The De-Ukrainification of the National Security Council

[simplicio]

I'll disagree with it. Eastern Europe is the EU's concern, not the US. They're all big boys over there and they can take care of themselves.

Was Truman and Dean Acheson wrong to kick off the Cold War with the Soviet Union, which was in large part over east Europe and distant lands like Greece, Korea, and Vietnam. Ronald Reagan made agressively confronting Russians the centerpiece of his presidency and so bears responsibility for the fall of the regime in a major, sovereign nation.

[Cow Poke]

Was Truman and Dean Acheson wrong to kick off the Cold War with the Soviet Union, which was in large part over east Europe and distant lands like Greece, Korea, and Vietnam. Ronald Reagan made agressively confronting Russians the centerpiece of his presidency and so bears responsibility for the fall of the regime in a major, sovereign nation.

Why was it no big crisis when Russia took Crimea, but now it's critical national security because Ukraine is still there, but there was allegedly a temporary halt on aid?

[simplicio]

Why was it no big crisis when Russia took Crimea, but now it's critical national security because Ukraine is still there, but there was allegedly a temporary halt on aid?

I disagree with the isolationist sentiment, and that eastern Europe is just a European concern. I do think the taking of Crimea was the most significant event of the decade, and will be viewed by history as a major event, leaving the rump state of Ukraine.

We spent billions on the cold war, making it a cornerstone of American life and politics for a generation. It was not just political, but religious as well. Which is why so many pastors and priests got behind it. Bishop Sheen and Cardinal Spellman were two high profile cold war hawks who recognized the importance of staking out positions and showing resolve.

I don't think we could have prevented the takeover of Crimea, any more than we could have stopped the tanks from rolling into Hungary in '56, but while the US did not act (preferring the policy of containment) the US did move to sway public opinion worldwide, even breaking the commintern (thousands left the communist party after witnessing Soviet harshness.

Crimea did not cost the Russians any goodwill, it was a gamble which paid off for them. It was another missed opportunity for the Obama administration.

[NorrinRadd]

Was Truman and Dean Acheson wrong to kick off the Cold War with the Soviet Union, which was in large part over east Europe and distant lands like Greece, Korea, and Vietnam. Ronald Reagan made agressively confronting Russians the centerpiece of his presidency and so bears responsibility for the fall of the regime in a major, sovereign nation.

But weren't the global ambitions and military capabilities of the Soviet Union considerably different from those of Russia today?

[Cow Poke]

I disagree with the isolationist sentiment, and that eastern Europe is just a European concern. I do think the taking of Crimea was the most significant event of the decade, and will be viewed by history as a major event, leaving the rump state of Ukraine.

We spent billions on the cold war, making it a cornerstone of American life and politics for a generation. It was not just political, but religious as well. Which is why so many pastors and priests got behind it. Bishop Sheen and Cardinal Spellman were two high profile cold war hawks who recognized the importance of staking out positions and showing resolve.

I don't think we could have prevented the takeover of Crimea, any more than we could have stopped the tanks from rolling into Hungary in '56, but while the US did not act (preferring the policy of containment) the US did move to sway public opinion worldwide, even breaking the commintern (thousands left the communist party after witnessing Soviet harshness.

Crimea did not cost the Russians any goodwill, it was a gamble which paid off for them. It was another missed opportunity for the Obama administration.

I'm trying to find something in here with which I can take issue.

[Ronson]

Was Truman and Dean Acheson wrong to kick off the Cold War with the Soviet Union, which was in large part over east Europe and distant lands like Greece, Korea, and Vietnam. Ronald Reagan made agressively confronting Russians the centerpiece of his presidency and so bears responsibility for the fall of the regime in a major, sovereign nation.

1) You are conflating the Soviet Union with modern Russia. Different governments with different concerns, ambitions and abilities.
2) You are comparing policy of 85 years ago with today's challenges. In 1945, US policy was to drop a couple of atom bombs on civilian populations.
3) NATO was created to deter Soviet communist expansion/invasion into western Europe. The Soviet Union no longer exists, communism no longer exists over there, western Europe is now united politically as well as militarily (and as such, has an economy and abilities comparable to the US).

Ukraine is of little importance to the US. I don't want to spend a single US dime on them, nor do I want to see a single American life lost to defend them.

[Ronson]

But weren't the global ambitions and military capabilities of the Soviet Union considerably different from those of Russia today?

Considerably. Aside from its ICBMs, Russia is about as worrisome as a third-world pest. And it is never going to use those ICBMs anyway.

But it's interesting how the same people who fret and wring their hands about Russia ignore the elephant in the room. China completely dwarfs Russia as an adversary, economically, militarily, in its ambition to be the #1 world dominant superpower. Russia is just barely keeping its economic head above water.

[simplicio]

But weren't the global ambitions and military capabilities of the Soviet Union considerably different from those of Russia today?

Not really. The Soviet Union was expansionist, like its predecessor Imperial Russia. Like the modern day Russia.

The military capabilities of the Soviets was strong enough that we walked on eggshells around them for decades, from the late forties onward. We chose a policy of containment, not liberation of peoples under Soviet hegemony. In 56, some hardliners ripped into Eisenhower for allowing the Soviets to get the upper hand in Hungary (and Suez and Poland, all three crises hit at once, and were followed shortly after by Soviets fielding ICBMs, then Sputnik).

Compare that to ISIS carving out territory from existing states, we went in to put an end. A position we could not take in Crimea. I am not convinced the Obama "pillows and sheets" policies on Crimea was wrong, because it was accompanied by substantial "non lethal" aid, to avoid direct confrontations with Putin.

I do think that even distant lands like the Ukraine can be an important part of US policy, even if it is in east Europe.

[Cow Poke]

Considerably. Aside from its ICBMs....

Interestingly enough, Russia has decided to go with liquid fueled ICBMS for their "next generation", which have a higher launch-weight to throw-weight ratio, and are more vulnerable on launch than solid fueled rockets which go through the boost phase much faster.

[simplicio]

1) You are conflating the Soviet Union with modern Russia. Different governments with different concerns, ambitions and abilities.
2) You are comparing policy of 85 years ago with today's challenges. In 1945, US policy was to drop a couple of atom bombs on civilian populations.
3) NATO was created to deter Soviet communist expansion/invasion into western Europe. The Soviet Union no longer exists, communism no longer exists over there, western Europe is now united politically as well as militarily (and as such, has an economy and abilities comparable to the US).

Ukraine is of little importance to the US. I don't want to spend a single US dime on them, nor do I want to see a single American life lost to defend them.

1.) I am not conflating the two regimes. Russia has always seen the territories of Imperialist Russia and the Soviet Union as a natural extension of Russia, within their sphere of influence. Russia has moved forcefully into many states of the former Soviet Union. The lost hegemony in the Warsaw Pact countries, but they view the Former Soviet Union States differently.

2.) Under Dean Acheson, we chose a policy of containment, which isn't really all that different from this century's policies toward Russian expansion. Was dropping A bombs really our policy? We never dropped the bomb on anyone after Japan. We feared dropping the bomb! we could have ended the Berlin Blockade quite cheaply with an A bomb, but didn't.

3.) NATO was founded to deter Soviets, correct. But it was also an alliance joining the nations in common cause. East European nations like Poland and Hungary wanted to join NATO, and weren't drawn to the nearer Russia where they had recent history.

I see Ukraine as very important strategically for the US. Our policies toward Ukraine will be watched by other countries, and affect their reactions to us. Ukraine is every bit as important as Israel. Israel stands in the midst of hostile Arab states, Ukraine at the periphery of Russian territory.

[Ronson]

1.)1.) I am not conflating the two regimes. Russia has always seen the territories of Imperialist Russia and the Soviet Union as a natural extension of Russia, within their sphere of influence. Russia has moved forcefully into many states of the former Soviet Union. The lost hegemony in the Warsaw Pact countries, but they view the Former Soviet Union States differently.

I believe you are conflating. You speak about Imperialist Russia and "regimes" as though Russia is enslaved by its history. Germany and Japan have had some pretty distasteful governments in their histories but no one is assuming they will revert back or are unable to change. Yes, it is problematic anywhere in the world when two nations/peoples lay claim to the same real estate (as with your reference to Israel). Crimea was historically part of Russia before Kruschev "gifted" it to Ukraine in the 60s (assuming it would make no difference anyway). But when the union broke up and Russia's navy and only warm-water port was suddenly in another country, it became problematic and they had to lease the ports. And then Biden and Kerry started pulling Ukraine away from Russia and they panicked, assuming they would lose the ports, so took Crimea by force. Two countries laying claim to the same real estate. The bigger country won.

So no, it is not like with the Soviet Union having geopolitical goals and dogma and an attempt to spread it throughout the world. It's not even like "Imperialist Russia" trying to recapture real estate (and even if it was, I wouldn't care enough to fight them about it). It is a regional problem that may concern the EU, but not the US.

2.) Under Dean Acheson, we chose a policy of containment, which isn't really all that different from this century's policies toward Russian expansion.

I consider that policy about as archaic as a policy toward containing the Roman Empire.

Was dropping A bombs really our policy?

In a sense. WWII policies were to cause major damage to the enemy and nothing was off limits. We don't have such a policy anymore.

We never dropped the bomb on anyone after Japan. We feared dropping the bomb! we could have ended the Berlin Blockade quite cheaply with an A bomb, but didn't.

3.) NATO was founded to deter Soviets, correct. But it was also an alliance joining the nations in common cause. East European nations like Poland and Hungary wanted to join NATO, and weren't drawn to the nearer Russia where they had recent history.

I see Ukraine as very important strategically for the US. Our policies toward Ukraine will be watched by other countries, and affect their reactions to us.

Such an argument could be made for US defending any backwater nation throughout the world.

Ukraine is every bit as important as Israel. Israel stands in the midst of hostile Arab states, Ukraine at the periphery of Russian territory.

Different animals completely.

[Ronson]

Interestingly enough, Russia has decided to go with liquid fueled ICBMS for their "next generation", which have a higher launch-weight to throw-weight ratio, and are more vulnerable on launch than solid fueled rockets which go through the boost phase much faster.

They can't compete with the US militarily anymore. So I think it is mostly bravado, IMO, and probably a desire to sell new technologies elsewhere. Foremost, Russia wants to sell energy to Europe and Asia so they want to remain friendly with those customers. The US is a distant concern for them so they aren't developing weapons to fight us with. In my opinion.

[NorrinRadd]

So ennyhoo...

They're reportedly removing about 70 people from the NSC. They could probably remove twice that many and *still* have more than enough to function properly.

I mostly agree with Laura Ingraham and others who have been saying for *years* that Bad Orange Man should completely de-BHO-ify the Executive branch, or at least the White House. That would have avoided the large majority of the problems that have plagued him. OTOH, leaving them in place and fighting against them has revealed just how deep, dark, and dank, foul, and fetid are the remnants of the BHO regime.

[simplicio]

I believe you are conflating. You speak about Imperialist Russia and "regimes" as though Russia is enslaved by its history. Germany and Japan have had some pretty distasteful governments in their histories but no one is assuming they will revert back or are unable to change. Yes, it is problematic anywhere in the world when two nations/peoples lay claim to the same real estate (as with your reference to Israel). Crimea was historically part of Russia before Kruschev "gifted" it to Ukraine in the 60s (assuming it would make no difference anyway). But when the union broke up and Russia's navy and only warm-water port was suddenly in another country, it became problematic and they had to lease the ports. And then Biden and Kerry started pulling Ukraine away from Russia and they panicked, assuming they would lose the ports, so took Crimea by force. Two countries laying claim to the same real estate. The bigger country won.

So no, it is not like with the Soviet Union having geopolitical goals and dogma and an attempt to spread it throughout the world. It's not even like "Imperialist Russia" trying to recapture real estate (and even if it was, I wouldn't care enough to fight them about it). It is a regional problem that may concern the EU, but not the US.

I consider that policy about as archaic as a policy toward containing the Roman Empire.

In a sense. WWII policies were to cause major damage to the enemy and nothing was off limits. We don't have such a policy anymore.

Such an argument could be made for US defending any backwater nation throughout the world.

Different animals completely.

Why is Israel important but Ukraine not? Is US interests really tied to the existence of a Jewish state, or do you choose to place importance to Israel for other reasons? I think our military is strong enough that we could still carry on in Iraq or Syria without Israeli real estate.

We do pick and choose which countries to become entangled, many African countries have a low priority, which is why Marines stood in the Congo watching Rwandan bodies float down the river during the Rwandan genocide. And we re evaluated our policies.

East European countries like Poland and Hungary joined NATO for several reasons, defense against Russia is but one. If we did not fear Russian expansion, Russian hegemony in the region, I wonder if we would have taken the risk of alienating the Russians by accepting those countries.

We rejected the total war strategy of WWII. The mass bombings of Vietnam was different the the air campaigns over Germany where we targeted civilians. Hanoi was largely unscathed, except for areas of military importance (even the the precision was imperfect). In the early fifties we trained soldiers for the nuclear battlefield, while questioning its strategic value. MacArthur broke with Truman over that issue, Truman rejected the use of the A bomb, which would have sealed off the Chinese.

The policy of containment was analogous to Obama's response, massive aid to Ukraine, but limited so as not to prod the Russian bear, a balancing act, which was similar to cold war responses of judicious use of aid.

What makes a nation? The English swallowed Wales at (or before) the rise of the modern nation state, and the Welch see themselves as an integral part of Britain, even if uneasy. The Irish were swallowed up into the empire and the English could never incorporate Ireland fully. The Russians did not swallow Crimea until Catherine the Great, just before the nineteenth century. We have an uneasy relationship with Puerto Rico taken by 1900 but never fully absorbed.

Russia sees its former territories as a natural extension of its nation, similar to our view of the western hemisphere as our doorstep. Smedley Butler was a Marine who single handedly made the Americas safe for the corporations, and became the Marine's Marine (writing the small wars manual which was dusted off for our current wars). We treated the former Soviet Republics as part of the Russian sphere of influence, with the major exceptions being the Baltic States and Ukraine. Belarus was basically re-incorporated without protest, a tacit recognition of existence of that sphere of influence.

Russians might not be enslaved by their history, but they sure try to repeat it. The same people, have had various forms of a state or regime (all within the twentieth century). And at every time, they always saw expanding their territory as the buffer against invasions and encroaching foreign powers.

[Cow Poke]

So ennyhoo...

They're reportedly removing about 70 people from the NSC. They could probably remove twice that many and *still* have more than enough to function properly.

It had become bloated under Obama.