers - weasel words, if you like - and the outcome of those actions is absolutely unsure.
Ukraine would have become a full NATO member, the Crimea need not be under de-facto Russian control if everybody had kept their heads cool. The losers are the Ukrainian people and to some extent the Russian populace now dealing with all kinds of sanctions. Don't think for one second that the Russian fat cats have given in even a 10th of a mm on their life-style, if anything this played right into their hands by giving them a good reason to re-ignite a bunch of nationalism.
It's like playing chess on a very large board, and Chamberlain has fuck all to do with it. If you really want to win you have to plan, and going off half-cocked isn't going to help anybody but your enemy.
So your arguments for aggression are not going to find a willing ear here, not unless you personally are going to end up paying the price if it goes wrong. The Russians will - sooner or later - collapse inward another step if we don't give them enough fertile ground to sow another batch of nationalism in, all is not well in Russia and that discontent is what should be fed, not the threat of NATO slowly encroaching on what some of them still think is 'their' territory.
For perspective, imagine the Russians annexing Mexico and then pretend the US would not act in response.