Russia and Ukraine

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd never considered that. Why do you think suggesting Ukraine could be part of nato put it's credibility on the line? IIRC, there was a push to add a bunch of these states to nato. Isn't that a part of russias current complaint about nato encroaching eastward?

[Anomalocaris]

being publicly receptive to Ukraine joining NATO puts NATO credibility on the line because   It has to follow through if Ukraine applies or else.

But For Germany and all the new Nato members to the east, NATO is not about advancing american values,   it is about security guaranty against a resurgent Russia.    A NATO that can seem to extend a security guaranty to ukraine by suggesting ukraine can join nato, and then back away from admitting Ukraine under russian pressure, does not seem very credible.   it would seem its security guaranty guaranty nothing when push comes to shove.

Therefore installing an anti-russia government in Ukraine that will ask join NATO puts NATO credibility on the line.   

To be blunt, the real underlying aim of the US in promoting a anti-russia government in kiev through the colored revolution is to add ukraine to NATO so as to permanently make Russia a non-factor in Euroasia geopolitics.   it’s just the US did not think though the cards it has abs russia had, and ignored the fact that russia can lay down a royal flush in the ensuing game.

[The Grand Nudger]

I see how waffling on the issue damaged their credibility. I just couldn't figure out why the suggestion itself would. Obviously, if there was never any real commitment to get ukraine in that's a given, yeah. I think the us lost the will to support their inclusion between bush and obama supporting it and today. Broadly true, I think, of alot in american foreign policy. I doubt that we'd be able to effectively sell what would inevitably be called the american occupation of ukraine - today.

[Anomalocaris]

I see how waffling on the issue damaged their credibility.  I just couldn't figure out why the suggestion itself would.  Obviously, if there was never any real commitment to get ukraine in that's a given, yeah.  I think the us lost the will to support their inclusion between bush and obama supporting it and today.  Broadly true, I think, of alot in american foreign policy.  I doubt that we'd be able to effectively sell what would inevitably be called the american occupation of ukraine - today.

The fact that NATO says it is receptive to admitting Ukraine while Ukraine says it wants to join, will be perceived as NATO extending a security guaranty while the application is under consideration.    NATO should have refused to start with.   But it too late now, In fact it was on NATO (that is american) initiative that Ukraine got rid of its Russian leaning government and adopted a government whose main reason for being installed is to get Ukraine into NATO. So there was never a chance of nato refusing.

Failure to eventually admit Ukraine while Ukraine is under Russian threat will be perceived as  NATO having no credibility as insurance against Russia pressure and bullying because NATO itself is vulnerable to Russian bullying.

At this point, even if NATO immediate admit Ukraine now the NATO still can;t keep Putin from taking over Ukraine,  so NATO will be seen as not effective as guarantor against Russia aggression if NATO actually admitted Ukraine.

The only way for NATO to emerge with its reputation intact is if somehow Ukraine is seen as voluntarily renouncing its desire to join NATO.   But that won’t happen because Russia is in the middle of bullying Ukraine so there is no possibility of Ukraine withdrawal, even if somehow brought about, being seen as voluntary.

So in effect,  NATO’s dick is nailed to a chopping block, nato is huffing and puffing in hope that it would scare away an axe wielding putin,  while Putin is gleefully sharpening the edge of his axe and making it perfectly clear he knows better than anyone else that nato’s dick is nailed to the chopping block.

---

I see how waffling on the issue damaged their credibility.  I just couldn't figure out why the suggestion itself would.  Obviously, if there was never any real commitment to get ukraine in that's a given, yeah.  I think the us lost the will to support their inclusion between bush and obama supporting it and today.  Broadly true, I think, of alot in american foreign policy.  I doubt that we'd be able to effectively sell what would inevitably be called the american occupation of ukraine - today.

Also, america could not possibly commit to defending Ukraine against Russia.  Russian needs Ukraine much, much, much more than America,   It is existential for Russia.   How much does Russia need ukraine?

Russia needs ukraine as much as america needs nuclear weapons, any nuclear weapons. 

Russia can nuke America as well as america can nuke Russia.   Russia will nuke America over Ukraine, will america be willing to be nuked for ukraine?

---

And the direct effect of Ukraine debacle would not only severely discredit NATO.  

It would also make it clear to China how important it is to have a nuclear arsenal equal to America’s.   This is because except for the nuclear arsenal. Russia is in every other respect far weaker than China.   Yet China can not ride rough shod over american interest in showing it can guaranty the safety of Taiwan, while Russia can ride rough shod over equal american interest in showing it can guaranty the safety of Ukraine.    The key difference is Russian strategic nuclear arsenal

So the you will see China immediately redouble its effort to expand its strategic nuclear arsenal to match that of the US and Russia as a direct consequence.    

So on a scale of 20-3D years, the Bush Administration’d effort to screw Russia in the ass by detaching Ukraine from Russian sphere of influence and adding it to western sphere of influence would also have the effect of tgreatly magnifying America’s chance of facing nuclear annihilation than even the most hostile Russia can manage on its own.

Starting from its immediate reaction to 9-11, America’s foreign policy has been one long, continuous,  unthinking, amateurish, ideologically driven clusterfuck.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have a similar view, albeit less informed. That regardless of whether one believes in the ideology driving those actions or even the validity of ideology driving them, we seem to have gotten into the habit of going the dumbest route to achieve those goals.

[Jehanne]

Why can't capitalism and communism just get along?

[Anomalocaris]

Why can't capitalism and communism just get along?

There are no communists anymore.   

The Russia and china of today are really right wing technocratic Hyper-nationalistic  authoritarian states.   Putin and Xi’s outlook really have far more in common with those of Mussolini and Pinochet than Marx, Lenin, Stalin or Mao.  The difference between them and the two classical right wing authoritarian state I mentioned are both of the two modern states, particularly china,  are far more efficient and effective, with much deeper industrial and technological depth compare to their contemporaries, than italy or Chile.    

Neither of them have anything in common with communists other than the fact both still use the communist red star and hammer and sickle in many of their national symbols and insignias for historical reasons.

[Jehanne]

Why can't capitalism and communism just get along?

There are no communists anymore.

One could, in the same breath, say that there are no more capitalists, at least in the sense of Adam Smith.

[Brian37]

Unfortunately humans are tribal, and unfortunately we always will be.

I am no fan of authoritarianism which is what Putin is after. But I also don't want this mess to end up in WW3.

[Anomalocaris]

There are no communists anymore.

One could, in the same breath, say that there are no more capitalists, at least in the sense of Adam Smith.

there are plenty of capitalists, a large number of them in china and russia.  Unlike karl marx and communism,  Adam smith never prescribed any system of government under which capitalists is to operate.  he only described a economic mechanism which can operate under a large range governmental and societal forms.    if there are working capitalists, then there is capitalism.