Uh so has Debaltseve fallen?

[Hister]

Zveroboy1, Afghanistan did contribute to Soviet downfall. It for sure wasn't the only reason but it did provide an addittional burden on the country whose military expenses were proving to be too much in comparison to economical output.

[Zveroboy1]

Oh sure, I don't think it was the main reason though.

[Hister]

That it defenitely wasn't, yes.

[Battlefront.com]

I was talking about the Soviet Union - Afghanistan war in the 80's and the neocon myth that the Soviet Union collapsed because of it. And how by waging a proxy war and arming the mujahideens with stingers the USA bled out the SU which caused the fall of the Communist regime, either financially or by sowing the seeds of discontentment at home.

I already addressed this in a bit of detail. It is generally accepted that the combination of many factors, in particular the oil price and the problems arising from the Afghan War. If the Afghan War had happened in the 1950s or 1960s I'm sure it wouldn't have done anything to the stability of the Soviet Union, but it happened in the 1980s when there were other factors at play. It was one straw too many on the camel's back. Was it the one that broke the camel's back? Hard to say, but people were pretty pissed in general so having their family members mutilated and killed in a war that the government said it wasn't fighting. That certainly had the potential for being one thing too many.

If the Neocons have adopted this as their marching music (I don't know either way), then it's because they "stole" it from credible historians and not the other way around.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, the third and final part of the VICE report on Russia's "Ghost Army" is now up:

Steve

[DreDay]

I already addressed this in a bit of detail. It is generally accepted that the combination of many factors, in particular the oil price and the problems arising from the Afghan War. If the Afghan War had happened in the 1950s or 1960s I'm sure it wouldn't have done anything to the stability of the Soviet Union, but it happened in the 1980s when there were other factors at play. It was one straw too many on the camel's back. Was it the one that broke the camel's back? Hard to say, but people were pretty pissed in general so having their family members mutilated and killed in a war that the government said it wasn't fighting. That certainly had the potential for being one thing too many.

If the Neocons have adopted this as their marching music (I don't know either way), then it's because they "stole" it from credible historians and not the other way around.

Steve

 

Steve, while I generally agree with your points here. I would be curious to know whom you consider to be the credible historians on this subject matter (as someone who had done a ton of valuable research for CM: Afghanistan)... Again, I am not challenging you on this, just curious what sources you had used...

[John Kettler]

Zveroboy1,

 

I have some thoughts for your regarding your #295. I think, though, I'll not take a chance here, despite others holding forth on the subject, and go over to the GDF.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[DreDay]

 

Back to our topic, I am afraid that you have it backward about Putin.

 

If he hasn't ditched the separatists it is because he would lose face. And this is precisely when his popularity would plummet dramatically, not by standing up against the West as Moscow is portraying the whole affair. The internal risk for him is greater if he folds. The man has built his reputation on strength, machismo and restoring Russia's pride. Russia has felt humiliated by the West and the USA in particular since the fall of the Berlin wall and the lost of her superpower status. That this perception is justified or not is irrelevant, it is the mainstream view. He doesn't fear sanctions or internal trouble now with the majority of the population backing him, as strange as it may sound to people in the West, as much as he fears losing face. His veneer of strength would vanish and that would be the beginning of his downfall.

 

That's actually a very profound observation. We (here in the West) are always told that our geo-political opponents are despotic, violent, and irrational (at best). That is something that is pretty much expected by any decent researcher of foreign affairs; and our treatment or Russia and Putin (in particular) is no different in that respect. What I fear however, is that few Westerners realize that an alternative to Putin is not some pro-Western liberal government (a-la 1990s); but much rather a more nationalistic and militant force (a-la Strelkov/Dugin/Prokhanov) that would make Putin look like a pro-Western liberal democrat. We are playing with fire when it comes to Russian political landscape, yet I don't see any visionaries in the US or EU governments to calculate the consequences of our actions.

[Battlefront.com]

Steve, while I generally agree with your points here. I would be curious to know whom you consider to be the credible historians on this subject matter (as someone who had done a ton of valuable research for CM: Afghanistan)... Again, I am not challenging you on this, just curious what sources you had used...

 

To clarify one thing, I did no research for CM:Afghanistan. That was 100% done by our Russian partners. We developed the game for them, not the other way around.

The credible historians I referred to are the ones cited in credible article that so much as mention the reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Some historians emphasize one factor more than another, but I don't think any feel it was exclusively just the one factor. Historians, good ones at least, understand it's never that simple. It is my belief that there was no one reason for the Soviet Union's collapse, but rather decades of festering problems that all came to a head at one point. As the old saying goes, "timing is everything".

Here is an excellent article that discusses this specific aspect of the collapse:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/20/everything-you-think-you-know-about-the-collapse-of-the-soviet-union-is-wrong/

The gist of this examination is that Glasnost, designed to address the systemic problems, actually created the final conditions for the collapse. Basically, people were allowed to question the system and there was nothing good to say about it. Which is, not surprisingly, why repressive regimes clamp down on freedom of expression, association, and assembly from the start and keep it tightly controlled even after all existing opposition is snuffed out.

The Chinese learned from Russia's collapse. IIRC it was Deng Xiaoping who said that the Soviet Union went about things backwards. The SU reformed politics first and expected that would help transition the economy to something better. The Chinese, on the other hand, have liberalized the economy first with political reforms coming after. The Chinese reasoning is that the only way to transition a state run system to a more-or-less free market system is with a heavy hand of central authority.

I think most would agree that the Chinese thinking has proved (so far!) to be the better approach.

 

That's actually a very profound observation. We (here in the West) are always told that our geo-political opponents are despotic, violent, and irrational (at best). That is something that is pretty much expected by any decent researcher of foreign affairs; and our treatment or Russia and Putin (in particular) is no different in that respect.

This has been an age-old problem with diplomacy. It is why it is so difficult to work with nations like North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. The Western leaders want things to be logical according to their view of the world. A Western policy maker doesn't have to worry about coups, false imprisonment, murder, etc. A policy maker in a repressive regime has that very much on his mind every day. Self preservation is a strong motivator.

The Western critics of Western policy towards Russia have been beating on this drum for MANY years now. It was, ironically, partly listened to when Obama's "Reset" strategy was implemented. It was an attempt to deal with Russia more on Russia's terms than the West's. The fact that it didn't work has more to do with the "Reset" required the West to formally sit back and let Russia violate the sovereignty of its neighbors, undermine European politics, and other things that run counter to the West's own interests. Which is why the West is still bungling through this mess.

 

What I fear however, is that few Westerners realize that an alternative to Putin is not some pro-Western liberal government (a-la 1990s); but much rather a more nationalistic and militant force (a-la Strelkov/Dugin/Prokhanov) that would make Putin look like a pro-Western liberal democrat. We are playing with fire when it comes to Russian political landscape, yet I don't see any visionaries in the US or EU governments to calculate the consequences of our actions.

Actually, I think this is a fundamental explanation for the West's treatment of Putin even through present times. The West has realized that there's forces within Russia that are even worse than Putin and those forces have VASTLY better chances of taking power from Putin than forces that are more benign than Putin. Which is why NOBODY in the West has been calling for "regime change". In fact, that is the last thing they want. Merkel and Hollande, in particular, want things to return to business as usual as quickly as possible. That means Putin staying right where he is.

However, the reasons for supporting Putin in the West was because he hadn't been doing the sorts of things he is now doing right now with Ukraine, Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Flying nuke bombers along the edges of sovereign airspace is also something the West never wanted to see happen again. Which means Putin is blurring the line between what the West is willing to accept and what it fears in a regime change. Which means the West is willing to do things against the Russian state and Putin's power base that one year ago were unthinkable.

Steve

[DreDay]

This has been an age-old problem with diplomacy. It is why it is so difficult to work with nations like North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, etc. The Western leaders want things to be logical according to their view of the world. A Western policy maker doesn't have to worry about coups, false imprisonment, murder, etc. A policy maker in a repressive regime has that very much on his mind every day. Self preservation is a strong motivator.

Yet that was never an issue when dealing when friendly despotic regimes (i.e. the ME Kingdoms, Central American dictatorships, former SE Asian “Tigers”; etc…). It’s interesting how only our enemies have to worry about that kind of stuff – isn’t it?

And it’s not like our policy makers have to worry about their own set of issues and to map out their foreign policy in 4 year terms (at best)... That presents no issues for our diplomatic friends and foes, right?

That was not my original point, though. We always tend to antagonize our foes (as does any other nation); that’s just the way it is and it’s not going to change. However, it is up to foreign affairs experts to be aware of that and not to fall into those fallacies… yet we have already antagonized Putin (who was never anti-Western as much as pro-Russian) into oblivion; which now drives our foreign policy more than any practical goals. Henry Kissinger has spoken (quite brilliantly, IMHO) about this recently…

 

The Western critics of Western policy towards Russia have been beating on this drum for MANY years now. It was, ironically, partly listened to when Obama's "Reset" strategy was implemented. It was an attempt to deal with Russia more on Russia's terms than the West's. The fact that it didn't work has more to do with the "Reset" required the West to formally sit back and let Russia violate the sovereignty of its neighbors, undermine European politics, and other things that run counter to the West's own interests. Which is why the West is still bungling through this mess.

Right… Now how exactly did the West (and by West we mainly mean USA – let’s be clear here) let Russia get away with murder during the Reset? Care to give any specific examples? What exactly were we doing during the reset? Were there no countries whose sovereignty we’ve violated at that same time? Do you think that the Russians did not take note of that?

 

Actually, I think this is a fundamental explanation for the West's treatment of Putin even through present times. The West has realized that there's forces within Russia that are even worse than Putin and those forces have VASTLY better chances of taking power from Putin than forces that are more benign than Putin. Which is why NOBODY in the West has been calling for "regime change". In fact, that is the last thing they want. Merkel and Hollande, in particular, want things to return to business as usual as quickly as possible. That means Putin staying right where he is.

However, the reasons for supporting Putin in the West was because he hadn't been doing the sorts of things he is now doing right now with Ukraine, Syria, Iran, and North Korea. Flying nuke bombers along the edges of sovereign airspace is also something the West never wanted to see happen again. Which means Putin is blurring the line between what the West is willing to accept and what it fears in a regime change. Which means the West is willing to do things against the Russian state and Putin's power base that one year ago were unthinkable.

Again, what you are presenting is a slanted view of Russian actions as portrayed in our media. Not surprisingly – Russians see things very differently… and guess what – they have at least as strong of a case to make for Western (again let’s be clear - we are mainly talking US when we use that term) actions posing a direct threat to them and forcing them to take a defensive stance. The truth, as always is somewhere in the middle; but I find your complete dismissal of Russian perspective and their national interests to be counterproductive to any fruitful debate or educated analysis.

Edited March 7, 2015 by DreDay

[Battlefront.com]

Yet that was never an issue when dealing when friendly despotic regimes (i.e. the ME Kingdoms, Central American dictatorships, former SE Asian “Tigers”; etc…). It’s interesting how only our enemies have to worry about that kind of stuff – isn’t it?

Yup. Realpolitik is terrible. However, I will say that post Cold War the West has behaved better than it did during the Cold War. As incomplete and inconsistent as they might be, to argue that there has been no change would be easily disproved. Russia and China, on the other hand, have made no such adjustments to their international behavior.

 

And it’s not like our policy makers have to worry about their own set of issues and to map out their foreign policy in 4 year terms (at best)... That presents no issues for our diplomatic friends and foes, right?

Sure it does, but oh-boo-hoo-hoo. By and large friends manage to live with the changes pretty well, even when the changes are unpleasant. Example... George W Bush.

 

That was not my original point, though. We always tend to antagonize our foes (as does any other nation); that’s just the way it is and it’s not going to change. However, it is up to foreign affairs experts to be aware of that and not to fall into those fallacies…

Diplomacy only works when both sides share a common vision and have enough respect for each other to work through their differences. If one side has no intention of doing so, then diplomacy can't work. This is why diplomacy with Russia doesn't work. Russia wants a free hand to dominate any sovereign state that it alone has decided is within its sphere. And if the state in question doesn't like it, then it feels it should be able to apply military force and even annex territory of its choosing. That includes states which are members of both the EU and NATO, as well as those who are not. The West is a bit flexible on some of the details, as shown with Georgia, but overt actions like the invasion and annexation of Crimea and the war in eastern Ukraine crossed the line. Which means there's not much room for compromise since the two visions of the world are at fundamental odds with each other.

 

yet we have already antagonized Putin (who was never anti-Western as much as pro-Russian) into oblivion; which now drives our foreign policy more than any practical goals.

Wow. No, that's not even close to being right. I know it's the common Putin apologist line of argument, but it is inherently flawed to the very core. Putin very much wants to reestablish the old Soviet Union. Since the West doesn't want to go through another armed standoff with a despotic nuclear regime on its borders, the West is obviously against Russia's expansion through the use of force. Since Putin knows he can not achieve his aims without the use of force (those pesky Baltic peoples!), the West is obviously standing in his way. Which makes him inherently anti-Western. But it goes beyond that.

You can read pretty much any analysis of Putin's behavior over the past few years to see that his regime's ever increasing actual and propaganda war against Western liberalism, acceptance of homosexuality, promotion of democratic principles, and other things. So to say he is not anti-Western is indeed naive at best.

 

Henry Kissinger has spoken (quite brilliantly, IMHO) about this recently…

Henry Kissenger is a brilliant man, but he is rooted in Cold War Realpolitik. Many also consider him a war criminal.

 

Right… Now how exactly did the West (and by West we mainly mean USA – let’s be clear here) let Russia get away with murder during the Reset? Care to give any specific examples?

Who said anything about murder? Though the Russian state has conducted several high profile individual murders, sometimes on foreign soil, it's not been directed at the West. I suppose I could list the continued violence visited upon peoples of the Caucuses, but for the most part I'd just say that Russia engaged in almost nothing constructive with the West. Especially after the large protests resulting from his fraudulent reelection. He needed to blame someone for that, so he targeted the West. You know, because the CIA forced him to rig the elections for himself. Or something like that. I could also cite the example of stopping abused Russian orphans from being adopted by Americans because America singled out specific Russian citizens responsible for murdering political opponents (Magnitsky Act. Then there's his overt support for the murderous regime of Assad, the increasingly strong anti-Western propaganda over the past few years, and other things which have shown the West that Putin will never work with them on anything the West cares about.

And that's just off the top of my head. The fact is that the US basically looked the other way for 3-4 years, and what did it lead to? Russia invading Ukraine, a nation that the US has a legal obligation to protect from territorial violations. Which, I might add, it is doing a poor job living up to.

All autocratic regimes require an external and an internal enemy. It is an inherent part of their nature, like breathing and eating are for living creatures. The internal enemy of the day is the "5th columnists", homosexuals, and of course "extremists" (which includes women trying to identify dead Russian soldiers). The external enemy has *always* been the West. In particular the United States.

 

What exactly were we doing during the reset? Were there no countries whose sovereignty we’ve violated at that same time? Do you think that the Russians did not take note of that?

Hmm... no, I can't think of a single country's sovereignty that the US violated during the reset. At least nothing similar to what Russia was doing in Ukraine even before February 20th. And don't say Libya, because that was done under UN auspices.

 

Again, what you are presenting is a slanted view of Russian actions as portrayed in our media.

So far I've almost exclusively focused on Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine, which is against all international law and violates basic Human Rights. I am well aware of the Russian apologist arguments, just as I am aware of the apologist arguments for the Soviet Union's behavior. Or that of Turkey's towards the Armenians and Kurds, or the Third Reich's towards Jews and Slavs, or the Hutus towards Tutsis, or the Serbs against Bosnians and Croats, or any other number of aggressors. I am also aware of the arguments in favor of America's behavior in Central America, SE Asia, etc. I am perfectly happy to admit that I find major flaws with them, but "slanted" implies that I am not being fair when evaluating them on their merits.

 

Not surprisingly – Russians see things very differently… and guess what – they have at least as strong of a case to make for Western (again let’s be clear - we are mainly talking US when we use that term) actions posing a direct threat to them and forcing them to take a defensive stance.

By your argument I should accept and condone Russia's beliefs of persecution because they hold them to be true. Just like I should accept and condone the Indian men who gangraped and nearly murdered a woman on a bus because in their view the woman should have known better than to be out on her own after dark. Further, one of the rapists said it was a bad idea to have punished him because he didn't kill the woman. In his view being punished for his act only encourages men to murder the woman after rape so they have less chance of getting caught. Call me "slanted" if you will, but I do believe it is proper to blame the perpetrator of a crime and not the victim.

The Achilles heal of the "Russia persecution" theory is the requirement for an educated individual to believe that Russia has NEVER shown any ill intent towards its neighbors and other world powers. Therefore, anybody taking even the slightest defensive precautions towards Russia is, in fact, acting unreasonably and hostilely towards an innocent lamb of a nation. Any sober analysis of history shows that this is a horrendously false notion to an extreme. Which means the basis of the Russian apologist thinking fails the straight face test at the most fundamental level.

Further, the Russian position is massively hypocritical. Russia views any defensive activities by neighboring states against it's interference and aggression as, itself, a form of aggression. Yet it rejects the notion that its own actions, designed to further its own self interests, should not be viewed as threatening. Transnistria, Georgia, and Ukraine are the big examples, but there are many others that most in the West seem oblivious to. For example, the Russian state sponsored cyberwar against Estonia in 2008 or funding far right political groups in nations such as France.

In short, the Russian apologist case is easily dismissed as being nothing more than a self serving justification for foreign aggression by an autocratic regime with a definite expansionist agenda. Personally, I don't think Putin or his backers believe this claptrap any more than I do. They propose these sorts of arguments only because their real beliefs are less palatable.

 

The truth, as always is somewhere in the middle; but I find your complete dismissal of Russian perspective and their national interests to be counterproductive to any fruitful debate or educated analysis.

I have said nothing of the sort to warrant such a perspective. I do not dismiss Russia's need to act in its own national interests. I do, however, reject the flawed logic and distorted history which the corrupt and autocratic regime that is presently ruling Russia uses to justify overt and naked aggression towards its neighbors.

Ironically, I am extremely sympathetic to the REAL security and stability concerns of Russia. Things such as the rule of law, respect for Human Rights, reasonable levels of corruption, a stable middle class, decentralized economy, good relations with its various ethnic groups, etc. Putin's regime will ultimately fail because it is inherently unable to govern, not because Lithuania has re instituted national service.

Steve

[AttorneyAtWar]

And that's just off the top of my head. The fact is that the US basically looked the other way for 3-4 years, and what did it lead to? Russia invading Ukraine, a nation that the US has a legal obligation to protect from territorial violations. Which, I might add, it is doing a poor job living up to.

Steve

 

Hopefully this isn't to far off topic Steve but, what do you think the US or I guess the West in general should have been doing for those 3-4 years you reference?

[Battlefront.com]

Not bee

Hopefully this isn't to far off topic Steve but, what do you think the US or I guess the West in general should have been doing for those 3-4 years you reference?

Preparing for the next time Putin launched a "hybrid war", actively countering the increasingly hostile Russian propaganda, doing a better job to counter the growing espionage activities, directly countering Russia's funding of far right Western politics, and generally speaking not allowing Putin to (correctly) view the West as asleep on the job.

Specifically for the US, I would have started cultivating a coalition within Europe that would be able to act independently of the countries which would ignore or appease Russian aggression. The US was dragged into three major wars in Europe last century (WWI, WW2, and Yugoslavia) plus the Cold War in large part because of extremely poor decisions made by a small number of European countries. I would be anxious to dissuade them from thinking the US is interested in being dragged into a fourth war or another prolonged cold war. I would have also made it abundantly clear to European leaders that the US would not view appeasement as an acceptable policy.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

Henry Kissenger is a brilliant man, but he is rooted in Cold War Realpolitik.  Many also consider him a war criminal.

 

 

 

Only a small group of left wing nutjobs consider mr. Kissinger to be a "war criminal", but how is that insinuation in any way pertinent to this discussion?

 

I personally think his views are very pertinent, so do many U.S. policy makers, including president Obama.

[kevinkin]

https://en.informnapalm.org/battle-debaltsevo-bulge/

Perhaps been posted already ...

Kevin

[Battlefront.com]

Only a small group of left wing nutjobs consider mr. Kissinger to be a "war criminal", but how is that insinuation in any way pertinent to this discussion?

Kissinger is a Realpolitic type, which is what the world is supposedly trying to move away from. The best I can figure, Kissinger believes that the West should have cut a deal with Russia to chop up the world into spheres and let them do whatever they want within their own sphere. Ukraine would have no say in this, of course.

I also think that Kissinger is quite wrong about his view of Putin's motivations and how that is affecting Russian policy towards the West and its neighbors. Therefore he is basing his policy recommendations on false premises and on a world view which we are supposed to be moving away from.

Still, Kissinger does understand that whatever missed opportunities he believes there might have been in the past, the invasion and annexation of Crimea means the West no longer has those options he claims could have been there:

 

Nevertheless, he said, the international community cannot "accept the proposition that a country can simply slice off a part of another country. Simply annexing a part of a territory is against the international system as we perceive it."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-mellgard/kissinger-putin-not-stalin_b_6108426.html

Further, there is ample evidence that the West *has* tried to accommodate Russia in many ways. The number of "off ramps" and months of holding back on serious action clearly speaks to that. Crimea has been specifically stated to be "on the table" for discussion even. But it is clear that at every opportunity presented for discussion has been thrown away by Russia, not the West. Here is just one article (in December) that details how diplomacy has utterly failed to get Russia to stop its war in Ukraine:

This month, Obama's National Security Council finished an extensive and comprehensive review of U.S policy toward Russia that included dozens of meetings and input from the State Department, Defense Department and several other agencies, according to three senior administration officials. At the end of the sometimes-contentious process, Obama made a decision to continue to look for ways to work with Russia on a host of bilateral and international issues while also offering Putin a way out of the stalemate over the crisis in Ukraine.

“I don’t think that anybody at this point is under the impression that a wholesale reset of our relationship is possible at this time, but we might as well test out what they are actually willing to do,” a senior administration official told me. “Our theory of this all along has been, let's see what’s there. Regardless of the likelihood of success.”

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-31/inside-obamas-secret-outreach-to-russia

 

The conclusion that many learned people have come to is that Russia is not interested in compromise. It wants what it wants, and it will use any means in order to get it. And that very much includes the Baltic States. Which is why there's really not much room for negotiation. Unless, of course, the West decides to return to the old habits of backroom deals that decide the fate of smaller nations without their consent. Surely you are not arguing that this is the right way to go about things in the 21st Century?

I personally think his views are very pertinent, so do many U.S. policy makers, including president Obama.

Ooo... that's not a good endorsement for Kissinger at all Obama's foreign policy decisions and his selection of NSC and DoD personnel is generally viewed as horrendous. And by that I mean left, right, and center of politics in the US. It is one of the most profound disappointments I have in him as a leader. As a historian, I predict Obama's foreign policy record will be viewed as one of the worst in modern history. Perhaps even worse than that of George W Bush because, as flawed as his admin's policies were, they at least had a policy.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

https://en.informnapalm.org/battle-debaltsevo-bulge/

Perhaps been posted already ...

Kevin

Thanks for that! I had not seen it, so thanks for the link. Maybe everybody can give it a read and we can get this thread back onto topic

Clearly this is a biased account of the battle for Debaltseve, but nothing jumps out at me as factually incorrect in any significant way.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

As a historian, I predict Obama's foreign policy record will be viewed as one of the worst in modern history. Perhaps even worse than that of George W Bush because, as flawed as his admin's policies were, they at least had a policy.

 

Dubya's policy was to get thousands of Americans killed and maimed with little to show for it. What has Obama done to top that?

[AttorneyAtWar]

Dubya's policy was to get thousands of Americans killed and maimed with little to show for it. What has Obama done to top that?

 

I am inclined to agree here, Obama hasn't gotten us into another war, and there are plenty of opportunities to do such a thing, if the lack of aggressiveness in that manner is "flawed" and the "worst in modern history" than I completely disagree. However, you can now make the case he is certainly setting us up for one, a war in Iraq that we have already fought for the past 14 years, including Afghanistan. Obama will be remembered for someone who tried his best to stay out of wars and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I just hope that his term won't be marred by the one I mentioned above.

 

I don't know which way politically you lean Steve and I am trying very hard to not make this about that but, the other side always paints him as weak and indecisive while the only options they bring up as a counter are nothing (And in some cases agreeing with him, but of course they never admit that) or war.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Raptorx7

[sburke]

I don't think one necessarily has to march boots in to have a consistent and defined policy. The problem for Obama's policy is it has meant folks looking at the U.S. as essentially isolationist in practice while occasionally making comments that sounded more hardline. The result is your threats aren't taken seriously. If you are going to issue a statement, you have to back it up with something. That something does not have to be a direct military response. Options for Obama are more pointed sanctions, more aid to Ukraine be it financial, humanitarian or even non lethal essential military gear (speaking strictly on that conflict now and not ISIS or Syria etc). The U.S. has taken a back seat to European diplomacy, in and of itself not necessarily bad except French and German vacillation has been if anything worse.

Personally I think we have gotten so worried about Putin feeling threatened, we have instead encouraged him to dig an even deeper hole essentially just making matters worse. We have not defined a point for him to consider as too extreme thereby encouraging him to go further than he might have if he figured the west to be more resolute.

Edited March 8, 2015 by sburke

[AttorneyAtWar]

I don't think one necessarily has to march boots in to have a consistent and defined policy. The problem for Obama's policy is it has meant folks looking at the U.S. as essentially isolationist in practice while occasionally making comments that sounded more hardline. The result is your threats aren't taken seriously. If you are going to issue a statement, you have to back it up with something. That something does not have to be a direct military response. Options for Obama are more pointed sanctions, more aid to Ukraine be it financial, humanitarian or even non lethal essential military gear (speaking strictly on that conflict now and not ISIS or Syria etc). The U.S. has taken a back seat to European diplomacy, in and of itself not necessarily bad except French and German vacillation has been if anything worse.

Personally I think we have gotten so worried about Putin feeling threatened, we have instead encouraged him to dig an even deeper hole essentially just making matters worse. We have not defined a point for him to consider as too extreme thereby encouraging him to go further than he might have if he figured the west to be more resolute.

 

I agree for the most part, but I just can't wrap my head around the idea that Obama or the U.S. is now weak because we havn't aided Ukraine lethally, I find that decision could have enormous impacts on what Russia is going to do, I am no expert but I think that is a valid concern. As for the sanctions against Russia they have been very severe, and we are giving economic aid to Ukraine, could it be more? absolutely, but I think we are right to be wary of "Cold War Redux 2.0".

 

The problem is that there is no right answer, and there never will be. I still hold true to the fact that war or offensive action needs to be the very last option in our diplomatic tool kit,

 

Edit: I am all for pointed actions with special forces however, I don't want to see them in Ukraine, but in "other" situations I absolutely agree with there use.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Raptorx7

[TheVulture]

 

As a historian, I predict Obama's foreign policy record will be viewed as one of the worst in modern history. Perhaps even worse than that of George W Bush because, as flawed as his admin's policies were, they at least had a policy.

 

I think Obama has a policy, and it is illustrated by the Russian-Georgian war (which was before Obama was elected, just to avoid confusion). Whether the US would have been prepared to fight to help Georgia or not was a moot point (although I'm pretty sure the US wouldn't have) - the facts at the time was that the US had too many military commitments ongoing to have the forces available to do anything to counter Russia at that point. With large commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a supply train in Afghanistan that depended on Russian co-operation (Pakistan not being the most secure or reliable way of moving supplies into Afghanistan) Russia was basically in a position where the US couldn't do anything to oppose it.

 

So for all the supposed commitments to an ally - Georgia - the US basically sat by and did nothing (a fact that I'm sure the Russians were quite happy to point out to Poland, the Baltic states and other neighbours).

 

Obama's policy was simply to reduce the committed forces so that the US had the spare capacity to respond to threats that actually posed a meaningful threat. Libya and Syria never did. ISIS still doesn't - they have been contained and are being pushed back slowly by the Kurds and Iraqis, neither of which are awe-inspiring military machines. The only things that pose a serious strategic threat to the US are Russia and China. So Obama is simply refusing to get involved in wars that the US can afford to ignore without existential consequences, to be able to contain the threats that matter should the need arise.

 

Whether the diplomatic efforts to back that up have been up to scratch is probably more debatable.

[Battlefront.com]

Without getting too far off topic, I want to clarify my comments about the US' current foreign policy. I am a self made business guy so I am a big fan of "meritocracy" and an extremely big critic of "nepotism". The consensus from pretty much all military, intelligence, and diplomatic positions in government believe that Susan Rice (the senior most advisor for National Security) is at best totally unqualified for the job, unqualified and incompetent at worse. So it's an extremely, extremely poor reflection upon Obama for him to stick by her.

My comment about the negative view of Obama's handling of foreign policy is that he has no strategy other than to not have a strategy. For sure he hasn't schemed to get the US into an unnecessary ideologically driven war without proper planning, and therefore he doesn't have the blood of hundreds of thousands of people on his hand like the Cheney Administration (sorry, the Bush Admin!) does. However, the level of incompetence and dithering on pretty much all issues of importance abroad is likely not setting the next President up for an easy time.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I don't know which way politically you lean Steve and I am trying very hard to not make this about that but, the other side always paints him as weak and indecisive while the only options they bring up as a counter are nothing (And in some cases agreeing with him, but of course they never admit that) or war.

Too off topic for me to describe my feelings about the competency and vision of Obama's opposition. It would be easier for me to just smear feces on my keyboard and post a picture of it since it would save me a lot of typing to convey the same sentiment. However, I'm not going to do that because I've had this keyboard for more than 18 years and I imagine it's hard to get poo washed out of all the nooks.

Hopefully that answers your question

Steve

[AttorneyAtWar]

Too off topic for me to describe my feelings about the competency and vision of Obama's opposition. It would be easier for me to just smear feces on my keyboard and post a picture of it since it would save me a lot of typing to convey the same sentiment. However, I'm not going to do that because I've had this keyboard for more than 18 years and I imagine it's hard to get poo washed out of all the nooks.

Hopefully that answers your question

Steve

 

Indeed it has, thanks Steve.