I think the author’s real name is Neville Chamberlin…
More seriously, I agree with his argument that a war in Ukraine will have significant negative ramifications for the US. But there may be good reasons for the US to take on that risk. First, the most obvious rationale for Putin’s actions is his desire to reconstitute the Soviet Union…
I think the author’s real name is Neville Chamberlin…
More seriously, I agree with his argument that a war in Ukraine will have significant negative ramifications for the US. But there may be good reasons for the US to take on that risk. First, the most obvious rationale for Putin’s actions is his desire to reconstitute the Soviet Union, albeit without the socialist veneer. Appeasement in Ukraine will only whet his appetite for the Baltics, with whom the US has a defense treaty. If we walk away from the Baltics, NATO is effectively dead. Does the author advocate the dissolution of NATO? More broadly, the world has been well-served by the norm established after WWII that countries should not alter their boundaries through warfare. That norm is hugely beneficial to the US middle class in that it provides stability for commerce and diminishes the risk of sending our sons and daughters into harm’s way. Putin is challenging that norm and, if successful, China will not be far behind.
Even William Perry concedes the arrogance and contemptuous treatment of Russia by the US in the 90s, when he was defense secretary, is a big part of what got us where we are now. It's not just Putin that is unhappy with NATO right on the nation's borders. That is a very common sentiment in Russia, and reasonably so. Rushing the Baltics into NATO was a mistake., as was interfering to help overthrow Ukraine's democratically elected government in 2014.
I don't see much US or NATO agency in these Russian grievances about NATO on their borders.
After being conquered by the USSR it is understandable the Baltic states would quickly want to join the EU and NATO for their security. That NATO would "rush" to allow them in is a strategic decision, but also one difficult to oppose on moral grounds. They sought improved security against a recently hostile neighbor (at a time it seemed relatively safe for NATO to offer it.)
What's a reason to believe 2014's 'Euromaiden' protests were a US intervention? After years of working towards joining the EU, Yanukovych changed policy setting off protests. That sounds like (some) Ukrainians protesting and eventually ousting the president, not a NATO scheme.
The reality is that many countries feel threatened by Russia. This sentiment is reasonable. That Russia would prefer they join its sphere of influence does not give it a right to impose that on them.
A world order based on states' sovereign right to join whatever alliances or coalitions they like is a better path forward than powerful countries dictating what their neighbors can and cannot do. In that world order, nations have to appeal to each other with positive benefits rather than threats of violence. Such an order is vastly better than the alternatives both morally and practically.
I wish right (as I see it) ruled the world, but self-determination and co-existence is the more realistic option, and the only peaceable one (and, given nuclear weapons, the only non-catastrophic one).
You lost me with "moral grounds." Of course the Baltic states wanted us to commit to defend them as steadfastly as we defend Ohio and New Mexico, and commit to it yesterday. The question is whether that was wise for us. Clearly not, in my view. Perry didn't think it was "relatively safe." He thought it was an unforced error that would lead us down the road to where we are now.
Lots of chatter in 2014, just enough of it above the waterline to make fairly confident guesses at the iceberg below.
You're talking about other countries' feelings, and what Russia has the "right" to do or not. That is a paradigm for Sunday School, not international relations.
In a word, no. China does not seek to alter its borders to any significant extent. China does have some disputes with India over some Himalayan wastelands (and based on a very minor knowledge of the subject, I personally favor the Indian position). China does seek to bring Taiwan under its control. However, that would not be a border change. China does seek to gain control of the South China Sea (the nine-dash line). However, no borders are involved.
I'm surprised to hear you say China's takeover of Taiwan would not be a border change. If China incorporates Taiwan into greater China, wouldn't that be a border change?
No, both the CCP in Beijing and the government in Taiwan claim to be the legitimate government of all of China. Officially, the government in Taiwan is the ROC (Republic of China).
This is a technicality. A Chinese taekover of Taiwan would be a takeover by an authoritarian country of a democratic one, and would significantly strengthen the worldwide trend toward authoritarianism.
China is to Taiwan much as Russia is to Ukraine. The main difference is that Taiwan is a thriving democracy and economic powerhouse, while Ukraine is struggling both economically and politically. But both Russia and China see those "territories" as theirs. Should we also seek a diplomatic solution without any real resistance when China is ready to swallow up Taiwan?
The substance of the matter is, would it significantly change the balance of power between the free and authoritarian world, and the answer to that is a huge yes. And that is what matters, not a semantic argument about what is meant by a border.
I think the author’s real name is Neville Chamberlin…
More seriously, I agree with his argument that a war in Ukraine will have significant negative ramifications for the US. But there may be good reasons for the US to take on that risk. First, the most obvious rationale for Putin’s actions is his desire to reconstitute the Soviet Union, albeit without the socialist veneer. Appeasement in Ukraine will only whet his appetite for the Baltics, with whom the US has a defense treaty. If we walk away from the Baltics, NATO is effectively dead. Does the author advocate the dissolution of NATO? More broadly, the world has been well-served by the norm established after WWII that countries should not alter their boundaries through warfare. That norm is hugely beneficial to the US middle class in that it provides stability for commerce and diminishes the risk of sending our sons and daughters into harm’s way. Putin is challenging that norm and, if successful, China will not be far behind.
Even William Perry concedes the arrogance and contemptuous treatment of Russia by the US in the 90s, when he was defense secretary, is a big part of what got us where we are now. It's not just Putin that is unhappy with NATO right on the nation's borders. That is a very common sentiment in Russia, and reasonably so. Rushing the Baltics into NATO was a mistake., as was interfering to help overthrow Ukraine's democratically elected government in 2014.
I don't see much US or NATO agency in these Russian grievances about NATO on their borders.
After being conquered by the USSR it is understandable the Baltic states would quickly want to join the EU and NATO for their security. That NATO would "rush" to allow them in is a strategic decision, but also one difficult to oppose on moral grounds. They sought improved security against a recently hostile neighbor (at a time it seemed relatively safe for NATO to offer it.)
What's a reason to believe 2014's 'Euromaiden' protests were a US intervention? After years of working towards joining the EU, Yanukovych changed policy setting off protests. That sounds like (some) Ukrainians protesting and eventually ousting the president, not a NATO scheme.
The reality is that many countries feel threatened by Russia. This sentiment is reasonable. That Russia would prefer they join its sphere of influence does not give it a right to impose that on them.
A world order based on states' sovereign right to join whatever alliances or coalitions they like is a better path forward than powerful countries dictating what their neighbors can and cannot do. In that world order, nations have to appeal to each other with positive benefits rather than threats of violence. Such an order is vastly better than the alternatives both morally and practically.
I wish right (as I see it) ruled the world, but self-determination and co-existence is the more realistic option, and the only peaceable one (and, given nuclear weapons, the only non-catastrophic one).
You lost me with "moral grounds." Of course the Baltic states wanted us to commit to defend them as steadfastly as we defend Ohio and New Mexico, and commit to it yesterday. The question is whether that was wise for us. Clearly not, in my view. Perry didn't think it was "relatively safe." He thought it was an unforced error that would lead us down the road to where we are now.
Lots of chatter in 2014, just enough of it above the waterline to make fairly confident guesses at the iceberg below.
You're talking about other countries' feelings, and what Russia has the "right" to do or not. That is a paradigm for Sunday School, not international relations.
In a word, no. China does not seek to alter its borders to any significant extent. China does have some disputes with India over some Himalayan wastelands (and based on a very minor knowledge of the subject, I personally favor the Indian position). China does seek to bring Taiwan under its control. However, that would not be a border change. China does seek to gain control of the South China Sea (the nine-dash line). However, no borders are involved.
I'm surprised to hear you say China's takeover of Taiwan would not be a border change. If China incorporates Taiwan into greater China, wouldn't that be a border change?
No, both the CCP in Beijing and the government in Taiwan claim to be the legitimate government of all of China. Officially, the government in Taiwan is the ROC (Republic of China).
This is a technicality. A Chinese taekover of Taiwan would be a takeover by an authoritarian country of a democratic one, and would significantly strengthen the worldwide trend toward authoritarianism.
The issue was 'would a CCP takeover of Taiwan change any borders'. The answer is no.
China is to Taiwan much as Russia is to Ukraine. The main difference is that Taiwan is a thriving democracy and economic powerhouse, while Ukraine is struggling both economically and politically. But both Russia and China see those "territories" as theirs. Should we also seek a diplomatic solution without any real resistance when China is ready to swallow up Taiwan?
The substance of the matter is, would it significantly change the balance of power between the free and authoritarian world, and the answer to that is a huge yes. And that is what matters, not a semantic argument about what is meant by a border.