World War 3?
- Thread starter Jay
- Start date
Europe especially felt helpless when they set out and colonized the rest of the world for about 4 centuries, and in essence made the US possible in the first place (you're welcome btw). Whereas the US has only existed for 200 something years. You guys have basically just reached puberty and think you're invincible, let's see how you guys do in a couple centuries later..
So, the US decides by itself whether they want to get involved with something or not (spoiler: the "not" category is pretty far behind), and you say that the other party is the one that should change this?
I guess 'the entirety of living memory' means WWII, huh? Which doesn't even make sense because half of Europe were the bad guys in that war... And every other war Europe has been involved in has been (at least in part) internal! But whatever.
Anyway, I agree that the US shouldn't be doing much in Ukraine. If something needs to be done it should be done by the EU. After all the Ukranian government is 'pro-European' (which does not mean the US shouldn't be looking for their own interests and for instance pressure the EU to act).[DOUBLEPOST=1409837932,1409837814][/DOUBLEPOST]
In a way at least they are:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ter-says-government-will-seek-nato-membership
GasBandit
Staff member
It means Post-WW2. After all, the few living WW2 vets left are roughly 90 years old now. The amount of time that has passed between the end of WW2 and now is about the same as had passed between the end of the American Civil War and the start of WW2.
What will Europe do? More sanctions? The only thing that really gives the EU's threats any teeth is the unspoken implication that Europe can pretty much snap its fingers and the Americans will show up.[DOUBLEPOST=1409838740,1409838545][/DOUBLEPOST]
Truth stings, don't it.
When the choice is between a dictator and communism, we do generally tend to side with the dictator. I'll grant that.
That's what I meant. That was the last war in which Europe was a major player and needed help from the US. The Cold War is an entirely different animal.
Also, see my other post, in which I'm talking about the 50s.
If it's best for the US to participate directly and take the initiative, then the US should go for it. If it's in the interest of the US to have a militarly stronger EU (maybe it isn't), then you should probably be pressuring the EU into taking militar initiative, even it it's with your support. The third option is to jsut let the situation be but I don't think that's a good idea for the US interests.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'm not sure we've decided exactly what our best interests are, really. As other posters have noted, our current administration is pretty flaccid when it comes to foreign policy. Obama doesn't have the credibility (or capability, it seems) to talk tough to the Russians, so as far as they're concerned, he's a weakling to be manipulated or disregarded. It'd be nice if the EU would flex, but will they? Do they really have the will, much less the materiel, to go as far as they need to against Russia (and possibly its military)?
And we come back around to what many (including myself) said at the beginning of the thread - I don't think anybody's going to go to war over Ukraine, and Putin knows it, so he can pretty much do as he wishes, short of invading a nation with NATO full membership. Ukraine's intent to join NATO might be too late.
Yeah, unles the dictator has a lot of oil
No seriously. Yes, nice guy US saving countries from communism. Come on, man. It was pure interest. Strategic location, air base, whatever.
Also, the dictatorship in question was surprisingly similar in some aspects to communism (extremes touch and whatever).
Do whatever you want, just don't take the high horse.[DOUBLEPOST=1409839974,1409839518][/DOUBLEPOST]I'll say this: the individual EU governments will never go to war or even insinuate going to war, because as we all know, the European population is very war-weary (no need to go as far as the 1000 years of wars in the previous centuries, altough it is a valid point. Simply take into account that everyone has parents or granparents who lived in the midst of war), which makes it political suicide... and they have enough as it is.
The only way for the EU to take action is the united block it's supposed to be for shit like this.
I'm always surprised that HK was never absorbed back into the mainland government back in 97.
GasBandit
Staff member
Sure, but how exactly would that have been enforced if Beijing had gone "PSYCH" and brought down the commu-hammer? As they're kinda doing now...
"Find" loopholes? How I see it, most treaties are basically a competition to see how many loopholes you can hide in a document.
--Patrick
Russia's ability to project power ends where the borders of the NATO member states begin. The -only- reason he got Crimea is because Ukraine refused to shape up enough to join ether the EU or NATO. Until Putin can accept this fact, there is nothing talk about.
It's also completely ridiculous that he believes he is in any shape to negotiate anything. He controls a slowly dying petro-state. Unless Russia can diversify it's economy beyond oil exports, it's going to fall even deeper into decline as Europe gets it's energy independence programs up to snuff.
It's also completely ridiculous that he believes he is in any shape to negotiate anything. He controls a slowly dying petro-state. Unless Russia can diversify it's economy beyond oil exports, it's going to fall even deeper into decline as Europe gets it's energy independence programs up to snuff.
It really just depends on two things:
- How soon Europe becomes energy independent
- How much China and North Korea are willing to pay for oil
Energy independence is the new missile defense system of world governments and there really isn't any reasonable action you can take against it without losing a favorable face. China is a long way from doing it (though they'll quickly catch up once someone develops the tech for it) and North Korea is in no position to get there, making them the most likely targets for future energy exports.
They don't have enough people, and are not developed enough an economy to matter in any significant way. China sure, they are. NK isn't. Only 24 Million people. That's not that high on the world stage. And most of them are in very very harsh poverty. They're in no position to affect economies of scale to much of any degree.
Dave
Staff member
http://news.sky.com/story/1368812/russia-sends-dozens-of-tanks-into-ukraine
Russia sending tanks into Ukraine. Oh, and they shot down that passenger plane. Anyone remember that?
Russia sending tanks into Ukraine. Oh, and they shot down that passenger plane. Anyone remember that?
Putin basically has to convince his own people that American and Western Europe are the enemy and that they are to blame for Russia's problems, and to show that the USA and European Union have no resolve. It's key to him remaining in power - making it seem like he's protecting his nation and making it strong, instead of exploiting it. Standard dictatorship policy, really.